Patent Law is complex. I have been through the process before, and my understanding was that a patent must be both novel and inventive as well as having industrial application.

The fact that the inital reviewer's opinion is that the proposed patent is not inventive because prior 'art' or knowledge is already in the public domain that would make what KWG is claiming obvious to another person with similar skills in the same technology ( or 'trained in the art' in patent speak) .

'Inventiveness' is the most difficult of the three standards to define. If I am right, KWG will have an oportunity to argue their position, maybe amend their claims, and otherwise show why their patent is inventive, but right the first review is not positive

lakeside