1. What are the two ways in which permission to file a patent application abroad may be obtained (MPEP 100, Secrecy, Access, National Security, and Foreign Filing)?

(A) Either a petition for a foreign filing license may be granted (37 CFR 5.12) or an applicant may wait 3 months after filing a patent application in the USPTO (35 U.S.C. 184) at which time a license on that subject matter is no longer required as long as no Secrecy Order has been imposed. 37 CFR 5.11(e)(2).
35 U.S.C. 122.

(B) Either a petition for a foreign filing license may be granted (37 CFR 5.12) or an applicant may wait 6 months after filing a patent application in the USPTO (35 U.S.C. 184) at which time a license on that subject matter is no longer required as long as no Secrecy Order has been imposed. 37 CFR 5.11(e)(2).
35 U.S.C. 122.

(C) Either a petition for a foreign filing license may be granted (37 CFR 5.12) or an applicant may wait 8 months after filing a patent application in the USPTO (35 U.S.C. 184) at which time a license on that subject matter is no longer required as long as no Secrecy Order has been imposed. 37 CFR 5.11(e)(2).
35 U.S.C. 122.

(D) Either a petition for a foreign filing license may be granted (37 CFR 5.12) or an applicant may wait 9 months after filing a patent application in the USPTO (35 U.S.C. 184) at which time a license on that subject matter is no longer required as long as no Secrecy Order has been imposed. 37 CFR 5.11(e)(2).
35 U.S.C. 122.

(E) Either a petition for a foreign filing license may be granted (37 CFR 5.12) or an applicant may wait 12 months after filing a patent application in the USPTO (35 U.S.C. 184) at which time a license on that subject matter is no longer required as long as no Secrecy Order has been imposed. 37 CFR 5.11(e)(2).
35 U.S.C. 122.

Answer: (B), because the time period referred to above is waiting 6 months after filing.

2. Which of the following statements is or are in accord with the patent laws regarding foreign filing (MPEP 100):

(1) If an applicant makes a request upon filing, certifying that the invention disclosed in the application has not and will not be the subject of an application filed in another country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires publication of applications 18 months after filing, the application shall not be published.

(2) An applicant may rescind a request made under the clause (1 above) at any time.

(3) An applicant who has made a request under clause (1 above) but who subsequently files, in a foreign country or under a multilateral international agreement specified in clause (1 above), an application directed to the invention disclosed in the application filed in the Patent and Trademark Office, shall notify the Director of such filing not later than 45 days after the date of the filing of such foreign or international application. A failure of the applicant to provide such notice within the prescribed period shall result in the application being regarded as abandoned, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Director that the delay in submitting the notice was unintentional.

(A) Statement (1)
(B) Statement (2)
(C) Statement (3)
(D) Statements (1) & (2) & (3)
(E) Statements (1) & (3)

Answer: (D), because all three of the choices above are in accord with the patent laws
regarding foreign filing.


3. According to the patent laws, rules and procedures in the MPEP 301.01 regarding Accessibility of Assignment Records, which of the following is true:

(A) The Office will open only certain parts of an assignment document to public inspection.
(B) The Office will open only certain parts of an assignment document to public inspection. Special approval is required to open other parts.
(C) The Office will not open only certain parts of an assignment document to public inspection. If such a document contains two or more items, any one of which, if alone, would be open to such inspection, then the entire document will be open.
(D) The Office will not open only certain parts of an assignment document to public inspection. If such a document contains two or more items, any one of which, if alone, would be open to such inspection, then the entire document will be open (except under certain conditions).
(E) None of the above.

Answer: (C), because all of the document will be open to inspection.


Note: Questions 4 through 7 are regarding MPEP 400, Representative of Inventor or Owner.

4. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures in the MPEP under
37 CFR 1.42 and 37 CFR 1.422; when the inventor is dead, which fact is true:

(1) In case of the death of the inventor, the legal representative (executor, administrator, etc.) of the deceased inventor may make the necessary oath or declaration, and apply for and obtain the patent.
(2) Where the inventor dies during the time intervening between the filing of the application and the granting of a patent thereon, the letters patent may be issued to the legal representative upon proper intervention.
(3) In case of the death of the inventor, the legal representative
(executor, administrator, etc.) of the deceased inventor may file an international application which designates the United States of America.

(A) Only fact (1) is true
(B) Only fact (2) is true
(C) Both facts (1) and (2) are true
(D) All of the above are true.
(E) None of the above.

Answer: (D), because all of the three statements above apply to patent law when a inventor is deceased.


5. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures in the MPEP under
409.01 and 409.01f; when the inventor is dead, which fact is true:

(1) Unless a power of attorney is coupled with an interest (i.e., an attorney is assignee or part-assignee), the death of the inventor (or one of the joint inventors) terminates the power of attorney given by the deceased inventor. A new power from the heirs, administrators, executors, or assignees is necessary if the deceased inventor is the sole inventor or all powers of attorney in the application have been terminated.
(2) When a joint inventor of a pro se application dies after filing the application, the living joint inventor(s) must submit proof that the other joint inventor is dead. Upon submission of such proof, only the signatures of the living joint inventors are required on the papers filed with the USPTO if the legal representative of the deceased inventor does not intervene.
(3) If the legal representative of the deceased inventor wishes to intervene, the legal representative must submit an oath or declaration in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63 and 1.64 e.g., stating that he or she is the legal representative of the deceased inventor and his or her residence, citizenship and post office address). Once the legal representative of the deceased inventor intervenes in the pro se application, the signatures of the living joint inventors and the legal representative are required on the papers filed with the USPTO.

(A) Only fact (1) is true
(B) Only fact (2) is true
(C) Both facts (1) and (2) are true
(D) All of the above (1) and (2) and (3) are true.
(E) None of the above.

Answer: (D), because all of the above are true statements that apply when the inventor is dead.

6. James and John are joint inventors of a reliable type of bicycle tire. All of the following can be done if James dies after filing a pro se application, except:

(A) John must submit proof that James, the other joint inventor is dead.
(B) Only the signature of John is required on the papers filed with the USPTO.
(C) Only the signature of John is required on the papers filed with the USPTO if the legal representative of James does not intervene.
(D) If the legal representative of James wishes to intervene, the signature of John and the legal representative of James are required on the papers filed with the USPTO.
(E) If the legal representative of James wishes to intervene, the legal representative must submit an oath or declaration in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63 and 1.64 e.g., stating that he or she is the legal representative of the deceased inventor and his or her residence, citizenship and post office address.

Answer: (B), because it is not true that only the signature of John, the remaining joint inventor, is only required if James, the other joint inventor dies. The other options should be addressed.

7. Steve, Brian, and Tom are joint inventors of a new, all-purpose, quick-bonding glue for wood, rubber, plastics, metal, paper, and leather surfaces. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures in the MPEP, if Brian and Tom die after filing a pro se application, the correct order of actions for Steve to take are:

(GRAY) Steve submits proof that Brian and Tom have died.
(BLUE) Steve asks if the legal representatives of Brian and Tom plan to intervene.
(BLACK) Steve finds out, then makes a note for his records, that the legal representatives of Brian and Tom do not plan to intervene.
(PURPLE) Steve may use only his signature on the papers filed with the USPTO.

(A) GRAY action only
(B) BLUE action only
(C) PURPLE action only
(D) GRAY, BLUE, BLACK, and then PURPLE actions, in this order
(E) PURPLE, BLACK, GRAY

Answer: (D), because the order specified in choice (D) is the correct order of the actions to be done.

Note: Questions 8 through 12 are regarding MPEP 500, Receipt and Handling of Mail and Papers.

8. All of the following is true with respect to MPEP 510 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and Business Hours, except:

(A) A valid User Pass must be prominently displayed when searching in the TC Facilities. User Passes are nontransferable and must be surrendered upon request to authorized officials.
(B) The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) working hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays in the District of Columbia. Outside these hours, only USPTO employees are authorized to be in areas of the USPTO other than the Public Search Rooms.
(C) The hours for the Public Search Facility in Alexandria are 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and the hours for the Trademark Paper Facility in Arlington are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays in the District of Columbia.
(D) During working hours, all applicants, attorneys, and other members of the public should announce their presence to the Office personnel in the area of their visit. In the Technology Centers (TCs), visitors should inform the TC receptionist of their presence before visiting other areas of the TC.
(E) The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) closes at 3PM daily.

Answer: (E), because this selection is the only selection that is not true. The hours of the USPTO are correctly shown in (B) and (C) above.

9. According to MPEP 502.01, 37 CFR 1.6, all of the following correspondences can be submitted by FAX to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, except:

(A) Correspondences, including authorizations to charge a deposit account
(B) Correspondences that to not require an original signature
(C) Correspondences that can be filed in a single application
(D) Correspondences that include on the FAX cover sheet the application number of a patent application, the control number of a reexamination proceeding, the interference number of an interference proceeding, the patent number of a patent, or identifying information of a continued prosecution application.
(E) Correspondences with color diagrams or color drawings.

Answer: (E), because correspondences with color diagrams or color drawings cannot be submitted by FAX to the USPTO.

10. According to MPEP 502.01, 37 CFR 1.6, and 37 CFR 1.495(b) all of the following correspondences can be submitted by FAX to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, except:

(A) Correspondences, including authorizations to charge a deposit account
(B) Correspondences that do not require an original signature
(C) Correspondences that can be filed in a single application
(D) Correspondences that include on the FAX cover sheet the application number of a patent application, the control number of a reexamination proceeding, the interference number of an interference proceeding, the patent number of a patent, or identifying information of a continued prosecution application.
(E) An international application for patent or a copy of the international application and the basic national fee necessary to enter national stage, as specified in 37 CFR 1.495(b).

Answer: (E), because this is a situation where this type of correspondence cannot be submitted by FAX to the USPTO.


11. The following types of correspondences cannot be submitted by facsimile to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, according to MPEP 502.1:
(1) Correspondences requiring an original signature.
(2) Certified documents.
(3) Correspondences which cannot receive the benefit of the certificate of mailing or transmission.
(4) Color drawings.
(5) A request for reexamination.
(6) Correspondences to be filed in a patent application subject to a secrecy order and directly related to the secrecy order content of the application.
(7) In contested cases before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences except as the Board may expressly authorize.
For the above choices, choose from the following answers:
(A) Only (1) & (2) above.
(B) Only (3) & (4) above.
(C) Only (5) & (6) & (7) above.
(D) All of the above.
(E) None of the above.
Answer: (D), because all of those choices are applicable to U.S. patent law.

12. According to CFR 1.8, correspondence required to be filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office within a set period of time will be considered as being timely filed if:

(A) The correspondence is addressed as set out in § 1.1(a) and deposited with the U.S. Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail prior to the expiration of the set period of time.
(B) The correspondence is transmitted by facsimile to the Patent and Trademark Office in accordance with § 1.6 (d) prior to the expiration of the set period of time.
(C) The correspondence is transmitted via the Office electronic filing system in accordance with § 1.6(a)(4) prior to the expiration of the set period of time.
(D) Either (A) or (B) or (C)
(E) None of the above
Answer: (D), because any one of the above three choices is a condition when a correspondence will be considered timely filed.

13. In accordance with the patent laws, MPEP 600, Parts, Form, and Content of Application, which of the following is true:
(A) In case of conflicting information between Application Data Sheet and Oath/Declaration, the Application Data Sheet wins.
(B) In case of conflicting information between Application Data Sheet and Oath/Declaration, the Oath/Declaration wins.
(C) In case of conflicting information between Application Data Sheet and Oath/Declaration, both are thrown in the trash.
(D) In case of conflicting information between Application Data Sheet and Oath/Declaration, both must be corrected and re-submitted.
(E) In case of conflicting information between Application Data Sheet and Oath/Declaration, the conflicts are just left “as-is” and no-one cares.
Answer: (A), because the Application Data Sheet has priority with respect to relying on the data contained therein.

14. In accordance with the patent laws, MPEP 600, Parts, Form, and Content of Application, which of the following is true:
(A) In case of conflicting information between Application Data Sheet and Oath/Declaration, regarding the naming and citizenship of the inventors; the Application Data Sheet wins.
(B) In case of conflicting information between Application Data Sheet and Oath/Declaration, regarding the naming and citizenship of the inventors; the Oath/Declaration wins.
(C) In case of conflicting information between Application Data Sheet and Oath/Declaration, regarding the naming and citizenship of the inventors; both are thrown in the trash.
(D) In case of conflicting information between Application Data Sheet and Oath/Declaration, regarding the naming and citizenship of the inventors; both must be corrected and re-submitted.
(E) In case of conflicting information between Application Data Sheet and Oath/Declaration, regarding the naming and citizenship of the inventors; the conflicts are just left “as-is” and no-one cares.

Answer: (B), because the Oath/Declaration has priority with respect to relying on the data contained therein.

15. In accordance with the patent laws, MPEP 600, Parts, Form, and Content of Application, which of the following is true if both the Application Data Sheet and Oath/Declaration are not filed on the same date:
(A) In case of conflicting information between Application Data Sheet and Oath/Declaration, the Application Data Sheet wins.
(B) In case of conflicting information between Application Data Sheet and Oath/Declaration, the Oath/Declaration wins.
(C) In case of conflicting information between Application Data Sheet and Oath/Declaration, the document that was filed later in time wins.
(D) In case of conflicting information between Application Data Sheet and Oath/Declaration, both must be corrected and re-submitted.
(E) In case of conflicting information between Application Data Sheet and Oath/Declaration, the conflicts are just left “as-is” and no-one cares.
Answer: (C), because the document that was filed later in time takes precedence.

16. In accordance with the patent laws, MPEP 600, Parts, Form, and Content of Application, which of the following is true if both the Application Data Sheet and Oath/Declaration are not filed on the same date; and there is conflicting information between the Application Data Sheet and Oath/Declaration, regarding the naming and citizenship of the inventors:
(A) The Application Data Sheet wins.
(B) The Oath/Declaration wins.
(C) The document that was filed later in time wins.
(D) Both documents must be corrected and re-submitted.
(E) The conflicts in the documents are just left “as-is” and no-one cares.

Answer: (B), because the Oath/Declaration takes precedence.

17. In accordance with the patent laws, MPEP 608.01(a), which of the following is true:

(A) If an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76) is used, it is fine for some of the data to be left blank on the application data sheet.

(B) If an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76) is used, data supplied in the application data sheet must be provided on all other pages of the application.

(C) If an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76) is used, data supplied in the application data sheet must not be duplicated elsewhere in the application.

(D) If an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76) is used, data supplied in the application data sheet need not be provided elsewhere in the application, except the citizenship of each inventor must be provided in the oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 even if this information is provided in the application data sheet.

(E) None of the above.

Answer: (D), because only this option is true and the other options are false. Data supplied in the application data sheet need not be provided elsewhere in the application except where noted in (D).

18. According to MPEP 609, which table is correct regarding the requirements for filing an Information Disclosure Statement after NOA:

(A)
609 Information Disclosure Statement
Time when IDS is filed 37 CFR 1.97 Requirements
(1)(a)for national applications (not including CPAs), within 3 months of filing or before first Office action on the merits, whichever is later;(b) for national stage applications, within 3 months of entry into national stage or before first Office action on the merits, whichever is later; (c) for RCEs and CPAs before the first Office action on the merits. None (IDS will be considered).
(2) After (1) but before final action, notice of allowance, or Quayle action 1.97(e) statement or 1.17(p) fee.
(3) After (2) and before (or with) payment of issue fee. 1.97(e) statement, and 1.17(p) fee.
(4) After payment of issue fee. IDS will not be considered (in absence of successful petition to withdraw from issue under 37 CFR 1.313).

(B)
609 Information Disclosure Statement
Time when IDS is filed 37 CFR 1.97 Requirements
(1)(a)for national applications (not including CPAs), within 3 months of filing or before first Office action on the merits, whichever is later;(b) for national stage applications, within 3 months of entry into national stage or before first Office action on the merits, whichever is later; (c) for RCEs and CPAs before the first Office action on the merits. None (IDS will be considered).
(2) After (1) but before final action, notice of allowance, or Quayle action 1.97(e) statement or 1.17(p) fee.
(3) After (2) and before (or with) payment of issue fee. 1.97(e) statement, and 1.17(p) fee.

(C)
609 Information Disclosure Statement
Time when IDS is filed 37 CFR 1.97 Requirements
(1)(a)for national applications (not including CPAs), within 3 months of filing or before first Office action on the merits, whichever is later;(b) for national stage applications, within 3 months of entry into national stage or before first Office action on the merits, whichever is later; (c) for RCEs and CPAs before the first Office action on the merits. None (IDS will be considered).
(2) After (1) but before final action, notice of allowance, or Quayle action 1.97(e) statement or 1.17(p) fee.


(D)
609 Information Disclosure Statement
Time when IDS is filed 37 CFR 1.97 Requirements
(1)(a)for national applications (not including CPAs), within 3 months of filing or before first Office action on the merits, whichever is later;(b) for national stage applications, within 3 months of entry into national stage or before first Office action on the merits, whichever is later; (c) for RCEs and CPAs before the first Office action on the merits. None (IDS will be considered).

(E) None of the above

Answer: (A), because the complete table is correct for the requirements under U.S. patent law.

19. According to MPEP 608.01c, background of the invention, and 37 CFR 1.63, all of the following are true except:

(A) The field of the invention is a statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions. The statement should be directed to the subject matter of the claimed invention.

(B) The description of the related art should include information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A paragraph(s) describing to the extent practical the state of the prior art or other information disclosed known to the applicant, including references to specific prior art or other information where appropriate.

(C) Under the description of the related art: where applicable, the problems involved in the prior art or other information disclosed which are solved by the applicant’s invention should be indicated. See also MPEP § 608.01(a), § 608.01(p) and § 707.05(b).
(D) There is no minimum age to sign the oath or declaration (37 CFR 1.63).
(E) The minimum age to sign the oath or declaration is age 18 or older (37 CFR 1.63).
Answer: (E), because there is no minimum age to sign the oath or declaration.

Note: Questions 20 through 26 refer to MPEP 700: Examination of Applications.

20. According to MPEP 707.05(f): Effective Dates of Declassified Printed Matter, which of the following is true:

(I) In the use of any of the above noted material as an anticipatory publication, the date of release following declassification is the effective date of publication within the meaning of the statute.
(II) For the purpose of anticipation predicated upon prior knowledge under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) the above noted declassified material may be taken as prima facie evidence of such prior knowledge as of its printing date even though such material was classified at that time.
(III) When so used the material does not constitute an absolute statutory bar and its printing date may be antedated by an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131.

(A) Only (I) is true.
(B) Only (II) is true.
(C) Only (III) is true.
(D) All of the above.
(E) None of the above.
Answer: (D), because all three options above are true regarding effective dates of declassified printed matter.

21. According to 706.07(h): Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Practice,
all of the following are true for utility or plant applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, except:

(A) The RCE provisions of 37 CFR 1.114 do not apply to
a provisional application.

(B) The RCE provisions of 37 CFR 1.114 do not apply to
an application for a utility or plant patent filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before June 8, 1995.

(C) The RCE provisions of 37 CFR 1.114 do not apply to
an international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 before June 8, 1995

(D) The RCE provisions of 37 CFR 1.114 do not apply to
an application for a design patent or a patent under reexamination.

(E) The RCE provisions of 37 CFR 1.114 do not apply to
an application for a utility or plant patent filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before June 8, 1994.

Answer: (E) because the described law does not apply to an application for a utility or plant patent as described.

22. Which of the following is true regarding an applicant being able to obtain continued examination of an application [by filing a request for continued examination (see form PTO/SB/30), a submission and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e)], which should be prior to the earliest of:

(I) payment of the issue fee (unless a petition under 37 CFR 1.313 is granted)
(II) abandonment of the application
(III) the filing of a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action (unless the appeal or civil action is terminated)

(A) Only (I) is true.
(B) Only (II) is true.
(C) Only (III) is true.
(D) All of the above.
(E) None of the above.

Answer: (D), because all of the above are true regarding an applicant being able to obtain continued examination of a patent application prior to those conditions.

23. According to a Swearing Back of Reference: Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.131, which of the following is a situation where a declaration under 27 CFR 1.131 is not appropriate:

(I) Where the reference publication date is more than 1 year prior to applicant’s or patent owner’s effective filing date. Such a reference is a “statutory bar” under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as referenced in 37 CFR 1.131(a)(2). A reference that only qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (e) is not a “statutory bar.”
(II) Where the reference U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication claims the same patentable invention.
(III) Where the reference patent and the application or patent under reexamination are commonly owned, and the inventions defined by the claims in the application or patent under reexamination and by the claims in the patent are not identical but are not patentably distinct, a terminal disclaimer and an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 may be used to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP § 718.

(A) Only (I) above.
(B) Only (II) above.
(C) Only (III) above.
(D) All of the above.
(E) None of the above.
Answer: (D), because all of the above are situations were a declaration under this section of the patent law is not appropriate.

24. According to MPEP 706.02(l)(1), Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103; 35 U.S.C. 103(c), which of the following are true:

(I) You can't use 103(c) exception if the 102(e) reference can be used under other 102’s.
(II) 35 U.S.C. 103(c) applies only to prior art usable in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
(III) Subject matter that qualifies as anticipatory prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 is not affected, and may still be used to reject claims as being anticipated. And double patenting rejections, based on subject matter now disqualified as prior art in amended 35 U.S.C. 103(c), should still be made as appropriate. See 37 CFR 1.78(c) and MPEP § 804.
(A) Only (I) above.
(B) Only (II) above.
(C) Only (III) above.
(D) All of the above.
(E) None of the above.
Answer: (D), because all of the above apply to rejections under the above patent law code.

25. According to MPEP 706.02(B): Overcoming a 35 U.S.C. 102 Rejection Based on a Printed Publication or Patent [R-2], a rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 102(b) can be overcome by which of the following:
(A) Persuasively arguing that the claims are patentably distinguishable from the prior art.
(B) Amending the claims to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
(C) Perfecting priority under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e).
(D) All of the above.
(E) None of the above.
Answer: (D), because a rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 102(b) can be overcome by all of the three above.

26. Which of the following statements are true?
(I) The statutory period for overcoming a rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 102(b) is one year.
(II) There is a little leeway with the 1 year statutory period for 102(b) if publication is published on Sat Sun or a holiday -- application must be filed on the Monday, or day after the holiday.
(III) MPEP 706.02(a): Where the last day of the year dated from the date of publication falls on a Saturday, Sunday or Federal holiday, the publication is not a statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) if the application was filed on the next succeeding business day.
(IV) Regarding the examiner's ability to require information from the applicant, MPEP 704.10 - Requirements for Information: If the applicant has no knowledge regarding the requested information, then it is a sufficient reply to say so.
(A) Only (I) and (II) above.
(B) Only (III) and (IV) above.
(C) Only (I), (II), & (III) above.
(D) All of the above.
(E) None of the above.
Answer: (D), because all of the above are true regarding U.S. patent law.

27. According to MPEP 800: Restrictions in applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting, which of the following statements is true regarding linking claims:

(A)There are a number of situations which arise in which an application has claims to two or more properly divisible inventions, so that a requirement to restrict the claims of the application to one would be proper, but presented in the same case are one or more claims (generally called “linking” claims) inseparable therefrom and thus linking together the otherwise divisible inventions.
(B) There are a number of situations which arise in which an application has claims to two or more properly divisible inventions, so that a requirement to restrict the claims of the application to one would be improper, but presented in the same case are one or more claims (generally called “linking” claims) inseparable therefrom and thus linking together the otherwise divisible inventions.
(C) There are a number of situations which arise in which an application has claims to two or more properly divisible inventions, so that a requirement to restrict the claims of the application to one would be proper, but presented in the same case are one or more claims (generally called “linking” claims) separable therefrom and thus linking together the otherwise divisible inventions.
(D) All of the above
(E) None of the above

Answer: (A), because Choice A is correct regarding linking claims. Choice B is incorrect because of the word “improper”. Choice C is incorrect because of the word “seperable”.

28. According to MPEP 900: Prior Art, Classification, Search; specifically MPEP 901, and 37 CFR 1.104(a)(1) in MPEP § 707, all of the following are true except:

(A) On taking up an application for examination or a patent in a reexamination proceeding, the examiner shall make a casual perusal thereof and shall make a simple, quick investigation of the available prior art relating to the subject matter of the claimed invention. The examination shall be as complete as time permits with respect both to compliance of the application or patent under reexamination with the applicable statutes and rules and to the patentability of the invention as claimed, as well as with respect to matters of form, unless otherwise indicated.
(B) The applicant, or in the case of a reexamination proceeding, both the patent owner and the requester, will be notified of the examiner's action. The reasons for any adverse action or any objection or requirement will be stated in an Office action and such information or references will be given as may be useful in aiding the applicant, or in the case of a reexamination proceeding the patent owner, to judge the propriety of continuing the prosecution.
(C) An international-type search will be made in all national applications filed on and after June 1, 1978.
(D) Any national application may also have an international-type search report prepared thereon at the time of the national examination on the merits, upon specific written request therefor and payment of the international-type search report fee set forth in § 1.21(e).
(E) The Patent and Trademark Office does not require that a formal report of an international-type search be prepared in order to obtain a search fee refund in a later filed international application.
Answer: (A), because it is not true that the examiner shall make a casual perusal.

29. Steve applied to patent his invention of a motion detector wireless alarm for doors or windows in homes or offices. Steve’s security alarm has the capability of contacting owners with a pre-taped alert message via a phone call if motion is detected at a door or window. Steve’s invention description and art describes and illustrates a 2-way splitter and cable, alkaline batteries, an automatic dialing system, and an infrared beam that can detect movements up to six meters away. Upon the patent office examiner making a complete investigation of the available prior art relating to the subject matter of the claimed invention, the examiner found that this particular design has already been patented. Under to MPEP 900: Prior Art, Classification, Search; specifically MPEP 901, and 37 CFR 1.104(a)(1) in MPEP § 707, which of the following are true with respect to the examiner’s actions that may be taken at the patent office:
(1) If the invention is not considered patentable, or not considered patentable as claimed, the claims, or those considered unpatentable will be rejected.
(2) In rejecting claims for want of novelty or for obviousness, the examiner must cite the best references at his or her command. When a reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim specified.
(3) In rejecting claims the examiner may rely upon admissions by the applicant, or the patent owner in a reexamination proceeding, as to any matter affecting patentability and, insofar as rejections in applications are concerned, may also rely upon facts within his or her knowledge pursuant to paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(A) Only (1) is true.
(B) Only (2) is true.
(C) Only (3) is true.
(D) All of the above.
(E) None of the above.
Answer: (D), because all of the above are true with respect to the examiner’s actions that may be taken at the patent office.

30. This question is regarding MPEP 900: Prior Art, Classification, Search; specifically MPEP 901, and 37 CFR 1.104(a)(1) in MPEP § 707. James and John entered a joint research agreement in January 2005 wherein a written contract was entered into by James and John for the performance of experimental, developmental, and research work in the field of computer chips. James and John agreed that the entire rights to the subject matter and the invention resulting from the research were to be commonly owned. James applied for a patent in March 2005 as a result of the above described research work. To overcome a rejection to the patent, what can James do:
(1) To overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based upon subject matter which qualifies as prior art under only one or more of 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) via 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2), James must provide a statement to the effect that the prior art and the claimed invention were made by or on the behalf of parties to a joint research agreement, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(3) and paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section, that was in effect on or before the date the claimed invention was made, and that the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement.
(2) To overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based upon subject matter which qualifies as prior art under only one or more of 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) via 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2), James cannot do anything because the patent is going to be rejected no matter what.
(3) To overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based upon subject matter which qualifies as prior art under only one or more of 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) via 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2), James should cross his fingers that the patent office examiner has a copy of the joint research agreement that John may have submitted.
(A) Only (1) is true.
(B) Only (2) is true.
(C) Only (3) is true.
(D) All of the above.
(E) None of the above.
Answer: (A) because only (1) above is true. Furthermore, (2) is false because it is incorrect that it is futile; and (3) is incorrect because James should have a copy of the joint research agreement.

31. According to MPEP 900: Prior Art, Classification, Search; the reference to: 901 Prior Art, specifically the reference to: MPEP 2121 Prior Art; General Level of Operability Required to Make a Prima Facie Case [R-6], which of the following is true:
(I) When the reference relied on expressly anticipates or makes obvious all of the elements of the claimed invention, the reference is presumed to be operable. Once such a reference is found, the burden is on applicant to provide facts rebutting the presumption of operability. In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980).
(II) According to a reference to MPEP 2121 which is MPEP 716.07: Inoperability of References, since every patent is presumed valid ( 35 U.S.C. 282), and since that presumption includes the presumption of operability (Metropolitan Eng. Co. v. Coe, 78 F.2d 199, 25 USPQ 216 (D.C.Cir. 1935), examiners should not express any opinion on the operability of a patent. Affidavits or declarations attacking the operability of a patent cited as a reference must rebut the presumption of operability by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980).
(III) Examiners can guess whether or not the patent is operable just by looking at all the art and elements describing the invention.
(A) Only (1) is true.
(B) Only (2) is true.
(C) Only (3) is true.
(D) Both (1) and (2) are true.
(E) None of the above.
Answer: (E), because both (1) and (2) above are true; and (3) is false since examiners should not guess.

32. According to MPEP 900: Prior Art, Classification, Search; the reference to: 901 Prior Art, specifically the reference to: MPEP 2121 Prior Art; General Level of Operability Required to Make a Prima Facie Case, which of the following is true:
(I) What constitutes an "enabling disclosure" depends on the type of prior art the disclosure is contained in. The level of disclosure required within a reference to make it an "enabling disclosure" is greater for a foreign patent than it is for a U.S. patent when prior art is at issue. There is a basis in the statute (35 U.S.C. 102 or 103) for discriminating in favor of prior art references on the basis of U.S. nationality.
(II) What constitutes an "enabling disclosure" does not depend on the type of prior art the disclosure is contained in. The level of disclosure required within a reference to make it an "enabling disclosure" is the same no matter what type of prior art is at issue. It does not matter whether the prior art reference is a U.S. patent, foreign patent, a printed publication or other. There is no basis in the statute (35 U.S.C. 102 or 103) for discriminating either in favor of or against prior art references on the basis of nationality.
(III) Efficacy is not a requirement for prior art enablement. A prior art reference provides an enabling disclosure and thus anticipates a claimed invention if the reference describes the claimed invention in sufficient detail to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the claimed invention; proof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation.
(A) Only (I) above.
(B) Only (II) above.
(C) Only (III) above.
(D) Only (II) and (III) above.
(E) None of the above.

Answer: (D), because only (II) and (III) above are true. Furthermore, (I) is not true because discriminating should not be allowed.
33. According to MPEP 900: Prior Art, Classification, Search; the reference to: 901 Prior Art, specifically the reference to: MPEP 901.01: Cancelled Matter in U.S. Patent Files, which of the following is true:
(I) Canceled matter in the application file of a U.S. patent or U.S. application publication is not a proper reference as of the filing date under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
(II) Matter canceled from the application file wrapper of a U.S. patent or U.S. application publication may be used as prior art as of the patent or publication date, respectively, in that it then constitutes prior public knowledge under 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
(III) Matter canceled from the application file wrapper of a U.S. patent or U.S. application publication may not be used as prior art as of the patent or publication date, respectively.

(A) Only (I) is true.
(B) Only (II) is true.
(C) Only (III) is true.
(D) Only (I) and (II) are true.
(E) None of the above.

Answer: (D) because only (I) and (II) are true. Furthermore, (III) is not true because it is the opposite of (II) which is true.

34. According to MPEP 900: Prior Art, Classification, Search; the reference to: 901 Prior Art, specifically the cross reference to: MPEP 2127 Domestic and Foreign Patent Applications as Prior Art: Abandoned patent applications, which of the following is true:
(I) An abandoned patent application may become evidence of prior art only when it has been appropriately disclosed, as, for example, when the abandoned patent [application] is referenced in the disclosure of another patent, in a publication, or by voluntary disclosure under [former Defensive Publication rule] 37 CFR 1.139.
(II) An abandoned patent application becomes available as prior art only as of the date the public gains access to it. See 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(ii) and (iv).
(III) The subject matter of an abandoned application, including both provisional and non-provisional applications, referred to in a prior art U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication may be relied on in a 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection based on that patent or patent application publication if the disclosure of the abandoned application is actually included or incorporated by reference in the patent.
(A) All of the above are true.
(B) Only (I) is true.
(C) Only (II) is true.
(D) Only (III) is true.
(E) None of the above.
Answer: (A), because all of the above are true regarding abandoned patent applications.

35. According to MPEP 900: Prior Art, Classification, Search; the reference to: 901 Prior Art, specifically the cross reference to: MPEP 2127: Domestic and Foreign Patent Applications as Prior Art, which of the following is true:
(I) A 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection cannot rely on matter which was canceled from the application and thus did not get published in the issued patent. Canceled matter in the application file of a U.S. patent cannot be relied upon in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The canceled matter only becomes available as prior art as of the date the application issues into a patent since this is the date the application file history becomes available to the public.
(II) A 35 U.S.C. 102(b) rejection over a published application may rely on information that was canceled prior to publication. Figures that had been canceled from a Canadian patent application before issuance of the patent were available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as of the date the application became publicly accessible.
(III) A 35 U.S.C. 102(b) rejection over a published application cannot rely on information that was canceled prior to publication.

(A) Only (I) is true.
(B) Only (II) is true.
(C) Both (I) and (II) are true.
(D) Only (III) is true.
(E) None of the above.

Answer: (C), because both (I) and (II) are correct. Furthermore, (III) is incorrect because it is the opposite of (II) with is true.

36. According to MPEP 900: Prior Art, Classification, Search; the reference to: 901 Prior Art, specifically the cross reference to: MPEP 2127 Domestic and Foreign Patent Applications as Prior Art, which of the following is true:
(I) Foreign applications open for public inspections, i.e., laid open applications, may constitute “published” documents. When the specification is not issued in printed form but is announced in an official journal and anyone can inspect or obtain copies, it is sufficiently accessible to the public to constitute a "publication" within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b).
(II) Older cases have held that laid open patent applications are not "published" and cannot constitute prior art. Ex parte Haller, 103 USPQ 332 (Bd. App. 1953).
(III) Whether or not a document is "published" for the purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 depends on how accessible the document is to the public. As technology has made reproduction of documents easier, the accessibility of the laid open applications has increased. Items provided in easily reproducible form have thus become "printed publications" as the phrase is used in 35 U.S.C. 102. In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226, 210 USPQ 790, 794 (CCPA 1981) (Laid open Australian patent application held to be a "printed publication" even though only the abstract was published because it was laid open for public inspection, microfilmed, "diazo copies" were distributed to five sub-offices having suitable reproduction equipment and the “diazo copies” were available for sale.). The contents of a foreign patent application should not be relied upon as prior art until the date of publication (i.e., the insertion into the laid open application) can be confirmed by an examiner's review of a copy of the document.
(A) Only (I) is true.
(B) Only (II) is true.
(C) Only (III) is true.
(D) All of the above.
(E) None of the above.
Answer: (D) because all of the above is true regarding prior art.

37. According to MPEP 900: Prior Art, Classification, Search; the reference to: 901 Prior Art, specifically the cross reference to: MPEP 2127 Domestic and Foreign Patent Applications as Prior Art: pending U.S. applications, and 37 CFR 1.14(a) , which of the following is true:
(A) All pending U.S. applications are preserved in confidence.
(B) All pending U.S. applications are preserved in confidence except for published applications.
(C) All pending U.S. applications are preserved in confidence except for published applications and reissue applications.
(D) All pending U.S. applications are preserved in confidence except for published applications, reissue applications, and applications in which a request to open the complete application to inspection by the public has been granted by the Office.
(E) All pending U.S. applications are never preserved in confidence.

Answer: (D), because it is the only complete correct response listed above regarding all pending U.S. applications.
38. According to MPEP 900: Prior Art, Classification, Search; the reference to: 901 Prior Art, specifically the cross reference to: MPEP 2136.02, which of the following is true:
(I) Under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), the entire disclosure of a U.S. patent, a U.S. patent application publication, or an international application publication having an earlier effective U.S. filing date (which will include certain international filing dates) can be relied on to reject the claims.
(II) When a U.S. patent, a U.S. patent application publication, or an international application publication is used to reject claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), the disclosure relied on in the rejection must be present in the issued patent or application publication. It is the earliest effective U.S. filing date (which will include certain international filing dates) of the U.S. patent or application publication being relied on as the critical reference date and subject matter not included in the patent or application publication itself can only be used when that subject matter becomes public. Portions of the patent application which were canceled are not part of the patent or application publication and thus cannot be relied on in a 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection over the issued patent or application publication.
(III) When a U.S. patent, a U.S. patent application publication, or an international application publication is used to reject claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), the subject matter which is disclosed in a parent application, but not included in the child continuation-in-part (CIP) cannot be relied on in a 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection over the issued or published CIP.
(A) Only (1) and (2) are true.
(B) Only (2) and (3) are true.
(C) All of the above are true.
(D) Only (1) and (3) are true.
(E) None of the above are true.
Answer: (C), because all of the above are true regarding MPEP 901.

39. According to MPEP 900: Prior Art, Classification, Search; and the reference to: 901.02: Abandoned applications, all of the following are true, except,
(A) If an abandoned application was previously published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b), that patent application publication is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and 102(b) as of its patent application publication date because the patent application publication is considered to be a "printed" publication within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and 102(b), even though the patent application publication is disseminated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office using only electronic media.
(B) A patent application publication published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) of an application that has become abandoned may be available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as of the earliest effective U.S. filing date of the published application.
(C) As provided in 37 CFR 1.11(a), unless a redacted copy of the application was used for the patent application publication, the specification, drawings, and all papers relating to the file of an abandoned published application are open to inspection by the public, and copies may be obtained from the USPTO Office.
(D) The information that is available to the public under 37 CFR 1.11(a) may be used as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or 102(b) as of the date the information became publicly available.
(E) Where an unpublished abandoned application is identified or whose benefit is claimed in a U.S. patent, a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, or an international patent application publication of an international application that was published in accordance with PCT Article 21(2), the file contents of the unpublished abandoned application may not be made available to the public.
Answer: (E) because it is not true with respect to abandoned applications.

40. According to MPEP 900: Prior Art, Classification, Search; and the reference to 901.03, which of the following is true:
(A) The American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) was enacted into law on November 29, 1999. The AIPA amended 35 U.S.C. 122 to provide that, with certain exceptions, applications for patent filed on or after November 29, 2000 shall be published promptly after the expiration of a period of eighteen (18) months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought under title 35, United States Code, and that an application may be published earlier at the request of the applicant.
(B) The American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) was enacted into law on November 29, 1999. The AIPA amended 35 U.S.C. 122 to provide that, with certain exceptions, applications for patent filed on or after November 29, 2000 shall be published promptly after the expiration of a period of sixteen (16) months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought under title 35, United States Code, and that an application may be published earlier at the request of the applicant.
(C) The American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) was enacted into law on November 29, 1999. The AIPA amended 35 U.S.C. 122 to provide that, with certain exceptions, applications for patent filed on or after November 29, 2000 shall be published promptly after the expiration of a period of fourteen (14) months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought under title 35, United States Code, and that an application may be published earlier at the request of the applicant.
(D) The American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) was enacted into law on November 29, 1999. The AIPA amended 35 U.S.C. 122 to provide that, with certain exceptions, applications for patent filed on or after November 29, 2000 shall be published promptly after the expiration of a period of twelve (12) months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought under title 35, United States Code, and that an application may be published earlier at the request of the applicant.
(E) The American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) was enacted into law on November 29, 1999. The AIPA amended 35 U.S.C. 122 to provide that, with certain exceptions, applications for patent filed on or after November 29, 2000 shall be published promptly after the expiration of a period of eight (8) months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought under title 35, United States Code, and that an application may be published earlier at the request of the applicant.
Answer: (A), because the correct time period is 18 months.

41. According to MPEP 900: Prior Art, Classification, Search; which of the following is not a correct series:
(A) M-Series. They were not originally numbered, but have since been assigned numbers in the sequence in which they were issued. The number should not be cited. When copies are ordered, the patentee's name and date of issue suffice for identification.
(B) The X Series which are patents issued between 1790 and 1836 because in this series the Patentee’s name and date of issue should suffice for identification.
(C) 1836-Series. The mechanical, electrical, and chemical patents issued since 1836 and frequently designated as "utility" patents are included in this series. A citation by number only is understood to refer to this series. This series comprises the bulk of all U.S. patents issued. Some U.S. patents issued in 1861 bear two numbers but only the larger number should be cited.
(D) Reissue Series. Reissue patents (MPEP § 1401) have been given a separate series of numbers preceded by "Re." In citing, the letters and the number must be given, e.g., Re. 1776. The date that it is effective as a reference is the effective date of the original patent application, not the filing date of the reissue application. Design reissue patents are numbered with the same number series as "utility" reissue patents. The letter prefix does, however, indicate them to be design reissues.
(E) A.I. Series. From 1838 to 1861, patents covering an inventor's improvement on his or her own patented device were given a separate series of numbers preceded by "A.I." to indicate Additional Improvement. In citing, the letters and the number must be given, e.g., A.I. 113. About 300 such patents were issued.
Answer: (A), because the M series is not a correct series.

42. Given the different series of U.S. Patents according to MPEP 901.04, the following problem is proposed. Mr. Ted Clock goes into the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office wanting to pull up a patent with the Patentee’s name and solely the numeric date of issue. Which series should this fall under and why?:
(A) The X Series which are patents issued between 1790 and 1836 because in this series the Patentee’s name and date of issue should suffice for identification.
(B) The 1836-Series. The patents issued since 1836 and commonly designated as "utility" patents are included in this series. A citation by number only is understood to refer to this series.
(C) The Reissue Series. Reissue patents were given a separate series of numbers preceded by "Re." In citing, the letters and the number must be given, e.g., Re. 1777.
(D) The A.I. Series. From 1838 to 1861, patents covering an inventor's improvement on his or her own patent were given a separate series of numbers preceded by "A.I." which means Additional Improvement. In citing, the letters and the number must be given, e.g., A.I. 114.
(E) Mr. Ted Clock will not be able to find the patent with only the above information.
Answer: (A), because the X Series is the series that this should fall under with the given information from Mr. Ted Clock.

43. According to the kind codes which are used on published patent documents after January 2, 2001 following the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standard ST.16 code (MPEP 901.04a), the codes B1 and B2 are for what kind of document?
(A) Patent
(B) Reexamination Certificate
(C) Reissue Patent
(D) Plant Patent
(E) Design Patent
Answer: (A), because the codes for B1 and B2 are for a patent document.

44. According to the kind codes which are used on published patent documents after January 2, 2001 following the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standard ST.16 code (MPEP 901.04a), the code E is for what kind of document?
(A) Patent
(B) Reexamination Certificate
(C) Reissue Patent
(D) Plant Patent
(E) Design Patent
Answer: (C), because the code E is for a reissue patent.

45. According to the kind codes which are used on published patent documents after January 2, 2001 following the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standard ST.16 code (MPEP 901.04a), the code S is for what kind of document?
(A) Patent 901.04: U.S. Patents, all of the following are different series of U.S. Patents, except:
(A) W-Series. These are the approximately 5,000 patents issued between 1725 and 1789.
(B) X-Series. These are the approximately 10,000 patents issued between 1790 and July
(B) Reexamination Certificate
(C) Reissue Patent
(D) Plant Patent
(E) Design Patent
Answer: (E), because the code S is for a design patent.

46. According to the kind codes which are used on published patent documents after January 2, 2001 following the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standard ST.16 code (MPEP 901.04a), the codes C1, C2, C3 are for what kind of document?
(A) Patent
(B) Reexamination Certificate
(C) Reissue Patent
(D) Plant Patent
(E) Design Patent
Answer: (B), because the codes C1, C2, and C3 are for a reexamination certificate.

47. According to the kind codes which are used on published patent documents after January 2, 2001 following the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standard ST.16 code (MPEP 901.04a), the code P1 is for what kind of document?
(A) Plant Patent Publication Application; Pre-grant publication available March 2001.
(B) Plant Patent; No previously published pre-grant publication.
(C) Plant Patent; Having a previously published pre-grant publication and available March 2001.
(D) Plant Patent Application Publication (Republication); Pre-grant publication available after March 2001.
(E) Plant Patent Application Publication (Corrected Publication); Pre-grant publication available March 2001.
Answer: (A), because the code P1 is for a plant patent publication application; pre-grant publication available March 2001.

48. According to the kind codes which are used on published patent documents after January 2, 2001 following the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standard ST.16 code (MPEP 901.04a), the code P2 is for what kind of document?
(A) Plant Patent Publication Application; Pre-grant publication available March 2001.
(B) Plant Patent; No previously published pre-grant publication.
(C) Plant Patent; Having a previously published pre-grant publication and available March 2001.
(D) Plant Patent Application Publication (Republication); Pre-grant publication available after March 2001.
(E) Plant Patent Application Publication (Corrected Publication); Pre-grant publication available March 2001.
Answer: (B), because the code P2 is for a plant patent; no previously published pre-grant publication.

49. According to the kind codes which are used on published patent documents after January 2, 2001 following the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standard ST.16 code (MPEP 901.04a), the code P3 is for what kind of document?
(A) Plant Patent Publication Application; Pre-grant publication available March 2001.
(B) Plant Patent; No previously published pre-grant publication.
(C) Plant Patent; Having a previously published pre-grant publication and available March 2001.
(D) Plant Patent Application Publication (Republication); Pre-grant publication available after March 2001.
(E) Plant Patent Application Publication (Corrected Publication); Pre-grant publication available March 2001.
Answer: (C), because the code P3 is for a plant patent; having a previously published pre-grant publication and available March 2001.

50. According to the kind codes which are used on published patent documents after January 2, 2001 following the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standard ST.16 code (MPEP 901.04a), the code P4 is for what kind of document?
(A) Plant Patent Publication Application; Pre-grant publication available March 2001.
(B) Plant Patent; No previously published pre-grant publication.
(C) Plant Patent; Having a previously published pre-grant publication and available March 2001.
(D) Plant Patent Application Publication (Republication); Pre-grant publication available after March 2001.
(E) Plant Patent Application Publication (Corrected Publication); Pre-grant publication available March 2001.
Answer: (D), because the code P4 is for a plant patent application publication (republication); pre-grant publication available after March 2001.