USPTO Patent Bar Exam Prep Free practice test →

Free USPTO Patent Bar Practice Questions

10 free, exam-style USPTO Registration Examination (USPTO Patent Bar) practice questions with answers and explanations. No signup required. Work through them below, then take the full free USPTO Patent Bar practice test to study every exam domain.

Question 1

Inventor Chen published a journal article describing her novel polymer coating on March 10, 2023. She filed a nonprovisional U.S. patent application claiming the same polymer coating on February 28, 2024. A third party, Dr. Kapoor, independently published an article describing an identical polymer coating on September 15, 2023. Under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102, which of the following is MOST correct regarding the patentability of Chen's claims?

  1. Chen's claims are barred because Dr. Kapoor's publication is prior art under § 102(a)(1) and was made by a different inventor
  2. Chen's claims are barred because her own March 2023 publication is prior art under § 102(a)(1) and falls outside the one-year grace period
  3. Chen's claims are not barred because both her own publication and Dr. Kapoor's publication are excepted from prior art under § 102(b)(1)
  4. Chen's claims are barred because a third party's independent publication cannot be overcome by the inventor's grace period exception
  5. Chen's claims are not barred because her own publication triggers the grace period under § 102(b)(1)(A), and Dr. Kapoor's later publication is also excepted under § 102(b)(1)(B) as appearing after the inventor's qualifying disclosure
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: E - Chen's claims are not barred because her own publication triggers the grace period under § 102(b)(1)(A), and Dr. Kapoor's later publication is also excepted under § 102(b)(1)(B) as appearing after the inventor's qualifying disclosure

Question 2

A patent application claims: 'A method of managing a patient treatment schedule comprising: receiving patient data, applying a rules engine to match patients with available treatment slots based on physician specialty and insurance status, and outputting an optimized schedule.' Under the USPTO's § 101 subject-matter eligibility guidance, which step of the Alice/Mayo framework is MOST likely to be dispositive in determining that this claim is NOT patent-eligible?

  1. Step 1 - the claim does not fall within a statutory category because it is directed to a method of organizing human activity
  2. Step 2A, Prong 1 - the claim is not directed to a judicial exception because it involves a computer-implemented process
  3. Step 2A, Prong 2 - the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the elements amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer
  4. Step 2B - the claim recites unconventional activity that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea
  5. Step 1 - the claim is directed to a law of nature because treatment scheduling inherently involves biological processes
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: C - Step 2A, Prong 2 - the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the elements amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer

Question 3

An examiner rejects claims 1-5 of a utility application under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Reference A in view of Reference B. The applicant files a response with a declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 providing evidence that the claimed invention achieved unexpectedly high thermal conductivity compared to the combination suggested by References A and B, and that three competitors have licensed the patented technology. To properly evaluate these secondary considerations, the examiner must determine that:

  1. The unexpected results and licensing evidence automatically overcome any prima facie case of obviousness regardless of other factors
  2. A nexus exists between the claimed invention and the evidence of unexpected results and licensing activity, and the evidence is commensurate in scope with the claims
  3. The licensing activity alone is sufficient to overcome the rejection because it demonstrates commercial value of the invention
  4. The unexpected results must be shown relative to the closest prior art reference individually rather than the combination proposed by the examiner
  5. Secondary considerations may only be presented after a final rejection and cannot be considered during prosecution of a non-final rejection
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: B - A nexus exists between the claimed invention and the evidence of unexpected results and licensing activity, and the evidence is commensurate in scope with the claims

Question 4

A nonprovisional utility application was filed on January 15, 2024. The first office action on the merits was mailed on August 20, 2024. On October 1, 2024, the applicant's attorney discovers a highly relevant published PCT application from a foreign counterpart case - the attorney received the communication citing this reference from the European Patent Office on September 25, 2024. The attorney files an IDS on October 1, 2024. Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, which of the following correctly describes the requirements for this IDS to be considered?

  1. The IDS requires no fee and no statement because it was filed within three months of the application filing date
  2. The IDS requires no fee and no statement because it was filed before the first office action on the merits
  3. The IDS requires either the fee under § 1.17(p) or a statement under § 1.97(e) because Tier 1 has closed but no final action or Notice of Allowance has been mailed
  4. The IDS requires both the fee under § 1.17(p) and a statement under § 1.97(e) because it was filed after the first office action on the merits
  5. The IDS cannot be filed at this time and must wait until after the applicant responds to the office action
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: C - The IDS requires either the fee under § 1.17(p) or a statement under § 1.97(e) because Tier 1 has closed but no final action or Notice of Allowance has been mailed

Question 5

Inventor Park filed a nonprovisional utility application (Application A) on May 1, 2020, which disclosed and claimed a novel battery electrode composition. Application A is still pending. On April 15, 2023, Park files a continuation-in-part (CIP) application (Application B) that includes the original electrode composition from Application A plus newly added subject matter describing a manufacturing process for the electrode not disclosed anywhere in Application A. A third-party reference published on December 1, 2020 describes the identical manufacturing process. Which of the following is correct regarding the prior art status of the third-party reference against the CIP claims?

  1. The reference is not prior art against any claims in Application B because Application B claims the benefit of Application A's May 1, 2020 filing date for all claims
  2. The reference is prior art under § 102(a)(1) against all claims in Application B because Application B's effective filing date is April 15, 2023
  3. The reference is prior art under § 102(a)(1) against claims directed to the manufacturing process because those claims rely on new matter with an effective filing date of April 15, 2023, but is not prior art against claims fully supported by Application A
  4. The reference is prior art against all claims in Application B because a CIP never receives the benefit of the parent's filing date
  5. The reference is not prior art because it was published less than one year before Application B was filed, triggering the § 102(b)(1) grace period
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: C - The reference is prior art under § 102(a)(1) against claims directed to the manufacturing process because those claims rely on new matter with an effective filing date of April 15, 2023, but is not prior art against claims fully supported by Application A

Question 6

An inventor who is a national and resident of Brazil files a PCT international application on June 10, 2023, designating the United States. The PCT application claims priority to a Brazilian national application filed on June 15, 2022. The inventor takes no further action regarding U.S. entry until January 2026. What is the status of the inventor's ability to enter the U.S. national stage under 35 U.S.C. § 371?

  1. The inventor may still enter the U.S. national stage because the 30-month period is calculated from the PCT international filing date of June 10, 2023, making the deadline December 10, 2025, and a petition to revive for unintentional delay is available
  2. The inventor may still enter the U.S. national stage because the 30-month deadline does not begin until the international publication date
  3. The inventor cannot enter the U.S. national stage because the 30-month period is calculated from the earliest priority date of June 15, 2022, making the deadline December 15, 2024, and this deadline is not extendable
  4. The inventor may still enter the U.S. national stage by filing a bypass continuation application under 35 U.S.C. § 111(a) claiming benefit of the PCT application, because the 30-month deadline only applies to § 371 entry
  5. The inventor may enter the U.S. national stage late by paying a surcharge under 37 C.F.R. § 1.495 within six months after the 30-month deadline
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: C - The inventor cannot enter the U.S. national stage because the 30-month period is calculated from the earliest priority date of June 15, 2022, making the deadline December 15, 2024, and this deadline is not extendable

Question 7

An examiner mails a Notice of Allowance on March 1, 2025 for a nonprovisional utility application. Before paying the issue fee, the applicant discovers a significant error in dependent claim 5. The applicant wants to amend claim 5 to correct the error. Which of the following MOST accurately describes the applicant's options?

  1. The applicant may file an amendment under 37 C.F.R. § 1.312, which will be entered as a matter of right because the application has not yet issued as a patent
  2. The applicant may file an amendment under 37 C.F.R. § 1.312, but entry is not a matter of right - the examiner or Technology Center Director must approve the amendment, and it will only be entered if it does not raise new issues requiring further search or consideration
  3. The applicant must file a Request for Continued Examination before any amendment can be considered after a Notice of Allowance
  4. The applicant cannot amend any claims after a Notice of Allowance under any circumstance; the only option is to allow the patent to issue and then file a reissue application
  5. The applicant may file a continuation application with the amended claim and expressly abandon the allowed application
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: B - The applicant may file an amendment under 37 C.F.R. § 1.312, but entry is not a matter of right - the examiner or Technology Center Director must approve the amendment, and it will only be entered if it does not raise new issues requiring further search or consideration

Question 8

A utility patent issued on September 15, 2022. During prosecution, the applicant overcame a § 103 obviousness rejection by amending independent claim 1 to add the limitation 'wherein the coating thickness is between 50 and 100 nanometers.' On September 10, 2024, the patent owner files a reissue application seeking to broaden claim 1 by removing the coating thickness limitation. Which of the following is MOST correct?

  1. The reissue application is timely because it was filed within 2 years of the patent grant date, and the broadening amendment will be permitted
  2. The reissue application is timely but the broadening will be refused under the recapture doctrine because the patent owner is attempting to recapture claim scope that was surrendered during prosecution to overcome the § 103 rejection
  3. The reissue application is untimely because the 2-year period for broadening reissue expired on September 15, 2024 and reissue was filed before that but claims will be rejected anyway for other reasons
  4. The reissue application will be granted because the recapture doctrine only applies when the original prosecution involved a § 102 rejection, not a § 103 rejection
  5. The reissue application is barred because a reissue oath identifying the error has not been filed within the statutory period
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: B - The reissue application is timely but the broadening will be refused under the recapture doctrine because the patent owner is attempting to recapture claim scope that was surrendered during prosecution to overcome the § 103 rejection

Question 9

An applicant files a timely Notice of Appeal and Appeal Brief after a final rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The examiner files an Examiner's Answer that includes a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for indefiniteness - a rejection that was never raised during prosecution. Within what time period must the applicant act, and what options are available?

  1. The applicant must file a reply brief within 2 months of the Examiner's Answer rebutting the new ground, or the application will go abandoned; no other options exist
  2. The applicant has 2 months from the Examiner's Answer to either: (1) request that prosecution be reopened to address the new ground, which returns the case to the examiner; or (2) request rehearing by the PTAB on the new ground, maintaining the appeal - failure to take either action within 2 months results in proceedings deemed terminated
  3. The applicant has 6 months from the Examiner's Answer to respond because new grounds of rejection automatically extend the response period
  4. The applicant must immediately file a Request for Continued Examination because a new ground of rejection in the Examiner's Answer is procedurally improper
  5. The new ground of rejection is improper and must be petitioned to the Director for removal; examiners may not raise new rejections in the Examiner's Answer
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: B - The applicant has 2 months from the Examiner's Answer to either: (1) request that prosecution be reopened to address the new ground, which returns the case to the examiner; or (2) request rehearing by the PTAB on the new ground, maintaining the appeal - failure to take either action within 2 months results in proceedings deemed terminated

Question 10

A nonprovisional application with an effective filing date of July 1, 2019 receives a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) based on a journal article published on April 15, 2019. The article was authored by Dr. Tanaka, who is unrelated to the applicant. The applicant's practitioner considers filing a declaration to overcome the rejection. Which of the following is correct?

  1. The practitioner should file a declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 to swear behind the reference by establishing a date of invention prior to April 15, 2019
  2. The practitioner should file a declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.130 to establish that the subject matter disclosed in the article was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor
  3. The practitioner should file a declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 presenting evidence that the article does not actually teach every element of the claimed invention
  4. No declaration can overcome this rejection because the reference was authored by an unrelated third party and published within one year before the effective filing date, and the AIA grace period only protects the inventor's own disclosures
  5. The practitioner should file a declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 because the application's effective filing date is after March 16, 2013, making this an AIA application where Rule 131 provides the broadest protection
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: D - No declaration can overcome this rejection because the reference was authored by an unrelated third party and published within one year before the effective filing date, and the AIA grace period only protects the inventor's own disclosures

Ready for the real thing?

Practice hundreds more USPTO Patent Bar questions with instant scoring, weak-area drills, and full exam simulations.

Start the free practice test See pricing