Patent Agent USPTO Registration Exam Prep - Question List

Select how would you like to study

26. A U.S. patent was granted on May 8, 2001. The sole independent claim in the patent is directed to a combination of elements ABCD. A registered practitioner filed a reissue application on April 11, 2003 to narrow sole independent claim. In the reissue application, the independent claim is amended to a combination to elements ABCDE. The reissue application is accompanied by a transmittal letter stating that the application was filed to narrow a claim, that all inventors could not be located to sign the reissue oath or declaration at that time, and that a declaration would be submitted in due course. No other amendments to the claims were filed on April 11, 2003. On May 8, 2003, a declaration signed by all inventors is filed declaring that they had claimed less than they had a right to claim, and that the error arose without deceptive intent. The inventors also filed on May 8, 2003 a preliminary amendment deleting element A from the sole independent claim leaving elements BCDE. The amendment and declaration are filed using the provisions of 37 CFR 1.10. The practitioner included an authorization to charge the practitioner’s deposit account for any necessary fees. Which of the following actions by the primary the examiner in the first Office action is in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
  1. Reject all the claims based upon a broadening reissue outside the two year statutory period authorized by 35 USC 251 since applicant did not file a broadened reissue claim at the time of filing.
  2. Reject all the claims based upon a broadening reissue outside the two year statutory period authorized by 35 USC 251 since applicant did not file a claim to a broadened reissue claim within the two year period set by 35 USC 251.
  3. Reject all the claims based upon a broadening reissue outside the two year statutory period authorized by 35 USC 251 since applicant’s indication in the transmittal letter indicated that the filing of the reissue application was a narrowing reissue and
  4. Determine that the application is a proper broadening reissue and perform an examination and issue an Office action in due course.
  5. Determine that the application is a proper broadening reissue and reject the claims under the recapture doctrine since the claims are broader than the issued claims.
27.

A registered practitioner files an international application submission that includes a description, claims and drawings in the United States Receiving Office (RO/US) on Wednesday, January 8, 2003. The submission did not include the required request, international and search fees, or the designation of a PCT contracting State. The RO/US mails an “Invitation to Correct the Purported International Application,” dated January 10, 2003, to the practitioner indicating that the designation of at least one Contracting State, as required by PCT Article 11(1)(iii)(b), was not included. A one-month period for response is set in the Invitation. On Monday, February 10, 2003, the practitioner submits by facsimile a designation sheet of the Request Form designating every available Contracting State, and authorization to charge all required fees. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, will the application be accorded an international filing date?

  1. Yes. The application will be accorded a filing date of January 8, 2003
  2. Yes. The application will be accorded an international filing date of February 10, 2003
  3. No. The application will not be accorded an international filing date because the failure to designate at least one contracting State cannot be cured by a facsimile transmission
  4. No. The application was given a one-month period for response. The practitioner would have had to have filed the response on Friday, February 7, 2003 in order to have been timely
  5. None of the above
28. Inventor Tip, a scientist in a pencil research laboratory, theorized that, based on the abrasive properties of moon dust, a highly efficient erasure can be made by adding a trace amount of moon dust to a normal pencil erasure formulation. Point, in the Sales department, determined that this would be perfect for a high end product. A U.S. patent application has been filed claiming a pencil erasure formulation with a trace amount of moon dust. An example of how to make the formulation with specified percentages of moon dust is presented therein. Thereafter, Tip learns about the duty to disclose information and he recalls signing a declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 stating that he had reviewed and understood the contents of the specification including the claims. Tip becomes concerned that the use of moon dust was only a theory and that to obtain patent would mislead the public to conclude that moon dust was actually used and found to be effective. The application has been allowed, but the issue fee has not yet been paid. Which of the following is most in accord with patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
  1. Point is under a duty to disclose material information to the USPTO.
  2. Tip is under a duty to disclose his concern regarding the moon rock information to the USPTO.
  3. Both Point and Tip are under a duty to disclose material information to the UPSTO.
  4. There is no duty to disclose information regarding how the moon rock formulation was developed to the USPTO.
  5. Inasmuch as the application is allowed, an appropriate Request for Continued Prosecution pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 needs to be filed accompanied by a information disclosure regarding the possibility of rejections under 35 USC 101, and 112, first paragraph.
29. With respect to establishing “reasonable diligence” for under 35 USC 102(g), which of the following statements is or are in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP? (1) The inventor and his attorney must drop all other work and concentrate on the particular invention involved. (2) The entire period during which diligence is required must be accounted for by either affirmative acts or acceptable excuses. (3) Work relied upon to show reasonable diligence must be directly related to the reduction to practice.
  1. Statement (1) only
  2. Statement (2) only
  3. Statement (3) only
  4. Statements (1) and (3)
  5. Statements (2) and (3)
30. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following can a third party submit in a pending published application within two months from the publication date where the submission identifies the application to which it is directed by application number and includes the appropriate fee?
  1. A list referencing a videotape and copy of the tape showing that the process claimed in the application was in use more than one year before the filing date of the application.
  2. A U.S. patent issued more than one year before the filing date of the application and a written explanation of the patent made by the third party on the patent.
  3. A publication with a publication date more than one year before the filing date of the application and including underlining made by the third party on the publication.
  4. A protest raising fraud and inequitable conduct issues.
  5. A list of the sole Japanese language publication submitted for consideration, including the publication date of the publication, a copy of the Japanese language publication and a written English language translation of the pertinent parts of the publicati

Select how would you like to study