Master Substantial New Question of Patentability (SNQ), strict prior art limits (patents and printed publications only), third-party requester anonymity, and no-broadening rules.
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:
MPEP Chapter 2200 (Citation of Prior Art and Ex Parte Reexamination of Patents) is a high-precision topic on the Patent Bar. Every question hinges on the strict statutory scope of ex parte reexamination under 35 U.S.C. 301–302: reexamination can ONLY be ordered based on prior art consisting of patents or printed publications (plus patent owner claim scope statements under 35 U.S.C. 301(a)(2)). Issues like public use, on-sale bar, 35 U.S.C. 101 eligibility, or 35 U.S.C. 112 compliance of original patent claims cannot be raised in ex parte reexamination.
However, once reexamination is ordered based on a Substantial New Question of Patentability (SNQ, which the USPTO must determine within 3 months of the filing date of the request), ANY amended or newly added claims ARE examined for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 (though still not 101). Furthermore, under 35 U.S.C. 305, no proposed amended or new claim may enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.
Also watch the Patent Owner’s Statement trap (MPEP § 2249): after reexamination is ordered, the patent owner has 2 months to file a statement; third-party requesters may ONLY file a reply (within 2 months) if the patent owner actually files a statement. Thus, patent owners almost never file a statement in practice.
Yes. Under 35 U.S.C. 302 and MPEP § 2212, any person may file a request for ex parte reexamination at any time during the period of enforceability of a patent, and an attorney may file the request on behalf of an anonymous real party in interest (as long as the requester is not estopped under AIA post-grant provisions).
No. Under MPEP § 2258, original patent claims are examined ONLY on the basis of patents and printed publications under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. Only new or amended claims presented during reexamination are examined for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112.
No. Under 37 CFR 1.114(e) and MPEP § 2252, neither an RCE nor a continuing application under 35 U.S.C. 120 may be filed in an ex parte reexamination proceeding.
Read the complete statutory breakdown, exam tables, and worked MPEP rules for MPEP 2200 Ex Parte Reexam.