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.

Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b), which of the following actions constitutes a statutory "sale" of a claimed process?

A. Transmitting a technical document detailing the series of steps of the process to a prospective buyer without performing the process.

B. Selling "know-how" describing what the process consists of and how it should be carried out, where the process is not performed as a result of the transaction.

C. The sale of a product made by the claimed process by the patentee or a licensee.

D. Licensing a third party with the knowledge and freedom to carry out the process, where the process has not been performed as a result of the transaction.

Under USPTO policy, how is matter treated that was canceled from a U.S. patent application prior to issuance or publication, and thus did NOT get published in the issued patent or patent application publication?

A. It may be relied upon as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as of the effective U.S. filing date of the application.

B. It is automatically incorporated by reference into the published patent and may be used as 102(a)(2) prior art.

C. It cannot be relied upon in a prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).

D. It can only be relied upon under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if the applicant files a Petition to Revive the canceled subject matter.

Based on the MPEP discussion of Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., which of the following principles regarding obviousness and prior art is correctly demonstrated by the case?

A. Analogous art is strictly limited to references falling within the field of the inventor's endeavor.

B. A combination of familiar elements according to known methods cannot be obvious if the elements are drawn from different fields of art.

C. Analogous art is not limited to the field of the inventor's endeavor.

D. Objective evidence of nonobviousness will always overcome a prima facie case of obviousness based on simple substitution.

35 U.S.C. § 102 & MPEP §§ 2117–2159 Exam Share: 8–12% of Exam (~8–12 Questions) ✓ MPEP Ninth Edition, Rev. 01.2024 (Nov 2024)

35 U.S.C. 102 Practice Questions (Novelty)

Conquer both AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) prior art rules, 102(b) grace-period & common-ownership exceptions, and Pre-AIA 102(a)/(b)/(e)/(g) traps.

AI Practice ✓ Based on MPEP Ninth Edition, Rev. 01.2024 (Nov 2024)

Question 1 / 6

Score: 0/0

MPEP-2100 • #q0001 AI-Generated • Model-Checked ⓘ

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?

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

How 35 U.S.C. 102 Novelty Is Tested on the 2026 Patent Bar Exam

35 U.S.C. 102 novelty and prior art qualification is the single highest-yield statutory topic on the USPTO Patent Bar Exam. Every question requires you to first check the effective filing date (March 16, 2013 cutoff under MPEP § 2159) to determine whether First-Inventor-to-File (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, MPEP §§ 2151–2158) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (MPEP §§ 2131–2138) governs.

For AIA applications, the exam heavily tests 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) public disclosures (patented, printed publication, in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public anywhere in the world before the effective filing date) and the 1-year grace period exceptions under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) (inventor-originated disclosures) and 102(b)(1)(B) (intervening third-party disclosures after an inventor public disclosure).

Under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and MPEP § 2154, you are tested on U.S. patents, U.S. patent application publications, and WIPO-published PCT applications designating the United States that name another inventor and were effectively filed before the application under examination, as well as the 102(b)(2)(A), (B), and (C) common-ownership and joint research agreement exceptions.

High-Yield MPEP Rev. 01.2024 Sections to Master

MPEP § 2152

AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) Prior Art Categories & On-Sale Bar

MPEP § 2153

AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) One-Year Grace Period Exceptions

MPEP § 2154

AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) Prior Art & 102(b)(2)(C) Common Ownership

MPEP § 2131

Anticipation — Identity of Invention & Inherency Doctrine

MPEP § 2136

Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) & Hilmer Doctrine Rules

Frequently Asked Questions: 35 U.S.C. 102 Novelty

Does the Patent Bar still test Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 in 2026?

Yes. Both AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (b), (e), and (g) are actively tested on the 2026 Patent Bar Exam. Always inspect the question stem for filing dates before March 16, 2013 or explicit "pre-AIA" labels.

Does a WIPO-published PCT application have to be in English to be AIA 102(a)(2) prior art?

No. Under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and MPEP § 2154.01(a), a WIPO-published PCT application that designates the United States qualifies as prior art as of its filing/priority date regardless of publication language. By contrast, under Pre-AIA 102(e), English publication was required.

Can a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit swear behind an AIA 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) rejection?

No. A 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit (prior invention) applies only to Pre-AIA applications. For AIA applications, applicants must use a 37 CFR 1.130(a) attribution declaration or 37 CFR 1.130(b) prior public disclosure declaration.

Companion Study Guide

Deep-Dive Authority Guide

35 U.S.C. 102 Novelty Explained →

Read the complete statutory breakdown, exam tables, and worked MPEP rules for 35 U.S.C. 102 Novelty.

Sibling MPEP Practice Topics

35 U.S.C. 101 Practice Questions (Patent Eligibility)

35 U.S.C. § 101 & MPEP §§ 2104–2107 • 5–8% of Exam (~5–8 Questions)

Practice →

35 U.S.C. 103 Practice Questions (Obviousness)

35 U.S.C. § 103 & MPEP §§ 2141–2146 • 5–8% of Exam (~5–8 Questions)

Practice →

35 U.S.C. 112 Practice Questions (Specification/Claims)

35 U.S.C. § 112 & MPEP §§ 2161–2186 • 6–9% of Exam (~6–9 Questions)

Practice →

35 U.S.C. 102 Practice Questions (Novelty)

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?

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?

Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b), which of the following actions constitutes a statutory "sale" of a claimed process?

Under USPTO policy, how is matter treated that was canceled from a U.S. patent application prior to issuance or publication, and thus did NOT get published in the issued patent or patent application publication?

Based on the MPEP discussion of Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., which of the following principles regarding obviousness and prior art is correctly demonstrated by the case?

According to the MPEP guidelines for rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) relying upon prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), under what condition should pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) be used to determine the prior art date of a reference?

Unlock 350 (Hero) or 886 (Master) MPEP-Cited Practice Questions

Flag Question

How 35 U.S.C. 102 Novelty Is Tested on the 2026 Patent Bar Exam

High-Yield MPEP Rev. 01.2024 Sections to Master

Frequently Asked Questions: 35 U.S.C. 102 Novelty

Does the Patent Bar still test Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 in 2026?

Does a WIPO-published PCT application have to be in English to be AIA 102(a)(2) prior art?

Can a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit swear behind an AIA 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) rejection?

Companion Study Guide

Sibling MPEP Practice Topics