Common objections are lack of novelty; lack of inventiveness; claims not supported by the description; claims or a description that are unclear; absence of an essential technical feature; subject matter that is not patentable; and lack of unity of invention.
Argue without amending. Where the examiner has misread the cited prior art, or has wrongly found a technical teaching in it, set out in written observations the distinguishing technical features and the technical effect they produce.
Amend the claims. Bring a feature from a dependent claim into the independent claim to narrow the scope. No amendment may go beyond the disclosure of the description and claims as originally filed.
File supplementary evidence — comparative experimental data, for example — to support the technical effect relied on. The bar for accepting supplementary data is high.
The response deadline is the period specified in the office action, and an extension may be requested before the deadline expires.
