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

A 102(a)(2) rejection arises when a patent application has been published or issued, and it is cited as prior art against the claimed invention. This situation typically implies that the prior patent is considered available to the public and can potentially defeat the novelty of a later application.

Providing a statement of common ownership is a recognized way to overcome this type of rejection. Under 35 U.S.C. 102, if an applicant can show that the prior art and the new application are commonly owned at the time the application is filed, the prior art reference cannot be used against the new application for the purpose of establishing a lack of novelty. In essence, common ownership means that the applicant has the right to both the original and new applications, allowing them to argue that the prior patent does not affect the novelty of their own invention.

In contrast, while filing a new patent application or abandoning the current application may seem like possible options, they do not directly address the issue of the prior art rejection. The new application would still potentially face the same rejection if the prior art remains valid, and abandoning the application does not solve the issue of the patent's public disclosure affecting novelty.

Filing a 1.130(c) affidavit relates to proving prior invention and