Master the USPTO Alice/Mayo Step 2A (Prong One & Prong Two) and Step 2B subject matter eligibility test with MPEP § 2106 practice questions.
ℹ️ AI-generated, model-checked practice question citing MPEP Ninth Edition, Rev. 01.2024 (Nov 2024). Each question is checked against MPEP source text by AI; always verify via the cited section.
ℹ️ AI-generated, model-checked practice question citing MPEP Ninth Edition, Rev. 01.2024 (Nov 2024). Each question is checked against MPEP source text by AI; always verify via the cited section.
ℹ️ AI-generated, model-checked practice question citing MPEP Ninth Edition, Rev. 01.2024 (Nov 2024). Each question is checked against MPEP source text by AI; always verify via the cited section.
You’ve completed the 5-question taster — sign up free to unlock 50 practice questions, or upgrade to the Hero Pass (350 questions — $49 regular, Launch 50% off: $24.50) or Master Bank (886 MPEP-cited practice questions — $89 regular, Launch 50% off: $44.50) for instant 6-month access to all 886 MPEP-cited practice questions, weak-area analytics, and 3-hour/6-hour Prometric exam simulations.
Help us keep our MPEP Ninth Edition, Rev. 01.2024 bank accurate. Select why you are flagging this question:
On the 2026 USPTO Patent Bar Exam, 35 U.S.C. 101 patent eligibility is tested through the USPTO two-step subject matter eligibility framework detailed in MPEP § 2106. Examinees must first verify under Step 1 whether a claim falls within one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) while automatically excluding human organisms (35 U.S.C. 101 / AIA § 33) and transitory signals per In re Nuijten.
Next, under Step 2A Prong One (MPEP § 2106.04), you must identify whether a claim recites a judicial exception—specifically a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature evaluated via the markedly different characteristics analysis in MPEP § 2106.04(c)), or one of the three enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Under Step 2A Prong Two (MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the exam tests whether additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application—such as improving computer functionality (MPEP § 2106.05(a)) or effecting a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease. Finally, Step 2B (MPEP § 2106.05) tests whether additional claim limitations provide an "inventive concept" that is significantly more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and MPEP § 2107 tests specific, substantial, and credible utility requirements.
Expect 5 to 8 questions on 35 U.S.C. 101 and utility (MPEP §§ 2104–2107) on a 100-question Patent Bar Exam. Most questions focus on Step 2A Prong One/Two abstract idea groupings and computer-improvement claims under MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), examiners may only identify an abstract idea without Technology Center Director approval if it falls into: (1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, or (3) mental processes.
Under MPEP § 2106.05(d) (Berkheimer memo), an examiner can only conclude that an additional element is well-understood, routine, and conventional by providing an express factual finding supported by a court decision, a publication, an applicant admission, or official notice.
No. Under MPEP § 2106.04(d) and § 2106.05(f), merely adding "apply it" on a generic processor or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract process does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Read the complete statutory breakdown, exam tables, and worked MPEP rules for 35 U.S.C. 101 Eligibility.