To address an objection for lack of enablement, which option is NOT advisable?

To address an objection for lack of enablement, it's important to understand that the primary concern is whether the provided specification sufficiently describes how to make and use the invention. By choosing to traverse the objection and submit an additional drawing, one may inadvertently reinforce the concern instead of directly addressing the root issue. An additional drawing may not adequately solve the problem if the original specification does not clearly describe the invention's utility or how to implement it.

In contrast, traversing the objection and arguing how the specification is enabling directly engages with the examiner's concerns. This option allows the applicant to clarify any misunderstandings and further explain the details of the invention, potentially providing a more persuasive case for its enablement.

Filing a continuation-in-part application with an enabling specification is an effective strategy when the current specification lacks sufficient enablement for what was originally claimed. This approach ensures that the new application includes the necessary details that support the claims.

Alternatively, traversing the objection and filing an amendment without introducing new matter can strengthen the original application by refining claims or clarifying descriptions without changing the fundamental aspects of the invention being claimed. This method maintains compliance with patent law while directly addressing the examiners' points of concern.

Thus, the choice that is not advisable genuinely falls on