What statement accurately reflects USPTO rules regarding inherent properties in patent applications?

The rationale for choosing that statement lies in understanding how prior art is evaluated in relation to claims made in patent applications. According to USPTO rules and principles of patentability, if a property of a known composition is already described or implicitly suggested in prior art, new applications or uses of that property may not be patentable due to the lack of novelty. This means that if a prior art document teaches a composition and its inherent properties, claims asserting new uses deriving from those properties could be rejected. The focus is on whether the prior art anticipated the claimed invention's properties, which could prevent a patent for purportedly new uses that are in fact already known.

The other statements don't accurately capture the nuances of patent law or associated USPTO guidelines. For example, while the novelty of a specific color may not typically qualify for patentability on its own, there are circumstances where color can contribute to the novelty of an entire composition, so the second statement lacks nuance. The third statement oversimplifies patentability, as discovering a new property does not inherently make a claim patentable; it also requires demonstrating novelty and utility in the context of the entire invention. Lastly, the fourth statement misrepresents the impact of undisclosed properties, since undisclosed aspects can still affect