Skip to main content
Updated for MPEP Rev. 01.2024 AI-generated practice questions with MPEP Ninth Edition, Rev. 01.2024 (Nov 2024) citations
🚀 Launch Promo: Use code LAUNCH50 for 50% Off (First 100 Purchases) →
10 Worked Example Questions ✓ Grounded in MPEP Ninth Edition, Rev. 01.2024 (Nov 2024)

Patent Bar Exam Example Questions

The best way to understand how the USPTO Registration Examination tests the MPEP is to work through realistic example questions. Below, you can test yourself interactively on 10 representative example questions and review the complete written walkthroughs and clickable MPEP Ninth Edition, Rev. 01.2024 (Nov 2024) citations.

AI Practice ✓ Based on MPEP Ninth Edition, Rev. 01.2024 (Nov 2024)
Question 1 / 10
Score: 0/0
MPEP-2100 • #q0006 AI-Generated • Model-Checked ⓘ

According to MPEP § 2106.05(a), when an examiner evaluates whether a claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or to another technology, how should the examiner analyze the 'improvements' consideration during examination?

10-question taster • Free plan = 50 questions. Hero = 350, Master = 886 MPEP-cited practice questions. View Plans →

Step-by-Step Written Walkthroughs of Sample Questions

Worked Example #1 • MPEP-2100 • AI Practice MPEP § 2106.05(a) ↗

According to MPEP § 2106.05(a), when an examiner evaluates whether a claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or to another technology, how should the examiner analyze the 'improvements' consideration during examination?

  • A. The examiner must require the applicant to submit affidavit evidence demonstrating a measurable qualitative enhancement in computer performance.
  • B. The examiner should focus exclusively on the claim language without reviewing the specification to determine if an improvement is present.
  • C. The examiner must make a qualitative judgment on the merits of the asserted improvement to verify that it provides a superior result over existing commercial solutions.
  • D. The examiner should evaluate the specification and claims to ensure a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is in the specification and reflected in the claim, and is generally not expected to make a qualitative judgment on its merits.
Correct Answer: D (MPEP § 2106.05(a))

MPEP § 2106.05(a) states that during examination, the examiner should analyze the 'improvements' consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgment on the merits of the asserted improvement.

Worked Example #2 • MPEP-2100 • AI Practice MPEP § 2106 ↗

When a patent examiner issues a 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection under Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis based on a 'tentative abstract idea' that does not fall within any of the abstract idea groupings discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), which of the following is required?

  • A. The rejection must use form paragraph 7.05.017 in place of form paragraphs 7.04.01 and 7.05, signed solely by the Primary Examiner.
  • B. The examiner must issue a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for indefiniteness rather than a 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
  • C. The application must be automatically referred to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) prior to issuing the Office Action.
  • D. The rejection must use form paragraph 7.05.017 in addition to form paragraphs 7.04.01, 7.05, and 7.05.016, and include the TC Director's signature.
Correct Answer: D (MPEP § 2106)

According to MPEP text regarding Step 2B eligibility rejections, if the judicial exception to which a claim is directed is a 'tentative abstract idea' (an abstract idea that does not fall within any of the groupings of abstract ideas discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)), the rejection must use form paragraph 7.05.017 in addition to form paragraphs 7.04.01, 7.05, and 7.05.016, and must include the TC Director's signature.

Worked Example #3 • MPEP-2100 • AI Practice MPEP § 2106.05 ↗

According to the MPEP guidance on patent eligibility (35 U.S.C. 101), which of the following statements is CORRECT regarding an examiner's evaluation of additional elements under Step 2B?

  • A. Every single consideration listed in MPEP 2106.05(a)-(h) must be relevant and evaluated for every element in every claim.
  • B. The evaluation in Step 2B is not a weighing test, and it is not important how many considerations apply, but rather whether the additional elements encompass an inventive concept.
  • C. The evaluation in Step 2B requires a strict weighing test where the examiner must tally the number of applicable considerations listed in MPEP 2106.05(a)-(h).
  • D. Examiners must ignore all conclusions previously reached in Step 2A Prong Two and re-analyze the additional elements entirely from scratch in Step 2B.
Correct Answer: B (MPEP § 2106.05)

According to the MPEP snippet (MPEP 2106.05), the evaluation in Step 2C is not a weighing test, and it is not important how the elements are characterized or how many considerations apply from the list. The critical inquiry is whether the additional elements encompass an inventive concept. Furthermore, examiners carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two, and not all considerations are relevant to every element or claim.

Worked Example #4 • MPEP-2100 • AI Practice Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ↗

Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), an international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) has the prior art effect of an application filed in the United States only if which of the following conditions are satisfied?

  • A. The international application designated the United States, regardless of the language in which it was published.
  • B. The international application entered the U.S. national phase under 35 U.S.C. 371 and paid the national fee.
  • C. The international application designated the United States and was published under PCT Article 21(2) in the English language.
  • D. The international application was filed in the U.S. Receiving Office (RO/US), regardless of publication language.
Correct Answer: C (Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e))

According to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) has the effect for the purposes of subsection 102(e) of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.

Worked Example #5 • MPEP-2100 • AI Practice MPEP § 2120.02 ↗

According to MPEP § 2120.02, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b) regarding knowledge by others, public use, or placement of the invention on sale may be established by which of the following?

  • A. Prior art patents and printed publications exclusively, as examiner personal knowledge cannot form the basis of a rejection.
  • B. Only testimony provided under oath in a formal interference or derivation proceeding.
  • C. Only documentary evidence submitted by third parties through a 37 CFR 1.291 protest.
  • D. An applicant admission, evidence submitted of sale or knowledge of the invention by others, or the examiner's personal knowledge that the invention was sold by applicant or known by others.
Correct Answer: D (MPEP § 2120.02)

MPEP § 2120.02 states that an applicant may make an admission, or submit evidence of sale of the invention or knowledge of the invention by others, or the examiner may have personal knowledge that the invention was sold by applicant or known by others to establish or support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b).

Example Questions FAQ

What do Patent Bar Exam questions look like?

Patent Bar Exam questions are fact-pattern or rule-based multiple-choice questions with four or five options. They test exact procedural rules and statutory exceptions from 35 U.S.C., 37 CFR, and the MPEP—such as whether an intervening disclosure disqualifies prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) or when an RCE is prohibited under 37 CFR 1.114(e).

Why do so many Patent Bar questions include dates in the prompt?

Dates determine two critical thresholds: (1) whether the application is governed by AIA (effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013) or Pre-AIA law, and (2) whether a statutory deadline (like the 1-year grace period, 4/16-month priority claim window, or 6-month maximum reply period) has expired.

How should I study these example questions?

First attempt each question in the interactive widget below, then read the step-by-step walkthrough and click the MPEP citation link to inspect the exact paragraph in MPEP Ninth Edition, Rev. 01.2024.

35 U.S.C. 101 Eligibility → 35 U.S.C. 102 Novelty → 35 U.S.C. 103 Obviousness → 35 U.S.C. 112 Specification → MPEP 700 Examination → MPEP 600 Application Parts → MPEP 200 Priority & Continuity → MPEP 1800 PCT Practice → MPEP 800 Restriction & ODP → MPEP 1200 PTAB Appeals → MPEP 2000 Duty of Disclosure → MPEP 2200 Ex Parte Reexam → MPEP 1400 Reissue & Correction →