Practice Quiz

Patent Agent USPTO Registration Exam Prep - Question List

Select how would you like to study

Study Mode Free Daily Question Test Mode
11. Application Number A was published as U.S. Patent Application Publication Number B. A member of the public reviewed the listing of the file contents of the application on the Patent Application Information Retrieval system and determined that the application was still pending, that a final Office action was mailed, and that the application file is in the Technology Center where it is being examined. The member of the public does not have a power to inspect, but would like a copy of the final Office action as well as the other papers in the patent application. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, can a copy of these papers be obtained by the member of the public, and if so, how can the copy be obtained?
  1. No, a copy cannot be obtained because patent applications are maintained in confidence pursuant to 35 USC 122(a).
  2. No, a copy cannot be obtained because the patent application is still pending
  3. Yes, a member of the public can go to the Technology Center and ask for the file for copying at a public photocopier.
  4. Yes, the member of the public can complete a “Request for Access to an Application Under 37 CFR 1.14(e)” and, without payment of a fee, order the file from the File Information Unit. Upon the Unit’s receipt of the application, the member of the publ
  5. Yes, the member of the public can order a copy from the Office of Public Records, with a written request and payment of the appropriate fee.
See answer
12. A registered practitioner filed an application for an applicant claiming a “a means for pulling the door open.” The specification describes a handle and a knob as being used together as a corresponding structure for pulling the door open. A prior art patent discloses a door opened by pulling on an attached bar. The primary examiner issued an Office action rejecting the claim under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated. In the action, the examiner properly identified the corresponding structure described in applicant’s specification as the means for pulling the door open, and properly explained why the prior art attached bar is the equivalent of the structure described in applicant’s specification. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following is the most correct reply to overcome the rejection under these circumstances?
  1. An amendment to the claim changing the pulling means to expressly include an attached bar.
  2. Only argue that the claimed pulling means is not found in the prior art relied-upon reference and therefore the claim is patentable.
  3. An amendment to the specification that adds an attached bar to correspond to the prior art.
  4. An amendment to the claim substituting for the term “means for pulling the door open” the structure of a handle and a knob.
  5. An amendment to the specification that excludes an attached bar as a pulling means.
See answer
13. When, in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, is a supplemental oath or declaration treated as an amendment under 37 CFR 1.312?
  1. When filed in a nonprovisional application after the Notice of Allowance has been mailed.
  2. When filed in a reissue application at any point during the prosecution.
  3. When filed in a nonprovisional application after the payment of the Issue Fee.
  4. When filed in a reissue application after the Notice of Allowance has been mailed.
  5. (A) and (D).
See answer
14. A registered practitioner files a patent application with the following claim: 1. A plastic insert for the bottom of a shopping cart comprising circular receptacles to receive wine bottles and to maintain them in an upright and stable position even while the shopping cart is moved about a store so that they do not fall and break. Patent A discloses a plastic insert for the bottom of a shopping cart comprising rectangular receptacles to receive cereal boxes and to maintain them in an upright and stable position even while the shopping cart is moved about a store in order to keep them organized in the cart. Patent A also discloses that the receptacles could be any circular diameter to receive complementary shaped bottles or jars such as to securely hold 2-liter soft drink bottles or mayonnaise jars. A primary examiner rejected the claim as being obvious under 35 USC 103 over Patent A reasoning that Patent A suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art an insert for a shopping cart with circular receptacles for the purpose of stably maintaining any bottle, including wine bottles, while pushing the cart about a store so that the cart remains organized. Assume the examiner has made a sufficient prima facie case of obviousness. Following receipt of the rejection, the practitioner filed a timely reply. The practitioner argued that Patent A does not render obvious the claimed subject matter because there is no suggestion of a plastic insert to keep a wine bottle from falling and breaking in a shopping cart. Which of the following best explains why, in accordance with the patent laws, rules and the procedures as related in the MPEP, the examiner should or should not be persuaded by the practitioner’s argument?
  1. No, because Patent A suggests circular receptacles for any complementary bottle, albeit for a different purpose.
  2. Yes, because there is no suggestion in Patent A that the plastic insert can hold a wine bottle.
  3. Yes, because the claim uses the insert to keep the bottles from falling and breaking while Patent A uses the insert to keep the cart organized.
  4. Yes, because Patent A is more interested in organizing boxes than holding bottles.
  5. Yes, because the prevention from breakage is an unexpected property of the plastic insert.
See answer
15. A registered practitioner receives an Office action for Application X, a patent application filed after November 29, 1999. The action contains a rejection of all the claims as being obvious under 35 USC 103(a) over Patent A in view of Patent B. Patent A is only available as prior art under 35 USC 102(e). Patent B is available under 35 USC 102(b). The practitioner seeks to disqualify Patent A as prior art under 35 USC 103(c). Which of the following would be sufficient evidence to disqualify Patent A as prior art in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
  1. A declaration signed by an employee of Corporation K, who is not empowered to act on behalf of Corporation K, stating that at the time the invention claimed in Application X was made, the claimed invention and Patent A were commonly owned by Corporation K
  2. A declaration signed by the inventor of Patent A stating that at the time the invention claimed in Application X was made, the invention claimed in Application X and the invention claimed in Patent A were both subject to an obligation of assignment to the
  3. A statement by the inventor Jones, the sole inventor of Application X, saying that at the present time, Application X and Patent A are commonly owned.
  4. A statement by the practitioner stating that Application X and Patent A were, at the time the invention claimed in Application X was made, commonly owned by the same person.
  5. A statement by inventor Jones, the sole inventor of Application X, saying that at the time the invention claimed in Application X was made, Jones owned a majority interest in Patent A.
See answer

Select how would you like to study

Study Mode Free Daily Question Test Mode