I have a provisional OTDP rejection that references an earlier application I made, explicitly references a third-party reference (no inventors in common with the application), and two other references that aren't referenced properly at that point in the office action.
It looks like the examiner copy-pasted a paragraph from a 103 rejection that turns up further down the office action.
a) is this valid? I was under the impression that OTDP rejections are supposed to be based on references to the inventor's previous work, not other material that's completely independently produced from the application.
b) if I want to traverse do I therefore have to make the same argument twice, once in the OTDP section, and once in the 103 section?