If you’re building something new, smart, and maybe even a little bit wild, chances are someone at the patent office is going to tell you it’s “obvious.” They’ll throw Section 103 at you. It’s their way of saying, “This thing you invented? We think someone else could have figured it out too.”
What’s a 103 Rejection—and Why Does It Matter?
It’s Not About What You Invented. It’s About What They Think You Did.
When a patent examiner issues a 103 rejection, they’re making a judgment call. They’re saying, “Yes, your idea might be new.
But it’s not new enough.” They’re basically looking at a few pieces of existing technology and guessing how easy it would’ve been for someone to piece those together to make what you made.
Here’s the hard part: that decision isn’t based on how hard you worked, how long it took, or how groundbreaking your results are.
It’s based on how things look in hindsight.
To them, it’s a puzzle. To you, it was a war zone. That’s the disconnect—and that’s why founders need to pay attention.
This Isn’t Just a Legal Hiccup. It’s a Business Risk.
If you get a 103 rejection and don’t handle it right, you could lose your patent. And that has real consequences.
It can weaken your position in funding conversations. It can stop you from raising your valuation.
It can leave you open to copycats—especially the kind with more resources and less originality.
It can block you from forming partnerships with bigger players who want the safety of strong IP.
And it can force you to keep everything secret when you’d rather be public and proud.
In short, losing to a 103 rejection isn’t just losing a piece of paper. It’s losing control over what you built.
Most 103 Rejections Are Beat—If You Know What to Do
A lot of businesses walk away when they see a 103 rejection. But here’s the truth: many of these rejections are based on shallow assumptions.
The examiner is connecting dots without understanding the real story behind your tech.
Your job is to fill in the gaps.
That doesn’t mean arguing. It means explaining. It means showing why those dots don’t actually connect.
And the best way to do that is through real-world information—not theory. Not speculation.
Think about it this way: if a VC said, “This product looks like a combo of Stripe and Notion,” would you shrug and say, “Yeah, maybe you’re right”? Of course not. You’d explain the architecture.
The design decisions. The customer pain points. The things that make it not just a combo, but something new.
That’s the mindset you need when facing a 103 rejection.
Always Ask This Question First: What Would Make This Clearly Non-Obvious?
Before you respond to a rejection, take a step back. Ask yourself: “If I were looking at this from the outside, what would convince me this invention wasn’t obvious?”
Would it be the number of failures you had before figuring it out?
Would it be performance benchmarks that are 10x better than the old way?
Would it be customer reactions that show you hit a nerve no one else saw? Would it be an expert in the space saying, “Yeah, I never would’ve thought of this”?
That’s your starting point.
Because what defeats 103 isn’t complexity. It’s unexpected success.
It’s that moment where your invention did something surprising—something that the obvious path didn’t do.
That’s what you build your case around.
The Rejection Letter Is Just the Beginning
It’s easy to get defensive when you get a 103 rejection. But the smarter move is to treat it as a strategic clue.
Read the examiner’s reasoning carefully. Look at the prior art they cited. Study their logic.
Are they combining two references and assuming it would “just work”? Are they ignoring the technical barriers you had to overcome? Are they missing context?
Use that to shape your response.
Not just to poke holes in their logic, but to show why their logic fails in the real world.
That’s where your declaration comes in. You’re not trying to be clever. You’re trying to be clear.
Show them what they don’t see. Bring them into the messy middle of your invention process.
The more specific you are, the harder it is for them to deny your position.
Action Step: Start Capturing Your “Hard Moments” Now
Even before you get a rejection, start documenting the parts of your invention journey that weren’t obvious.
Keep notes on what failed, what didn’t work, what surprised you. Save your test results. Keep early versions and prototypes.
Capture feedback from users that shows why your solution hit differently.
You may not need it today. But if and when a 103 rejection shows up, you’ll be ready. And you’ll be able to respond—not with panic, but with power.
What Is Rule 1.132?
It’s Not Just a Rule. It’s a Strategic Move Hidden in Plain Sight.
Rule 1.132 might sound like a minor footnote in the giant book of patent law.
But for founders, CTOs, and technical teams trying to secure strong protection for their inventions, it’s much more than that.
It’s a lever. A way to inject real-world truth into a process that often feels disconnected from how innovation actually works.
This rule gives you a chance to speak directly to the examiner—on your terms. Not through legal theory. Not through citations.
But through your own experience, backed by facts. It’s how you move the conversation from “what’s on paper” to “what actually happened.”
Most importantly, it’s the one place in the entire process where the patent office is willing to pause, listen, and consider new information.
Why Rule 1.132 Matters More Now Than Ever
Today’s inventions are faster, messier, and more data-driven than the old-school patent system was built to handle.
Startups don’t write white papers. They push code, run A/B tests, and ship product.
But when it comes time to protect that work, the system still wants to see slow, academic-style documentation.
That mismatch creates friction.
Rule 1.132 is how you close that gap.
It lets you bring in your language, your data, your results.
It gives you the chance to show the human side of the invention process—what was tried, what failed, and what finally clicked.
For fast-moving teams, this is huge. You don’t need to change how you build. You just need to know how to tell your story when it counts.
It’s Not Just About Arguments. It’s About Timing and Framing.
One of the most powerful things about Rule 1.132 is that it lets you frame the conversation on your terms.
Instead of letting the examiner control the narrative with a stack of old patents, you get to say, “Let me show you what those references miss.”
But it only works if you act fast.
Most businesses wait too long to bring in a declaration. They try to argue their way out with technical distinctions.
They go back and forth through multiple office actions. They burn time and money.
Then, at the last minute, they scramble to add a declaration—when everyone’s already locked into their position.
Don’t do that.
If you see a 103 rejection and you know it doesn’t reflect the real challenge of what you built, that’s the moment to pause and consider Rule 1.132. Not later. Right now.
Because early declarations are more effective. They set the tone. They give the examiner a new lens before their thinking hardens.
And in many cases, they lead to a quicker allowance.
Your Declaration Doesn’t Have to Be Perfect. It Just Has to Be Real.
A big mistake companies make is thinking they need a lawyer to ghostwrite the whole thing, dress it up in legal language, and make it airtight.
That’s a fast way to drain your runway—and kill your credibility.
What matters most is honesty and clarity.
Tell the story the way it happened.
Explain what you were solving, how you tried to solve it, where things failed, and what changed when the invention came together.
Use real words. Include real results.
Examiners aren’t looking for polish. They’re looking for substance.
That raw truth, especially when backed with clean, testable data, is more persuasive than any fancy filing full of buzzwords.
Action Step: Build a Simple “Declaration File” for Each Invention
If you’re running a product team, make this part of your workflow. For every major invention or innovation, keep a lightweight record.
Nothing formal. Just a shared doc or folder where you drop quick notes on what didn’t work, what finally did, and what surprised you.
Include screenshots of early prototypes. Links to test dashboards. Notes from team meetings. Emails from early users.
Anything that captures what made this thing real.
Later, if you hit a 103 rejection, you won’t be guessing. You’ll have the material ready. You can move fast.
And you can tell a stronger story than most companies ever bother to submit.
That’s how you turn Rule 1.132 from a hidden rule into a strategic asset.
Why Founders Should Care
Because “Obvious” Can Kill Your Edge—Even When It’s Not True
You’ve put in the late nights. You’ve built something that actually works in the real world.
But the moment you try to lock in protection, someone at the USPTO says, “Eh, we think someone else could have figured that out.”
That single moment—a 103 rejection—can take away the edge you’ve worked years to earn.
And it often has nothing to do with how smart your solution is. It comes down to perception.
On paper, they think it looks like a mash-up. In real life, you know it’s a breakthrough.
But if you don’t correct that perception quickly and clearly, the damage is real.
For startups, that can be fatal.
This is why Rule 1.132 matters.
It’s how you speak up, before the examiner’s opinion becomes the final word. It’s how you say, “Here’s what you’re not seeing. Here’s why this is new—and why it matters.”
And in a world where speed is everything, it’s one of the few tools that lets you push back without slowing down.
Your Patent Isn’t Just a Trophy. It’s a Business Asset You Can Use
Founders often think of patents as a protective shield—something to keep copycats away. That’s true.
But patents also work the other way. They open doors. They create options.
A strong patent gives you leverage in investor conversations. It makes acquirers pay more attention.
It gives you room to license or partner without losing your moat. It creates an asset that’s independent of your team or roadmap.
That only happens if the patent actually gets granted—and if it covers the right thing.
103 rejections often attack the core idea. The thing that makes your product valuable.
If you lose that fight, you might still get a patent—but it’ll be on the stuff that doesn’t matter. The edge features. The implementation details.
Rule 1.132 is how you protect the heart of your invention. It’s how you keep control of the piece that drives your value.
This isn’t just a legal tactic. It’s a startup survival skill.
You Can’t Let the Patent Office Decide What’s Obvious in Your Market
Here’s a hard truth: most patent examiners aren’t living in your world. They haven’t run early access programs.
They haven’t tested prompts in production. They haven’t shipped fast enough to learn what customers really need.
So when they look at your tech, they’re seeing it through the wrong lens. They don’t know which solution paths were explored by the market and failed.
They don’t know what users rejected or what they ignored. They don’t see the surprise that happened when your version actually worked.
That’s where you, the founder, have to step in.
You have a front-row seat to the innovation. You know what was tried before. You know what competitors missed.
You know how hard it was to pull this off. That’s the knowledge the system needs—but doesn’t ask for unless you volunteer it.
Rule 1.132 is the one place where you’re allowed to do that.
It’s the only moment you get to lift the curtain and say, “Let me show you what really happened behind the scenes.”
That’s not just defending your patent. That’s owning your narrative.
Action Step: Make Patent Strategy Part of Your Product Debrief
After you launch a major feature or hit a breakthrough in R&D, don’t just ship and move on.
Carve out 15 minutes with your team to ask one simple question: “What made this non-obvious?”
Not from a technical documentation angle—but from a business and user perspective.
What failed before this version? What was hard to get right? What surprised users? What reactions made you realize this hit a nerve?
Capture those insights right then and there.
Even a quick paragraph can later form the backbone of a powerful Rule 1.132 declaration if you face a 103 rejection.
The smartest founders aren’t just shipping product. They’re protecting momentum.
And that means capturing the story while it’s fresh—before the examiner has a chance to rewrite it for you.
What Makes a Strong Declaration?
It’s Not About the Length—It’s About the Leverage
A strong Rule 1.132 declaration isn’t about how many pages you file.
It’s about how precisely you expose the gap between what the examiner thinks is obvious and what actually took real-world effort to get right.
The power of your declaration lies in showing contrast. Not through vague statements or technical recaps—but through crisp, undeniable insight.
The best declarations don’t just say “we’re different.” They make the examiner feel it.
They walk the reader through the blind spots in the prior art and show why those references couldn’t have led to your result without real invention.
Not just technical steps, but insight.
That shift from obviousness to unexpected impact is where your argument becomes convincing.
This is especially important if your invention lives in fast-moving spaces like AI, software, or biotech—where results are judged in milliseconds, not manuals.
You don’t win by sounding clever.
You win by proving you cracked something real that others couldn’t.
Precision Beats Passion—Keep It Focused on the Breakthrough
It’s easy to overdo it. Founders and engineers often feel tempted to explain the whole story, give the full background, justify every little decision.
But too much narrative can drown your point.
A strong declaration zeroes in on the delta—the exact move that made the difference.
What tweak changed the outcome? What insight unlocked the solution? What shift led to measurable impact?
This isn’t about defending your work. It’s about spotlighting the step that separates your invention from the rest of the field.
The more focused you are, the easier it is for the examiner to get it. And the easier it is for them to say yes.
If you have test data, don’t just include it—explain what it proves. If you reference user feedback, explain what made it surprising.
If you describe a failure path, make it clear why the prior art couldn’t succeed where you did.
That’s the story the patent office is missing. And it’s your job to give it to them, clean and clear.
Make It Easy for the Examiner to Agree With You
Your goal isn’t to win a debate. It’s to give the examiner an easy off-ramp from their objection.
A strong declaration doesn’t fight back—it offers clarity. It helps the examiner reframe their thinking without making them look wrong.
That means writing with empathy. Acknowledge the logic behind the rejection.
Then show, step by step, where that logic breaks in your specific case. Help them feel like they’re discovering the truth alongside you, not being forced into a corner.
If they’re using two prior patents to argue your invention is obvious, walk through why those two things—on their own or in combination—couldn’t produce your result.
Maybe they fail at scale. Maybe they ignore edge cases. Maybe they assume a different goal.
Point it out calmly. Connect it to your outcome. Show your results. Then stop.
The cleaner the story, the faster the turnaround. You’re not writing for drama. You’re writing for understanding.
Action Step: Build a “Before vs. After” Breakdown
One of the most effective ways to strengthen your declaration is to build a simple before-and-after contrast for your invention.
Keep it short. One column for what was tried or known before. One for what changed with your solution.
In each row, highlight what broke or failed in the old approach—and what shifted after you applied your insight.
Use real numbers, even if they’re early-stage. Show real friction points that got solved. Don’t embellish. Just make the contrast clear.
You can later turn that contrast into a written statement or visual that becomes part of your declaration.
But the real value is in how it forces clarity—for you, your legal team, and eventually, the examiner.
A strong declaration is built on strong insight. And strong insight always starts with contrast.
How to Use Rule 1.132 Like a Pro
It’s Not Just About Responding. It’s About Shaping the Narrative Early.
The biggest mistake businesses make with Rule 1.132 is treating it like a last-minute patch.
Something to pull out when the situation feels desperate. That thinking kills momentum.
The real power of Rule 1.132 comes when you use it early—proactively, not reactively.
As soon as you see signs of a 103 rejection, that’s the moment to pause and reframe. Don’t rush into a point-by-point rebuttal.
Don’t let your attorney jump straight into legal gymnastics.
Instead, take a breath and ask: what part of our invention feels obvious to someone who doesn’t know the inside story?
Then use Rule 1.132 to fill in the gaps.
This early intervention saves months of back-and-forth. It keeps your prosecution timeline tight. It avoids drawn-out arguments and opens the door for early allowance.
Founders and CTOs who think two steps ahead in this process don’t just save money. They gain control.
They decide how their invention is framed—before the examiner locks in a false assumption.
Think Like a Product Marketer, Not a Litigator
When using Rule 1.132, you’re not just responding to legal language.
You’re telling a persuasive story about why your solution wasn’t obvious—even to smart people in the field.
And to do that effectively, you have to think like a product marketer.
You don’t just talk about features. You talk about friction. What was broken before? Why didn’t existing solutions work?
What changed after your invention? What signals proved that something real had shifted?
That’s the material a strong declaration is made of. Not legalese. Not citations. Just clarity and evidence of real-world value.
You’re showing—not telling—the examiner what made your solution a leap, not a tweak.
This mindset shift makes everything easier. It gives your team clarity. It makes your attorney’s job easier. A
nd it increases your chances of a fast, favorable decision.
Don’t Try to Win Every Argument. Just Break the Logic
You don’t need to knock down every piece of prior art.
You don’t need to convince the examiner that your solution is revolutionary. You just need to break their logical chain.
If the rejection says your idea is obvious because of X plus Y, your job isn’t to disprove X and Y.
Your job is to show that X and Y—used together—still wouldn’t produce your result.
Maybe combining them introduces friction. Maybe they’re incompatible in practice. Maybe the combination fails when scaled or tested in the wild.
Once you show that, the rejection collapses.
Rule 1.132 lets you do this in a clean, direct way. No need for legal acrobatics. Just show the real limitations.
Share your attempts. Point to your test results. Describe the gap between theory and execution.
When you do it right, the examiner doesn’t feel forced to change their mind. They feel relieved. You’ve just solved the puzzle for them.
Action Step: Hold a “Patent Debrief” After First Rejection
If you get a 103 rejection, bring your product and engineering leads into a short, focused meeting.
Ask a single question: “Why wouldn’t this have worked if someone had tried to combine those two things?”
Don’t look at the rejection as a legal document. Look at it like a design challenge.
Walk through the logic in the examiner’s head. Then pick it apart with your team’s firsthand knowledge.
Capture everything that breaks down in practice. Any performance issues. Integration risks. User behavior conflicts. Scaling limits.
This raw feedback becomes the foundation of a killer declaration. And often, it leads to insights your legal team wouldn’t have spotted on their own.
The fastest path to a strong patent isn’t more argument. It’s more truth.
Wrapping It Up
Getting hit with a 103 rejection can feel like a punch in the gut. It’s easy to feel misunderstood—like someone looked at your hard-won solution and saw nothing but a remix of old ideas. But that’s not the end of the road. Not even close.
Leave a Reply