Which statement regarding assignments and applications is false?

The statement asserting that John is permitted to assign the divisional application at any time is false because the ability to assign a patent application often depends on the ownership rights established prior to the assignment. In the context of patent law, if John does not have full rights to the divisional application due to previous assignments or agreements, then he may not be able to assign it freely. Furthermore, there are specific conditions and legal requirements that govern the assignment of patent applications, which may restrict the timing and conditions under which such assignments can occur.

In contrast, the correct statements indicate scenarios where rights and ownership are clearly defined. For example, if the Office treats John as holding both rights, it acknowledges the dual ownership of the application, often seen in cases where an assignment has already occurred. Similarly, if ABC Corporation retains rights, it means that there are limitations on what John can do with the application. Moreover, the possibility that the assignment of the divisional application could affect rights implies that any assignment might have legal ramifications on ownership or the scope of rights, further emphasizing that John's ability to assign the application freely is not guaranteed.