Practice Quiz

Patent Agent USPTO Registration Exam Prep - Question List

Select how would you like to study

Study Mode Free Daily Question Test Mode
36. Which, if any, of the following statements is in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
  1. Where an inventor's residence is stated correctly in the 37 CFR 1.76 application data sheet and incorrectly in the inventor's 37 CFR 1.63 oath or declaration, the discrepancy must be corrected by filing a supplemental 37 CFR 1.67 oath or declaration givin
  2. Where two inventors file separate 37 CFR 1.63 oaths or declarations which do not identify both inventors, the USPTO will presume they are joint inventors and will not require new oaths or declarations.
  3. A dependent claim which merely repeats a limitation that appears in the claim on which it depends is properly rejected under the fourth paragraph of 35 USC 112.
  4. In a statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e)(1) specifying that “each item of information contained in the information disclosure statement was first cited in any communication from a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application not more than three
  5. None of statements (A) to (D) is correct.
See answer
37. Applicant filed a provisional patent application in the USPTO under 35 USC 111(b) on Tuesday, November 30, 1999. On Tuesday, November 28, 2000, applicant filed a nonprovisional application in the USPTO under 35 USC 111(a) that properly claimed priority under 35 USC 119(e) to the filing date of the provisional application. On Wednesday, November 29, 2000, applicant filed an international application for patent in the USPTO under the Patent Cooperation Treaty that designated the United States and properly claimed priority to both the provisional and the nonprovisional applications. On Friday, July 28, 2001, applicant filed a national stage application in the USPTO under 35 USC 371, providing all of the requirements under 35 USC 371 and properly claiming benefit to the filing date of the provisional application under 35 USC 119(e) and the nonprovisional application under 35 USC 120. The national stage application was published on Tuesday, January 30, 2002 and issued as a patent on Tuesday, February 4, 2003. Assuming no patent term extension or adjustment, the patent term ends on the date that is 20 years from which of the following dates in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
  1. Tuesday, November 30, 1999
  2. Tuesday, November 28, 2000
  3. Wednesday, November 29, 2000
  4. Friday, July 28, 2001
  5. Tuesday, February 4, 2003
See answer
38. Which of the following best describes a situation for which a reply to the examiner’s Office action including both an affidavit filed under 37 CFR 1.131 and an affidavit filed under 37 CFR 1.132 may be in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
  1. In a timely reply to a non-final Office action, where the examiner’s sole rejection of appellant’s claims is based on an alleged violation of the enablement requirement of 35 USC 112.
  2. In a timely reply to non-final Office action, where the examiner’s sole rejection of appellant’s claims is a rejection under 35 USC 103(a) employing a non-patent document that was published less than one year prior to the filing date of appellant’s
  3. In a timely reply to a non-final Office action, where the examiner’s sole rejection of appellant’s claims is a rejection under 35 USC 103(a) employing a noncommonly owned U.S. patent as prior art under 35 USC 102 (e) that claims the same invention as
  4. In a timely reply to an examiner’s answer presenting the affidavits for the first time, where in the examiner’s first Office action and final rejection, the examiner maintains the same rejection under 35 USC 103(a) of all of appellant’s claims based
  5. In a timely reply to a final Office action presenting the affidavits for the first time, where in the examiner’s first Office action, the examiner’s sole rejection of appellant’s claims is a rejection under 35 USC 103(a) employing a non-patent docum
See answer
39. A patent application is filed disclosing and claiming a system for detecting expired parking meters. The specification fully supports the original, sole claim. The application discloses that the “electronics control unit” contains a comparator and an alarm. The application includes several drawings. One of the drawings shows a block diagram of the system, illustrating the electronics control unit as a box, labeled “electronics control unit.” The sole claim of the application is as follows: The claim. A system for detecting expired parking meters, comprising: a timer mechanism; an infrared sensor for detecting the presence of a parked vehicle; and an electronics control unit, including a comparator and an alarm, coupled to the infrared sensor and the timer mechanism. A final Office action, dated February 3, 2004, indicates that the sole claim contains allowable subject matter, but includes an objection to the specification, on the grounds that the subject matter of the electronics control unit, though described in a sufficiently specific and detailed manner in the original specification, was required to be shown in the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83. The Office action did not set a period for reply. Determine which of the following actions, if any, comports with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP for overcoming the objection.
  1. On April 1, 2004, a Notice of Appeal is filed together with appropriate fees, and a brief pointing out that a patent should issue since the subject matter of the electronics control unit was adequately described in the original specification.
  2. On April 1, 2004, a drawing is filed in the USPTO illustrating only the comparator and alarm of the electronics control unit that was described in the original specification.
  3. On April 1, 2004, a Notice of Appeal of appeal is filed together with appropriate fees, and a brief pointing out that the addition of a drawing showing the electronics control unit would not constitute addition of new matter since the electronics control
  4. On September 1, 2004, a petition is filed urging that no further drawing should be required because the subject matter of the electronics control unit, for purposes of the application, was adequately disclosed in the block diagram drawing.
  5. None of the above.
See answer
40. Co-inventors Smith and Jones filed an application for a patent on a cell phone, on May 15, 2002. They received a first Office action from a primary examiner rejecting the claims under 35 USC 102(a) over a publication by Bell and Watson, published on April 5, 2002, describing a cell phone having all the same features as is claimed in the patent application. In reply, the co-inventors each submitted a declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 stating that they had actually reduced the invention to practice no later than March 13, 2002. However, the declarations failed to include two claimed features. Neither the particular antenna needed to enable the cell phone could receive transmissions from the local cellular transmitting tower, nor a detachable carrying strap was included in the declarations. As evidence of their prior reduction to practice, Smith and Jones submitted their co-authored journal article. The journal article contained a figure of the cell phone as described in the declarations. That is, the cell phone shown in the figure of the article lacked an antenna and a detachable strap. The article was received by the journal on March 13, 2002, and was published on April 30, 2002. The cell phones shown in the figure in the Bell and Watson publication, and in the Smith and Jones patent application have the particular antenna and a detachable strap. Which of the following actions, if taken by the examiner, would be the most proper in accordance with the patent laws, rules and the procedures as related in the MPEP?
  1. The examiner should maintain the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102(a) and make the rejection final.
  2. The examiner should withdraw the rejection and look for references which have a publication date prior to May 15, 2001.
  3. The examiner should withdraw the rejection and notify Smith and Jones that their application is in condition for allowance.
  4. The examiner should maintain the rejection, but indicate that the claims would be allowable if Smith and Jones provided an original copy of the figure published in their journal article as factual support for their declarations.
  5. The examiner should maintain the rejection and inform Smith and Jones that the declarations are insufficient because they cannot “swear behind” a reference which is a statutory bar.
See answer

Select how would you like to study

Study Mode Free Daily Question Test Mode