Which of the following methods can overcome a 102(a)(2) rejection?

The correct method to overcome a 102(a)(2) rejection is by providing a statement of common ownership. This rejection typically arises when an application is citing prior art that is effectively the work of the same inventor or common ownership, which may lead to a situation where the cited prior art is not considered a bar to the patentability of the invention.

A statement of common ownership clarifies the relationship between the applications or patents, indicating that they share the same owner and thus may not conflict with one another in terms of patentability. This mechanism is vital because, under the patent law, if the inventor or applicant has a claim to the invention in both the new application and the cited prior art – due to common ownership – it may not be a valid rejection.

While other methods such as filing a new patent application, filing a 1.130(c) affidavit, or abandoning the current application could have their own implications, they do not directly address overcoming the statutory rejection based on prior art under 102(a)(2) effectively and efficiently. A new application might not resolve the issue, as the prior art could still apply. Similarly, a 1.130(c) affidavit relates to different types of rejections, and abandoning the current application does