Closing RFE objections on "Original contribution"

• plain language not met

  The officer directly states that the evidence does not match the literal text of the criterion.

• No major significance

  The officer's primary conclusion is that the contribution was not shown to have major significance for the field as a whole.

• The contribution appears unoriginal

  The officer views the claimed techniques as variations of existing approaches, not as an original contribution.

• Support letters are weak

  The support letters do not explain the originality and major significance of the contribution in the profession or field.

• Patents, articles, or a product are not sufficient on their own

  The officer acknowledges the existence of a patent, articles, or a created product, but does not consider this evidence of major significance.

• The scale within the field specifically has not been proven

  The officer requires proof of the contribution's significance not to the employer or project, but to the field of endeavor.

• Concerns about the background

  The officer states that concerns about the work history undermine the evidence for this criterion.