You’ve probably heard it before. “Your invention isn’t new. It’s already out there.” That’s what 102 rejections are all about. The USPTO is saying your idea was already known or used by someone else before you filed your patent. But what if that’s not really true?
What Inherency Really Means (And Why It’s So Dangerous)
It’s Not What You Say, It’s What They Assume
Let’s start with what inherency actually is.
In a nutshell, inherency means the patent examiner believes that something in an earlier document must include your idea—even if the document doesn’t say it out loud.
Sounds a little shaky, right?
Here’s an example. Let’s say your patent is about a machine that makes coffee cooler, faster.
You say your machine hits a certain temperature in five seconds.
The examiner pulls up a prior patent for a similar coffee machine but nowhere does it mention that five-second cool-down.
Still, the examiner says, “Well, it probably did cool down that fast. That’s inherent.”
That’s a 102 rejection based on inherency.
And it’s a problem because it puts the burden on you to prove otherwise. Even though they’re the ones making the assumption.
This is one of the sneakier ways patent applications get blocked.
The examiner isn’t saying your invention is exactly shown in the prior art. They’re saying it must have been there—even if it wasn’t said.
That’s what makes inherency dangerous.
Why Founders Miss This Trap
Most inventors don’t catch this. And it’s not their fault.
When you read an office action, you’re probably focused on what’s obvious.
The examiner says “this element is disclosed here” and “that feature is shown there.” You look at the reference and think, “Okay, maybe.”
But with inherency, the thing that “discloses” your idea is hidden. You won’t see it spelled out in the cited document.
You won’t find your exact feature mentioned. Instead, the examiner assumes it must be there—even without proof.
And unless you know how to push back the right way, that assumption becomes reality. Your patent dies on paper. And that’s not okay.
At PowerPatent, we’ve helped founders fight back against this exact problem. And the good news is, there’s a clear way to do it.
Why Inherency Requires Certainty, Not Guesswork
Here’s the part most people don’t realize.
For an examiner to use inherency under 102, they need more than just a guess.
The law is clear: it must be necessarily present, not just possibly present. That’s a huge difference.
If something might be inherent, that’s not good enough. If it could be there but there’s no solid evidence, the rejection doesn’t stand.
And that’s where you have power.
You can push back by showing that the prior reference doesn’t necessarily include your feature.
You can explain that other outcomes are possible. That there’s no clear proof. That their assumption is just that—an assumption.
When you do this right, you shift the burden back. You force the examiner to come up with real evidence, not just rely on a hunch.
And often, they can’t.
That’s how you win.
If this sounds tricky to do on your own, you’re right—it can be. That’s why PowerPatent exists. We make this whole thing easier.
Our software helps you spot inherency issues fast, and our attorney partners know exactly how to respond in ways that get results.
You can learn more here: https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
Ready to dive deeper into how to actually argue this the right way?
How to Spot Inherency in a 102 Rejection
Look for What’s Missing
When you get a 102 rejection, your first instinct might be to look at what the examiner did say.
But to spot inherency, you need to focus on what they didn’t say.
They’ll often point to a reference and say it discloses your claimed feature. But when you read the reference carefully, that feature isn’t actually there.
It’s not mentioned. Not shown. Not described. Nothing.
And yet, the examiner insists it’s present. That’s your red flag.
The examiner might say things like:
- “It is inherent in the operation of the prior art device…”
- “Although not explicitly stated, this result necessarily occurs…”
- “This property would naturally result from…”
These phrases all mean the same thing: the examiner is guessing. And if they’re guessing, you can push back.
Think Like a Scientist, Not a Lawyer
This is where it helps to go back to basics.
Inherency means something always happens when you follow the prior art’s steps. Not sometimes. Not maybe. Always.
So your job is to think like a scientist. Ask: Does that reference always produce the result the examiner is assuming? Or are there other possibilities?
For example, if the examiner says a chemical reaction must result in X, you can ask:
- Are there known exceptions?
- Could the process vary under different conditions?
- Is there a step missing that would prevent that result?
If you can show that the result doesn’t necessarily happen every time, the inherency argument falls apart.
And you don’t need to prove the negative. You just need to raise doubt. If the reference could reasonably work in a different way, inherency isn’t there.
This is where PowerPatent gives you an edge.
We help you frame these technical arguments clearly, and our system checks for weak spots in examiner logic. See how it works: https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
Watch Out for “Common Knowledge” Assumptions
Another trick examiners use is saying something is “well-known.”
They might not call it inherency directly, but they treat it the same way.
They assume everyone in your field would know something always happens a certain way. But that’s not how 102 works.
The reference has to disclose it—clearly.
If the examiner wants to use “common knowledge,” they need to back it up. They can’t just say it. They need evidence. Like another patent, a textbook, or an expert statement.
If they skip that step, their argument is weak. And you can call it out.
Even better, you can show that what they call “common knowledge” actually isn’t. Maybe it’s debated in your field.
Maybe there are competing approaches. Maybe the science is still evolving.
Once you show it’s not a sure thing, their inherency case crumbles.
How to Respond When the Examiner Assumes Too Much
Stay Calm, Stay Clear
First things first—don’t panic. A 102 rejection based on inherency isn’t the end. But your response has to be sharp.
You’re not just disagreeing. You’re showing the examiner their assumption doesn’t hold up.
The key here is clarity. Don’t argue in circles. Don’t flood your reply with too much detail.
Focus on one thing: the examiner hasn’t shown your claimed feature is necessarily present in the prior art.
And that’s your opening.
Use Their Words Against Them
Go back to the rejection. Copy exactly what the examiner said about inherency. Show the sentence. Then ask the big question:
“Where is this feature explicitly disclosed in the reference?”
Often, it won’t be. And that’s your hook.
You can write something like:
“The cited reference does not disclose [insert feature] explicitly, nor does it provide any evidence that this feature is inherently present.
Inherency requires that the feature necessarily be present in the prior art, and not merely possibly or probably present.”
That one sentence reframes the entire argument.
Now the burden is on them.
Show That Other Outcomes Are Possible
Here’s your next move. Explain how the prior art could work without the assumed feature.
You’re not saying it definitely doesn’t include it—you’re saying it might not. That’s enough.
For example:
“The reference discloses a system that may operate under a range of conditions.
Under certain configurations, the feature described in the present claim would not necessarily occur. Therefore, inherency is not established.”
That word—necessarily—is everything.
You’re not trying to win a science debate. You’re just showing there’s another way the prior art could behave. And that kills the inherency argument.
You don’t need to rewrite your entire spec. You don’t need to include a new claim. You just need to block the assumption.
This approach has worked again and again for startups using PowerPatent.
Because we help you cut through the confusion and craft responses that make sense—even to a busy examiner who’s seen it all.
If you want help on your own case, check out: https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
Avoid Sounding Defensive
This part is important. You’re not attacking the examiner. You’re correcting a mistake in their logic.
Keep your tone professional, but firm. Something like:
“Respectfully, the rejection relies on an assumption that is not supported by the cited reference.”
That’s enough to show you know what you’re talking about—without sounding combative.
Examiners don’t want long lectures. They want clarity. Give them exactly that. Point to the gap in their reasoning.
Explain how inherency doesn’t apply. And rest your case.
Need help drafting the perfect response? We can guide you, step-by-step, and get feedback from real attorneys too. All inside PowerPatent.
Want to go deeper into examples of how this plays out in real rejections?
Real Examples of Attacking Inherency (The Right Way)
Example 1: The “Missing Step” in a Chemical Process
Imagine you invented a way to produce a cleaner chemical reaction by adding a cooling phase between two heating steps.
You file your patent, and the examiner comes back with a 102 rejection.
They cite a prior art patent for a similar process. But in that document, the cooling step isn’t mentioned anywhere.
Still, the examiner says the cooling “must have happened” because the chemical would need to stabilize before the second heating. They call it inherent.
Here’s how you could respond:
“While the prior art describes two heating phases, it does not disclose any intermediate cooling step.
Inherency requires that the feature necessarily be present.
The reference could operate under multiple configurations—some of which may not include cooling. As such, the examiner has not established inherency.”
That’s it. You’re not saying their science is wrong. You’re saying it’s not certain. You just opened the door for allowance.
Example 2: The “Invisible Signal” in a Software System
Let’s say you built a software system that sends a verification signal to confirm a process completed securely.
It’s a simple, unique safety step. You claim it in your patent.
The examiner rejects it under 102, citing another system that performs the same process—but doesn’t mention a verification signal.
Still, the examiner argues that “the system must verify completion before proceeding.”
That’s inherency. And it’s shaky.
Here’s how to push back:
“The cited reference does not disclose any signal or confirmation step. The assumption that verification must occur is unsupported.
Multiple systems may complete processes without explicit verification. Therefore, the feature is not inherently disclosed.”
No overthinking. No legal jargon. Just a clear counter to the assumption.
And again, the burden flips back to them.
This is where PowerPatent’s tools shine.
You don’t need to search for the perfect language—we help generate responses based on what’s missing and how to say it right.
We even flag common examiner shortcuts so you can tackle them head-on. Learn more at: https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
Example 3: The “Natural Result” That Isn’t Always Natural
One more. Let’s say your invention is a method of drying a material in a way that avoids warping.
You claim a specific temperature range that prevents this warping.
The examiner finds an older patent that dries the same material, and says warping must not have occurred—so your method is inherent in theirs.
Classic inherency trap.
But here’s the flaw: the old patent never talks about warping. Never mentions your temperature range. Never even says warping is a concern.
Here’s your answer:
“There is no teaching or suggestion in the cited reference regarding prevention of warping.
The prior art does not disclose temperature ranges or methods that necessarily produce the claimed result. Therefore, inherency is not established.”
That one move can turn rejection into allowance.
What to Do When the Examiner Doubles Down
The Examiner Repeats the Same Argument
So you’ve responded clearly. You pointed out the missing feature. You explained that it’s not necessarily present.
But in the next office action, the examiner comes back with the same rejection—maybe even the same language.
This is common.
Examiners don’t always want to backtrack. Sometimes they just repeat themselves, hoping you’ll give up or amend your claims to something weaker.
Don’t do it.
Instead, stay calm and go one step further. Reinforce your position. Repeat that inherency cannot be assumed.
Then, add new technical context or real-world examples to strengthen your argument.
For instance:
“Applicant maintains that the cited reference does not disclose the claimed feature. The examiner’s conclusion that this result ‘must occur’ remains unsupported.
As established in prior case law, mere possibility is insufficient to establish inherency.
Additional context is provided below to clarify why the result is not necessary under the conditions described in the reference.”
Then walk through why your feature would not always occur in the reference’s setup. You don’t need to prove a negative. You just need to show the uncertainty still exists.
This shows you’re not just recycling arguments—you’re actively reinforcing your position with technical weight.
PowerPatent helps here by tracking examiner language across rounds, spotting repeat arguments, and suggesting how to evolve your response instead of repeating yourself.
That way, you always stay one step ahead. See how it works: https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
When the Examiner Shifts to Obviousness (103)
This happens a lot.
You challenge the inherency under 102 and win. Then suddenly, the examiner changes course. Now they’re saying your idea is “obvious” under 103.
That’s not a win yet—it’s just a different battlefield.
But the good news is, you now have leverage. If they’ve dropped the 102 rejection, they’ve admitted your feature wasn’t clearly disclosed.
So now the only argument left is that your improvement is obvious.
And here’s where you can pivot your strategy.
Start by stating:
“Applicant notes that the previous 102 rejection was withdrawn, implicitly acknowledging that the claimed feature is not inherently disclosed in the cited reference.
The current 103 rejection does not provide a clear rationale for why one of ordinary skill would modify the reference to include the claimed feature.”
Then walk through why your approach isn’t just an obvious tweak—it solves a real problem in a new way.
This transition—from inherency to obviousness—is your chance to reframe your invention as non-trivial.
As something that wasn’t just sitting there waiting to be plucked.
We can help you craft that pivot at PowerPatent. Our system helps translate your technical feature into a compelling “why it matters” story—exactly what you need in a 103 fight.
Ready to keep going into how to bulletproof your spec from inherency rejections before they even happen?
How to Bulletproof Your Patent Application from Inherency Problems
Don’t Just Say What It Does—Say How It Does It
When founders write their own patent drafts, they often focus on the result. “Our system does X.” Or “This method produces Y.”
But here’s the thing: if you don’t explain how your invention gets that result, the examiner can claim it happens “naturally” in prior art.
That’s where inherency creeps in.
To avoid this, always include specific mechanisms.
Describe the steps, the structure, the signal path, the temperature, the sequence—whatever it is that makes your version different.
That level of detail makes it harder for the examiner to assume your feature is just “automatically” there in an older system.
For example, instead of saying:
“Our method prevents overheating.”
Say:
“Our method includes a thermal sensor that cuts power at 72°C, which prevents overheating.”
Now the examiner has to show a prior art reference with that exact sensor and cut-off logic—not just guess that overheating didn’t happen.
This is exactly what we help with at PowerPatent.
Our software prompts you to describe your invention at the right level of detail, so you don’t accidentally invite these rejections. Learn more at: https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
Explain Why the Result Wouldn’t Just Happen
Here’s a powerful move most founders skip.
If your invention has a unique outcome, take the time to explain in the spec why that result doesn’t happen naturally. Make it part of your story.
For instance:
“Unlike traditional methods, the current process maintains a pressure threshold that actively prevents residue formation.
Without this step, residue typically builds up and degrades performance.”
That one paragraph helps slam the door on future inherency arguments. You’re pre-emptively showing that the result isn’t automatic.
It requires your unique steps.
Think of it like locking your windows before the storm hits. You’re not just claiming something new—you’re proving it couldn’t have just happened by accident.
Use Words That Force a Distinction
The words you choose in your claims and spec matter. If you’re vague, the examiner fills in the blanks. And often, they fill them with assumptions.
Instead of writing “a signal,” try “a confirmation signal indicating completion of process X.”
Instead of “a device configured to cool,” try “a device configured to reduce temperature from 100°C to 60°C within 5 seconds.”
These little details cut off the examiner’s wiggle room. They force the discussion to stay grounded in what’s actually disclosed, not what might be “assumed.”
And that helps you hold the line when rejections show up.
When Inherency Goes to the PTAB: How to Handle It Like a Pro
Why Appeals Aren’t Just for Big Companies
If you’ve responded clearly, made your arguments, and the examiner still won’t budge, you might find yourself staring at one option: appeal.
And let’s be real—that sounds intimidating.
Most startup founders hear “PTAB” and think: expensive, slow, not worth it.
But here’s what most people don’t realize—when the rejection hinges on inherency, appeal can be one of your best tools.
Why? Because inherency is often based on examiner assumptions. And appeal judges don’t like assumptions.
Appeal judges want facts. Logic. Evidence.
If you’ve laid the groundwork in your office action responses—if you’ve clearly said, “this feature is not disclosed, and it’s not necessarily present”—you already have the foundation for a strong appeal.
And at PowerPatent, we’ve seen solo founders and small teams win appeals—because they had the right arguments, clearly stated.
What PTAB Looks for in Inherency Disputes
When the PTAB reviews an inherency-based 102 rejection, they’re asking one simple question:
Is the examiner guessing?
That’s it.
They don’t care if the feature might be there. They care whether it’s necessarily there. And if it isn’t, they reverse the rejection.
In fact, PTAB has overturned many 102 rejections simply because the prior art didn’t say the feature was there, and the examiner couldn’t prove it was always the result of the disclosed steps.
That’s why your job during appeal isn’t to argue harder. It’s to stay laser-focused on this one idea:
“The examiner has not shown that the claimed feature is necessarily present in the prior art. Therefore, inherency is not established.”
Then back it up with examples, explanations, or even a declaration if needed.
And if you’re thinking, “I have no idea how to even file an appeal,” don’t worry. That’s where PowerPatent’s legal partners can step in.
We handle the process and help you decide whether an appeal is worth it—before you spend time or money.
See how that works here: https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
How to Make Your Case Appeal-Ready from the Start
Even if you’re not planning to go to appeal, you should prepare like you will. Why? Because it changes how you write your responses.
You stop being reactive. You stop trying to “convince” the examiner.
Instead, you build a clean, logical case that can be picked up by someone else—like a PTAB judge—and immediately understood.
Here’s what that looks like:
- State the issue clearly.
- Show what’s missing in the prior art.
- Explain why inherency doesn’t apply.
- Cite the standard: “necessarily present, not possibly or probably present.”
- Wrap it with: “The rejection is therefore unsupported by substantial evidence.”
This kind of language isn’t legal fluff. It’s structure. It’s clarity. It gives the judges something solid to work with.
And that clarity? It’s powerful. Because PTAB is looking for errors in the rejection.
You’re not just arguing your invention is great. You’re showing the examiner made a mistake.
And when inherency is the basis for the mistake? PTAB often agrees.
Use Examiner Interviews to Break the Inherency Standoff
Why Writing Alone Doesn’t Always Work
You can write the perfect response. Cite case law. Highlight the gap. Show how the prior art doesn’t say what the examiner claims.
But sometimes, the examiner still holds the line. They keep saying your feature is “inherent” without giving much more.
This is where an examiner interview can change everything.
Because written arguments can only do so much. But a live, focused conversation? That can break through the wall.
You get a chance to say:
“I understand your point—but can you walk me through where exactly in the reference this feature is disclosed?”
And more often than not, they can’t.
How Interviews Flip the Dynamic
The power of an interview is that it forces clarity.
The examiner has to explain their reasoning, not just repeat it. You get to ask questions, push for specifics, and clarify your own invention in real time.
In the case of inherency, this is huge. Because most inherency arguments fall apart when you actually dig in. Once you press:
- “Where is this in the reference?”
- “Is it always present, or just possibly present?”
- “What evidence supports that outcome?”
They either retreat—or admit that the feature isn’t clearly there.
At that point, many examiners soften. They may suggest a path forward, or even drop the rejection after realizing they’re on shaky ground.
This happens more than you’d expect.
At PowerPatent, we’ve helped guide dozens of examiner interviews where founders felt stuck.
We prep you with what to say, what to ask, and how to frame the discussion so the examiner sees your side—without friction.
Check out how we support you through this: https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
What to Say in the Interview
You don’t need to come in swinging. You’re not trying to prove the examiner wrong. You’re inviting them to take a closer look.
You can say:
“We reviewed the cited reference closely and couldn’t find an explicit disclosure of [feature].
We understand you’re viewing it as inherent—but we’d like to understand what in the reference makes that result necessarily present every time.”
That word—necessarily—is your hammer. Use it gently but consistently.
And if the examiner keeps saying “it’s just how it would work,” then ask:
“Is that based on a reference? Or your own understanding of the technology?”
If they admit it’s just logic or “common knowledge,” they’re off the mark. That’s not enough to sustain inherency.
You don’t need to win the argument in the interview. You just need to show there’s no clear support. That doubt alone is enough to force a reevaluation.
Wrapping It Up
Inherency rejections can feel slippery. Sneaky. Frustrating.
Because it’s not about what’s written in the prior art—it’s about what the examiner thinks must be there. And that kind of thinking can quietly kill strong patents if you don’t push back the right way.
But now you know better.
Leave a Reply