申请美国专利，当收到自己的优先权文件作为现有技术评价新颖性和创造性的OA时，首先要分析审查员为什么会用优先权文件作为现有技术，一般有如下几种情况导致：

1.未提交优先权文件翻译件；

2.未提交优先权副本；

3.美国申请的发明人与优先权发明人不一致。

尤其是上述第3点容易被忽略，出现少一个或几个发明人的情况。

基于印刷出版物或专利的35 U.S.C.102（a）（1）或102（a）（2）拒绝[R-10.2019]

[编者注：此MPEP部分仅适用于受第一发明人审查并提交AIA条款（如美国法典第35条第35款所述）的申请。 100（注释）和MPEP§2159。请参阅MPEP§2139及其后续版本。审查受AIA 35 U.S.C约束的申请102.]

除了有说服力地认为权利要求在专利上可以与现有技术区分开之外，或者对权利要求进行修改以克服现有技术的拒绝，在35 U.S.C. 102（a）（1）或102（a）（2）可以通过以下方法克服：

1.补交优先权文件翻译件；

2.补交交优先权副本或DAS码；

3.变更发明人，使得美国申请包括优先权所有的发明人。

另外还可以根据37 CFR 1.130提交誓章affidavit或声明declaration，以证明在要求保护的发明的有效提交日期之前未超过一年的适用参考文献或公开内容不是现有技术。

根据37 CFR 1.130（a），可以提交誓章或所有权声明，以使披露不属于现有技术，因为该披露是由发明人或共同发明人做出的，或者所披露的主题直接或间接地从发明人或者联合发明人那里获得。

根据37 CFR 1.130（b），如果所披露的主题已由发明人或共同发明人或获得该主题的另一人公开披露，则可以提交书面誓章或事先公开披露声明以取消介入式公开作为现有技术的资格。直接或间接地从发明人或共同发明人披露的信息（1）在作出拒绝所依据的干预性披露之日之前，或（2）在美国专利，美国专利申请公布或WIPO中的主题之日之前驳回所依据的公开申请已有效提交。参见MPEP§§717和2155；或者

建立共同所有权或建立联合研究协议的证据以克服35 U.S.C. 102（a）（2）拒绝或U.S.C. 35根据35 U.S.C.的现有技术进行了103次拒收102（a）（2）通过确立35 U.S.C.的权利102（b）（2）（C）例外。参见MPEP§§717.02和2154.02（c）。

按上述方式处理后，下一次审查意见则不会用优先权文件作为现有技术评价新颖性和创造性，或者就直接发出授权通知了。

相关法条：

2152.06 Overcoming a 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) Rejection Based on a Printed Publication or Patent [R-10.2019]

[Editor Note: This MPEP section is only applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2139 et seq. for examination of applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.]

In addition to persuasively arguing that the claims are patentably distinguishable over the prior art or amending the claims to overcome the prior art rejection, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) can be overcome by:

(A) Submitting a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 within the time period set in 37 CFR 1.78 by providing the required reference to a prior application in a corrected application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 and by establishing that the prior application satisfies the enablement and written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), or filing a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 37 CFR 1.78. See MPEP § 211et seq.; or

(B) Submitting a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) within the time period set in 37 CFR 1.78 by providing the required reference to a prior provisional application in a corrected application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 and by establishing that the prior application satisfies the enablement and written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or filing a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 37 CFR 1.78. See MPEP § 211et seq.; or

(C) Submitting a claim to priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) - (d) within the time period set in 37 CFR 1.55 by identifying a prior foreign application in a corrected application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 and by establishing that the prior foreign application satisfies the enablement and written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or filing a grantable petition to accept a delayed priority claim under 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP §§ 213 - 216. The foreign priority filing date must antedate the reference and be perfected. The filing date of the priority document is not perfected unless applicant has filed a certified priority document in the application (and an English language translation, if the document is not in English) (see 37 CFR 1.55(g)); or

(D) Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 to establish that an applied reference or disclosure that was not made more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) due to an exception listed in 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Under 37 CFR 1.130(a), an affidavit or declaration of attribution may be submitted to disqualify a disclosure as prior art because it was made by the inventor or a joint inventor, or the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor. Under 37 CFR 1.130(b), an affidavit or declaration of prior public disclosure may be submitted to disqualify an intervening disclosure as prior art if the subject matter disclosed had been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor (1) before the date the intervening disclosure was made on which the rejection is based, or (2) before the date the subject matter in the U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application on which the rejection is based was effectively filed. See MPEP §§ 717 and 2155; or

(E) Establishing common ownership or establishing evidence of a Joint Research Agreement to overcome a 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection or a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based on prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) by establishing entitlement to the 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) exception. See MPEP §§ 717.02 and 2154.02(c).