When an RFE Challenges Original Contributions of Major Significance

“USCIS acknowledges that the patent applications support that you have had original scientific contributions in the field. Although, having your ideas or inventions patented does not establish how these same contributions are considered to be of major significance in the field of science (technology).”

This case was approved after the RFE response。

Read the two sentences separately: originality was granted, significance was not. "Original contributions of major significance" is a conjunction, and only the second half is in dispute. Filing additional patents in response argues the half that already succeeded. What closes this gap is adoption evidence — who else uses it, what changed in the field because of it.

“You submitted letters of support, but the submission of solicited letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. USCIS may in its discretion use such letters as advisory opinions submitted by expert witnesses, but we are ultimately responsible for making the final determination of the beneficiary's eligibility.”

This case was approved after the RFE response。

Letters are not discounted entirely — they are demoted to advisory opinions. A response that answers this by adding more letters is answering the wrong objection. The officer is asking for evidence that does not depend on someone's opinion.

“It is noted that you presented your work at conferences, yet this does not demonstrate original contributions, because there is no way to determine a conference paper's originality or influence on the field. However, highly cited publications and widely utilized patents do objectively illustrate originality and contributions in the field.”

This case was approved after the RFE response。

The officer names, in the same paragraph, what would satisfy them: citation counts and patents actually in use. That sentence is effectively a specification for the response.

“It is also noted that you submitted evidence of copyright registrations, but you are not named on the copyright registrations. Therefore they do not hold any probative value to show that you meet this criterion.”

This case was approved after the RFE response。

The same "who is named on the document" problem as the awards criterion, appearing again in a different section. When one RFE raises this twice, it is worth auditing every exhibit in the filing for whose name is on it.