Skip to content

RFE objection "The contribution appears unoriginal": how it was answered

Key answer

The officer views the claimed techniques as variations of existing approaches, not as an original contribution. Show exactly what was new: comparison with prior art, dates, distinctions, and independent recognition of novelty.

The objection belongs to the "Original contribution" criterion. Below is what the community did to close it: the order of steps, the documents that were attached and the wording that went into the answer.

Steps that closed it

  1. Formulate the specific problem and why existing approaches have not solved it
  2. Add a comparison with 3-5 closely related works and clearly show the differences
  3. Highlight the new element: method, data, metric, architecture, use case, or theoretical result
  4. Support the contribution with experiments, ablation, statistics, or proof
  5. Rewrite the contribution section as testable claims, not general statements
  6. Remove exaggeration and state the limits of applicability

What was attached

  • Comparison table with prior work
  • Results on general and additional datasets
  • Ablation study of key components
  • Error analysis and limitations
  • Open-source code, experiment protocol, or pseudocode
  • Explicitly state what was first proposed or improved

How the answer was worded

The contribution of the work is a new way to solve problem X: unlike existing approaches, it uses Y, which makes it possible to improve Z under conditions W. This is confirmed by comparison, ablation, and limitation analysis.

A pattern, not a template to copy: the wording only works with your own facts behind it.

Where to check this

Other objections on this criterion

Reference information and community experience, not legal advice. The AAO figures are lessons from appeals, not approval odds; fees and timelines change - verify on uscis.gov.