TutorialStep by Step Guide

How to Respond to §103 Rejections Using AI

A practical 8 step workflow for leveraging AI tools to analyze obviousness rejections, map claim elements to prior art, and craft persuasive responses.

8 min readJanuary 2026Beginner to Intermediate

What You'll Learn

Parse and understand §103 rejection structure

Map claim elements to prior art citations

Identify gaps in examiner's motivation reasoning

Craft arguments that attack the prima facie case

Section 103 obviousness rejections are the most common rejection type at the USPTO, and often the most challenging to overcome. Unlike §102 novelty rejections where you're arguing against a single reference, §103 rejections require you to dismantle an examiner's reasoning for combining multiple references.

AI tools can dramatically accelerate this analysis by automatically parsing rejection rationale, mapping claim elements to cited references, and identifying potential weaknesses in the examiner's motivation to combine. This tutorial walks through a practical workflow that combines AI assistance with human judgment.

Important: AI as Assistant, Not Author

AI tools should assist your analysis, not replace your professional judgment. Always verify AI generated citations, review suggested arguments for legal accuracy, and maintain your duty of candor under USPTO Rule 11.

The 8-Step AI Assisted Workflow

Upload and Parse the Office Action

Start by uploading your Office Action to your AI patent tool. The parsing step extracts:

Rejection type (§102, §103, §112, etc.)
Rejected claims and their dependencies
Cited prior art references
Examiner's claim mappings and motivation statements

Pro Tip: Check the Claim Tree

Most AI tools will visualize independent vs. dependent claim relationships. This helps you quickly see if certain dependent claims might be allowable even if the independent claim faces rejection.

Good AI tools will also identify which specific limitations the examiner maps to which references. This "element mapping" is crucial for the next steps.

Analyze the Claim Element Mapping

For each rejected claim, review how the examiner maps claim elements to prior art. AI can help by:

Example Element Mapping

Claim 1[a]:"a processor configured to..."→ Smith, col. 3, lines 15-30

Claim 1[b]:"generating a prediction..."→ Jones, ¶[0045]

Claim 1[c]:"displaying in real-time..."→ No mapping found ⚠️

Missing or weak mappings (like 1[c] above) are prime targets for your response arguments. AI tools that provide visual claim to art mappings make these gaps immediately obvious.

Examine the Motivation to Combine

Under KSR v. Teleflex, examiners must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill would combine the cited references. AI can extract and analyze these motivation statements:

Common examiner motivation language to scrutinize:

"It would have been obvious to combine [A] with [B] because both relate to [general field]."
"One of ordinary skill would be motivated to [combine] to achieve [generic benefit]."
"The references are analogous art because they are from the [same field]."

Attack Weak Motivation Statements

Generic motivation statements like "to improve efficiency" or "to reduce costs" are often vulnerable. AI tools can help identify when the examiner's reasoning is conclusory rather than supported by evidence.

Review the Actual Prior Art

Don't rely solely on the examiner's characterization. Use AI search tools to:

Retrieve and analyze the full text of cited references
Verify the examiner's claim mappings are accurate
Look for teachings that actually discourage the combination
Find statements that narrow the scope of the reference

Verify Every Citation

AI hallucinations in legal citations can lead to sanctions. Always verify that cited passages actually exist and say what the AI suggests they say. This is your professional responsibility.

Pay special attention to the problem solution statements in each reference. If Reference A is trying to solve a different problem than Reference B, there may be no motivation to combine them.

Identify Your Argument Strategy

Based on your analysis, select one or more of these argument strategies:

Missing Element

The cited references, alone or combined, don't teach element [X].

No Motivation

No articulated reason why POSITA would combine the references.

Teaching Away

Reference A explicitly discourages what Reference B teaches.

Hindsight Reasoning

Examiner is using applicant's disclosure as a roadmap.

No Expectation of Success

POSITA would not expect the combination to work.

Secondary Considerations

Evidence of non-obviousness: commercial success, long felt need, etc.

Data Driven Strategy Selection

Use examiner statistics to inform your strategy. If data shows this examiner responds well to interviews, consider requesting one. If they rarely reverse on RCE, an appeal might be more effective.

Draft Your Response with AI Assistance

Use AI to generate initial draft language for your arguments, but always review and refine:

Example AI Assisted Argument Structure

1. Clearly state the rejection being addressed:
"Applicant respectfully traverses the §103 rejection of claims 1-5 over Smith in view of Jones."

2. Identify the specific deficiency:
"The Examiner has not established an articulated motivation to combine Smith with Jones."

3. Support with evidence from the references:
"Smith is directed to [X problem], while Jones addresses [Y problem]. These are divergent fields with no nexus."

4. Conclude with the requested action:
"For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and allowance of claims 1-5."

Don't Just Accept AI Output

AI generated arguments can be generic or miss nuances in your specific case. Always customize the language to your specific claims and prior art, and ensure arguments are legally sound.

Consider Claim Amendments

If pure arguments aren't sufficient, consider amending claims. AI tools can help by:

Suggesting limitation additions that distinguish over the cited art
Identifying features from the specification not currently claimed
Checking that proposed amendments find support in the original disclosure
Flagging potential new matter issues

Amendment Strategy Tip

When adding limitations, consider the scope vs. allowance tradeoff. A narrower claim that gets allowed is often more valuable than a broad claim stuck in prosecution. Use AI to analyze how proposed limitations affect coverage.

Review, Verify, and File

Before filing, perform these essential verification steps:

Citation Verification

Confirm all cited passages exist and support your arguments

Claim Language Check

Verify amendments have support in the specification

Deadline Confirmation

Ensure response is timely (including any extensions)

Fee Calculation

Calculate extension fees, excess claims fees if applicable

Many AI tools integrate with USPTO filing systems or can export responses in proper format. Always do a final human review before submission. Your signature attests to the accuracy of the filing.

Summary: AI + Human = Optimal Results

AI tools can dramatically accelerate §103 response preparation by automating parsing, mapping, and draft generation. But the best results come from combining AI efficiency with human judgment:

AI Handles Best

• Parsing Office Action structure
• Extracting claim to art mappings
• Generating initial draft language
• Searching related prior art
• Calculating deadlines and fees

Human Judgment Required

• Selecting optimal argument strategy
• Verifying legal accuracy
• Understanding client business goals
• Making scope vs. allowance tradeoffs
• Final review and attestation

Try This Workflow with ABIGAIL

ABIGAIL's Claims Visualizer makes element mapping intuitive, and our AI generates first draft responses in minutes. Start with pay as you go pricing, no commitment required.

Get More Tutorials Like This

Weekly patent prosecution tips, AI tool reviews, and strategy guides.