Repeat Questions
Below are the specific questions that recent test takers have indicated are currently in the computerized Patent Bar Exam database. Remember that some “repeat” questions are not verbatim. The law may have changed, and according to exam takers, the PTO has altered/updated old questions for the current exam. Please note that I have organized the questions by exam month, year, and am (a) or pm (p). For example, repeat question #46 from the April 1999 AM Patent Bar Exam is referenced as 4.99.46a.
Repeat Questions on the Exam
Parenthesis means that the question may be altered and probably not verbatim. An asterisks indicates numerous individuals from the forum have reported that question on their exam. For your convenience, I have added links for all of the repeat patent bar exam questions and their model answers.
2000 April (am) 6, 9, 10*, 11*, 14, 17*, (23)*, 24*, 27*, 32, 34, 36*, 42*, 47
Product by Process (4.00.6a)
Restriction (4.00.9a)
Mario Lepieux (4.00.10a)
Laurel, Abbot and Hardy (4.00.14a)
Smith Laminate(4.00.17a)
Tommie and Jo(4.00.23a/4.00.24a)
Bond 60%C or 60%D (4.00.27a)
Obviousness (4.00.32a)
Declassified Reference (4.00.34a)
Make a Patent Application Special (4.00.36a)
Prior Art (4.00.42a)
Reexamination (4.00.47a)
2000 April (pm) 19, 21, (28), 41, 44*
Federal Court Decisions binding for Office (4.00.19p)
Grape Squeezing (4.00.21p)
Claims stand or fall (4.00.28p)
102(b) dates (4.00.41p)
102 (f) (4.00.44p)
XYZ/ABC Appeal (10.00.02a)
Prior Art (10.00.16a)
Mitch and Mac (10.00.23a)
2000 October (pm) 50
Claims (10.00.50p)
Mitch and Mac (4.01.23a)
Jack and Jill in Vietnam (4.01.40a)
2001 April (pm) 10
Sally, Ted and Spot Remover (4.01.10p)
2001 October (am) 5, 6*, (11), 14, 24, 26*, 30
MEGACORP (10.01.5a)
35 USC 101 (10.01.6a)
Final Office Action (10.01.11a)
Written Description (10.01.14a)
Able and Baker (10.01.24a)
35 USC 103, 102(f) and 102 (g) (10.01.26a)
Obviousness (10.01.30a)
A, B, C and D (10.01.1p)
Smith’s Drawings (10.01.3p)
Affidavits (10.01.46p)
2002 April (am) 11, 16*, 24, 32, 36*, 44, 50*
35 USC 102(e) (4.02.11a)
37 CFR 1.8 and 1.10 (4.02.16a)
Mr. Brick (4.02.24a)
Johnnie and Floor Tile (4.02.32a)
Claims (4.02.36a/10.00.50p)
Signing Inventors (4.02.44a)
Foreign Patents (4.02.50a)
2002 April (pm) 2, 4, 11, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24*, (37)*, 38*
RCE (4.02.2p)
Diligence (4.02.4p)
Henrietta’s Camera (4.02.11p)
Roger Rocket (4.02.18p/4.02.19p/4.02.20p)
Smartner’s Cell Phone (4.02.22p)
New Matter (4.02.24p)
Hair Gel (4.02.37p)
Smith and Jones (4.02.38p)
2002 October (am) 1, 2, 6, 8*, (12)*, 17, 18, 21*, 30*, 34, 46, 49*, 50
Non-Signing Inventor (10.02.1a)
Lack of Possession 112 (10.02.2a)
37 CFR 1.131 – MPEP 715 (10.02.6a)
Double Patenting (10.02.8a)
Broadening Reissue (10.02.12a)
102 dates (10.02.17a)
Bird Watching (10.02.18a)
Public Inspection (10.02.21a)
Dead Inventors (10.02.30a)
Omitted Items (10.02.34a)
Third Party Submissions (10.02.46a)
Facsimile Transmissions (10.02.49a)
Reissue (10.02.50a)
2002 October (pm) 1, 5, 8, 14, 16, 34, (43), 46, (47)
35 USC 119(a) (10.02.1p)
Duty to disclose (10.02.5p)
35 USC 112 p1 (10.02.8p)
Provisional Patents (10.02.14p)
Original disclosure (10.02.16p)
Express mail (10.02.34p)
Nylon Rope and Tent Fabric (10.02.43p/04.01.20a/11.99.2a)
Protest (10.02.46p)
Apex and Pinnacle Mfg. Corps. (10.02.47p)
2003 April (am) 1*, 2*, 5, 8*, 11, 12*, 17, (19), 21, 22, 23, 25*, 26, 29*, 30, (31), 33*, 36, 37*, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44*, 45*, 47, 49
Reduction to Practice (4.02.1a)
nonpublication request/45 days (10.03.44a/4.03.2a)
File by Fax (4.03.5a)
Notice of Appeal (4.03.8a)
Certificate of Correction (4.03.11a)
Potter (4.03.12a)
Best Mode (4.03.17a)
Interview (4.03.19a)
New Matter (04.03.21a)
Beck – Mixture Y with melting point of 150F (10.03.11p/4.03.22a)
Practitioner Conduct (4.03.23a)
Board of Appeals Remanding case to the Examiner (4.03.25a)
IDS after Notice of Allowance (4.03.26a)
Certificate of Mailing (4.03.29a)
Verification (4.03.31a)
Inert gas (4.03.30a)
Lancer Toothbrush (4.03.33a)
Mike and Alice are Shipwrecked (4.03.36a)
Board Decisions (4.03.37a)
Time for Filing an Appeal Brief (4.03.39a)
Provisional Filing Requirements (4.03.40a)
Obvious (04.03.41a)
Rejection, 35 USC 102(e) (4.03.42a)
Polypropylene range (obviousness of ranges) (4.03.44a)
New Grounds of Rejection (4.03.45a)
Claims may Not Contain (4.03.47a)
Enabling Disclosure (4.03.49a)
2003 April (pm) 3, 4*, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22*, 21*, 23*, 28, 32, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48*
Prior Art under 102(d) (4.03.3p)
Final Rejection Period for Reply (4.03.4p)
35 USC 102(a) Rejection (4.03.5p)
Interference and Reexamination (4.03.12p)
Small Entity Status (4.03.13p)
Broadening Reissue (4.03.14p)
Inventor (4.03.15p)
Copper substrate (10.03.4a/4.03.16p)
35 USC101 (4.03.19p)
Interviews (4.03.20p)
Petition to make Special (4.03.21p)
Foreign Priority (4.03.22p)
Appeal Brief (4.03.23p)
147 Claim Counting (10.03.50a/4.03.28p)
Bloc; Synthetic Z (10.03.7a/4.03.32p)
Public Use (4-03-36p)
Amendment after Appeal (4.03.38p)
Incorporation by Reference (4.03.40p)
112 second paragraph (4.03.41p)
Claim anticipation (4.03.42p)
Practice (4.03.44p)
Prior Art after Notice of Allowance (4.03.45p)
Printed Publication (4.03.46p)
Canceled matter as PA (4.03.48p)
2003 October (am) 3*, 4, 5, 6*, 7*, 8*, 9*, (10)*, (11), (12) , 13, 14, 15, 16*, 17, (19)*, 20*, 21, 22, (23)*, 24*, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36*, 37, (38)*, (39), (41), 42*, 44*, 46, 49, 50
Interviews (10.03.3a)
Copper substrate (10.03.4a/4.03.16p)
103 Prior Art (10.03.5a)
Reexam Extension of Time (10.03.6a)
Bloc; Synthetic Z (10.03.7a)
35 USC 102(d) (10.03.8a) variation
Smith / DRAM (10.03.9a)
112, second paragraph (10.03.10a)
prior art exclusion of 35 USC 103(c) (10.03.11a)
Inventor Refused to Sign (10.03.12a)
Small Entity Fee (10.03.13)
Antisense Technology (10.03.14a)
Reply to a Second Action Final Rejection (10.03.15a)
Tribell (10.03.16a)
Obvious widget (10.03.17a)
35 USC 102 (10.03.19a)
Missing Drawing (10.03.20a)
Anticipation (10.03.21a)
Public Access (10.03.22a)
Five Steps to Cross a Road (10.03.23a)
Door Handle (10.03.24a)
Supplemental oath as an amendment (10.03.26a)
Shopping Cart Insert (10.03.28a)
Publications as References (10.03.29a)
Prior Art (10.03.30a)
Hydrocyclone (10.03.31a)
Enablement (10.03.32)
Antecedent Basis (10.03.33a)
Late IDS when client knew about PA all along (10.03.34a)
RCE During Appeal (10.03036a)
Allowance after abandonment after appeal (Variation on 10.03.38a)
Overcoming a Rejection based on 102(e) (10.03.39a)
Dependent Claim (10.03.41a)
Restriction Appeal (10.03.42a)
Foreign Filing without Publication (10.03.44a)
Printed Publication (10.03.46a)
Indefinite Claim (10.03.49a)
Claim Counting (10.03.50a)
2003 October (pm) 1, 2*, (4)*, 6*, 7*, 8*, 10, 11*, 13*, 15, 16*, 17*, 18*, (19), 20*, 21*, 22, 23, 24*, (25)*, (27)*, 28*, 29, 30, 31*, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38*, 37, (39)*, 40*, (41)*, 42, (43), 44, 45, (46)*, 47, 50
NonProvisional Filing Date (10.03.1p)
ABCD/ABCDE/BCDE (10.03.2p)
Invitation to Correct PCT Application (10.03.4p)
Moondust (10.03.6p)
Anticipation / Inherency (10.03.7p)
Diligence (10.03.8p)
3rd Party Submission – Japanese publication (10.03.10p)
Broadening Reissue (10.03.11p)
Product-by-Process Claims (10.03.13p)
National Stage by Fax (10.03.15p)
103 Obviousness (10.03.16p)
Anticipated under 102(e) (10.03.17p)
Correcting the Name of the Inventor (10.03.18p)
Prior Art Reference (10.03.19p)
102 Rejections (10.03.20p)
Reply to non-final rejection (10.03.21p)
Which, if any: Chapter 600 (10.03.22p)
Prior Art Disclosed in Abstract (10.03.23p)
Foreign Priority (10.03.24p)
Added Claims in CIP (10.03.25p)
Design Patent in Country X (10.03.27p)
Parking Meter (10.03.28p)
Filing date (10.03.29p)
Smith & Jones… (10.03.30p)
Nonprovisional Filing Date Requirements (10.03.31p)
Verification Statement (10.03.32p)
Certificate of Mailing (10.03.34p)
Affidavit 1.131 (10.03.36p)
Claims lack utility (10.03.37p)
Issue fee transmittal form – XYZ Company (10.03.38p/4.03.11p)
Filing Date (10.03.39p)
Foreign prior art date (10.03.40p)
Restriction (10.03.41p)
Smith, Jones & Brown (10.03.42p)
App Data Sheet (10.03.43p)
Claim Interpretation (10.03.44p)
Smith over Jones, Appeal (10.03.45p)
Toy plane with Foil Wings (10.03.46p)
Public Use (10.03.47p)
Ex Parte Rejection (10.03.50p)
{ 1 trackback }
{ 242 comments… read them below or add one }
Repeats that appeared on a July 2008 exam.
OCT 03 AM: 3, 7, 11, 13, 16, 19, 24, 26, 38, 44
OCT 03 PM: 6, 19*, 29, 38, 50
* = slight variation
more repeats from an August 2008 exam
Oct 2003 AM: 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, 23 (revised), 34, 44, 46
Oct 2003 PM: 2, 6, 11, 13, 18, 29, 38, 42
Oct 03 AM: 19 (variation. Choice D was diff but the answer was still E), 23, 24, 36, 38 (variation), 44,
Oct 03 PM: 4 (had a couple variations), 8, 15, 16, 17, 28, 38, 39 (variation), 41 (variation, same concept of having to elect no matter what)
April 03 AM: 8, 12, 25, 37, 45
April 03 PM: 21, 38 (correct answer was different, it was switching indep to dep i believe),
Oct 02 AM: 12 (variation, filing reissue outside two years fine if no broading, just to add inventor)
April 02 PM: 37 (variation, the hairgel question seems like the same thing as this. They offer intres exam but it was before the date it started so exparte was the answer)
April 00 AM: 24 (tommie and jo where answer is E, none), 27, 36, 42
Hair Gel with Buzzy, Supercuts, and Razorcuts
1) This is nearly identical in concepts tested to the Einstein / Weisman football pads question in (I think) April 2002
# 2000 APR AM: 6, 9, 17, 23, 32, 34, 42, 47
# 2000 APR PM: 41
# 2000 OCT AM: 2
# 2002 APR PM: 24
October 2001 AM – 6, 26
October 2001 PM – 1, 3, 46
April 2002 AM – 16, 36
April 2002 PM – 2, 4, 11, 18, 19, 38
October 2002 AM – 8, 21
October 2002 PM – 1, 8, 14, 34, variants of 43 and 47
April 2003 AM – 1, 17, variant of 19, 26, 29, question similar to 31, 33, 36, 37, 40, 41, 47, 49
April 2003 PM – 3, 5, 14, 15, 19, 20, Potter (either 22 or April 2003 Q. 12), 23, 36, 41, 45
October 2003 AM – 7, 16, variant of 19 with lengthy fact pattern, 20, 23, 24, 42, 46, 49, 50
October 2003 PM – 2, 6, 7, 8, 17, 24, 18, 25, 30, 31, 38, 40
The Laurel, Abbott, Hardy, Costello and Burns question is from April 2000 AM, Question 14.
Number 38 from Oct/2003 AM
17, 37, 38, 41, Oct/03 PM
8, 25, 37, April/03 AM
Variation of 37 October/02 PM
October 2003 am repeats:
6. Two months to reply in reexam/unavoidable delay
7. Compound Y/cancer cure
13. Fee not reduced for small entity/recording a document affecting title
16. Tribell
24. Means for pulling open the door/replace with structure in claim
34. IDS after notice of allowance (oops, I gave the wrong answer!)
38. Board rejects claim 1 /Claim 2 depends on claim 1/Claim 3 allowed
44. Japan/45 days
October 2003 pm repeats:
6. Moon dust pencil/no duty to disclose
50. 102(g) ex parte rejection
April 2003 AM repeats:
2. Japan/45 days
4. Markush
8. Twice rejected concept (variation)
26. IDS after notice of allowance (variation)
37. Appeal affirms rejection/results in abandonment
41. Barry in view of Foreman
October 2002 am repeats:
18. Thomas/Roland/WTO/NAFTA (variation?)
Others:
Two month rule
40% ownership XYZ/60% ownership PQ/two inventors/double patenting: who must sign terminal disclaimer?
Claiming priority from foreign filing of design patent/6 month rule
Combination lacks specificity as way to overcome rejection
Failure of examiner to establish prima facie case of obviousness
At least one question involving correcting drawings without losing priority
One question involving invalid mailing from foreign office
One question involving concept that ADS is not required
About 7 PCT questions (at least two involved requirements for entering U.S. national phase; at least one involved maintaining foreign priority)
There was a similar question on the April 2002 AM exam. It was question 32.
It talks about a floor tile coating. He put it on the floor of his supermarket. The model answer says “public use occurs even when the public is unaware that they were walking on the
developed material since the material was used in a public place.”
OCT 2002 AM: 1, 6, 34, 49
OCT 2002 PM: none
APR 2002 AM: none
APR 2002 PM: 24
Oct 03 AM – 6 ,7 ,16, 19, 26,31, 44, 41(Variant)
Oct 03 PM – 2, 6, 13, 16, 28, 29, 32
Apr 03 AM – 1, 2, 12, 22, 25, 31
Apr 03 PM – 4, 12, 13
Oct 01 AM – 30
OCT 03(am): 3,19,23,24,36,38,44
OCT 03 pm:17,21,38
Apr 03 am: 8,25,21,42
apr 02pm:37
apr 00 am: 17,27
apr 00 pm:44
Apr AM 02: 50
Apr PM 02: 22
Oct AM 02: 18, 21, 30
Oct PM 02: 46
Apr 2001 AM 23
Oct 2000 AM 23
Oct 01 AM
5 14 24
Apr 02 AM
50
Oct 02 AM
1 version 21
Oct 02 PM
5 version 16 version
Apr 03 Am
2 8 22 30 31 37 44
Apr 03 PM
3 version 11 12 16 28 32
Oct 03 AM
4 6 version 7 8 9 22 23 36 44 50
Oct 03 PM
2 4 10 13 14 17 32 38 40 43
Are these questions on the real Patent bar exam?
Rishi
>>Rishi
Well, this is all the problems from the prior tested exams.
I’m assuming your questions of “Are they still tested in recently?”
The answer would be
“May be, May be not”
These are what people claimed to have seen on the exam.
All we can do is make sure to master all the problems from previous tests,
and make sure to know ESPECIALLY the ones claimed by past takers.
I’m taking the test with review from PATBAR.COM and this site mainly in a few weeks….
hope to pass the first try
oh, and by the way, I’ve already exceeded 600hrs of study time…….
Many sites claim 150hrs of study time to be sufficient……Yea right….
Ordinary people like me needs waaaay more then 150hrs
This site has really good quick review made by the host, and posts by others really help me get the idea of what the test is like.
Good luck to all who’s taking the test soon, and congrats to those who’ve passed.
Is there a May 2001 Exam? I’m using PLI to study and it has an option to take a May 2001 exam, but I’ve never seen this exam on other websites such as this one.
How come some of the questions are not available here? Just curious. Thank you.
Is it worth reviewing the 97 and 98 exams? I briefly reviewed 97 and it is quite different from the current exam questions.
Thanks
I think the 97 PM exam has old format testing. You can do it if you want to learn about claims and amendments.
2001 October (am) – question on 102(f) and (g) is redirecting to
‘Wordpress” – what is that???
I am looking for the PLI course/software… I can pay about 500$… let me know if interested…
please write at luc347@yahoo.com
For April 2003 AM – Question 11:
In accordance with the USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP, a Certificate of Correction effectuates correction of an issued patent where:
(A) Through error and without deceptive intent, there is a failure to make reference to a prior copending application according to 37 CFR 1.78, and the failure does not otherwise affect what is claimed, but the prior copending application is referenced in the record of the application, and a petition under 37 CFR 1.324 and appropriate fees were filed.
(B) Through error and without deceptive intent, a preferred embodiment that materially affects the scope of the patent was omitted in the original disclosure in the filed application, and a petition under 37 CFR 1.324 and appropriate fees were filed.
(C) Through error and without deceptive intent, a prior copending application is incorrectly referenced in the application, the incorrect reference does not otherwise affect the claimed subject matter, and the prior copending application is correctly identified elsewhere in the application file, and a petition under 37 CFR 1.324 and appropriate fees were filed.
(D) Through error and without deceptive intent, an inventor’s name is omitted from an issued patent, a petition under 37 CFR 1.324 and appropriate fees were filed, and the petition was granted.
(E) (A), (C) and (D).
The correct answer was E. However CFR 1.324 is only for correcting inventorship. Shouldn’t choices A and C read CFR 1.323? Is this a beta question, an artifact from the ‘02 MPEP, or possibly an error?
MS-
I think you’re right. MPEP 1402: “The most common bases for filing a reissue application are:
…
D) applicant failed to make reference to or incorrectly made reference to prior copending applications.”
http://exam.freepatentbar.com/chalkboard/april-2003-pm/24
Is this problem right? It says the answer is A, but wouldn’t A be wrong because it is lacking the statement required by 37 CFR 1.97(e)?
I initially chose E on this problem.
Any advice would be appreciated.
I believe that answer A is correct in light of the request for continued examination combined with the IDS. The RCE restarts the clock for IDS submission requirements to 37 CFR 1.97(b)(4) – “Before the mailing of a first Office action after the filing of a request for continued examination under § 1.114.”
In the absence of an RCE, the IDS would have have to be accompanied by the fee and 1.97(e) statement required by 37 CFR 1.97(d).
I’m not sure that I understand the answer to question #44 from the October 03 AM exam:
44. A registered practitioner filed in the USPTO a client’s utility patent application on December 30, 2002. The application was filed with a request for nonpublication, certifying that the invention disclosed in the U.S. application has not and will not be the subject of an application in another country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires eighteen month publication. Subsequently, the client files an application in Japan on the invention and some recent improvements to the invention. The improvements are not disclosed or supported in the utility application. Japan is a country that requires eighteen month publication. Two months after filing the application in Japan, and before filing any other papers in the USPTO, the client remembers that a nonpublication request was filed and informs the practitioner about the application that was filed in Japan. Which of the following courses of action is in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
(A) The application is abandoned because the practitioner did not rescind the nonpublication request and provide notice of foreign filing within 45 days of having filed the application in Japan. The applicant must now file a petition and fee to revive under 37 CFR 1.137(b).
(B) The application is abandoned because the applicant did not rescind the nonpublication request before filing the application in Japan. The applicant must now file a petition and fee to revive under 37 CFR 1.137(b).
(C) The applicant should file an amendment to the specification of the U.S. application, adding the recent improvements to the disclosure in the specification.
(D) The application is abandoned because the applicant did not rescind the nonpublication request by notifying the Office under 37 CFR 1.213(c) within the appropriate time. The applicant must now file a petition and fee to revive under 37 CFR 1.137(b).
(E) The applicant could today notify the USPTO of the foreign filing. It is not necessary to file a petition and fee to revive for the application to continue to be examined in the USPTO.
The correct answer is “A.” What is the difference between “did not rescind the nonpublication request and provide notice of foreign filing” (answer A) and “did not rescind the nonpublication request by notifiying the office under 37 CFR 1.213(c)” (answer D)? 37 CFR 1.213(c) basically quotes the 45-day limit of 35 USC 122 (b)(2)(B)(iii). Neither the patent rules nor the law says anything about having to rescind the nonpublication request in order to avoid abandonment. What am I missing here?
The Question #2 from the April 2003 (AM) and the question #44 from the October 03 AM exam are the same but have different answer.
For Question #2 from the April 2003 (AM), it says the ANSWER: (A) and (D) are accepted as the correct answers. However for Question #44 from the October 03 AM, the correct answer is “A.”
Then which one is right?
Answer is “A” for this question as stated in section 1123 of MPEP (pg. 1100-17) B(iii) requirement.
There is a notice of foreign filing required in addition to the recission of nonpublication. One is not effective without the other, and the 45 day rule requires both.
But 37 CFR 1.213(c) says:
(c) If an applicant who has submitted a nonpublication request under paragraph (a) of this section subsequently files an application directed to the invention disclosed in the application in which the nonpublication request was submitted in another country. . .the applicant must notify the Office of such filing within forty-five days after the date of the filing of such foreign or international application.
How is the requirement that “the applicant must notify the Office of such filing within forty-five days” different from “providing notice of foreign filing”? When I got this question two weeks ago, I just answered “A” without worrying about why. It must have worked, since I got a preliminary grade of “pass.”
I just took the Patent Bar today and PASSED! I used the resources from this site, past exams (especially the 2003 ones), and lots and lots of practice.
On the exam today:
04/03 AM: 2, 22, 30, 31,
04/03 PM: 12, 16, 28, 32, 48
10/03 AM: 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 18, 23, 34, 36, 44, 50
10/03 PM: 2, 4, 10, 13, 14, 24, 32, 40, 43
Laurel, Abbot, Hardy
New Questions:
Trade Secret
Spanish Phone (CIP version)
Correction Of Inventorship
Piecemeal
Hairgel
Lip Gloss (gag version)
Competitor’s Information
Maintenance Fee
Japan 45 Days
Best Mode
Mirror (parallel, perpendicular)
There was a Schmidt question, I don’t remember the details, but I do remember it was tricky. Hopefully other posters can fill in the details here.
Once again, thank you to everyone who posted before me. This site was a tremendous help to passing the exam. I encourage everyone to keep it going.
Please can someone tell me the correct answer for this question. I was thinking that this is 101 issue but the answer is D as per PLI.
QUESTION
20. During his summer vacation to the mountains, Eric discovered and isolated a microorganism which secretes a novel compound. Eric purified and tested the compound in tumor-containing control mice and found that the tumors disappeared after one week; whereas tumor-containing mice which did not receive the compound died. Eric was very excited about his results and so he did a few additional experiments to characterize the microorganism and the compound which it was secreting. Eric determined that the microorganism was an S.spectaculus, and that the secreted compound was so unlike any other compounds that Eric named it spectaculysem. Eric told his friend Sam about his discovery, who urged him to apply for a U.S. patent on the microorganism and the secreted product. Eric did so, but to his amazement, a primary examiner rejected all the claims to his inventions. Which of the following, if made by the examiner, would be a proper rejection in accordance with USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP?
A. The examiner’s rejection of the claims to the microorganism under 35 USC 101 as being unpatentable because microorganisms are living matter and living matter is non-statutory subject matter.
B. The examiner’s rejection of the claims to the compound under 35 USC 101 as having no credible utility because Eric has only tested the compound in mice and curing mice of cancer has no “real world” value. The examiner also states that Eric must demonstrate that the compound works in humans in order to show that it has a patentable utility.
C. The examiner’s rejection of the claims to the compound under 35 USC 103, stating that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to test the by product of a newly-discovered microorganism for therapeutic uses.
D. The examiner’s rejection of the claims to the microorganism under 35 USC 102/103 over a reference which teaches an S. spectaculus microorganism stating that Eric’s claimed microorganism is the same as, or substantially the same as, the microorganism described in the prior art.
E. None of the above.
The issue of patentability of microorganisms is discussed in MPEP 2105. Living matter is not necessarily unpatentable (Diamond v. Charkabarty) — only *naturally occurring* living matter is unpatentable as its isolation does not include inventive activity. Genetically engineered microorganisms are not inherently unpatentable. Thus, A cannot be the correct answer.
Demonstrating that a pharmaceutical has activity in animals is evidence of credible utility, so B cannot be the correct answer.
“Obvious to try” is considered equivalent to “obvious” only if there are a “finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” (MPEP 2143); in this case, there may be any number of new, unknown compounds secreted by the microorganism, and there is no expectation that any of them will have any utility against cancer. Thus, C cannot be the correct answer.
Since the microorganism is already known in the prior art, it is likely that any compound that it produces can be extracted from it by methods that are known in the art. Note that according to the fact pattern, only the compound was claimed, not its use as a cure for cancer. Therefore, the examiner is justified in rejecting the claims on the basis of 35 USC 102/103, and D is a correct answer.
Since D is correct, E obviously cannot be.
You are correct that the patent could have been rejected under 35 USC 101 since the microorganism is not genetically engineered, but that option was not one of the choices presented. The question doesn’t ask which of the following would be the *only* proper rejection, only which of them would be *a* proper rejection.
Third party submissions….610, 37 CFR 1.99
Does the version of MPEP currently tested on have 610? I seem to be using v8 r4.
Thank you.
Yes, I didn’t notice any difference in the questions because the revisions are obscure, but the MPEP version for question lookup was R4.
I passed last week, thanks for the great site.
I am selling my almost entirely unused PRG study materials. This includes: 1) All 4 volumes of volumes of “Patent Practice” textbook,
2) Printed practice questions corresponding to each volume of “Patent Practice,”
3) CD-ROM with over 2,000 practice questions (really helpful),
4) Printed version of MPEP (4 large binders),
5) PRG’s “Latest Tips and Tricks for Success” for passing the patent bar on your first try, and
6) Binder with all handouts from class and my notes.
Price is 750 (paid almost 3,000).
Please respond to this thread if interested.
Passed today
Had a few repeats but not that many it seemed. A lot of appeal, reexam and PCT questions.
Repeats:
Mario Lepieux (4.00.10a)
Japanese Patent PCT (45days)
Smith over Jones, Appeal (10.03.45p)
Moondust (10.03.6p)
Bloc; Synthetic Z (10.03.7a)
Substrates with the two layers, prior art had three layers.
Stephen,
Congratulations and thanks for posting.
Any New questions that you can remember?
Hi,
I have just started studying for the exam, and am very confused on the basics. For example, Question 29 of April 17, 2002 afternoon exam is about pending published application. The answer states “Inspection of the application file of a pending application is not permitted. A member of the public may request only copies of the application file”
What is the difference between “inspection” and “requesting copy” of an application file?
Thank you so much!
Hello all, this is a fantastic site that will really help you prepare for the exam.
I took the exam for the second time yesterday and passed! The first time I took the exam I studied by reviewing a used PLI bar course that I bought (and am now selling on craigslist!) and missed it by 3 points. I really didn’t do any old exams. To prepare this time, I ignored those materials and did the exams from 2000 – 2003, each about 20 times. I didn’t use the MEP, but rather went through the exams blindly relying only on what I knew. I was scoring about 60-65 on each exam the first time through. Then I went through and read all the answers and learned the concepts in this way.
By the time the test rolled around, I knew all the concepts and could go through an exam in 1.5 hours and understand all the concepts. It’s all about repetition. It truely helped me more than any other technique. Use the MPEP as reference, but not a crutch; learn the concepts independantly and you’ll realize that it’s pretty easily to narrow down the answers.
Many people say that a lot of the exam questions are repeated, and honestly I had only about 10 repeat questions on my exam yesterday, and I knew all the old questions. I won’t relist them, they are all on this site. Rather, they recycled the concepts in different questions. Most of my exam questions were totally new though. Good luck to everyone, and if anyone has questions, let me know, I’ll be happy to tell you anything I remember.
Nicole, Pittsburgh PA
Nicole,
Congratulations on passing the exam!
Can you remember 1 or 2 of the new questions?
Thanks and good luck in your new career.
Thank you, I don’t really remember a lot, but here’s the little bit that’s left:
I was extremely worried aobut questions on PCt, and thankfully had very few of them, none were new–the questions about Japan (45 days), Costa Rica, Sweden, and Germany. I had two questions about protest, section 1900. I hadn’t seen either of them before, dealing with proper procedure for protest, when to submit a protest, who can do so, what must be submitted. Several assignment questions; one dealt with what an assignee could do–the answer was that an assignee couldn’t sign a small entity status document, another question dealt with what documents were needed for an assignement.
I’m sorry, I don’t remember the specifics, but I didn’t have any trouble with the questions, they were very easy to look up. There were only a few that I really didn’t have time to make sure were correct. Honestly, learn as many questions as possible, so that if you do have repeat questions you can get through them very quickly and can spend time on questions that are new. This is not to say however you shouldn’t read all the questions on the exam; small details are sometimes changed.
Good luck everybody, if I think of anything else, I will definitely post again.
Thank you, Nicole!!!
Best of luck to you!
Passed today on my first attempt, thanks in largest part to this website. Thank you for putting it together! I saw the following repeats on the Exam today. A few were slightly modified. For the most party, though, they questions and answer choices were reproduced word-for-word.
Laurel, Abbot and Hardy (4.00.14a)
Smith Laminate(4.00.17a)
Federal Court Decisions binding for Office (4.00.19p)
Protest (10.02.46p)
Potter (4.03.12a)
Beck – Mixture Y with melting point of 150F (10.03.11p/4.03.22a)
IDS after Notice of Allowance (4.03.26a)
Verification (4.03.31a)
Bloc; Synthetic Z (10.03.7a/4.03.32p)
Copper substrate (10.03.4a/4.03.16p)
Reexam Extension of Time (10.03.6a)
Inventor Refused to Sign (10.03.12a)
Tribell (10.03.16a)
Hydrocyclone (10.03.31a)
ABCD/ABCDE/BCDE (10.03.2p)
Moondust (10.03.6p)
Design Patent in Country X (10.03.27p)
Verification Statement (10.03.32p)
Toy plane with Foil Wings (10.03.46p)
Congrats! GT
Any new ?’s you can remember?
I bought PLI’s homestudy course a few years ago. They gave me the MPEP Edition 8, Revision 3. I know that they are now testing the new Revision, but does anyone know if this is still an acceptable version/study kit to use? Thanks so much!
I downloaded the MPEP v8 r4 for free. Though there is a link to that on this website, there is no downloadable version here. From my understanding, it is better to use a downloadable version, for a better simulation of the exam.
I just took the test, and passed!
While I apologize and don’t remember the repeat questions, my main recommendation would be to study the 4 2003 tests completely. Also, in addition to those questions, I’d also make sure that you know 1800 and 1200 really well. It’s especially important to know what amendments can and can’t be made during the appeal process, and what the US R/O can bounce back to the International Bureau.
Just took the exam today and need to retake it. I found the first half very difficult and had alto of lookup to do. Quite a few questions on assignments, assignees, dates, incorporation by reference…basically, questions from first 5 chapters. But, yes, as others have pointed out the focus seems to be a lot on PCT, reissue/re-exam, appeal and a couple on protest.
The repeat questions I saw:
Mario Lepieux
Jo(h)n Jones
Smith Laminate
Hair Gel
RCE during appeal
Smith and Jones
There was also the question on combination/subcombination and a question on disclaimer – asking who had the authority to file a disclaimer?!
Quite bummed about not making it, but for someone who is trying to get into this field, it was an uphill battle for me.
Also, the MPEP on screen at the prometric center was a bit fuzzy – at small font so it made searching the MPEP very slow and difficult when the page size was enlarged.
Sorry about that!!! Any idea what might have gone wrong?
Just passed today on my first try. Thanks to everyone who have contributed to this great site.
I noticed following repeats:
Invitation to Correct PCT Application (10.03.4p)
Moondust (10.03.6p)
3rd Party Submission – Japanese publication (10.03.10p)
National Stage by Fax (10.03.15p)
Anticipated under 102(e) (10.03.17p)
Correcting the Name of the Inventor (10.03.18p)
Reply to non-final rejection (10.03.21p)
Foreign Priority (10.03.24p)
Parking Meter (10.03.28p)
Filing date (10.03.29p)
Smith & Jones… (10.03.30p)
Issue fee transmittal form – XYZ Company (10.03.38p/4.03.11p)
Foreign prior art date (10.03.40p)
Bloc; Synthetic Z (10.03.7a)
35 USC 102(d) (10.03.8a) variation
prior art exclusion of 35 USC 103(c) (10.03.11a)
Tribell (10.03.16a)
Five Steps to Cross a Road (10.03.23a)
Door Handle (10.03.24a)
Enablement (10.03.32)
RCE During Appeal (10.03036a)
Allowance after abandonment after appeal (Variation on 10.03.38a)
Restriction Appeal (10.03.42a)
Foreign Filing without Publication (10.03.44a)
Claim Counting (10.03.50a)
Final Rejection Period for Reply (4.03.4p)
Foreign Priority (4.03.22p)
Practice (4.03.44p)
Canceled matter as PA (4.03.48p)
Reduction to Practice (4.02.1a)
nonpublication request/45 days (10.03.44a/4.03.2a)
Notice of Appeal (4.03.8a)
Board of Appeals Remanding case to the Examiner (4.03.25a)
Lancer Toothbrush (4.03.33a)
Board Decisions (4.03.37a)
Obvious (04.03.41a)
Some questions that seemed unfamiliar:
- What is required to obtain a filing date for REISSUE app
- Who needs to sign supplemental declaration
- Documents NOT necessary to record assignment
- Requirement for Information; whether failure to respond leads to abandonment
- Telephone interview; whether it needs to be scheduled in advance so that the practitioner’s privacy interest can be preserved (I chose this as wrong)
Hope this helps.
Congrats!!!
Wow! That’s a lot of repeats. Is this typical? Can everyone else be this lucky?
I also passed the exam on May 13, 2010. This site provided very useful info and I really appreciate all those who have contributed to it. Here are the questions that I recall:
– Titanium Baseball (Public Use/Printed Publication)
– Mirror (Inherent Function)
– Costa Rica and Sweden – PCT
– Velcro (Trademarks in Claims)
– Information requested from USPTO
– Trade Secret Question
– Means plus Function variant of Door Handle (Determining Equivalence)
– Piecemeal
– Missing parts in PCT Application (30 days)
– Shoe Polish and hair gel
Overall, I think there were about a total of 25~30 questions from “Repeat Questions” (in both sessions), I remember the following:
– Tommie and Jo(4.00.23a/4.00.24a)
– Bond 60%C or 60%D (4.00.27a)
– 147 Claim Counting (10.03.50a/4.03.28p)
– Lancer Toothbrush (4.03.33a)
– Bloc; Synthetic Z (10.03.7a/4.03.32p)
– RCE During Appeal (10.03.36a)
– Moondust (10.03.6p)
– Correcting the Name of the Inventor (10.03.18p)
– Design Patent in Country X (10.03.27p)
– Smith & Jones… (10.03.30p)
Hi Everyone,
Thanks for the helpful information, which helped me pass yesterday! Off the top of my head, at least 50% exam is recycled questions (perhaps more, but I only managed to work my way thru a couple of practice exams, largely because I worked as a technical specialist for a couple of years before taking the exam). In any case, here’s what I recall.
1. Mirror, perpendicular mounting,
2. PCT, missing Abstract
3. PCT, deleting benefit claim
4. PCT, the Costa Rica Question
5. PCT, the German guy question
6. PCT amending abstract
7. PCT , is the English translation needed or not
8. Terminal Disclaimers , who can sign
40% one assignee, 40% second assignee, 20% remained with inventors, who can sign what
9. 4 Inventors filed a patent, one inventor refuses to cooperate, what’s next
10. New use of an “old” chemical
11. Titanium Baseball
12. VELCRO
13. priority of design app.
14. 102(e) dates for app. before and after 11/29/2000,
15. Japan 45 days
16. maintenance fee, check returned
17. Tommie and Jo(4.00.23a/4.00.24a)
18. Bond 60%C or 60%D (4.00.27a)
19. 147 Claim Counting (10.03.50a/4.03.28p)
20. Lancer Toothbrush (4.03.33a)
21. Bloc; Synthetic Z (10.03.7a/4.03.32p)
22. RCE During Appeal (10.03.36a)
23. Moondust (10.03.6p)
24. Correcting the Name of the Inventor (10.03.18p)Information requested from USPTO
25. Trade Secret Question
26. Means plus Function variant of Door Handle (Determining Equivalence)
27. Piecemeal
28. Missing parts in PCT Application (30 days)
29. Shoe Polish and hair gel
30. Invitation to Correct PCT Application (10.03.4p)
31. 3rd Party Submission – Japanese publication (10.03.10p)
32. National Stage by Fax (10.03.15p)
33. Anticipated under 102(e) (10.03.17p)
34. Correcting the Name of the Inventor (10.03.18p)
35. Reply to non-final rejection (10.03.21p)
36. Parking Meter (10.03.28p)
37. Issue fee transmittal form – XYZ Company (10.03.38p/4.03.11p)
38. prior art exclusion of 35 USC 103(c) (10.03.11a)
39. Five Steps to Cross a Road (10.03.23a)
40. Restriction Appeal (10.03.42a)
41. Foreign Filing without Publication (10.03.44a)
42, Canceled matter as PA (4.03.48p)
43. Reduction to Practice (4.02.1a)
44. nonpublication request/45 days (10.03.44a/4.03.2a)
45. Board of Appeals Remanding case to the Examiner (4.03.25a)
46, Board Decisions (4.03.37a)
Obvious (04.03.41a)
47. What is required to obtain a filing date for REISSUE app
48. Who needs to sign supplemental declaration
49. Documents NOT necessary to record assignment
50. Requirement for Information
51. Telephone interview
Study the old exams, and you’ll succeed! Good luck everyone!
Wow, I took mine today..and I had many of these!
I took the test last week and didn’t pass. The AM session was very hard, not a single repeat. Stuff I never heard of. But PM had the usual repeats as above. I practiced the old exams many times and got 98-99% in all of them. I also went over all the new questions from this site. But my AM exam had many new areas that I did not study. Now I am realizing that I must know the MPEP inside out.; cannot just rely on the past exams any more. It is the MPEP and seems like every chapter is equally important.
I called the USPTO (OED) to make the wrong answers available online to us instead of us having to fly out to Varginia to look at them. They said they would pass the word to the OED boss. If more people call to the OED, requesting them to release the wrong answers and the question online that would be extremely helpful to the once that didn’t pass. I cannot remember the questions, as they were all new areas for me. Without knowing what I answered wrong, it is difficult to feel more confident. So, please called the OED at 571-272-4097 est and make the request. Thanks.
When I said call OED, I meant for you to be able to look at what you answered wrong for the test you took; not someone else’s wrong answers. Currently, PTO allows that, but you have to go to Varginia to look at your wrong answers. My request was to make it available online for me to to able to look at my wrong answers. Make sense? So, start calling. Thanks
I took and passed the test on June 7. Second try. It looks like it is just luck of the draw. On my first test I saw only a few repeats – most of the questions were completely new. On my second test I saw 30-40 repeats or variations from old tests or the new questions posted on this site.
The most heavily tested areas were PCT (10+ questions), Appeal (10+ questions, several dealing with new grounds for rejection from the board) and the regular 102/103 questions (30+ questions). There were roughly the same proportion of questions from these subjects on each of my tests, but like I said, on my second test there were WAY more repeats than my first test.
My best advice is to know all of the questions from the “Repeat Questions” tab inside and out – know not only what the answer is, but why and where to find it in the MPEP. Also review all of the questions on the “Exam Questions and Concepts” tab a few times before you go the exam – I had several questions where I knew the answer just from what I remembered from what other people had said (i.e. black ink).
Once you have done that, just hope you’re lucky and get a repeat-heavy exam.
Thanks. What I saw was that they would break down a Rule into two parts and use one part in one Answer (say B) and the other part in another Answer (say E) to confuse you. It takes longer to search the PEP, as you have to
re-read several times to make sure that is what they are doing. It took me a while to figure out that. So, match the entire Rule to make sure that it is the full Rule, not chopped up. That way you can eliminate two Answers right away. I think they are testing us to see we know the full Rule. I will give it a try again. Also, by giving a harder AM test dampens your enthusiasm for the PM test, thinking is it even worth studying the repeat questions during the break?
I would study the repeat questions. I think it’s all luck of the draw. Like I said, my second exam was full of repeats. Having them fresh in my mind knocked out a third of my exam. I ended up having about 45 minutes to go over questions during each half since I saved so much time on the repeats.
Thank you mypatentbar.com! Today I took the test and passed because of the number of repeat questions I saw from this website!! For the last week of study, i just went through all of the repeat questions and at least 15 showed up on my test! =)
This website is awesome. I took the Patent Bar yesterday and passed so for karma’s sake, wanted to make a post. I studied the stuff on this website and took as many old tests as I could. Here are the repeat questions I can remember having:
October 2003 AM: 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 16, 20, 23, 34, 36, 38, 42, 44, 50
October 2003 PM: 4, 13, 14, 15, 32
April 2003 AM: 8, 11, 25, 26, 30, 44, 12, 13
April 2003 PM: 27
I have been studying for a while now and am beginning to go over old test questions in earnest. I keep seeing these PCT questions listed, but can’t seem to cross reference them in the test database. Any help locating these questions and others listed would be helpful.
PCT, missing Abstract
PCT, deleting benefit claim
PCT, the Costa Rica Question
PCT, the German guy question
PCT, amending abstract
PCT , is the English translation needed or not
PCT, Japanese Patent
Barry in view of Foreman.
Mirror, perpendicular mounting,
Thanks in advance!
http://mypatentbar.com/current-questions/
Thanks! Found them and have been studying them!
Congrats on passing!
Took yesterday and passed on my first try. Thank you all for your help with this site. My study plan was PLI once through, then lots of random exams and all the old ones, then skim the PLI course again, and finally do old exams again. I had 35 questions total (I counted before leaving) that were either repeats or from the Exam Concepts and Questions section. The list below is what I recall, although I ended up with a few over 35:
Restriction (4.00.9a)
Bond 60%C or 60%D (4.00.27a)
Federal Court Decisions binding for Office (4.00.19p)
Prior Art (10.00.16a)
Final Office Action (10.01.11a)
Smith’s Drawings (10.01.3p)
Diligence (4.02.4p)
35 USC 112 p1 (10.02.8p)
Express mail (10.02.34p)
Reduction to Practice (4.02.1a)
nonpublication request/45 days (10.03.44a/4.03.2a)
Lancer Toothbrush (4.03.33a)
Board Decisions (4.03.37a)
Copper substrate (10.03.4a/4.03.16p)
Bloc; Synthetic Z (10.03.7a/4.03.32p)
Tribell (10.03.16a)
Missing Drawing (10.03.20a)
Door Handle (10.03.24a)
Hydrocyclone (10.03.31a)
Moondust (10.03.6p)
Anticipated under 102(e) (10.03.17p)
Parking Meter (10.03.28p)
Q2) Titanium Baseball (Pulic Use/Printed Publication)
Q3) Mirror (Inherent Function)
Q5) Amending the Abstract – PCT – one month
Q6) Obviousness – Brand name
Q7) Claiming, Deleting and Reclaiming Benefit Claim
Q14) Costa Rica and Sweeden – PCT – I got BOTH Cosra Rica and Sweden
Q17) Velcro (Trademarks in Claims)
Q21) Trade Secret Question
Q24) Japanese Patent
Q34) Investigating Deceptive Intent
Q35) 2 Month Rule for Final Office Action
Q37) Terminal Disclaimer
Q38) Piecemeal
Q41) Documents Requiring Signatures
Q42) Missing parts in PCT Application (30 days)
Q50) Appeals
Q51) Best Mode
I hope this helps, good luck!
Took exam 8/19/2010 passed on first try.
REPEATS (or questions similar to these, didn’t think I had so many but these all seem very familiar)
Mario Lepieux (4.00.10a)
Smith Laminate(4.00.17a)
Mitch and Mac (4.01.23a)
Affidavits (10.01.46p)
35 USC 102(e) (4.02.11a)
37 CFR 1.131 – MPEP 715 (10.02.6a)
Broadening Reissue (10.02.12a)
Dead Inventors (10.02.30a)
Original disclosure (10.02.16p) variation on this
Protest (10.02.46p) variation (correct answer was related to remaining anonymous)
Reduction to Practice (4.02.1a)
nonpublication request/45 days (10.03.44a/4.03.2a)
Notice of Appeal (4.03.8a)
Certificate of Correction (4.03.11a)
Potter (4.03.12a)
Beck – Mixture Y with melting point of 150F (10.03.11p/4.03.22a)
IDS after Notice of Allowance (4.03.26a)
Lancer Toothbrush (4.03.33a)
Rejection, 35 USC 102(e) (4.03.42a)
Polypropylene range (obviousness of ranges) (4.03.44a)
Final Rejection Period for Reply (4.03.4p)
Interference and Reexamination (4.03.12p)
Foreign Priority (4.03.22p) (same as Potter 4.03.12a)
Bloc; Synthetic Z (10.03.7a/4.03.32p)
Smith / DRAM (10.03.9a)
Reexam Extension of Time (10.03.6a)
Small Entity Fee (10.03.13)
Reply to a Second Action Final Rejection (10.03.15a)
Tribell (10.03.16a)
35 USC 102 (10.03.19a)
Public Access (10.03.22a)
Enablement (10.03.32)
Late IDS when client knew about PA all along (10.03.34a)
RCE During Appeal (10.03036a)
Restriction Appeal (10.03.42a)
Foreign Filing without Publication (10.03.44a)
Product-by-Process Claims (10.03.13p) (Same as Beck – Mixture Y melting 150F)
Correcting the Name of the Inventor (10.03.18p)
Prior Art Reference (10.03.19p)
102 Rejections (10.03.20p)
Reply to non-final rejection (10.03.21p)
Which, if any: Chapter 600 (10.03.22p)
Foreign Priority (10.03.24p)
Added Claims in CIP (10.03.25p)
Design Patent in Country X (10.03.27p)
Smith & Jones… (10.03.30p)
Issue fee transmittal form – XYZ Company (10.03.38p/4.03.11p)
Foreign prior art date (10.03.40p)
“New” Questions
Q3) Mirror (Inherent Function)
Q14) Costa Rica and Sweeden – PCT (three of these, costa rica, sweden, germany)
Q15) Spanish Phone – Design
Q19) Mexican Nationals – PCT
Q22) Germany – PCT / Patent Term
Q23) Broom
Q25) Electric Fan
Q26) Maintenance Fee Paid / Check Returned
Q28) Means plus Function variant of Door Handle (Determining Equivalence)
Q34) Investigating Deceptive Intent
Q35) 2 Month Rule for Final Office Action
Q38) Piecemeal
Q40) Assignment
Q50) Appeals (had several Qs on new grounds of rejection by board… procedure following that, etc.)
Q51) Best Mode
Q52) Multiplicity (this is same as Q23 Broom)
Q59) PTO-892 (Question on where/what citations to referenced/disclosed prior art by examiner: PTO-892, PTO-1449 with initials, etc.)
Q63) TP Submissions (Question was about 3rd party submitting Non-Patent Literature (NPL) )
Q64) Restriction (question asked when restriction b/w combination and subcombination was proper or improper, answers were verbatim from MPEP section about restriction practice … i.e. can they stand alone patentably, same field, etc.)
Someone please explain to me what the asterisk means on the repeat questions at the top of this list? Thanks
An asterisks indicates numerous individuals from the forum have reported that question on their exam.
Just took the exam today and got a preliminary pass (hooray!). THANK YOU to this site for all the helpful info on repeat/new Q’s & all the user feedback! Time to give back, so taking a moment to add my humble two cents:
- general impression –
morning session was waaaay harder than the afternoon. Lots of obsure nuances to look up & very few repeats. I also felt that there were quite a few familiar sounding questions, but with a different “right answer choice”/Q was asked in the converse/or some other sneaky variation so be careful (I may be wrong, maybe someone else can confirm?). With that being said, most of the morn passed in a disheartening blur & I can’t comment much on specific Q’s.
To my joy, however, almost ALL of my afternoon session seemed like question I had seen before (maybe 10-15 unfamiliar questions tops). I won’t rehash since the above couple posts seem comprehensive & do much better than I could. True to my procrastinating self, I didn’t start doing practice exams until last week and only squeezed in the oct ‘01 and all the 02-’03 practice tests, once each time, before test day arrived. Hence, I can’t recall the questions that well w/o any prompt, nor which test they correspond too. sorry. In general, there were multiple obviousness, 102 prior art, appeal questions I thought, but they were generally straightforward….and yes, a LOT of PCT! I want to STRESS THIS – go look at the *new* questions under “Exam Questions and Concepts” tab if you already haven’t. I didn’t realize what it was until the day before but SO glad I found it – read the comments too – I got a lot of those repeat questions (or variations thereof). See below (of what I can remember):
- *new* questions: – with some commentary
Q2) Titanium Baseball (Pulic Use/Printed Publication) – mine had these dates in fact pattern – date1: inventor printed out but never distributed a publication; date 2: give a baseball to put in museum that was only open to wealthy patrons not skilled in the art to be able to make the baseball, along with copy of publication for their library. date 3: decide to open to public (not open yet). date 4 (day before grand opening): ran lots of brochures and other promo publicizing the opening of the museum. date 5: museum open to public. date 6: publication is indexed and catalogued in museum library. Q asked which date was 102 publication prior art. I chose date 6 b/c I think only then is when it is actually accessible to the public to constitute a “printed publication”
Q3) Mirror (Inherent Function) – I also chose the perpendicular/parallel answer choice but think the reasoning is different than what some people are commenting for that Q. my question stem asked which answer choice would properly be objected to under 112 paragraph 1. I think the Q is actually testing us to see if we can identify which one has improper addition of new matter. – amending spec to include something that originally was disclosed in claim (no). – one including adding dictionary meaning (no). – one about obvious error. – parallel/perpendicuar contradicting language (i chose this b/c answer said even though obvious there’s an error, POSITA would not realize what the correct thing should be just by looking at it).
Q5) Amending the Abstract – PCT – the Q asked about what a practitioner can do if her disagrees with the abstract once it’s been established by the ISA. Answer I chose: can only submit comments on it (ie: can’t amend himself) and the Authority may choose to amend it but doesn’t have to.
Q8) Missing Parts – PCT
Q14) Costa Rica and Sweeden – PCT
Q17) Velcro (Trademarks in Claims)
Q21) Trade Secret Question
Q22) Germany – PCT / Patent Term
Q26) Maintenance Fee Paid / Check Returned
Q27) Reissue (variant of Tommie and Jo)
Q28) Means plus Function variant of Door Handle (Determining Equivalence)
Q29) Death of inventor – variation: where attorney has partial rights to invention
Q35) 2 Month Rule for Final Office Action
Q36) Notice of Appeal
Q37) Terminal Disclaimer – mine was re: who can sign it. choices all involved either one/both inventors or some combination of inventors & reps from either/both assignee corporations. I chose answer stating only the 2 inventors b/c no assignee of undivided or whole interest in fact pattern.
Q38) Piecemeal
Q41) Documents Requiring Signatures
Q42) Missing parts in PCT Application (30 day
Q58) Exam Concept – Appeal
- these seemed unfamiliar –
- question about sally & fred/bill(??don’t remember name): they’ve both been issued patents already (sally’s issued 2 months before bill I believe). Issue is Sally thinks that they’ve claimed the same invention in their respective patents. Sally may do all of the following except: 1) file reissue, assuming there is a separate valid “error” for doing so, and then declare an interference with Fred’s patent.; 2) file ex parte reexamination & submit her own patent as prior art; 3) declare an interference with Fred in federal court (i chose this one since interference should be between 2 patent apps or 1 app & 1 patent); can’t remember the other answer choices.
- executing reissue oath: A & B are inventors and get a patent. They assign all patent rights to a company. Company later discovers that C & D should also have been named as joint inventors. D refuses to cooperate b/c thinks he is sole inventor. What can be done to correct inventorship (there is no broadening of scope of claims involved)? 1) cert of correction; 2) reissue – oath listing new inventorship is only signed by assignee; 3) reissue – oath lists all 4 inventors, only A,B,C sign, & include why D’s signature missing; (can’t remember other choices but I got it down to between 2 & 3. I finally chose 3 b/c adding an inventor to reissue, not just deleting someone. disclaimer – not 100% sure on this one.
Sorry for the long post, but hopefully it will help at least 1 person out there – I know I appreciated all the details/tips I could find while perusing this site! Good luck! =)
(please pardon any lousy terminology/lack of cohesiveness in my paraphrasing above – it’s been a long day!!)
I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who contributes to this website. It truly is an invaluable resource if you are looking to pass the exam. I just passed the exam today and it largely had to do with the repeats. I had about 15-20 of them. If you are planning on taking the exam soon, do yourself a huge favor and study the repeats sections inside and out. Also, PCT and appeal were heavily tested so focus on those if you are pressed for time.
I have a question on the answer for question 39/April 2003/morning session. I thought the appeal brief was always due 2 months from filing of the notice of appeal (mpep 1205.01). Extension of time for up to 5 months would then kick in from the 2 month date. The answer to this question states that the date from which extension of time would be determined would not be the 2 month date from filing of the notice of appeal, but from the mailing date of the advisory action. It refers to CFR rules that have been replaced by the “41″ rules in latest mpep revision. Any comments would be appreciated!
Hi Susan,
As you suspected – the 2 month rule also applies to notices of appeal. See Q35) for a more complete description of how this affects notice of appeal. One really key fact to remember is that notices of appeal do not have a 6 month statutory limit. This is why you can still request the maximum extension for the NAP of 5 mos for a total of 7 or more mos. depending upon whether the 2month rule applies. In this question the advisory action date would be the last date to reply without an extension of time.
I just took the Patent Bar – 10/4/2010. It was unlike anything I had prepared for. It had 5 repeats in the morning and 11 repeats in the afternoon. The questions were much more difficult than the bulk of what I have seen in tests through 1997. I received a 63% and am trying to decide my next approach. I had used PLI along with this site an a good outline I bought online. I was hitting 90+ on all the exams. I didn’t panic, nor did I run out of time – so I am not quite sure what to think.
Hi Owl0520,
You said you worked through the 1997 exam questions. Have you had an opportunity to look at the October 2002 and April 2003 exam questions? It seems like there are a lot of repeat questions coming from those exams.
-J
I also used PLI and this site to pass the exam. Were you able to go thru all the old exams (2002/2003)? I also found the “new questions” that people posted on this site to be very helpful. Maybe a lot of us were luckier, as my exam had up to 40% repeats. Hopefully you’ll get it next time around, hang in there dude.
Reggae Fever, when did you take the exam?
Yes – did all of them. Started at 2003 and worked backwards. Maybe I just got a bad batch.
Just took the exam today and passed! Really work through the 2002 and 2003 questions – I did every exam from 2000 – 2004 three times. Also looked through every “new question” post and looked up the relevant section in the MPEP to verify. The morning questions were mostly new…had to look up quite a bit and ran out of them to check all the questions I wasn’t sure about. The afternoon section was pretty repeat heavy. Good luck!
12/30/10 – Had 10 of the above questions today. VERY AWESOME to see them on the test because you are under so much time pressure. Anyone reading this board should study these questions. I really appreciate the host and people who post on this board for helping me pass the exam.
Question – is the top post on this page updated? Meaning are those the previous questions NOW or a snapshot from some time back?
I took and passed my Bar Exam today (-1-25-2010) over 25% of the questions came from the above repeats and several from the postings of new questions.under Exam Questions and Concepts (68 questions)
I couldn’t have passed without the help of the people posting on this site.
thanks
took and passed patent bar today. all questions on Exam Questions and Concepts tested. lots of appeal. lots of 2003 exam repeats. thanks so much for this website!
took and passed the patent bar on Feb 9. saw about 20-25 repeat questions. lots of PCT and appeals questions. this website definitely helped me pass the patent bar!
Saw these repeats on a recent exam;
Q2) Titanium Baseball
Q3) Mirror
Q14) Costa Rica and Sweden
Q26) Maintenance fee paid (no numbers at all)
Q28) Means + Function Door handle
Q34) Investigating Deceptive Intent
Har Gell (4.02.38p)
Lancer Toothbrush (4.03.33a)
Bloc Synthetic Z (10.03.7a)
Tribell (10.03.16a)
Five Steps to Cross a Road
Moondust
Foreign Filing without publication (10.03.44a)
Parking Meter(10.03.28)
Had a lot several detailed questions (who can sign things etc.) related to Reexam, Reissue and Appeal. I thought I knew this stuff pretty well I wasn’t about to figure out what then were looking for. I would read these sections over pretty well.
I had numerous repeat questions (or slight variants) on my March 14, 2010 exam.
Tommie and Jo 4.00.23a
Bond 60%C or 60%D 4.00.27a
Prior Art 4.00.42a
Reexamination 4.00.47a
Mr. Brick 4.02.24a
Foreign Patents 4.02.50a
Hair Gel 4.02.37p
Reduction to Practice 4.02.1a
Board of Appeals Remanding Case to Examiner 4.03.25a
Lancer Toothbrush 4.03.33a
Board Decisions 4.03.37a
Foreign Priority 4.03.22p
Appeal Brief 4.03.23p
Claim Counting / 147 Claim Counting 10.03.50a
Bloc, Synthetic Z 10.03.7a
Prior Art Exclusion of 35USC103(c) 10.03.11a
Tribell 10.03.16a
Five Steps to Crossing a Road 10.03.23a
Door Handle 10.23.24a
Restriction Appeal 10.03.42a
Invitation to Correct PCT Appl. 10.03.4p
Moondust 10.03.6p
103 Obviousness 10.03.16p
Anticipated under 102(e) 10.03.17p
Correcting the Name of the Inventor 10.03.18p (some answer options a bit different)
Foreign Priority 10.03.24p
Design Patent in Country X 10.03.27p
Parking Meter 10.03.28p
Smith & Jones 10.03.30p
Issue Fee transmittal form – XYZ Company 10.03.38p/4.03.11p
I’m also going to post which Exam Questions & Concepts appeared on my exam under the Exam Questions & Concepts tab.
Correction – March 14, 2011 (not 2010 ) Exam
Thanks so much, IP Guy! I had pretty much all questions that you listed here on today’s test. It was so helpful!
I had almost all the repeats listed by IP Guy. Make sure you study the repeats all the way back to the 2000 exam as the infamous Tommie and Jo 4.00.23a still exists in the database.
Thank you guys for this great site and hope the best to you all.
Question: INV finds new art, pays issue fee, files IDS, refuses to pay for RCE fee.
What does office do?
Put in file but not consider? Search? Search and charge fee anyway?
After the issue fee has been paid on an application, it is impractical for the Office to attempt to consider newly submitted information. Information disclosure statements filed after payment of the issue fee in an application will not be considered but will merely be placed in the application file. See **>MPEP § 609.05(b)
I took and needed to retake it. I found most of above mentioned questions were in the exam (not only in old exam).
My question is how to get the most recent full set exam for future (~1 yr) and answers? at least the one I took assocated to the answer. Please advise,
Has anyone taken the new version of the exam (starting April 12th) yet? Will be taking the exam in a few weeks and was hoping to find out how heavy they test the new material.
Many thanks.
Just took it today and scored a prelim pass. I wanted to update you all on the latest since the new material was added last month: I saw maybe 5 or so that were definitely from the new material since the answers were searchable in the guidelines about KSR or Bilski. The general ideas (TSM not dead, etc.) showed up in another 4 or 5.
Generally, it didn’t seem like a “completely different test” than before. It definitely hit 700, 1200, 1800, and 2100 a lot, as past posters have indicated. I also saw about 20 of the questions from this site, including the following ones that I remember for sure:
Tommie and Jo 4.00.23a
Claim Counting / 147 Claim Counting 10.03.50a (got a similar, easier one)
Bloc, Synthetic Z 10.03.7a
Five Steps to Crossing a Road 10.03.23a
Invitation to Correct PCT Appl. 10.03.4p
Moondust 10.03.6p
Issue Fee transmittal form – XYZ Company 10.03.38p/4.03.11p
Q4) Submitting Tables on CD-ROM
Q7) Claiming, Deleting and Reclaiming Benefit Claim
Q16) Lip Gloss/Ship Bell (Experimental Use)
Q19) Mexican Nationals – PCT
Q21) Trade Secret Question
Q22) Germany – PCT / Patent Term
Q23) Broom
Q33) Indefinate Claim USing ‘High’
Q41) Documents Requiring Signatures
Q52) Multiplicity
I didn’t have too much trouble with the exam software. The searching was relatively fast at the location I took it and, as other people have said, it is possible to resize and move the search window around the screen so you can see it while you’re looking at the answers.
For whatever reason (nerves, slightly slower searching, wanting to be extra sure about answers on the real deal) I ended up finishing each half with only 5-10 minutes to go back and review, whereas during practice sessions I routinely finished with more like 30-40 minutes to review. I think it might have been because I usually just clicked the answer I remembered if I saw a repeat while practicing, but on the real exam I double-checked and read the question carefully just in case the USPTO was being tricky. As far as I could tell, I didn’t notice any instances where they tried to trip me up by having a question that was nearly identical to a repeat but not quite.
I wish I used this web site more before taking the exam yesterday. I relied on PLI course material, and I did not pass. However, I’d like to contribute a bit from my experience with the new test:
I saw a lot of similarities with Ander’s experience but had some differences also. I’d say about 25% of the new test is from the updates to MPEP and the KSR/112 supplements. If I were you, I would read the new supplement at least two times. Memorize KSR case teaching points and legal outcomes and be somewhat familiar with case facts.
Repeat questions:
Tommie and Jo 4.00.23a
Bloc, Synthetic Z 10.03.7a
Five Steps to Crossing a Road 10.03.23a
Invitation to Correct PCT Appl. 10.03.4p
Moondust 10.03.6p
Issue Fee transmittal form – XYZ Company 10.03.38p/4.03.11p
Q4) Submitting Tables on CD-ROM
Q7) Claiming, Deleting and Reclaiming Benefit Claim
Q16) Lip Gloss/Ship Bell (Experimental Use)
Q19) Mexican Nationals – PCT
Q21) Trade Secret Question
Q22) Germany – PCT / Patent Term
Q23) Broom
Q33) Indefinate Claim Using ‘High’
Q41) Documents Requiring Signatures
Q52) Multiplicity
My test had some obssession with signature requirements:
About 5 questions on signature issues and requirements (I did not know where to start the search on MPEP. I eventually gave up looking for answers because too much time was wasted.)
- For instance, one question asked whether one of the following choices will be accepted without signature if filed on the last day of due date. If I remember correctly, it listed Notice of Appeal, RCE, Small Entity Status assertion, Amendment in response to first non-final office action, and Authorization to charge the deposit account for fees.
- Another question asked on whose signatures are necessary in making new oaths to correct inventorship
- When do you need signatures from assignee(s)
- Who can sign for which documents
1 dependent claim counting question
2 questions on ADS
3-4 proper claim questions
The rest were the usual mix of 102/103 patentability, PCT, appeals, resissue, reexamination, double patenting, restriction, IDS, assignment, access, rejection vs. objection, and changes in inventorship as usual.
James, my situation sounds just about identical to yours. I, too, took the PLI course and sadly did not pass on my first attempt. I will be trying again though in the next couple of months. My test sounds much like yours. I didn’t seem to have tons of repeat questions. I was definitely caught off guard with the number of questions that were based on appeals (my test was loaded with questions from chapter 1200) and the questions about signature requirements. There were a few that seemed to come from the new supplement, but I guess I expected more to be based on the KSR case teaching points. I specifically remember one question based on the Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp case from the KSR supplement (Example 4.8), but I was expecting more than that based on what I heard from attending the live PLI course. Looks like this site is quite helpful to others, so I think I’ll be a regular visitor for the next 2 months. Hopefully the next time I’ll pass!
Repeat questions recognized from old exams. Like someone else said, didn’t notice any sneaky changes in these questions from the old versions.
Tommie and Jo(4.00.23a/4.00.24a)
Declassified Reference (4.00.34a)
Beck – Mixture Y with melting point of 150F (10.03.11p/4.03.22a)
Potter (4.03.12a)
Polypropylene range (obviousness of ranges) (4.03.44a)
Bloc; Synthetic Z (10.03.7a/4.03.32p)
Canceled matter as PA (4.03.48p)
Five Steps to Cross a Road (10.03.23a)
Moondust 10.03.6p
Issue Fee transmittal form – XYZ Company 10.03.38p/4.03.11p
Question: What is required to make application special using the accelerated examination requirements for an environment related applications?
Listed I-V components. A-E involved combinations of the components, which included a list of items, comments on the patentability of the claims in view of the comments, and an ADS. I chose the answer that included everything BUT the ADS.
Hi Sarah,
I also saw that accelerated exam question on today’s exam (5/18/11) and chose the same answer as you – all but the ADS (word searching found the other four in a list of requirements for accelerated exam, but not the ADS, which makes sense if you think about it, as ADSs really don’t have much to do with the purpose behind the other four requirements).
For everyone else: I will post what I saw on the exam today as soon as I can.
Fellow mypatentbar.com-ers,
Took the exam yesterday (5/18/11) and I got a provisional pass. I have to say right off the bat that although I also took the PLI course, I thought this website was INVALUABLE. I especially think it is extremely helpful to review the problems/comments/etc that are posted by people about a week before and leading up to the day you take your exam. As you will see below, I saw almost the exact same questions that others (Sarah, Becker, Overworkked, etc) saw in their posts above from the last week or so, and looking at those questions an additional time before going to the exam was very helpful. In all, I counted that I at least saw 46 questions that were either in the old exams or referenced in the “new materials” section on this website.
Here are my talking points from the exam:
PROMETRIC TEST SITE: Similar to what others have said, the place I took the exam was all business. I walked in almost an hour before my exam time hoping to sit in the lobby area to look through my outlines one last time, and the minute I walked in I was required to check in, put my stuff in a locker, and be ready to start the exam as soon as possible. They called my name to check into the testing area as I was still putting my stuff in a locker – I ended up starting almost a half hour before my start time because of this. It seemed I was allowed to start the tutorial whenever I wanted (the proctors didn’t require me to start it before they left me or anything), and I was allowed to put notes and numbering on my scrap paper before and during the tutorial. As some have mentioned, the minute you start the tutorial the rest of your day is set by the time (15 min tutorial, up to 3 hours for 1st half of exam, up to 1 hour for lunch, up to 3 hours for 2nd half of the exam). Note that if you finish a section early, the extra time does not get added anywhere else (e.g. I finished the 1st half about 15 mins early and thought I could use that extra time during lunch, but I still only got 1 hour for lunch). After the exam, you have a survey about the test site (about 10 questions) that you really don’t even read because you are so ready to have your results.
QUESTIONS I SAW ON THE EXAM: Below I have listed (i) questions I saw from the old exams (“Repeat Questions” on this website), (ii) questions from the new questions (“Exam Questions and Concepts”) section on this website I saw, and (iii) other concepts and questions that I saw that aren’t in (i) or (ii). Note that there were TONS of appeal-related questions (hardly any PCT). Further, I barely referenced the KSR and Bilski new materials documents, as any questions that related to those also seem to have content in the revised MPEP itself (for example, I found lots of KSR discussion in 2100).
OLD EXAM QUESTIONS:
- Tommie & Jo (both questions) (4.00.23a and 24a)
- Declassified Reference (4.00.34a)
- Affidavits (10.01.46p)
- 37 CFR 1.131 (10.02.6a)
- Potter (4.03.12a)
- Claims on Appeal (4.03.37a)
- Obviousness (4.03.41a)
- Rejection, 102(e) (4.03.42a)
- Polypropylene ranges (34.9 and 65.1) (4.03.44a)
- Interference and Reexamination (4.03.12p)
- Canceled Matter as PA (4.03.48p)
- Interviews (10.03.3a)
- Reexam Extension of Time (10.03.6a)
- Bloc, Synthetic Z (10.03.7a)
- Prior Art Exclusion of 103© (10.03.11a)
- Small Entity Fee (10.03.13a)
- Reply to a Second Action Final Rejection (10.03.15a)
- Five Steps to Cross a Road (10.03.23a)
- Another Claims on Appeal (10.03.38a)
- Restriction Appeal (10.03.42a)
- Invitation to Correct PCT App (10.03.04p)
- Moondust (10.03.6p)
- 10.03.09p (note this was marked as a “credit given for all answers” – not sure how they changed it for this current exam though).
- Beck – 150 degrees F (10.03.11p)
- A variant of Prior Art Reference (10.03.19p)
- Foreign Priority (10.03.24p)
- Issue Fee Transmittal Form (10.03.38p)
- Foreign Priority Date (10.03.40p)
- 102(g) Ex Parte Rejection (10.03.50p)
“NEW” QUESTIONS:
- 4. Submitting Tables on CD
- 7. Claiming, Deleting and Reclaiming Benefit
- 10. Suspended Practitioner
- 15. Spanish Phone
- 16. Lip Gloss
- 19. Mexican Nationals
- 21. Trade Secret
- 22. Germany PCT App/Patent Term
- 23. Broom
- 25. Fan, Light, Clock Question (point was that dimensions in a drawing in PA are not relevant or limiting to the reference it is applied to if not specifically called out).
- 33. Indefinite with Using “High”
- 41. Documents Requiring Signatures
- 42. Missing Parts – PCT
- 29. Death of Inventor (a variant similar to Sarah’s comments)
- 63. TP Submissions
- 64. Linking Claims Restriction (a variant that is same as the variant that Adam A indicated he had)
- Claim Counting (8 Dependent claims is answer)
OTHER CONCEPTS/QUESTIONS:
- Requirements for accelerated examination (things that must be filed) was one question – see Sarah’s question above from 5/18/11.
- Another questions dealt with which document can an assignee sign when the assignee has not recorded his assignment and has not indicated he is an assignee with the filing? After doing some searching around in 300, I believe the answer is small entity status.
- Which documents can use a copy of a person’s signature instead of an original? Choices were between Amendments, Oaths/Declarations, or Authorization to Charge Credit Cards. Answer is all of them – see Sarah’s comments at the “New Materials” question #41.
- Making Office Actions final – how to do it and when is it proper. There were at least 2 or 3 of these, and they were much harder than the ones that are in the older exam questions like 4.03.6a or 4.03.15a.
- A question about how to correct inventorship. Answer choices were (i) 1.48(a), (ii) file a continuation if there is at least one same inventor, and (iii) reissue with just assignee signature if inventors won’t sign. Answer is all of them. This is similar to the Broadening Reissue question at 10.02.12a.
- A question about when is a 102(f) rejection a proper rejection (not like any others I had seen before).
- A question about an inventor who assigned part interest to the agent, and then inventor died. The question was directed to whether the agent can still prosecute – he can because he has the part interest.
- Minors can execute their own declarations (don’t need legal representative to do it for them).
- A broadening question: In original patent, Claim 1 encompassed Y, and Claim 2 encompassed XYZ. Three years after issue, a piece of prior art was cited in a citation of prior art that made claim 1 invalid. Inventor wants to reissue the patent in order to (i) avoid the prior art and (ii) make claim 2 broader because she thinks it is too narrow. Can she do this? The answers included (i) she can’t, (ii) she should file a reissue canceling claim 1 and broadening claim 2 because it would still be narrower than original claim 1 (I picked this one), and (iii) she should first disclaim claim 1 and then file a reissue on claim 2 (shouldn’t do this because then it would be improper broadening).
- A question where new matter was added to the spec after filing. This new matter wasn’t added to claim 1 per se, but affected claim 1. Also, claim 2 had new matter added to it after filing. What is the proper course of action for examiner? Answers were (i) reject the spec with 132 only, (ii) reject the spec with 132 and reject only claim 2 with 112/1 (not claim 1), and (iii) reject the spec with 132 and reject both claims 1 and 2 with 112/1 (this was my answer, after some searching in the MPEP revealed that a claim that is not changed per se but is affected by new matter should also be rejected).
- A question about which of five options relating to mathematical equations were patentable subject matter – I chose the answer where there was a recitation of an application of the mathematical equation to some specific process.
- No PTA determinations in my exam.
- A question asked about what happens if a person does not file within 30 months of priority in a PCT analysis. The answer I chose (not sure if it is right) is that it is abandoned as to the U.S., but that it may not be abandoned as to other countries that have a longer period to enter their national stage.
Hope this is helpful to someone else! Good luck.
LAP
Thanks man, you’re a gracious individual for sharing the wealth! Congrats on the provisional pass and may you be repaid 10-fold for your efforts to share and this kind act.
PatBar Home Study Materials for sale. Looking for $300. I used them and passed on my first try. I can also give pointers.
Email me: thekino@ufl.edu…. I also have a lot of helpful printouts and study materials included.
just took the test and passed today. my test was usually focused on restrictions requirement and KSR standard (each has ~ 10 questions). The choices were twisted. So please read the provisions carefully. Especially, the factors considered for determining one skilled in the art (~3 questions).
Took the test last week.
I must have received the unlucky no-repeat version.
After studying every 2002-2003, ans some repeat 2000 questions I felt pretty confident about taking the exam. I had sutdied the PLI course for about 2 months, and listened to the CDs about 5-6 times each. I listened to 600, 700, 800, and 2100 most of the time probably 10 times.
I took the exam at PROMETRIC San Diego. Nice clean facility, but the people were morons. They must be paid some piddly wage to be so incompetent.
NOISE:
Near SD there is a Marine base with flyovers, but that wasn’t at issue. Directly behind the room I was in was a staircase. Right when lunch rolled around, it seemed there was a noisy frright-train of people coming in and out up and down. Damn annoying.
I had to tell the proctors several times to STFU because they kept talking to one another and disturbing my exam. I must have lost at least 20 minutes between the disturbance and regaining my train of thought.
SECTIONS:
The morning questions were substatially harder then the afternoon ones. None were repeats, and there were about 4 beta questions or so that had obvious misspellings and wrong answers. I think I had very few questions right from this section at all. I would have to fly to the USPTO to see (haha). The problem was some questions were obscure and required checking 800 then 600. I was never confident of the choice.
OVERALL:
In the morning section I had to lookup 100% of the questions vs. 60% in the afternoon. Meaning I HAD to, as in I had no idea at all what the answer was. In the afternoon sections, I could have finished in 1 hour if there was no MPEP, but I verified many questions anyway.
Repeats:
- 33. Indefinite with Using “High”
- 29. Death of Inventor (variant)
- Tommie and Jo (variant)
- Moondust (10.03.6p)
- 52. Multiplicity
- 17. Velcro
- 14. Sweeden (variant) but nothing like the examples
- RCE During Appeal (10.03.36a)
- Toy plane with Foil Wings (10.03.46p)
-Late IDS when client knew about PA all along (10.03.34a)
- Late IDS when client knew about PA all along (10.03.34a)
- Toy Airplane with Foil Wings (10.03.46p)
My test was laden with APPEALs mostly. I spent at least 40% of my time in 1200 searching for obscure facts. I swear these were beta questions, they were so hard, but there fact patterns were sounmd and the MPEP lead to to an answer. Apparently a worng one, since I didn’t pass.
Other chapters I was constantly checking:
600, 800, 1800, 2100.
Some BILSKI, but not (pun-intended) obvious obviousness questions. They were probably beta, but who knows. They might have killed my score too.
RESULT:
50%, well off my 2002-2003 scoring. In fact if without this website I still would have scored the same, despite the small amount of repeats. My version of the exam was inordinately difficult.
XRay–sorry to hear about your bad experience.
You’re not alone though! Turns out I didn’t make the cut today–and this was my 2nd time (last was 10 months ago–too long). I’ll post a more complete review of my experience. It wasn’t nearly as bad as yours…in fact I thought I had it made since my 2nd section had TONS of repeats (my first was much tougher). Sigh.
I’m in NJ and plan to go to PTO to review ASAP and hope to retake in Sept (after bar exam, ugh).
C’est la vie.
C’est la vie.
Ouch. I was confident you were going to pass. What happened?
My1st half was easy, but 2nd half, especially the opening 8 questions were tricky as well. I didn’t waste too much time on them and was able to finish easy ones in later sections first, and went back for some more deliberations.
Maybe it’s time management. When I saw something that would require me to search mpep for a while b/c I kinda guess it’s all over the place, I just gave up. Also always try searching CFR first, since it is easier to understand w/o fluff.
X-ray, sorry to hear that, have you considered picking up a comprehensive book about patent prosecution? I do not think listening to PLI lectures 5/6 times is the way to go. There are some controlling rationales and policy reasons on many major MPEP rules. I don’t think you need to be able call up every obscure little rules, neither should you expect yourself to do that on the exam. Also CFR should be your best friend, and MPEP should be the second.
I had many appeal questions in the afternoon as well, they were tricky, but I thought they were manageable. The key is you need to know the overaching policy and know how to apply them to the fact pattern, not mechanic memorizing the rules.
I hope this helps.
The lesson learned here is to not just read these questions, but to see if there is a trend in the exam. Mine was appeal heavy, so I should have READ the entire appeal chapter to make sure I know what concepts are coming up.
This time around I will read the PCT and APPEAL chapter in the MPEP.
All the material that I learned was only useful in the afternoon, and I blazed through it like it was first hand knowledge. I will go through the bullseye material with it’s by chapter ordering of questions a bit more closely for the next 30 days.
Also to note the above. A patent prosecution book might be helpful. From the latest postings above the people that squeaked through recently have good experience in prosecution of patents or a background from law school in IP and patents. I think that the USPTO might be taking away alot of freebie questions, and adding some harder real-world scenarios that can’t be easily looked up.
Thank you mypatentbar for being such a great resource!
I passed the patent bar recently. I used the PatBar materials which can be purchased online, but did not feel that they were absolutely necessary. They were helpful for clearing up my problem areas by explaining some areas of patent law in plain English rather than in MPEP-lingo which is clear as mud.
The most important part of my studying was doing previous exam questions – I think I had close to 30 repeat questions from the 2003 exams alone. Aside from that, I’d say, know the 102(e) chart that someone else on here mentioned, know your different 112 rejections, and take a glance at the new materials that were added in April. For studying the MPEP, focus on Appeals and Patentability. I had a ton of Reexam questions too, but I’m not sure if that it typical.
For those curious about the new material on the patent bar, don’t sweat it. Read it over once, and then you’ll know if you have to turn to it and where to turn when searching for an answer. I think I had to rely on the new material for two questions.
Good luck future patent agents/attorneys!
E,
I’m glad that you mentioned the new material. I’m taking the exam in a few days and am concerned about that. Where in the MPEP is the new material? how should you study for that?
Just passed the bar – yea! I studied at home using ‘Patent Education Series’. After going through the material twice, I was close but I wasn’t passing the old tests, so someone suggested I read the MPEP. I went into turbo mode and did nothing but study for 2 weeks straight, 8-12 hours/day. I read chapters 100-700 and 2100 and took my own notes. After that, I did a lot better because I knew where to look for answers in the MPEP.
Got a question about faxing into the PTO a PCT countries election sheet on the filing day because it wasn’t submitted with the app – nothing I could find in the MPEP about that specifically. I know it has to be there on the day it’s filed, and you can’t fax an app, but is it considered part of the app? Don’t know.
Not a lot of repeats, but:
1) Tommie and Jo live on. They were on there, as was
2) a variant of the lipstick question – she ’secretly’ kissed people for over a year before she filed, but it was after the testing phase so she missed her 102 date.
3) Moondust was on there.
4) A lot of PCT and appeal questions.
Some tough questions – even if the answer looks obvious (no pun intended) you should look it up if you have time.
5) One question that almost got me: The patent has chemical structures and results fully disclosed in the spec with tables, etc., but not how to make the chemicals. What kind of 112 rejection is it, lack of written description, enabling, or both? It’s ONLY an enabling rejection. If you go to chapter 2100, there is a paragraph that lists part of the question verbatim, it’s about the written requirement of 112 1st paragraph, and you can see that even though 112 1st paragraph has the word ‘make’ in it, in this particular case it’s not a written description rejection.
6) I also got the one about copies of signatures – someone on an earlier post said it could be all 3, so that’s what I put. Not sure if I was right, but an oath can be copied for a reissue, and anything that can be faxed is essentially ‘copied’.
7) Got the question about what fees can be cut for small entity – the one that can’t is a title recording fee.
9) Got some ‘reverse’ questions – like old questions, but instead of ‘which one of these doesn’t belong?’ it would be ‘which one of these does belong?’ and vice versa. Have to read those carefully.
10) Got a few questions that had cfr 1.131 as a choice.
My suggestions:
a) read MPEP chapters 600, 700, 2100, 1800 in that order. I think 700 is the most important. read others if want to
b) do as many old tests as you can stand, starting with 2003 and working backward, and make your objective to look things up in the MPEP as you do the test so you get used to it. Go over EVERY wrong and right answer with the PTO answer key. Memorize as many answers as you can. Look at repeat questions on this site and know them. I couldn’t believe Tommie and Jo were on there from 2000! I would have missed that (and 2 questions) without this site.
c) know that chapter 715 is for cfr 1.131 and type in the word ‘inappropriate’ on the search screen to find the sections on when it’s appropriate to use 1.131 and when it’s not.
d) ch 600 has the timelines for submitting IDSes and what fees and statements are due when, etc.
e) ch 1800 has a flowchart of PCT timelines. Type in the word ‘flow’ on the search screen to find it.
Try to relax! It’s hard but not impossible, even without many repeats.
That’s all I can remember, good luck to everyone!
Elizabeth
Took the exam recently. Did not pass, with a score in the low 60s. I used OmniPrep. I’m planning to retake soon focusing on the topics recent test takers highlighted above (PCT, timing, appeals, reissues, etc…), but mainly just practicing MPEP lookup.
I think I had pretty much the exam xray described, I can’t really add a lot more substance to his recent posts. My exam had very few straight up repeats, maybe 10-15 at most & not more than 30 “known” or expected questions altogether, including the extra questions Omni provided. These of course all helped, but I must say it threw me off to have to look up so many questions. My pacing got screwed up as a result. There were a whole set of questions asking for the statement not in line w/ the MPEP, and these killed a ton of time. Usually, 1 or up to 2 of these were obviously not the answer. That would still typically leave at least 3 obscure policies to look up. And sometimes up to all 5 had to be checked to confirm the “most correct” answer, especially when I was unable to find all of them in the MPEP.
Overall though, I was actually a bit surprised to not pass b/c I thought I had found the answers to much of the unknown questions & I completed all questions just in time.
As others have posted, I think the USPTO might have seen the passage rate increase in recent years due to repeated questions being discussed online, etc, and they’ve responded with fresh questions. Also, the laws/policies of course have changed recently, so it does make sense that new material has appeared. Wish I had taken the exam a year ago…
Took it today and got a preliminary pass! Repeats listed here:
Q19) Mexican Nationals – PCT
Q21) Trade Secret Question
Q22) Germany – PCT / Patent Term
Q24) Japanese patent
Q25) Electric Fan
Q33) Indefinate Claim USing ‘High’
Q35) 2 Month Rule for Final Office Action
Q38) Piecemeal
Q50) Appeals
Q51) Best Mode
Q56) Restriction Requirement / Continuation Application
Q58) Exam Concept – Appeal
Q62) 102 and 103 Rejections
Q63) TP Submissions
Q67) Obviousness
Plane with foil wings
Question asking “which of the following is not considered a new application,” correct answer was RCE
October 02 AM and PM
None
April 03 AM
8, 30, 44
April 03 PM
12, 33, 44,
Oct 03 AM
7, 26, 36, 38, 41 (but a variant, answer was not e-none of the above, there WAS a proper multiple dependent claim, right from 608.01(n))
Oct 03 PM
4, 6, 14, 38, 43, 50
One comment about the facility: I was completely thrown off at first. Maybe I let it get in my head a little bit, but control+f did not work to bring up the search bar. You had to actually click the “find” button. Also, I was used to going to an area within a chapter and searching for a keyword from there. The software wouldn’t let me do that. For example, if I wanted to find the word “evidence” within chapter 2100, even if I was all the way at the bottom of 2100, and clicked within the window, the search would return the first match starting at the beginning of the chapter. I found this especially frustrating. Another thing to keep in mind is in order to zoom within the pdf, you have to click the zoom buttons–mouse scroll does not work. These are all small things, but good to know in advance.
As you can see, lots of repeats, especially from October 2003. I didn’t take any practice tests prior to October 2002, so not sure about those. I didn’t notice any tricky alterations to repeat questions, i.e., they were exactly as they were presented on this site. I can’t stress enough how important it is to look at all of the questions on this site. I looked at them all a second time last night, and again this morning right before the test so the answers were fresh in my head. It worked great for me. It’s a real confidence booster when you get to a question and instantly know the answer. But in the same breath, don’t immediately think that the question is the exact same. You should make sure there are no tricks. If I recall correctly, some people have reported “repeats” which throw in a “not” which changes the answer.
If anyone is interested, I’ll be selling my PLI review course. Leave a comment with your email address here if interested. It includes all the new supplements and practice tests for the new material within the patware software. Patware is also all web-based now, which makes things easier.
I have OCI coming up at my school. Has anyone had any experience with putting a “preliminary pass” on their resume? Advice on the best was to do this?
Congrats James. Do you remember how many questions you had regarding the new material? How did you approach studying for those? Thanks for the great information.
James,
I have some questions about your PLI review course. Could you email me? Thanks!
Hi Jen-
Not sure if there’s a way for me to find out your email address from your post, but I can’t figure it out. Do you mind leaving it here for me, or telling me how to find it?
Thanks
I probably had 5-6 questions that specifically had to do with 103. Out of these, I would say that only 2 were specifically directed to the new material. The others were repeats that did not rely on the recent changes.
It seemed that the ones that relied on the new materials specifically mentioned KSR in the question at some point. I think some of the KSR information has been incorporated into 2100, so I’m not sure if it was necessary to address the supplements directly. However, due to the issue I had with the search feature, I chose to find the answers in the supplements just because they were more manageable to search.
There was 1 question on the 112 supplement, and I think 1 question on the Bilski amendment.
The questions that were specifically directed to the supplements contained answers that were pulled right from the MPEP. “which of the following is/is not” type questions. Best way to deal with them was to type a keyword from one of the answers into the search, and all choices were within a close proximity of each other. Nothing too tricky.
Best way to prepare yourself for these is to just be familiar with the concepts in the supplements. The “teaching points” in KSR were not specifically required for any of my questions, but it’s a great summary of what’s going on. I would expect a question which has a similar fact patterns to one of those cases, similar to the PLI practice questions on the supplements. But, again, most important thing is to identify keywords in the answer choices and search.
If you have any other questions, let me know.
Thanks James. Great info.
Hi James,
I am interested in your PLI material.
Hi RB. Sorry for the late reply. Post your email and I’ll get in touch with you.
Hey everyone! I just took the exam today 8/4/11 and I got a preliminary pass on my first try! I can’t thank you all enough for your posts and helping me with the examinations. So I want to pass on the good to future test takers that I received. So here is goes:
Studying:
I took the PLI course and studied while working over the summer for a period of four months. I listened to all of the lectures, completed the questions and took the examinations for 2002 (oct), 2003 (oct + apr). I was NOT passing those examinations. I received scores of 68% and one as low as 60%. I continued to study what I had got wrong and learning the explanations. Well it came around a week before the exam and I found this website. Here is the deal, taking a review course gives you some essential background information that will help and I recommend taking one (more why later) but this website is also extremely helpful depending on how you use it.
I used the website as guide towards what kind of questions have been coming up on the exam and what to expect. It may or may not be the best way but thats how I used it. I went through EVERY question listed on this page…every one. Then I read each explanation. I did all of this with less than a week left. A lot of these questions will come up either exact or in a way where understanding the concept makes the difference so do them all! Next I notice that a lot of people reported Appeals and PCT being tested heavily, and they are, so I went back to the PLI materials with less than a day. PLI lets you take custom exams focused in areas of law…so I took custom exams solely on Appeals and PCT. I saw what I got wrong and then took another and repeat. Another reason I recommend a commercial review is when I had questions PLI answered them immediately. It was great to get the clarifications I needed from people who knew the answers.
The exam facility:
A couple quick things about this as other have commented. You will start the exam when you arrive, they take your photo and you begin. I arrived 30 mins early and started the exam early. In regards to the noise…other people are taking exams and have different timing so there will be some distractions. I brought my own earplugs and used the headphones they provided. It worked great for me. Other than that the facility was great.
What you all want to know repeats:
Oct 03 PM
4, 6, 38 (I got this exact one twice!), 43, 50
Oct 03 AM
7, 26, 36, 38, 41
April 03 AM
8, 30, 44
April 03 PM
12, 33, 44,
Also, Electric Fan, Piecemeal, Japanese Patent (Variant), Mexican Nationals-PCT (with a corporation but the answer is the same), and Plane with foils.
On a side note: Notice how I haven’t mentioned how much I studied the supplemental material? It isn’t that bad or that much! Probably a total of 4-5 questions that dealt specifically with the supplemental and most could be found in 2100. Most of the 103 are similar to older questions. One new 103 will say something like disregard the John Deere obviousness – this is NOT the answer. The answer is the only other possible one that explains elements of a KSR case. Personally, and this is just me, I would focus more on PCT and Appeals as they were much more heavily tested.
Anyways sorry for the long message and I hope this helps!
I preliminarily passed the exam on 8/11. I am paying it forward to all the past commenters that helped me to pass. Thank you to all who have contributed to this great website (especially bigbadvoododaddy, overworrked, and boating bob who always provided accurate and cited comments). Background, I graduated with my engineering degree in the spring and am attending law school this fall. Some patent experience before but nothing focusing on MPEP. I did not read any chapters of the MPEP but would advise to do so considering Appeals and PCT as they are HEAVILY focused on the exam along with 2100.
Testing Center
Professional staff went straight by the book! Small computer screen unfortunately. Allowed me to bring in ear plugs. As others suggested made a chart for each morning and afternoon sessions with column headers of Question#, A, B, C, D, E, and comments to help in my analysis. I also marked questions on the screen.
Study Materials
1) Purchased used PLI course- please note that due to the very few questions focusing on new material it is not necessary to purchase the new PLI materials (costs outweigh the benefits). Overall, the PLI course provided a great outline to aid in MPEP understanding. Best part was the PATWARE software which allowed me to take a pretty decent simulation of the test. Additionally, I could review my exams and look at which chapters in particular I struggled with and make tests solely on those chapters. I would not focus on claim drafting to the extent that John White emphasized in his lectures.
2) Old tests downloaded from this site. Pay special attention to the “Exam Concepts” section. I, like one of the prior posters, found it most beneficial to read the description provided by the forum author then scroll to the bottom and scroll upwards instead of downwards as the best advice is normally at the end of the comment string. Beware on the website about misinformation.
3) New April material PDF’s from USPTO site, go for big picture on these documents as the details are not tested or are easily searchable.
Questions Tested
~Foil airplane (didn’t see this one really highlighted so I want to fill in some details) You file an application for a paper airplane covered with foil only on the wings that yield some described benefit. Prior art considers a paper airplane covered by bubblegum wrappers that consists of outer layer and aluminum inner layer. Can the application receive a patent or will the prior art obviate it.
Piecemeal examination (answer all the above)
~PCT- Missing parts
~PCT- non-english language version submitted to US residents that are foreign citizens
~PCT-Sweden question
~PCT-mexican nationals, app in English question
~PCT- only designate US…where does it publish (IB and/or/nor US national stage…)
~Question discussing how original claimed range was 25-60% X prior art said was X was 25%, applicant limits range to 35-60% (numbers might be slightly off, but difference of 10%) is the rejection overcome
~Rights of non-signing inventor
~Linking claim when restriction between claim 1 and 3
~Application filed with no claims will get no filing date
~Necessary parts on declaration/oath needed for filnig date (2 questions!)
~Equivalence
~Reissue variant of (Tommie and Jo)
~Broom- multiplicity of claims (examiner should call)
~Electric, clock fan – scale doesn’t matter
~Information requested by PTO—not readily on hand
~Use of 131 affidavit
~Why use a combination 131 and 132
~Fact patterns in which a 102e rejection can be overcome
~2 month rule –question had examiner responding within three months so the fee calculation starts at the end of the shortened 3 month period
~Appeal- whether filing fee needed to file
~Indefinite use of high (2 answers are close—wen with the one saying use of high was ok, other close answer didn’t say whether ok or not)
~Chemical Claim
~Basic filing fee covers 20 total claims and 3 independent
~Best mode- designation of best mode not required
~IDS after filing issue fee—what can you do— gets put in patent file not considered
~Inventor dies after notice of allowance—what happens to application
Old Questions
10.03.4a Elemental copper
10.03.17a obvious widget
10.03.22a public access
10.03.25a PTA
10.03.32a enablement rejection
10.03.35a
10.03.37a
10.03.44a PCT Japan- 45 day FFL question
10.03.47a
10.03.06p moon dust
10.03.13p Inventor beck
10.03.08p “reasonable diligence”
10.03.28p parking tickets
10.03.38p XYZ company
10.03.43p ADS
10.03.50p 102 (g)
10.02.01p
10.02.34p express mail
Thanks again to all! I will check back to the site in a few days if anyone has any questions.
I just took the exam, failed. I got PLI test materials I was scoring high 80-90% max consistently over the last month before taking the exam and high 70’s on the Blksi,112 and KSR PLI Q’s but, when I took the exam I did not pass by a couple of questions.
I did not see many repeats on the PLI 2002-2003 patware, maybe ~10. The new material was tested a good amount Blksi,112 and KSR 103/2100 along with Accelerated examination. PCT and 1200 was also very heavily tested. I also got some 1-2 EFS questions.
I
New Questions I saw 8/24/2011:
(1) Requirements for submitting an Accelerated examination: Answer choices I-IV out of the MPEP
(2) 101- a bilski question. asked which were patentable. Answer choices abstract ideas are not patentable
(3) What statements will invokes 112-6th regarding a general computer?
(4) EFS S-electronic Signature Q: Which one of the following is true type of question. I don’t remember the answer choices-answer choice by submitting an e signature you are submitting your handwritten signature.
(5) What is not a continuing application?
(6) Examiners process for search for prior art–answer?
(7) PTO information request from applicant, what is allowable/when–answer?
(8) Multiple Re-exams by same party? –answer
I just took the exam on 9/3/2011 and passed. I would first like to say thank you to everyone on this website for the invaluable resource. Here is a summary of the repeat questions that I saw that I can remember:
2003 October AM
Bloc; Synthetic Z
Smith (variant on claimed technology, but same idea)
Late IDS when client knew PA all along
RCE during appeal
Allowance after abandonment after appeal
Dependent Claim
Restriction Appeal
Foreign Filing without Publication
2003 October PM
Moondust
National Stage by Fax
Claims lacking utility
Issue fee transmittal form
Smith & Jones (2 of the variants, can’t remember which two)
Exam Questions and Concepts
Spanish Phone
Indefinite claim using “high”
2 Month Rule for Advisory Action (variant)
Best Mode
There was also the question about 35.1% and 64.9% in the PA to 102 reject 35% and 65%, but I can’t remember where I saw that one on the website.
There were more Qs about Appeal remands, restriction requirements, double patenting, and reissue applications than I expected. There were also 4 or 5 total Qs about the new 112, Bilski and KSR guidelines.
Good luck to everyone.
Passed it today 09/11/11. I saw the moondust eraser question, lots of PCT and Appeal questions, and ~5 questions on the Bilski and KSR cases.
Today, after my second attempt at the patent exam, I received the long-awaited preliminary PASS!!! I honestly don’t think I could have done it without this website. I first took the exam in late May of this year after going through the PLI course for 2 months, which was about 150-200 hours of study time. When I took it that time I got a 58…ouch. I was pretty much devastated. In my opinion, the PLI course does a great job laying the foundation for this test, but it was just not enough for me to pass. I told myself I would take the exam again sooner rather than later so I wouldn’t forget what I had learned. Thankfully I found this website probably a few weeks after I took the exam in May. Around late June/early July I got really serious about doing the practice exams and going over the repeats on the site. I probably did the old exams twice each, and I went through every single repeat on this site. I also looked over the “new” questions on the Exam Questions and Concepts page, but I mainly focused on the appeals and PCT questions listed, as they are what gave me the most problems the first time I took the test.
Now to what I saw on my test today! From what I can remember…
Laurel, Abbot and Hardy (4.00.14a)
Smith Laminate(4.00.17a)
Tommie and Jo(4.00.23a/4.00.24a) – I had Q24
Reexamination (4.00.47a)
Federal Court Decisions binding for Office (4.00.19p) – but the word “not” had been added to some of the answer choices, so be careful!
102 (f) (4.00.44p) – a variant, but same principle
Prior Art (10.00.16a) – a variant where you had to select the correct statement(s)
35 USC 101 (10.01.6a) – variant, just know the principle
Affidavits (10.01.46p) – variant, know when to use 1.131
Public Inspection (10.02.21a)
Third Party Submissions (10.02.46a)
Notice of Appeal (4.03.8a)
IDS after Notice of Allowance (4.03.26a)
Inert gas (4.03.30a)
Board Decisions (4.03.37a)
Polypropylene range (obviousness of ranges) (4.03.44a) – variant, same principle
Interference and Reexamination (4.03.12p)
Bloc; Synthetic Z (10.03.7a/4.03.32p)
Amendment after Appeal (4.03.38p) – I think I had a variant on this one
Canceled matter as PA (4.03.48p) – variant changed to a “select the correct statement(s)” type of question, answer (A) had been changed to reflect the true statement in the MPEP (Canceled matter in the application file of a U.S. patent is not a proper reference as of the filing date under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)) so that (A) and (D) were correct (or I and IV in the case of my question)
prior art exclusion of 35 USC 103(c) (10.03.11a) – had a variant on this, just know the 103(c) exclusion
Public Access (10.03.22a)
Supplemental oath as an amendment (10.03.26a)
RCE During Appeal (10.03036a)
Allowance after abandonment after appeal (Variation on 10.03.38a)
Restriction Appeal (10.03.42a)
Invitation to Correct PCT Application (10.03.4p)
Moondust (10.03.6p)
3rd Party Submission – Japanese publication (10.03.10p) – I didn’t have this question, but I had two variant questions on third party submissions, might want to take a look at that section so you can do some quick lookup if necessary
Prior Art Reference (10.03.19p) – variant, another one of those “select the correct statement(s)” type question
Issue fee transmittal form – XYZ Company (10.03.38p/4.03.11p)
Toy plane with Foil Wings (10.03.46p)
Public Use (10.03.47p) – variant, just know that “known or used” must be in this country, meaning not NAFTA or WTO countries
Ex Parte Rejection (10.03.50p)
“New Questions” from the website I remember from my exam:
Q9) Correcting PCT Applications – had this one, I selected only changing “ccar” to “car”
Q19) Mexican Nationals – PCT
Q25) Electric Fan – the clock, fan, lamp question – I remember it from both of my exams!
Q33) Indefinate Claim USing ‘High’
Q35) 2 Month Rule for Final Office Action
Q38) Piecemeal
Q51) Best Mode
Q54) Australia (30 Month) – PCT – didn’t have this question about Australia, but had a couple of other questions that appeared to be the same fact pattern, just different countries, and required knowing that if there’s no “money by 30” as John White would say, then you are out of luck
Q64) Restriction – had question about combination, subcombination and when a restriction is proper
Q67) Obviousness
Had just a handful of questions that look like they came from the KSR and Bilski material – maybe they were beta questions, maybe not, but they seemed fairly straightforward. I know this is a ridiculously long post, but it gave me reassurance when frequenting this site to see that other people had lots of repeats. So, if you’ve taken the test before but were unsuccessful, keep at it and become friends with this website!!! You won’t be sorry!!!
) Good luck to everyone studying!
Thank you!
You can pass this exam!! I pass on 9/1 on my first try and I have to give a TON of credit to this website. Unfortunately, I purchased the PLI at full price . It is definitely not worth the asking price, however, it does come with software that allows you to create custom exams based upon specific chapters of the MPEP. This was nice to hone in on my problem areas (i.e. ch. 1800 and 2100).
If you can find study material cheaper elsewhere, then get it. In 20/20 hindsight, I’d say I would only spend about $500 to $750 for a brand new prep course. The best piece of advice I can give is to take the previous exams over and over and over! I had at least 20 repeats or variations thereof. If you want to pass, you must nail these! You get one point plus extra time to dedicate toward other questions.
Thanks! I am doing the previous exams over and over and over!
Preliminary Pass Today. Yay!
Do yourselves a favor and STUDY ALL the repeat questions. I got around 20 today, and that made ALL the difference.
Also, take a look at the “Currently tested” section. Some questions may be a mess, because we don’t really have them, but at least be familiar with the subject and where it is located on the MPEP. That will give you plenty of time to go over the very confusing questions nobody can remember.
I’m pretty much braindead now, but I’m sharing my experience.
Repeats:
Reexamination (4.00.47a)
Q) Federal Court Decisions binding for Office (4.00.19p) – verbatim
Q) IDS after Notice of Allowance (4.03.26a) – verbatim
Q) Inert gas (4.03.30a) – verbatim
Q) Board Decisions (4.03.37a) – verbatim
Q) Polyethylene/polypropylene range (obviousness of ranges) (4.03.44a) – verbatim
Q) Interference and Reexamination (4.03.12p)
Q) Bloc; Synthetic Z (10.03.7a)
Q) Practice (4.03.44p)
Q) Public Access (10.03.22a)
Supplemental Oath (10.03.26a)
RCE During Appeal (10.03.36a)
Q) Allowance after abandonment after appeal (Variation on 10.03.38a)
Q) Restriction Appeal (10.03.42a)
Q) Invitation to Correct PCT Application (10.03.4p)
Q) Issue fee transmittal form – XYZ Company (10.03.38p/4.03.11p)
Q) Application Data Sheet (ADS) (10.03.43p)
Q) Ex Parte Rejection (10.03.50p)
Tommie & Jo #24
Moondust
Laurel, Abbot & Hardy
Currently Tested:
Original signature/copy – amendment, …
Correcting “ccar” in PCT.
Piecemeal
Trade Secret
Spanish Phone
Mexican nationals/corporation – US resident but USPTO not proper RO if NOT in English.
Trade Secret – 724.03 – Thus, any trade secret, proprietary, and/or protective order materials which are required to be submitted on behalf of a patent applicant under 37 CFR 1.56 or patent owner under 37 CFR 1.555 can be submitted in accordance with MPEP § 724.02. Neither 37 CFR 1.56 nor 1.555 require the disclosure of information favorable to patentability, e.g., evidence of commercial success of the invention (see 42 Fed. Reg. 5590). **Such information should not be submitted in accordance with MPEP § 724.02.**
Q19 – Germany – PCT – declaration by Traveling practitioner not of record (with #) via FAX ok.
Electric Fan
Indefinite claim using “high”
2month rule for final OA
Docs requiring signature
EFS electronic signature signature – represents…
PCT claiming priority of US nonprov. Later continuation filed. 102(e) date of publication of continuation app…
Proper MDC
Who can make statement of commonly owned invention to overcome 103/102(e)?
Variant of ranges – over come range. Didn’t know the answer. One stated 6-9, pref 8. Prior art said 6. Amend claim to say 8.
Which not entitled to Certificate of mailing – CPA
Variant of PCT designation of state made by fax
New matter (variant(
Definition of DP
Best mode need be disclosed, need not be IDd
up to 180… – cup – overcome obviousness?
When IDS proper submission for RCE? After NOA
Correct priority claim in Reissue? Need submit certified copy? Or unavoidable delay +fee …
Inventor refuse to sign – Correct inventorship to ADD inventor, not change claims. Correct inventorship in reissue – not broadening, may be done only by assignee
Date of Notice of appeal – since when count to determine fees
* Applicant replied within 2m, Examiner responded Before 3m SSP
a martinet comprising a wood something with X, Y, Z. Prior art discloses wood something with X,Y,Z. How to overcome?
3rd party submission when wrong
Protest – which not? min. 10, serve? when done?
Inventor and practitioner in Germany, must file declaration for antedating or something. What can they do? Germany Express mail? not. Send to US and somebody bring it? No. Answer – may send by fax.
New matter in spec. In Claim 2, not in claim 1 but affected? What to do?
* Reject under 132
*Reject under 112
* Reject claim 1?
*object?
Priority – same inventors?
When restriction proper? combination/subcomb
Definiteness – algorithm –
Software, enabled is PHOSITA may program? or may not be regular use computer.
Subsequent reply in reexam
* by same third party on different…
* by different third party, on different
I, II, III ?
Assignment must be in Transmission Fee Form
NAFTA changes “public use” to all countries, not just uS – wrong!
Assignment docs open to public even if… one part public, one part not public
When amendment after reply brief may be entered?
*3m from.
4m from
2m from…
Death of inventor, assignee of full interest, who may prosecute? (heir unless assignee gives POA)
Intermediate claim reissue – cancel
correct inventorship application correct
*identify inventive entity signed by just B
*identify B signed by B
*oath by all
Previous Japanese application. PCT, not designing Japan. Priority? Limit date to claim
Smith Laminate variation (choice A is still the one that will NOT overcome 102 rejection – therefore, right choice)
102(f) variation –
Oviousness of independent/obviousness of dependent
Petition to make special – what needs
* search
*…
*…
* ADS
Obviousness
-not use Graham factors, but KSR and fully address
-use the rejection “known use for similar technique”
Choices 1, 2, 3, 4
1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
Considering inherent features in 103. Not compliant w/ 112
Canceled matter
* 102(a) may
* 102(e) may
* 102(a) may not
* 102(e) may not
VARIANT on 4/27/2011:
Patent has broad claim #1 AB, narrow claim #2 ABCD, wants to add intermediate claim #3 ABC. (Broader than 2, narrower than 1). Prior art that has been “submitted” (cant recall context) means that Claim #1 is probably invalid. Patent issued 3 years ago. What to do?
A.give up B. reissue, file amendment to insert intermediary claim, cancel claim #1 (my answer) C.*disclaim* claim #1, reissue, insert intermediary D.do something E. do both B & C
C probably fails b/c the disclaimer affects scope before you reissue. Key is to understand that broadening means broader than EVERY claim in the patent. See MPEP E8R8 1400.
Good luck!!!
Took and passed Sept. 22. Studied for 5 days using only this site. Thank you so much for this invaluable resource!
Like everyone else says, know 700, 1200, 1400, 1800, and 2100 and get used to searching the MPEP. A fair amount of obviousness questions.
Morning session was very easy, afternoon started off with a lot of hard questions which threw me off, I decided to just guess, move on, and came back after finishing the rest.
Testing procedures – I got there early and they made me start right then, I was planning to look over notes another 45 min in lobby but they insisted that if I was there I had to start. I started to make a grid for answer choices during the tutorial but someone came in and told me to stop. Just an FYI. My monitor also stopped working in the morning session (at first I thought I had lost all my answers for the first 40 or so!) but they got things taken care of in less than a minute.
What you’ve all been waiting for, the repeats:
Moondust
Tommie & Joe – Both Questions
Inventor Beck
Board Decisions (4.03.37a)
Ex parte Rejection (10.03.50p)
Reexamination (4.00.47a)
Federal Court Decisions (4.00.19a) – Some have reported “not” being added to answer choices, I don’t remember if that was true but the concept is still the same (and still B). Still very straightforward.
Prior Art (10.00.16a) – I saw someone reported a variant but mine was verbatim.
101 – 10.01.6a
Notice of Appeal (4.03.8a)
Polypropylene Range (4.03.44a)
Interference (4.03.12p)
Bloc/Synthetic Z (10.03.07a)
RCE during appeal (10.03.36a)
Allowance after abandonment (variant of 10.03.38a) < KNOW all of the concepts regarding allowance or cancellation of claims when there was an appeal. There were a number of ?s on this.
Correct PCT (10.03.4p)
Prior Art (10.03.19p) variant – just hit 2100 or the KSR bulletin. TSM test is still ok just not exclusive, but examiners need to cite facts using TSM or one of the other 6 tests from the KSR bulletin. 5-10 103 questions like this, how to determine skill of art, etc.
Ex Parte Rejection (10.03.50p)
Enablement (10.03.32a) – Variant but similar
Express Mail (10.02.34p) – Also one variant that I think was a beta, I couldn’t find a good answer.
XYZ assisngment (38 from Oct 03 I think? Sorry, I didn’t put the number in my notes for some reason) – I had this exact question AND an extremely similar variant.
Appeal (04.03.08a)
Reexam certificate (04.03.12p)
File for reexam (04.03.44p)
Lip gloss
Spanish design patent on phone/102(d)
“high” in spec
The question about a 103 rejection over Smith and Jones – don’t remember the number.
A couple of 101 questions but all easy and in 2105. Living v. inanimate doesn’t matter.
Inventor dies but had given attorney part interest. POA not revoked and attorney can continue prosecuting. A couple of variants on death of inventor or unavailable inventor. All in 409.
Mexican and American applicants filing application in Spanish – Not accepted as international application at PTO since not in English. Didn’t get the Costa Rica/Sweden variants.
Small Entities don’t get reduced fees for document title
Assignee not of record can sign a small entity statement.
If trade secret info in an envelope is relevant to patentability it goes on record.
934 claims – examiner makes a call and requests a selection.
The one about a fan and scale of drawings – scale doesn’t matter and rejection is proper.
Five Steps
The one about deleting a priority claim then trying to get it back – In my facts it was a non-final office action so prosecution was not closed and the RCE answers were all wrong. Also cant file for unintentionally delayed.
One question on reissue – deleting broadest independent claim and adding a completely new dependant claim that is still broader than any other kept claim is not a broadening reissue, so it can be filed beyond 2 year deadline.
4 or 5 restriction requirement ?s. All searchable in 800. Only answer I remember is for linking claims you elect one invention and then…..I actually don’t remember but its all in 800. Also remember that you petition, not appeal, restriction requirements and claims are not rejected under a restriction requirement.
Variant of final office action/advisory action/SSP/deadline question. In mine the examiner mailed the advisory action within the 3 month SSP, so the SSP governed the fee timeline.
A couple 102(f) questions – both pretty easy. One had some answer choices from 4.00.44p.
Know that references that are subsequent to the filing date can still be used for 102(f) and derivation from another country can sustain 102(f). Those ARE NOT the correct answers (both ?’s were find the incorrect statement) but if you know those facts you can eliminate those choices.
2 or 3 variants of Affidavits 10.1.46p – Just know when to use 1.131, doesn’t work for same claimed invention, 102(d) or other bars, statutory double patenting, etc. The bold holdlines from this section of the MPEP actually cover most of what you need to know so you can scan that section pretty quickly.
Should clarify, I got more than one question on reissue, that’s just the only thing I can remeber off hand. Probably 4-5 total on reissue.
congrats! You are a lucky bastard to have passed after 5 days work. It took me two months of prep on and off.
Just to clarify on that front for people trying to develop a study plan – if you are starting from square one days wont cut it. I took 5 or 6 patent courses in law school and clerked at a firm full time in the summers and part time during the year, so I had all the basic concepts down pretty well all ready. Even with that it took a lot of time to learn some of the nuances of appeals, PCT, reissue/reexam, random mailing rules, etc., in addition to just learning how to navigate the MPEP quickly. And, of course, memorizing the repeats & “Exam Concepts” questions off this site is a must and takes a little bit. I certainly don’t think review courses hurt but I really think people can base their studying off this site and get what they really need. If you aren’t comfortable with some concepts just start with the study guide section before moving to the old exams and newer questions.
for the new materials tested after 4/12/2011, how obvious is it to look at the new added materials or in the MPEP? In another words, if you encounter a problem regarding 101/103/112, how do you know if you should search MPEP or new materials?
Thanks
For the most part all the answers one those questions for me were in the MPEP, usually 2100. There was one question that went to the 7 possible tests for 103 from KSR that I got from the new materials and one 101 question answer where you had to know business methods are not categorically excluded which I found in the Bilski guidelines. Those may have been in the MPEP as well. I looked at the new material ahead of time and I would suggest doing that (its quick) but try to find it in the MPEP first. If you are totally striking out move the new stuff.
thanks for sharing.
a question for PDF viewer in the exam: People said it is like acrobat reader 5.0.
1) does the left side have a column window — “bookmarks”, that lists the topics so you can look through quickly?
2) the search or “find” function, do I must search several words which are continuous, or can I search some words by using “and” or “&”?
Thanks in advance.
1) does the left side have a column window — “bookmarks”, that lists the topics so you can look through quickly?
Yes. But not exactly the same as the PDF you download from the PTO IIRC. I think you have to manually switch chapters (100, 200, etc.) using the dropdown box at the top of the window. The bookmarks sidebar is definitely there, though, which makes navigation somewhat easier.
2) the search or “find” function, do I must search several words which are continuous, or can I search some words by using “and” or “&”?
Didn’t try it. I relied very lightly on search, simply because the “Find Next” function was slow, and the search had to start from the beginning of the document. I think your best bet is to identify really good keywords for search, that will not be repeated throughout the chapter.
Taking the test on Oct 15th and I’m starting to freak out a little. I have been going over all of the old exams and the repeated questions as indicated by all of you. Is there any other advice that can be passed my way?
HI Greg,
I would make the Grid for Q 1-50 A-E for each question (in case you get a a lot of look up Qs will have info on what you eliminated already). I wish I would have done that. Good luck. I am sure you will do great
HI Greg,
I would make the Grid for Q 1-50 A-E for each question (in case you get a a lot of look up Qs will have info on what you eliminated already). I wish I would have done that. Good luck. I am sure you will do great.
Hey Maggie, thanks for responding to my post. Could you elaborate more on your comment about making a Grid? What do should I put in this Grid? Should I jot down my answer and then make a reference to what rule applies to that answer? Thanks Again
Someone recommended it. I am new to computer tests so i think it is helpful. It takes like 5 mins to do but you would make a list of (1). A, B ,C, D, E (2). A, B ,C, D, E (3). A, B ,C, D, E on the scrap paper given to you and then mark off the ones (A-E) that you know are wrong by strike through and then circle the number of the question you need to go back for look-up later. Help you get track of question you eliminated and questions you need to look up. I ended up having a lot of look-up which took time to re-read and eliminated again
Good luck and be relaxed. Read question 2X before answering you should know appeal, PCT down cold.
Regarding notation on A-E Question Grid. Do a test run on a practice exam or two and see what notation works best for you.
Has anyone seen repeat questions from the 1997 or 1998 exams?
Just finished the exam today with a prelim pass and thought I would contribute to the website because it has helped me so much.
I had some problems with the software during my exam. When I opened a section of the MPEP and then opened another section, the search function would not completely work with the section that I opened second. The limited functionality is hard to describe, but basically when I typed in a search term the pdf would go to the page that the word was located on, but would not highlight the work that I searched for. Very annoying! When I scrolled down on that page, the highlighted word would blink, but would stop blinking when I stopped scrolling. I figured out that if I closed the MPEP, went to a previous question and then back to the question that I was working on, the search function would return to normal.
Second, using ctrl+F did not bring up the search box on my computer. I had to click “Search” everytime I wanted to search something. In addition, I could not “Find Next” by hitting enter after searching the first time. I had to click “Find Next” everytime!
The repeats that I remember:
aluminum airplane
substance Z with 2 utilities
obviousness and the 35% alloy v 34.9% alloy
the ccar question
cannot use fax to correct no designation in PCT
Laurel, Abbot and Hardy
Smith Laminate
Declassified Reference
Federal Court Decisions binding for Office
Third Party Submissions
IDS after Notice of Allowance
Inert gas
Mike and Alice are Shipwrecked
Canceled matter as PA
Moondust
Claim anticipation / Paprika (varian with hair regrowth product that is anticipated by patent which uses compound for another purpose, answer is file a claim to method)
Spanish Phone – Design (answer was CIP would be barred by 102d)
Mexican Nationals – PCT (one of inventors was US nations so filing was OK)
Maintenance Fee Paid / Check Returned (variant but tested same section)
Death of Inventor after filing (answer was can be prosecuted by assignee)
Indefinate Claim Using ‘High’ (answer was definite if PHOSITA would understand claim breadth–search relative terms in MPEP, there is a section on words like this)
Piecemeal Prosecution OK when
Advisory Action was submitted before end of 3 months so extension measured from 3 months
Documents Requiring Signatures (there is a section on original signatures in 500, basically if it can be faxed then it can be a copy of signature)
Best Mode
I’m scheduled to take the exam in a little over 2 weeks. I am finding this website extremely helpful! I’m curious…..does anyone know why PTO publishes test questions and answers from 2002 and 2003 exams, particularly since some of these old questions are repeated on subsequent exams? Is PTO required to make questions public at some point in time? Does PTO make some old questions public in order to help applicants in preparing for the test? Thanks! Lisa
Just got home from the exam. I didn’t pass. Got 60%.
I had hardly any repeat questions, maybe 4 that I can remember, Moondust, A PCT one, Foil airplane, and one other I’ll try to remember. I was hoping for a lot more like others had. Not so. The exam was much harder for me then the practice tests. Lots of random things i had never heard of like subcombination/combination. I had to look up almost everything. Lots of appeal and obviousness, handul on the new KSR and Bilksi stuff. I was really hoping to pass. Damn. I studied for hours a day since early August. Damn. Oh well, I’ll take it again! I am working full time and balancing life with studying so I guess it will just take me longer.
KF,
Sorry to hear that…hopefully the next time you’ll have more repeats. I’m taking the exam on 11/16 and am in the same position you are in – working full time and balancing life with studying. Hoping for repeat questions too…..did you take a review course?
Hey Lisa!! I take this exam on Wednesday also!! I really just started to get to these old questions today. I really hope its enough time to at least get the popular ones down. How do you feel about the exam? Where are you taking it? I wonder if we will have most of the same questions.
First, thanks a lot guys for putting up this website. I passed the exam yesterday. I prepared from this website “exclusively”. It is better than BARBRI, PLI, PPG and everyother thing I have seen before. Anyway, here are the questions that I got –
(exam date 11/03/2011) –
1. Moondust – Inventor TIP, pencil eraser questions.
2. Signal – Is it patentable? Look at the Bilski guidence.
3. PCT – only one inventor, JP citizen resident in US, does not designate US, only JP and spec is in japanese? What will uspto do – ans: fwd to IB after transmittal fee, and give him a filing date.
4. Two very similar questions about Appeals – BPAI introduces new grounds of rejection, applicant reopens prosecution -> what happens next? Ans – dont remember it exactly. Please review the MPEP Appeals part on new grounds.
5. Lot of 102(a) and 102(e) – remember the prior art has to be of “another”.
6. Lot of obviousness questions – One new question I saw was – what does examiner has to do EXCEPT – in case of an “obvious to try” rejection. Please revew the obviousness guideline material – obvious to try paragraph.
7. Oath or declaration questions – what if all inventors are not identified?
Address of one inventor is wrong, how to fix it.
8. Comound Y prepared by process Q1 – product by process questions. Abt the metling pt being suprisingly low.
Thats all I can remember. Thanks again for the great website.
Hi everyone,
Well, I took the weekend off, moped a bit, and am ready to ramp up my studying to pass for sure the second time. A question for those taking it for the second time-it seems you have to both apply to the USPTO a second time, as well as sign up for prometric. Do you have to wait until you recieved a second approval letter from the USPTO before you schedule your exam for the second time? I know you have to wait for the 30 days to go by, but I’m a little confused what I have to do. Any tips would be great.
Lisa O-I purchased the PLI materials. I first bought the older materials, but the testing software was disabled in September after I bought if off ebay.
So I purchased the new course. Having the testing software has been very helpful. I love that I can make tests out of just the topics that are harder for me. I need to do that more.
Has anyone purchased the TAPRE flashcards? I love flashcards and purchased them over a month ago and FINALLY got them. I would not recommend that company. But I am wondering if anyone has them because I am missing 6 flashcards!! And was wondering if someone would share with me what I am missing. I am missing 184-190. I doubt anyone from the company will contact me back as I left 2 voicemails and sent 3 emails wondering where the flashcards were. I think if I had them before the test like I was supposed to I would have been better prepared. Harumph.
I was in the same boat – I had bought PLI materials last year, and when I tried to use the Patware CD it was out of date and disabled.
The trick around this is to set the date on your computer back a couple years and it should work
I had the same problem – bought the homestudy PLI materials last year and the Patware CD was disabled. I spoke to their Customer Service Dept, who told me to access the Patware on the PLI website – which works.
Wow-I can’t believe PLI told you have to access it. Did you buy the materials from them or from a third party? Because I didn’t buy my materials from them they wouldn’t help me at all.
Kerstin,
I bought the materials from them last year – and due to family health problems, had to delay taking the test. When I was able to prepare for the test and tried to use the Patware disc, it had been disabled – to my surprise!
Cool trick. It actually works. Thanks so much. I just love this website.
Did not pass today, 67,but will retake in 2 months….my strategy is to go over the old exams listed above, I screwed up by just doing it once….I had repeats and some twists. Mainly appeal and obviousness questions.
hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
For anyone having problems finding an authentic version of Acrobet Reader 5.0 (as I did) here is a link that worked for me: http://www.oldapps.com/adobe_reader.php?old_adobe=6?download
Hi Chris,
I’m still going over the Repeat Questions and New Exam questions from this site – as well as the posts from prior test takers which are sooooo helpful….but wish I had more time (wishful thinking!). I’m not sure what to really focus on now, with less than 24 hours to go. Ugh! I’m taking the exam in Fair Lawn, NJ. It will be interesting to see how many of our questions are similar. Good luck tomorrow!!!
where are you taking your test?
Yeah i am just reading over the 700, obviousness and 1200 today. I am also doing all the repeat practice questions. I am taking it in New Orleans, LA.
Future JD-Darn! You were so close. I’m in the same boat. Are you going to go to D.C. to review your exam? I’m trying to decide if it is worth the cost. Can anyone share about their experience reviewing the exam in D.C.?
Just failed yesterday….for my second time!
…it was like I had not spent 9 months studying or have not seen a test before.
studied twice as long….Absolutely owned the practice tests!, but to no avail
attribute failure to lots of questions on very obscure corner facts hidden in the MPEP
Here is what I remember for repeats:
(copied some from above to save typing)
aluminum airplane
obviousness and the 35% alloy v 34.9% alloy
the ccar question
cannot use fax to correct no designation in PCT
Laurel, Abbot and Hardy
Smith Laminate
Declassified Reference
Federal Court Decisions for valid or invalid vs PTO
IDS after Notice of Allowance
Inert gas
2 on Canceled matter as prior art
Moondust
Claim anticipation / hair regrowth product
Spanish Phone – Design (answer was CIP would be barred by 102d)
Mexican Nationals – PCT (one of inventors was US nations so filing was OK)
Maintenance Fee Paid / Check Returned (variant but tested same section)
Death of Inventor after filing (answer was can be prosecuted by assignee)
Indefinate Claim Using ‘High’ (answer was definite if PHOSITA would understand claim breadth–search relative terms in MPEP, there is a section on words like this)
Piecemeal Prosecution OK when
Advisory Action was submitted before end of 3 months so extension measured from 3 months
Documents Requiring Signatures (there is a section on original signatures in 500, basically if it can be faxed then it can be a copy of signature)
Best Mode
A lot of very obscure questions like:
when an examiner’s statement / notes are not required in a reasons for allowing a claim
Derived use of 35 USC 102(f)…hard to understand question
which one of these 5 different combinations of submitted items required to make special (non age stuff)
Looking for suggestions on other study materials, ..Please
…I can not take the hit to sleep, work and family anymore with this dragging on
I am using Omiprep, and do not feel it has prepared me well
..not enough new questions, not enough test strategy, (probably just need something a little more tailored for my style)
This especially sucks because I am an engineer/inventor with 20 submitted patents submissions, PTO submissions, issued patents, …and the test has nothing to do with any of that experience
it is an exercise in brute for memorization and speed searching of obscure..often not used facts.
If I remember more q’s I will post them
…good luck everyone
PTOed,
I didn’t pass today’s exam – I think it just depends on how many repeats you get…and I’m a personal injury attorney with a science background…and completely agree with you. I used the PLI review, but found this website invaluable for the questions I did see as repeats….I plan on changing how I study for the next time. Sending in my appplication again and will probably take a trip to the PTO to look at the answers.
Sorry to hear about your test too Lisa O,
I am changing my study methods as well.
I spent too much time trying to know the concepts and passing the old tests, and did not look at all of the questions posted on this site until the day before. (thinking they were all from the old tests)
I figured if I had the basics down cold and could pass all the old tests at 85-100% in an 1-1.5 hrs I would be set.
…but the facts remain if you even have to look up 30-40% you are going to fail, …so you have to memorize as many new non-posted answers as possible
knowing the straight forward concepts are great, …but only tested about 10%, .. most are some obscure concept written in a double negative wording format.
We will all get through this, …who knows..third time is the charm
Really sorry to hear that, PTOed!. When are you planning to take it again? and what do you think you are going to do differently in terms of studying? I am planning on taking it mid december.
Lily,
I plan to take it as soon as possible to try an keep up the momentum. I have to determine if you have to wait 30 days from when you last fail to re-register or if it is 30 day from when they accept your new application before you can take it again. (either way probably january-feb)
I am currently going through all the recent questions on this site and tagging the ones I got during my last test. ….A lot more than I originally thought
Last time I just did the 2001-2003 tests online, until I could pass easily in 1-1.5 hrs, writing notes on what I got wrong and why, lots of notes and flash cards on concepts…random question drill of all years ect.
.This time I am going to study this site and recent questions very heavily!
If the USPTO tested straight forward concepts and use I would pass easily, ..but the tricks, poorly worded, and double negative questions will ruin you if you do not learn them or have not seen them before.
My previous study did not involve any new questions, or learning tricks/recognizing question formatting. This is where I think the expensive PLI / PRG prep programs are probably good, they have people take the test all the time to provide that info.
This site is Great for that too, …and I should have included it as a main part of my study
good luck
I failed today. Off a handful questions. Self study for one month. Very few repeated questions like moon dust, three mexican inventors with one is resident and national in the US, fan lamp, 102(a),(b), weird question on 102(f). I though I did good in the morning but turned out to be failed. One question about power of attorney for partial interest in the invention as legal fee. Inventor died.
a/
b/ Must have new POA from inventor’s heirs, wife, estate,etc.
c/ Attorney continue to prosecute the application.
d/ something
e/ something
I chose c. Don’t it’s right or not
I’ll post more as i overcome this failure feeling.
Thinking of taking PLI, any suggestion how to beat this exam?
Frank,
I failed today too….still numb. Will post questions as I recover. Plan on taking it again as soon as I can.
Lisa, I really don’t know what happened but I could have sworn i got almost every question right in the pm section. I went through it in 2 hours and looked up every question I was unsure of. However, the am section really got me. I had a lot of new questions. It was mostly reissue, reexam, patentability, appeal, RCE and PCT. Anyways…I missed it by a few points. I am taking the actual “bar exam” in February. I dunno if I should retake it in December ASAP or wait until after.
I passed today! YAY
I a lot of new q’s but a really good number of repeats as well.
Congrats! I had so many new questions…thinking about going to the PTO to review my answers
Hooray Maggie!! Lisa-I’m so sorry. I know how you feel. I have taken almost 2 weeks to recover from the exhaustion of studying and ready to tackle it again. I scheduled an appt for December 2 to go to the USPTO.
Hmmm now I’m thinking of delaying my trip to the USPTO so it’s closer to my new exam date….hmmmmm
congrats! Based on your comments on this site, it seems like you mostly looked at the CFR rules, not the MPEP, for answers. Is this correct? Did you use this strategy for the exam?
Thx. I did you the Rules quite a bit. But you can’t use them say for Appeals or 103/112 (that is all Chapter 1200).
Some Q were extra nice and told you where to look 724 for Rule 1.4. So that was a nice perk seen in older exam for new qs.
Congratulations, Maggie!
Never doubted. Thanks for the summaries and comments you shared with us. Sorry to lose you now.
Besides repeat Qs, how did you study?
Materials used?
Number of hours a week/How many weeks (since your first exam)?
What parts of this website?
Your study strategy.
As for me, I came across this website quite accidently two days before my first exam (52%). I don’t use study materials. Will take the second in about a month (no definite date yet). I use iPad with iAnnotate App.
Thanks.
(1) I did PLI course at home. (made flash cards with Mental Case program for mac/iphone)
(2) The MPEP (i threw away my paper format so not to get dependent on the paper). I downloaded pdfs of the MPEP chapters and rules from PTO website. I read chapters: 2100 2X, 1200 4X, 1900 2X (I also used PDF program “Smile” so that I could highlight text in the chapter and practice exams on my Mac)
(3) I did every test 2000-2003 really slowly and only look up the answers electronically on the pdf MPEP (highlight answers and key statements/words within the Qs to help me understand how they are tricky). Then, I re-looked over them again briefly. (I also updated and/or made more flash cards from old tests clarifying issues for me).
(4) I went through all the posted Exam Q’s and VA posted Q’s-As on this site. (made flash cards with Mental Case on my iphone/mac)
(5) 2 Days before the test:
(a) re-did 2003 tests April and Oct with my grid
(b) went through all of the 1-60 Qs here on this site the again and only the recently reported repeats Qs from the most current posts.
(c) Looked through all the headings in chapters 1900 and 1200.
(d) Made sure I got a good night’s rest twos day before the exam and went to bed early before the day of the exam.
I did download the app for the old exams but for me this format does not help me learn anything. So, it did not work for me.
OLD EXAM QUESTIONS:
Tommie & Jo 24
Moondust (10.03.6p)
Potter (4.03.12a)
Japan 102(e) date
Japan 45 day abandoned
Issue Fee Transmittal Form (10.03.38p)
Beck – 150 degrees F (10.03.11p)
Appeal 1-10, 1-6 reject by board, applicant does nothing–> abandoned
Broom, Fan, Light, Clock Question
Plane with foil wings -cant overcome 103
Smith and Jones
Restriction –> no you can’t appeal this is by petition.
OLD CONCEPTS TESTED HARDER
Phone/Interview practice
Canceled Matter
102(g) Ex Parte Rejection
102(e) with mix of foreign priority dates / non-English ect
amendment to spec affecting claim2 and scope of claim 1
what is in a provisional filing to get filing date
Indefinite with Using the word “High”
Rights of non-signing inventor
Basic filing fee covers 20 total claims and 3 independent
NEW CONCEPTS OR RECENTLY REPORTED Q
-India outsource patent /American invention / FFL needed to export before patent issues?
EFS
103 Obvious to try
103 Obvious simple substitution
112 enablement determination by examiner practice
Obviousness examiner practice
PCT when is (1) US competent or (2) non competent
PCT incomplete Invitation to Correct name of applicant and designation what date does it get filing date both different dates
Appeal; Board affirms with new ground of rejection: Applicant want to open prosecution to less then all claim and have a rehearing what is next step?
Interparte exam Q testing definition of what it is
What is not a continuing application –> RCE
Trade Secret a expunge in Rexam with petition/ no petition to expunge all right Expect–> No petition then will not be open to public (false will be open)
French patent –>102(a) only
Documents that can you a copy of signatures–> ALL
Perfecting Foreign priority in a re-issue
Linking Claims Restriction–> ELECT and keep linking claim
101 rejection- for a mere business method
What examiner need to conclude 112 6p equivalence to reject –> shown in prior art it is a known equivalent
102(b) question on public use bar
Protest Q on what and when to submit
Both Inventors dies after notice of allowance –> nothing will happen unless heir intervene
Necessary parts on declaration/oath (all names must be listed)
Oath/ADS how to correct one inventors incorrect address?
IDS after filing issue fee—what can you do— gets put in patent file not considered
Publication of a PCT app designating USA–> when does it publish?
Restriction – combination/subcombination when a restriction is proper
Restriction – when a restriction is not/EXCEPT proper in a (non- combination, sub combination)
What what can and cannot use FAX for
Assignment open to public in which case?
What is needed to make an assignment except–> copy of patent
102 on range then applicant changes 112 written description and 102–> changes again –> remove 102 and 112
Express Mail showing “date in” which gets the filing date –> ones with clearly showing “ date in” this was a I.II.II type Q
TSM not exclusive for 103
How to determine skill of art and it is needed before a 103 determination
When will the Board consider new evidence after appeal brief in sent –> When a Federal Court Decisions has been made affecting the case.
When you can use 1.131 to overcome
Chemical formula, but no description on how to make it –> reject on written description only
Searching the MPEP is so difficult for me and it really stresses me out on the exam. So, I did the ~1.5 hours first pass and then left ~1.5 hours for the marked Q to look-up.
The afternoon session is always harder. So, don’t get stressed, just stay focused.
I used the 15 min tutorial time to get my 1-50 ABCDE grid. Also came in earlier in the afternoon to get it made before the exam started. I also kept it in fives, across 1-5, then next line 1-10 ect so I could get back easily.
I wrote the call of the Question type at the top by the number 1. “102(b) False” Then circled the whole Q (1 A-E ) if it was a look up. That way if I had couple of 103 Q’s look-ups I could look them both up at the same time. This also helped me not get confused with the True (in accordance) or Except (False) type Q’s.
Oddly in the afternoon I had a bunch of I. II, III, IV Questions.
Maggie,
I don’t know how to thank you enough. Hope to see you here now and then.
I agree…thank you for all youe excellent responses Maggie!
Hi Maggie- thanks again for all your responses on this site. I just looked over your summary, and saw you wrote:
“Chemical formula, but no description on how to make it –> reject on written description only”.
I’m confused though, isn’t a chemical formula adequate for written description? Shouldn’t it be an enablement rejection only?
Yes, enablement rejection only here.
(A) Written description is what it is (I.e. the chemical formula).
(B) Enablement is HOW to make and use it (the chemical)
My was 80% like yours. I had aquestion about competent minor to sign oath/declaration. Attorney with partial interest can continue to prosecute the app. after inventor’s death? A lot of 102a,b and f. Afternoon a lot of I II III IV. very difficult.
Responding to post 171 & 174 above and questions concerning use of PLI; I bought PLI off ebay and like others my PatWare CD did not work due to time clock. will try re-setting computer clock as the counter-measure. PLI course tries to teach what you need to know for the exam…but the really obscure questions will come out of nowhere on exam day. This site is a great supplement.
Maggie-Did you go to the USPTO to review your exam?? If you did can you share what it was like? I’m now thinking it’s not worth the cost. Any flight from the midwest is at leat $400.00, which is another application fee!
no i did not go.
Chris,
I found the actual “bar exam” pretty rough, but this was a lot worse. I think you’re best taking the Patent bar ASAP while it’s still fresh in your mind. You don’t want to lose all you’ve learned. I already sent in my application yesterday….not sure if it’s too premature, but I thought I’d get the process going again.
I had a question on April 2002 PM Question 43.
It seems to imply that you can claim foreign priority to an abandoned application? Or is it saying that you must file an application within 12 months of the earliest foreign filing, but you won’t obtain benefit?
ANSWER: The correct answer is (B). See MPEP § 201.13. An application must be filed in the U.S. within 12 months from the earliest foreign filing, except as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 119(c). Therefore, you would have one year from December 28, 2000 to file in the U.S. because invention X was first filed in Germany on December 28, 2000. Thus, you have until December 28, 2001 and the USPTO is open for business. The exception in 35 U.S.C. § 119(c) does not apply because the German application was abandoned after the filing of the second foreign application, the French application. Further, the subsequently filed application must be filed in the same country. Answer (A) is not the latest date to file.. See 35 U.S.C. §21 and MPEP § 201.13, Part D. Answer (C) is too late to obtain the right of priority for invention X inasmuch as the USPTO was open for business on December 28, 2001. Answers (D) and (E) are also too late to obtain the right of priority for invention X as it was disclosed in a foreign application more than a year prior to those dates.
Does anyone know the answer to this question? I feel like I’ve seen it before on an old test, but I can’t find the answer again:
French App 1-4-03 turns to French patent 12-5-03 then US app in 4-1-04. which 102 may examiner use to reject prior art?
a.102a
b.102b
c.102d
d.102a & 102d
e.102b & 102d
Thank you in advance
There’s definitely a 102b rejection, as the filing date is one year before the us app. You don’t really know if it is by same person, if it is, it could be a 102d rejection as the issue date is prior to the US app date. Answer e is wrong. My guess is b or c.
thank you!
Answer is 102d only b/ca
102b more than one year yourself or another
102d must be on file with USPTO within one year from foreign filing date, same invention, same inventors
102a must be before the date of invention by Another (not yourself)
maggie,
shouldn’t be b) as well. French app is 1/4/03 i.e. more than an year to 4/1/04 US app. Answer is 102 b&d =>e)
According 901.05 Foreign patents are publications “until its date of patenting or publication can be confirmed by an examiner’s review”. Sounds like foreign reference date would be 12/5/03 and 102b does not apply?
thanks!
Sunday, 12/04, I completed a successful effort on the exam. It was my 2nd try. I studied the Patent Education Series books from Nov. 2010 – May 2011 and failed 1st attempt. Bought a used PLI set with CDs/DVDs in July 2011 and studied it and this web site from Aug. 2011 to test day. Grinding through the repeat questions probably got me over the hump. The repeats I encountered are listed below. The morning questions were from 300, 600, 800, 1800, 2100, and 2200. I did not look up a 700 question until the afternoon session. I used maggie’s hand-drawn chart to track my answers and plan follow-up. The pdf search function was my friend. I am so happy that I haven’t stopped smiling yet.
Beck Mixture Y – 150 degree melting
provisional filing req’mts
non-theoretical metal (obvious ranges)
interview timing
PCT fax filing (none)
multiplicity 927 claims
Roger Rocket
Smartner’s Cell Phone
Third Party Submissions in a Protest – (my first lookup)
claim counting – 8 claims
trade secret in the envelope disclosure?
indefinite “high” term
moondust – (of course, I think everyone gets this question)
Nothing feels better than recognizing an old question, clicking the answer and moving on in 15 – 30 seconds…b/c there will be 5 – 7 minute look ups, too.
Actually, nothing feels better than seeing the phrase, “Preliminary test results show that you passed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Registration Examination for Patent Attorneys… You will receive your official examination results from the USPTO in due course.”
BTW, all of my study materials and old exams are FOR SALE at a very discounted price. If my old stuff can help you pass I will gladly send it to you.
Hi Greg,
Congrats on passing the exam! I was wondering if your old study materials are still for sale and if so for how much.
Thanks!
Hey, I passed this weekend, 12/10 and saw a lot of repeat questions. I studied primarily from this site and thought I would share what I saw since this site helped me so much. From my memory I saw the following questions (some may not be repeats, but just questions I remembered)
1. Moondust
2. Variation of Prior Art (400.42a)
3. Fed Court Decisions Binding
4. What are the102(f) Requirements?
5. What are the 102(g) Requirements?
6. Assignment of a divisional
7. 6-8 PCT Questions including filing in the US/RO with Mexican citizens but a US national, effective filing dates and 102(e) dates, omitted items (Can’t correct by fax)
8. Filing an RCE on appeal
9. Smith and Jones (4.02.38p)
10. Lack of Possession 112 (10.02.2a)
11. Question asking the difference between Statutory and Non-Statutory Double Patenting
12. 37 CFR 1.131 – MPEP 715 (10.02.6a)
13. Dead Inventor with patent fully assigned
14. 2-3 Questions on third party submissions
15. Best Mode
16. Inert gas (4.03.30a)
17. Polypropylene range (obviousness of ranges) (4.03.44a)
18. New Grounds of Rejection (both by board and examiner)
19. 2-3 Questions regarding board affirmance of rejected claims
20. Bloc; Synthetic Z (10.03.7a)
21. The laminate question with no middle adhesive
Can anyone help me reconcile #38 from the April 2003 am exam, answer choice C (listed as correct in answers), stating that someone can remain confidential if they wish after submitting cited patents and printed publications they believe has bearing on patentability and the last sentence of MPEP 2212 which states “The name of the person who files the request will not be maintained in confidence..”
Thanks!
39 CFR 1.501(b)
Hello,
Does anyone know whether I need to send my transcripts to register for retake?
Thank you…
No need to re-send your transcripts for a retake….I believe PTO has it on file for a year. I sent in my application and payment and received their letter in almost 2 weeks.
Anybody know what this illegal Website does. We will check all user information.
Move along, troll.
When is a copy of a signature allowable? Please also site where I can find this in the MPEP. Thanks.
Do any of you folks who have taken the Exam suggest skipping through the Exam and answering shorter questions or questions near the end first?
Hi Walter – I’ve done a few simulated exams with Calprep and found that I could relax more with the tougher questions, once the short ones were out of the way. My strategy is to answer all the short ones first, then the longer ones that were familiar. After that, I had about 2 hours left to go through the ones that required searching. Good luck!
JP
Hi Juris, did you find that Calprep was a close simulation to actual exam conditions?
Walter,
I did not find trying to do the shorter questions first a helpful method. I just did all the questions as they appeared on the exam.
During the Prometric examination, a timer at the top of the question page records how much time you spend doing each question, and how much time you have left in the exam. I found keeping an eye on this time much more helpful because it allowed me to not panic when I found myself spending more than 3 minutes on a difficult question (because I knew that I had spent less than 60 seconds on some earlier easier ones). In my opinion, this is much easier than shuffling back and forth between short and long questions or marking the hard ones and going back to them later. Cheers.
Thanks to this site I took and passed the exam the other day. The following strategy worked for me.
First, I recommend that one memorize all the repeat questions and answers on this web site. Memorize the question, answer, and the rationale for the answer. Otherwise, one will be tricked by a repeat variant that differs slightly either in the fact pattern, the call of the question, or in the available answers. So read the question very carefully.
Next, at the start of your exam, both sessions, click through all 50 questions and answer the repeat questions that you find. I took about a half-hour to carefully search and answer the repeats then started from the beginning to work through the unanswered questions. You can use the Review screen to see which questions remain to be answered and you can click to go directly to them. I found the Review screen to be handy to help estimate how much time I will have to finish the remaining questions.
Next, go through the unanswered questions answering as many as you can from knowledge, without using the MPEP search. The search facility is, in my opinion, a slow and disabling. You can’t search backward, only forward, and you’re not given any sense of your location in each chapter, so you’ll have to navigate using the page number. And if you frequently misspell, I constantly do, you can’t stop the search, at least I couldn’t, and this burns up valuable seconds. It’s better to type slowly and carefully than to burn up valuable seconds waiting for the result not message to appear.
Finally, use the remaining time to grind through the unanswered questions with the help of the MPEP search. This phase took the longest time. As before, skip over questions that require intensive searches. Some deceptively short questions, particularly those from the supplemental materials, did not allow for the process of elimination, they all looked valid and this required me to do a search for each of five choices, so save those for last. Now, when you’re done with all that, look at the Review screen and answer any remaining unanswered questions and you’re done.
Don’t be too distressed if you have to take the exam again. You’ll get better and better at this process each time. With persistence, success is inevitable.
Congrats IPCat! Thank you for your valuable input. Did you have a chance to search the supplemental materials too? Some folks recently noted that this was problematic (did not work).
May your next endeavours be equally successful.
JP
Thanks JP. Access to the supplemental materials is crucial to at least 2-3 questions on the exam. Without supplemental materials, the potential loss is too great to continue in my opinion.
Yes, I did use the supplemental materials search quite a bit.
1. What happens if I pay 200+40 to PTO and fail to take the exam within the 3 month window? Do i have to reapply with 40$? or with $240?
2. What happens if you take the exam within the 3 month window but fail? Do we have inform the PTO that you want to take the exam again? or simply re register with Prometric after 30 days (within the 90 days).
I think the short answer is you would plan to reapply to OED with a complete new registration application and $240. My long-winded explanation follows:
My letter of approval to take the exam (from OED) gives me my 90 day window to schedule and take the Prometric exam. The Prometric site tells you when you sign up for the exam that you can cancel and reschedule your test free any time before 30 days before your currently scheduled test (available new dates to test still have to be within your 90 day window). I think it also said they (Prometric) charge $35 to reschedule if you’re between 30 days and 2 days prior to your scheduled test. By one day prior, you are committed to the test date you originally scheduled.
My OED letter also stated “Extensions of time to take the examination should not be expected even if, as the latter date approaches, you are having difficulty scheduling an examination or are unprepared to take the examination.” The “latter date” they mention refers to the last day of your assigned 90 day window.
Although I haven’t found any reference for it, the above quote from OED’s letter seems to suggest that it would take a bona fide emergency and an extension request to be able to take the exam after your designated 90-day window (e.g. – if you are hospitalized at the time your test is scheduled, they might give you an extension. If your dog is hospitalized, probably not). Also, I haven’t found a reference for exactly how you would go about submitting an extension request to OED.
As far as simply letting your 90 days expire without scheduling or taking the exam, or alternatively, if you schedule, take, and fail the exam, CFR 11.7 seems to indicate that you can immediately submit a new application to OED with the fees listed in CFR 1.21(a)(1), and then OED will give you a new 90 day window to take the exam. That window will not start until at least 30 days have elapsed since your failure (if there was a failure). Those fees required by CFR 1.21(a)(1) include both the $40 and the $200.
What is the best way to simulate the searchable MPEP provided on the test? What version of Adobe is Prometrics using these days? Is CATPrep still an accurate simulation of actual testing conditions and is it worthwhile to purchase?
I don’t know the answer to this yet, Miranda. The exam is in my future. I’ve been using it, but cannot simulate the search function with it.
JP
PatBar has a really good piece of software that simulates the MPEP and exam conditions very close to the actual thing.
Hi guys, this has been a tremendously helpful site. I am planning to take my patent bar exam very soon. I am just wondering for those who have taken it recently, or about to take it, what is the percentage of repeat questions on the exam nowadays? I’ve heard range from 30% all the way to 80%. Does it really fluctuate that much between exams? Any input and insight would be much appreciated.
Passed today.
Quick history – studied using PatBar by myself last summer and got a 68%. My experience is that one half of the test will be repeat heavy and the other will be “MPEP lookup” heavy. If you get the heavy lookup first half, don’t get discouraged!
Found this site recently and it pushed me over the top. I still recommend PatBar for a couple of reasons:
(1) It’s a good overview of the substantive law (and let’s face it, you probably want to learn something about patents…).
(2) The provided software is an excellent simulator for Prometric’s test (with the 2003/2002/Oct2001 exams – this is probably the MOST valuable part of the entire package).
(3) The flash cards are pretty helpful.
(4) I am selling my PatBar books and CDs. If you are interested, email me at youjustneed63@gmail.com
The beauty of this site is that there are just enough repeats that you have time to search the MPEP for the rest of the answers and can usually find them verbatim. Practice searching the index of the MPEP. Know the 2003 Oct/Apr exams cold. Between those tests and this site, you should have enough time to find the rest in the MPEP.
Follow IPCat’s strategy – it’s a beut!
I actually ran into a problem by hitting “enter” while in the MPEP search and it freaked out/froze the MPEP window on me. I simply went down to “review marked answers” in the actual test window and it seemed to reset the MPEP window. I luckily didn’t lose any time in having to get the Prometric PhD staff to help.
On to what you are actually looking for:
Sweden PCT
Broom
Foil Airplane
Japanese Patent
Electric Fan
Death of both inventors after filing
Indefinite High
Piecemeal
Best Mode
2 Month Rule for Final Office Action (Maggie variant)
Moondust
Nat’l Stage by Fax
XYZ Company
Parking Meter
Tommy/Jo
Design Patent Country X
900+ Dependent Claims
Bloc
Interviews
Beck
Potter
Fed Ct decision binding
New Grounds of Rejection
3 Independent/20 dependent claims allowed before excess fee applies
About 2-3 Bilski/KSR
PCT –probably 8-10 questions.
E’s French App Question listed above
India outsource
Trade Secret in the envelope
Some combination/subcombination questions right out of the MPEP
A German Inventor names Schmidt filed in the US, but wanted to antedate a german application…sorry, I can’t remember the details, but hopefully this jogs someone else’s memory.
An interesting disclosure question where separate disclosures were filed for each inventor (inventor A, B, C). I would be interested in the feedback from the forum about this. There were 4 answers involving why the disclosures should be rejected, and the last answer said to accept it as fine. The MPEP seemed to say “no, we don’t like this, but actually yes we’ll accept them.” I ended up putting no – not all inventors listed, so doesn’t qualify. Who knows if I got it right…
A question I haven’t seen on this site, but learned in Patent Class: a wave is not patentable material.
And I’m spent. Good luck and pay it forward.
Oh, and look at Maggie’s post above with the 3 sections of Old Material/Old Tested Harder/New Material – I endorse her message.
Ok finally passed this test!!! took it today 1/24
I am too burnt-out to update on questions now,
…but one watch-out was I got NO questions requiring supplemental materials, .i.e KSR or Belinski
This may be due to the recent issues with those not being searchable at Prometric, and it made my test a little different from the recent posts
Primarily I studied posts and saw problems posted by Maggie, ganush, Pinchme, Colberts Carolina,
Now to do nothing, ….and love it
Congrats PTOed! I’m so glad for you. Plus, the info regarding the supplemental materials is telling. Wonder why this is such a bear for Prometric to figure out? Glad that OED will be informed of it by those who experienced the difficulties.
JD
congrats PTOed! hope i don’t have a need for searching supp. mat. either. If you can give advice and point out to repeats that would be great
I just passed the Pat Bar. There were lots of repeat questions.
I got about 3-5 questions on Bilski and KSR.
I remember getting an ‘obvious to try’ question, an obviousness question, and a business method question. They were not hard, though.
The repeats I can remember are:
Moondust
Parking meter
900 dependent claims
Piecemeal
Broom
Foil Airplane
Electric fan
lots of PCT questions
lots of appeal questions. — lots of obscure sections of MPEP 1200 were tested
lots of obscure questions in MPEP 1800 were tested
lots of obscure questions in MPEP 600 were tested
My advice. Practice, practice, practice. Don’t pick an answer if you are unsure about it.
I had to look up around 13 questions in my am session. There were lots of questions I had not seen, and they were hidden (almost invisible) in the MPEP. I used a combination of keyword/table of contents to search. I eliminated the wrong answers.
During my afternoon session, I had to look up around 17/18 questions. I had time to look them up because I had lots of repeats and had practiced so much that I was able to answer about 34 questions in about 1hr 15 mins. I used the remainder of the time to look up 17 questions, and made sure I got all of them right (at least I thought so).
Don’t panic. Also, don’t over rely on repeat questions to pass. Use the repeat questions as a tool to answer them quickly on exam day so that you can have more time to search the MPEP.
Also, if you have the time, read MPEP 2100, as reading it will help you understand some minutiae, which will help you pick the right answer in those confusing questions. I would not have passed had I not read MPEP 2100. It may seem like a lot of work, but it is worth it.
I passed today.
More repeats:
Trade secret in envelope
India Outsource
Indefinite High
Sweden PCT
Death of inventors after filing
Passed on my second time!
I couldn’t have done it without this website. Here is my exam strategy–hope this helps someone:
- Did the entire PLI course (took the exam the first time after that…didn’t pass. Hmm.)
- Found this website. For the next 6 weeks this is all I did:
1. Read all the comments about how important it was to study the repeat questions. Best. Advice. Ever.
2. Look at Mambo5’s comment on the “Study Guide” portion of this website where he compiles all the repeat questions together. I copied and pasted these into a word document and worked my way through every single one.
3. Read all the user comments after each question!
4. Read 2100 3x (just pretend it’s a good novel!). Read 1200 3x. Read 1800.
5. Memorized the headings, sub-headings, and sub sub-headings of 700. That made it SO much easier to quickly find a lot of information.
6. Went over the repeat questions from this site 3 more times, each time understanding the rationale for all right and wrong answers.
7. Read the new rules on ex parte appeals, re-exams, and Track I.
Day before the exam: I read the repeat questions again (see a pattern here?), and skimmed 2100 and 1200.
Day of the exam: Some people above say they went through the test by first answering the repeats and then going back for the look-up questions. But I like to answer every question as it comes along w/o having to go back. I looked up everything (except the repeats), just to be sure. There were a LOT of repeats.
Hope this helps someone. Don’t be discouraged if you don’t pass your first time. A lot of us here didn’t. Just be sure to GO OVER THESE REPEATS. Each repeat I saw on the exam felt like a gift from my past self. I will post on this site about each repeat question individually if I saw it appear on the exam. It’s the least I can do.
New AIA materials:
1. Inter Parte Re-exam Question
- There was a question about a 3rd party who wanted to file a request for an inter-parte re-exam. The answer required you to know that the new inter parte re-exam rules from the AIA only apply to requests filed on/after Sept. 16, 2011 but before Sept. 16, 2012, and that the new standard for these requests is “whether the requestor has established enough to suggest a likelihood that the requestor will win the re-exam for at least one claim.” Also, remember that the old “substantial new question of patentability” still applies for ex-parte appeal requests.
2. New Ex Parte Appeal Rules:
One question basically required you to know that these rules only apply to appeals filed on/after Jan. 23, 2012
3. Bilski
One question asked how an applicant w/ a business method invention could argue using the Bilski holding that his invention was patentable. I believe the correct answer was to somehow attach the claims in the app to a machine or device so that it’s an application of an abstract idea.
4. KSR
In one question, the examiner makes an obviousness rejection based on the TSM test. The question was how the applicant should respond using KSR holdings. The correct thing for the applicant to do was prove (w/ evidence…always w/ evidence!) that the examiner relied too strictly on the TSM test and other factors proved non-obviousness.
Good luck! (Seriously, though, go over the repeat questions)
CORRECTION:
The second to last word on this paragraph should be “re-exam” not appeal. Corrected version:
1. Inter Parte Re-exam Question
- There was a question about a 3rd party who wanted to file a request for an inter-parte re-exam. The answer required you to know that the new inter parte re-exam rules from the AIA only apply to requests filed on/after Sept. 16, 2011 but before Sept. 16, 2012, and that the new standard for these requests is “whether the requestor has established enough to suggest a likelihood that the requestor will win the re-exam for at least one claim.” Also, remember that the old “substantial new question of patentability” still applies for ex-parte re-exam requests.
What in the fact pattern clued you to these points? Did it mention a date? Did it ask about the standard?
MFB,
The fact pattern didn’t clue me in to those points. It was the answer choices. For example, the re-exam question had answer choices that went something like this: “Which is correct according to the MPEP and rules and procedures…? (A) Requestor should file a re-exam request no later than Sept. 16, 2011 w/ enough evidence to support a substantial question of patentability; (B) Requestor should file a re-exam request no later than Sept. 16, 2012 w/ enough evidence to support a substantial question of patentability…”
Basically, the answer choices combined the substantial new question of patentability + likelihood of success standard + AIA effective date in various ways and required you to know what the correct standard was at what time.
Thanks and Congratulations, PCTearsOfJoy —
I am wondering if you used new updated patent ruls since the USPTO posted new rules — I know the appeal part has been chagned significantly. Please let me know — I am taking the exam tomorrow
Yes, I used the new materials from the USPTO website. I read them over once and took notes on it. They are pretty straightforward and easy to remember. Key thing to remember are the dates that these new rules go into effect. Good luck tomorrow!
Thanks! I hope I can write a good news like you.