Home / From rejection to response, with receipts

From rejection to response, with receipts

Office actions parse into rejection types — §101 subject matter, §102 novelty, §103 obviousness, §112 written description — each demanding a different response strategy. SallyIP structures the path from parsing to amendment to audit.

The workflow

1. Parse: isolate each rejection, the claims it hits, and the references it cites.
2. Strategize: amend, argue, or both — weighed per rejection, not per action.
3. Draft: amendments with instant claim-QA audit (antecedent basis, dependencies, new matter).
4. Record: prosecution-history timelines preserve what was argued for estoppel awareness.

Rejection types, briefly

• §101 subject matter: the Alice/Mayo two-step — is the claim directed to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon, and if so, does it add significantly more?
• §102 novelty: a single reference disclosing every element; the response attacks the disclosure element by element.
• §103 obviousness: combinations a skilled person would have made (Graham factors); the response challenges motivation, scope and secondary considerations.
• §112 written description: enablement, written description and definiteness — the specification must support what the claims now say, which the QA audit checks before anything is filed.

After-final practice, interviews and appeals continue the same pattern: each position linked to its rejection and evidence. Examiner interviews deserve special mention — the fastest resolutions usually come from a conversation, and SallyIP’s parsed rejection structure becomes the interview agenda: which limitations the examiner reads on which references, and which amendment or argument moots each one. What is said in the interview joins the timeline with everything else.

Amendments that preserve scope

Not all amendments cost equally. Clarifying amendments that import supported limitations from the specification preserve more than blanket narrowings; promoting a dependent claim with argued patentability preserves most of all. The QA audit checks each candidate against support and new-matter rules before counsel chooses, and the timeline records why the chosen amendment — not just what it says.

Every amendment links to the rejection and evidence behind it; nothing is asserted without a source.

Respond to an office actionPatent AI hub

Related

Office action · Prosecution · Prior-art search