However, according to the author's experience, usually according to the following three steps to face:

(1) The examiner's opinion is not always correct. Therefore, it is also a skeptical excavation in advance, word for word, both literally and substantively, to judge whether each technology in the claim is really revealed by the comparison document as the examiner said. If all the technical features are revealed in essence, it will be difficult to succeed if you only modify or demonstrate from the claims.

(2) When confirming that the claim does not possess novelty, it is necessary to see whether each technical feature of the text of the specific embodiment of the invention is completely disclosed by the comparison document. If one or more technical features are not disclosed in the comparison document, and the technical features can bring good technical effects, the technical features can be incorporated into the independent claim to overcome the novelty defects.

(3) If there are still no substantive distinguishing features in the text of the specific embodiment, check the drawings of the invention again to see if they are the same as those in the comparison file. If not, it depends on whether there are some obvious graphic distinguishing features, and these features are included in the independent claim in the form of words to overcome the defects of novelty. However, the revision of this clause is risky, and many examiners are unwilling or afraid to agree to this revision.

The above is for reference only.