What procedure can be employed to overcome a rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(2)?

The process of overcoming a rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(2) typically involves addressing the circumstances under which the reference disclosure was published or filed. This section pertains to novelty and specifically states that a claimed invention cannot be anticipated by a prior art reference that was filed less than one year before the effective filing date of the application.

Filing an affidavit demonstrating that the reference invention is not by "another" is a valid approach to counter a rejection under this section. By establishing that the reference did not originate from an independent source and is instead related to the applicant, it can show that the claimed invention is novel and not anticipated by the cited reference. Such an affidavit often includes evidence of prior disclosure or collaboration, which can help clarify the relationship.

The other options do not effectively address the specific context of a rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(2). For example, submitting a new application may not resolve the underlying issues regarding novelty and could just lead to a continuation of the same problems. Arguing that the claims are not novel contradicts the premise of overcoming the rejection. Lastly, providing documentation to prove prior invention without clarifying the relationship to the cited reference may fall short of addressing the specific reasons for the rejection. Thus, option