Practice Quiz

Patent Agent USPTO Registration Exam Prep - Question List

Select how would you like to study

Study Mode Free Daily Question Test Mode
31. Which of the following is patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 in accordance with the patent laws, rules, and procedures as set forth in the MPEP?
  1. A claim to a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild.
  2. A claim to a method of using a computer to select a set of arbitrary measurement point values. (The selected values are not to be transformed outside of the computer into computer data).
  3. A claim to a method of controlling a mechanical robot which relies upon storing data in a computer that represents various types of mechanical movements of the robot.
  4. A claim to a method of updating alarm limits by changing the number value of a variable to represent the result of the calculation.
  5. A claim to a data structure per se. (The claim does not specify any location where the data structure is stored).
See answer
32. Inventor Jones files an application under 35 USC 111(a) on March 27, 2002. The application is a continuation of an international application, which was filed on December 1, 2000. The international application claims priority to a U.S. provisional application filed December 2, 1999. The international application designated the United States, and was published in English under PCT Article 21(2). All applications contained the exact same disclosure. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, what, if any, is the earliest prior art date under 35 USC 102(e) for the publication of the 35 U.S.C. 111(a) application under 35 USC 122(b)?
  1. None, the publication has no prior art date under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)
  2. March 27, 2002
  3. December 11, 2001
  4. December 1, 2000
  5. December 2, 1999
See answer
33. Which of the following statements is or are in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP? (1) In a 35 USC 103 obviousness analysis, the proper question is whether the differences between the prior art and the claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (2) In a 35 USC 103 obviousness analysis, an inventor’s assertion the he has discovered the source or cause of an identified problem should never be considered. (3) A 35 USC 103 obviousness analysis requires consideration not just of what is literally recited in the claims, but also of any properties inherent in the claimed subject matter that are disclosed in the specification.
  1. Statement 1
  2. Statement 2
  3. Statement 3
  4. Statements 1 & 2
  5. Statements 1 & 3
See answer
34. A registered practitioner filed a design patent application on December 30, 2003. The application was filed with an inventor-executed declaration naming Jon Jones as the sole inventor, who has not assigned the invention and is not under an obligation to assign his invention. The filing receipt was recently received, indicating that the application will be published on Thursday, July 1, 2004. In reviewing the filing receipt the practitioner realizes that the typed name of the inventor contained a typographical error (an “h” was missing) and that the correct spelling was John Jones. Which of the following would be the course of action at the least expense to correct the error in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
  1. The practitioner should file a request under 37 CFR 1.48 to correct the inventorship of the application with a new declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 signed by John Jones (with the correct spelling of this name), a statement by Mr. Jones as to how the error oc
  2. The practitioner should file a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 and the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), requesting correction of the spelling of theinventor’s name.
  3. The practitioner should file a request for a corrected filing receipt and a separate letter to the Office explaining that the declaration contains a typographical error, that the correct spelling of the inventor’s name is John Jones, and requesting corr
  4. The practitioner should expressly abandon the application, and file a continuation with a new declaration with the correct spelling
  5. The practitioner should call the examiner and tell the examiner that the inventor’s name is wrong, and ask for the examiner to change the name on the declaration.
See answer
35. Recommend which of the following rejections under 35 USC 102 in a reexamination proceeding is in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP.
  1. A rejection under 35 USC 102(a) based on an affidavit that the invention was known or used by others before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.
  2. A rejection under 35 USC 102(b) based on an affidavit that the invention was in the public use in this country more than one year prior to the date of the application for a patent in the United States.
  3. A rejection under 35 USC 102(e) that the invention was described in a patent by another filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the patent applicant.
  4. A rejection under 35 USC 102(f) based on an affidavit that the applicant did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented.
  5. A rejection under 35 USC 102(b) that the invention was on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.
See answer

Select how would you like to study

Study Mode Free Daily Question Test Mode