If you’re building something new and important, you need to protect it. That usually means patents. But there’s one big hurdle that trips up a lot of startups and inventors: the USPTO’s Section 103. It’s the rule that says your idea can’t just be new—it also has to be non-obvious. And that’s where things get tricky.
What Does “Obvious” Even Mean?
It’s Not About What You Think—It’s About What They Can Prove
When you hear the word “obvious,” it probably feels insulting. You’re doing real, hard work. You’re solving problems no one else wanted to tackle.
And then a government examiner says your breakthrough is “obvious”?
That stings. But here’s the truth: in the world of patents, “obvious” doesn’t mean what it means in everyday life.
In patent terms, “obvious” is a rule. It’s shorthand for something much more specific: Would someone skilled in your field, knowing everything already published, have been able to come up with your idea without doing anything creative?
That’s the real test. It’s not whether your invention looks simple now.
It’s whether it would’ve been obvious back then, before you figured it out. That difference is everything.
The Hidden Risk for Startups
Startups run into this problem more than anyone else. Because you’re moving fast. You’re iterating.
You’re building things that work. But you’re often improving on something that already exists.
That’s not a bad thing. In fact, most successful inventions do build on what came before.
But the closer you are to what’s already been done, the more the Patent Office wants you to prove that you’ve added something truly new—not just made a tweak.
If you don’t have a smart strategy from the start, you could spend months chasing a patent that was never going to make it through.
Or worse—you file, you get rejected, and by the time you try to fix it, your competitors have caught up.
This is why understanding “obviousness” is not just about law. It’s a business move.
You Can’t Outsmart Obviousness With Buzzwords
One mistake startups make is trying to dress up their invention in big language.
They add technical terms or throw in lots of jargon to make it sound unique.
But the Patent Office doesn’t care about how fancy it sounds. They care about what the invention does that no one else thought to do.
You don’t need to sound smarter. You need to show that your invention solves a problem in a way that wasn’t predictable.
Think of it like this: would someone skilled in your space expect your solution if they saw the same prior art? Or would they need to take a real leap—one you actually made?
That leap is what gets you the patent. That’s how you beat the “obvious” label.
You Must Build Your Non-Obvious Argument Early
Most founders wait until a 103 rejection hits before they think about obviousness.
But the smartest teams—especially the ones using PowerPatent—start early. They build in non-obviousness while drafting the patent, not after it gets rejected.
That means thinking about what makes your numbers, steps, or materials matter. It means documenting why you picked this method over others.
It means collecting small pieces of evidence—test results, comparisons, outcomes—that show this wasn’t just the next logical step.
Doing this early saves you months of back-and-forth later.
It also gives you something powerful to say when the examiner comes knocking. You’re not just reacting. You’re leading.
Think Like an Examiner Before They Think Like You
Here’s a move most startups miss: try to kill your own patent before the examiner does.
This sounds crazy, but it’s smart. It’s what great patent strategists do.
Once you’ve written your draft, go look at everything else out there. Find the closest prior art. Look for overlapping ranges.
Look for similar use cases. Ask yourself: if I were trying to reject this patent, what would I point to?
Then you answer those challenges in your application. You explain why your specific choice was not obvious.
You highlight the difference before they even ask. That makes your application stronger—and your chance of success much higher.
This isn’t just legal strategy. It’s business defense. You’re protecting your edge before someone else can copy it or water it down.
Turn “Obvious” Into an Advantage
Let’s flip the script. If your invention is getting flagged as obvious, it actually means you’re on to something.
You’re close enough to what exists that it feels like the next step. That’s good. It means the market is ready. The space is active.
Now your job is to show why your step isn’t just next—it’s different. It’s necessary. It’s critical.
If you can do that well, not only do you get the patent—you get a stronger one. Because a patent that overcomes obviousness is battle-tested.
It holds up better. It scares off copycats. It’s worth more to investors, acquirers, and your own roadmap.
That’s why we always say: obviousness isn’t the end. It’s a sign that your invention is worth protecting the right way.
Explore how PowerPatent helps you do that at https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
Ranges Are the Sneaky Weapon Examiners Use
Why Overlap Feels Harmless—But Isn’t
Most inventors don’t think much about ranges when they first file. They’re thinking about their breakthrough, their tech, the big picture.
They assume a range—like a temperature, a timing, a concentration—is just a detail. But to the Patent Office, it’s not a detail. It’s ammunition.
Examiners are trained to look for overlap. If they find that your claimed range even slightly touches something that already exists, they use it as a reason to reject you.
Even a single digit of overlap becomes a whole argument. You may think, “Well, 10% difference shouldn’t matter.”
But to the examiner, that 10% is all they need to say your invention was already known or obvious.
It’s subtle. It’s technical. And it can quietly kill a strong application if you don’t see it coming.
How Overlap Gets Weaponized in Real Applications
Imagine your invention uses a chemical mixture that works best at 35 degrees Celsius. You test other temperatures, and 35 gives you the best result.
You put that in your claim.
Now, let’s say there’s a decades-old paper that describes similar mixtures working between 20 and 34 degrees.
That sounds far enough, right? Not really. Because now the examiner can argue that your claimed range of 35 is “adjacent” or “obvious to try.”
They may say someone skilled in the art would have just kept increasing the temperature to see what happens.
Even though your temperature goes beyond what was done before, the overlap—or the “close enough” effect—still triggers the rejection.
This happens across industries. In biotech, chemistry, mechanical engineering, software. The range trap doesn’t care what field you’re in.
How to Anticipate Range-Based Rejections Before They Happen
The smartest patent strategies don’t wait for a rejection to appear. They prepare for it in advance.
If your invention relies on a numerical range, assume the examiner will challenge it.
Go find the closest prior art on your own. Study the ranges they disclose. And then ask: how does your range behave differently?
You don’t want to be surprised later. You want to tell your story up front. If your range is outside prior art, explain why.
If it overlaps, explain what makes your overlap valuable. Show what happens when you move in or out of that range.
Even a small effect—like a boost in performance, or a fix to a reliability issue—can be enough to tip the argument in your favor.
It’s not just about surviving the review. It’s about writing a patent that holds weight when investors or acquirers look at it.
You want claims that are clean, clear, and confident—not full of risk because of lazy ranges.
When to Narrow Your Range—and When to Fight
There’s a strategic decision every startup has to make when it comes to ranges. If your range overlaps prior art, one option is to narrow it.
Just claim the part that doesn’t overlap. This can make the rejection disappear—but it also weakens your claim. You end up protecting less.
The other option is to fight. But you only fight if you can show something special happens in your range.
Not just a small improvement, but a meaningful one. If 35 degrees solves a real problem that wasn’t solved before, then you argue for it.
You show that it’s not just a number—it’s the number that makes the whole thing work.
The key is being honest about which side you’re on. If the range doesn’t add anything, consider trimming.
But if it’s the heart of your invention, build your entire argument around why it matters. You’re not defending a number—you’re defending a result.
PowerPatent Helps You Spot Range Issues Instantly
Most founders don’t have time to comb through old patents or decode examiner language.
That’s why PowerPatent is built to spot these traps for you. When you input your invention, our software analyzes your ranges against prior art.
It flags risky overlaps early—before the rejection lands.
Then, with help from real attorneys who’ve handled hundreds of 103 fights, we craft strong arguments based on criticality.
You get more than software—you get strategy. You don’t just file. You defend what makes your invention different.
Speed matters. Clarity matters. Confidence matters. And PowerPatent helps you win on all three.
If you’re working with ranges in your patent, don’t leave it to chance. See how PowerPatent can help at https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
Why Overlap Isn’t the End of the Story
Examiners Love the Shortcut—But You Don’t Have to Let Them Use It
Overlap is a tempting shortcut for examiners. It gives them an easy reason to reject without deeply engaging with the invention.
If your claim says 40% and theirs says 20–39%, they’ll point to that one percent and say it’s enough. It lets them move quickly through the process.
But that shortcut only works if you let it.
The moment you push back—with clarity, with evidence, with a reason your range is not just mathematically different but functionally distinct—the shortcut breaks down.
Now the examiner has to prove more. And in many cases, they can’t.
That’s why so many range-based rejections fall apart when challenged correctly. They’re built on surface-level similarity, not substance.
The Real Test: Is There a Reason to Extend the Range?
Let’s go deeper. Courts have been clear about this: overlap isn’t enough unless there’s a reason someone would want to move from the known range to yours.
That reason has to make sense at the time of invention. It has to be logical, not just hindsight.
So if the prior art talks about temperatures between 20 and 30 degrees, and you’re using 32, the question isn’t just whether your number touches theirs.
The question is: why would someone in the field think to go higher? Was there any suggestion in the prior art that more heat might help?
Or was your choice unexpected—and critical to solving the problem?
This is where most examiners struggle. They assume “obvious to try” means “good enough to reject.”
But unless they can show why your number would have been seen as an improvement—not just an experiment—they don’t have a case.
And that’s your opening.
Show That Your Number Isn’t Just Different—It’s Necessary
To win, you don’t just argue that your number is outside the range. You argue that it had to be that number.
Not 20. Not 30. Not a random guess in between. Yours.
And you show what happens if you pick something else. Maybe the product breaks.
Maybe the result becomes unpredictable. Maybe you lose performance, durability, accuracy, or some other key trait.
This kind of argument is what makes your invention feel real—not just on paper, but in the examiner’s mind.
They stop seeing it as a tweak. They start seeing it as a discovery.
That’s the whole point of criticality. And that’s how you change the game.
Treat Every Range Like a Story
If you want to win the patent and protect your edge, you need to stop thinking about numbers as just values.
Think of them as chapters in your story. What happened when you tried 20? What broke when you pushed to 45?
What made you land on 35—and why does that choice matter?
When you tell that story well, your range stops looking like a coincidence. It becomes a decision. A decision that took work, testing, insight, and risk.
That’s what separates your invention from a tweak. That’s what turns overlap into opportunity.
And if you can show that clearly, even a tiny overlap becomes irrelevant.
This Is Where Patent Strategy Pays Off
Most startups don’t have time to fight every range. And honestly, you don’t need to. What you need is a process.
A way to filter, focus, and decide when to press and when to pivot.
That’s what PowerPatent gives you. We help you spot which ranges are worth protecting. We help you build the evidence to defend them.
And we do it with the speed and clarity you need to stay focused on your product, your team, and your growth.
You’re not filing patents just to file. You’re building a business. And that means every claim, every number, every decision has to count.
Start protecting what matters with PowerPatent. Learn how at https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
How to Show Criticality Without Getting Technical
You Don’t Need to Be a Scientist—You Just Need to Be Clear
Founders and engineers often assume that proving something is “critical” means running lab tests, publishing results, and writing technical reports filled with formulas.
That’s a myth. You don’t have to sound like a PhD.
You just need to show, clearly and simply, why your specific choice matters to the success of your invention.
At its core, criticality is a story. It’s a cause-and-effect that makes your solution necessary—not just different.
If you can walk someone through what you tried, what didn’t work, and why you landed on your final decision, you’ve already done 90% of the work.
The rest is just making that story easy to follow.
Patent examiners aren’t looking for complexity. They’re looking for clarity. And clarity always wins.
Show That Your Decision Was Driven by Discovery
The easiest way to show criticality is to reveal the moment you discovered your key range or number.
Think back to what you were testing, what broke, what surprised you. That turning point is where your invention becomes more than just trial and error.
Maybe you tried a lower dose, and it wasn’t effective. Maybe a higher voltage fried your system.
Maybe you ran dozens of tests before you landed on the one input that made everything click.
Those insights are golden. They’re what show the examiner that your invention is earned, not guessed.
And the best part? You don’t need graphs or spreadsheets to explain it. Just write it the way you’d explain it to a co-founder or investor.
What did you learn? Why does it matter? Why couldn’t someone have just guessed this from existing solutions?
That’s how you draw the line between obvious and original.
Translate Your Choices Into Outcomes
Examiners don’t care that you picked a number. They care that the number does something. So always focus on results.
What happens when you use your specific range? Does it reduce errors? Does it speed up production? Does it unlock compatibility with another system?
Your job isn’t to describe the range. Your job is to connect the range to the outcome. The more direct that link is, the stronger your argument becomes.
This works especially well when you’re dealing with tradeoffs.
If your range solves one problem but introduces another, and you made a conscious decision to balance those, that shows real invention.
It shows insight. And that’s what criticality is all about.
It’s not about numbers. It’s about choices.
Use Simplicity as a Strategy
Simplicity isn’t weakness—it’s power. When you explain your invention in simple, plain language, it shows confidence.
It shows you understand your technology deeply enough to explain it to anyone. That builds trust, even with patent examiners.
Startups often get too clever. They hide behind complexity. But the better move is to break it down. You can say: “We tried five values.
Only one gave us the stability we needed. That’s why we chose it. That’s why it’s critical.”
That kind of clarity is rare—and effective.
If you can explain your criticality in one sentence, you’re on the right track. Think of it like a pitch.
You’re not just trying to impress. You’re trying to make your case land, fast.
Avoid the Common Pitfall: “It Just Worked Better”
Many teams fall into the trap of saying something like “we used this range because it worked better.” But that’s not enough.
ou have to say how it worked better, and why the improvement mattered.
A small bump in performance is only meaningful if it solves a real problem. So tie your performance gains to impact.
Did you unlock a market? Did you meet a safety standard? Did you avoid failure modes that others couldn’t?
Criticality is about connecting your decision to a business or technical win. Always drive toward that connection.
PowerPatent Helps You Frame the Right Story
You don’t have to do this alone. PowerPatent is designed to guide you through this exact challenge.
Our software helps you isolate which parts of your invention will face 103 scrutiny.
Then, with help from patent attorneys, we help you build the right narrative—simple, strategic, and effective.
We help you avoid dead ends, cut down on delays, and file claims that actually stick. You bring the insight. We help you explain why it matters.
Whether you’re writing the first draft or responding to a rejection, PowerPatent keeps you focused on what makes your invention different, critical, and strong.
See how it works at https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
Wrapping It Up
If you’re building something valuable, you need to protect it. But protection only works if it’s real. If your patent is weak, vague, or easy to knock down with a 103 rejection, it’s not worth much. That’s why understanding how to handle ranges and overlap is so critical.
Leave a Reply