Chapter 600 — Parts, Form, and Content of Application

Ninth Edition, Revision 01.2024

Contents

Patent Bar study guide: MPEP Chapter 600

Chapter 600, Parts, Form, and Content of Application, covers what goes into a patent application: the parts of provisional and nonprovisional applications (§ 601), inventors' oaths, declarations and substitute statements (§ 602 to § 604), who the applicant is (§ 605), the title (§ 606), filing fees (§ 607), the disclosure itself — specification, abstract, claims, drawings, incorporation by reference and new matter (§ 608) — and information disclosure statements (§ 609).

Section 608.01(n), Dependent Claims, drew more of the released questions than any other section in the chapter: how dependent and multiple dependent claims may refer back, and when a dependent claim fails to further limit its parent. Together with the claim-form rules in § 608.01(m), it comes from 37 CFR 1.75, and those rules are still current.

Most-tested sections of Chapter 600

  1. § 608 Disclosure — 85 of the released USPTO exam questions (1999–2003) cite this section or one of its subsections.
  2. § 601 Content of Provisional and Nonprovisional Applications — 17 of the released USPTO exam questions (1999–2003) cite this section or one of its subsections.
  3. § 609 Information Disclosure Statement — 17 of the released USPTO exam questions (1999–2003) cite this section or one of its subsections.
  4. § 602 Oaths and Declarations — 9 of the released USPTO exam questions (1999–2003) cite this section or one of its subsections.
  5. § 605 Applicant — 4 of the released USPTO exam questions (1999–2003) cite this section.
  6. § 607 Filing Fee — 4 of the released USPTO exam questions (1999–2003) cite this section or one of its subsections.

Free 10-question Chapter 600 quiz

  1. Question 1

    A multiple dependent claim may not properly depend upon ______________.

    1. an independent claim.
    2. another dependent claim.
    3. any other multiple dependent claim.
    4. a claim containing Markush language.
    5. a claim which is in Jepson-type format.

    Answer: (C) Under 37 CFR 1.75(c) and MPEP 608.01(n), a multiple dependent claim may not depend from another multiple dependent claim. A multiple dependent claim may properly depend from an independent claim, another dependent claim (that is not itself a multiple dependent claim), a claim with Markush language, or a claim in Jepson-type format. The prohibition is specifically against multiple dependent claims depending on other multiple dependent claims.

    Question from the USPTO registration exam, November 1999 PM, question 42. Answer shown is the answer under current law. See MPEP § 608.01(n).

  2. Question 2

    Which of the following claims, if fully disclosed and supported in the specification, and included in the application, provides a proper basis for an objection under 37 CFR 1.75(c)?

    1. Claim 3. An apparatus as in any one of the preceding claims, in which the tube is plastic.
    2. Claim 3. An apparatus according to claims 1 or 2, further comprising a temperature sensor connected to the valve.
    3. Claim 3. An apparatus as in the preceding claims, in which the tube is plastic.
    4. Claim 3. An apparatus as in any preceding claim, in which the tube is plastic.
    5. Claim 3. An apparatus as in either claim 1 or claim 2, further comprising a temperature sensor connected to the valve.

    Answer: (C) Under 37 CFR 1.75(c) and MPEP § 608.01(n), a multiple dependent claim must refer to other claims in the alternative only. Choice (C) presents 'Claim 3. An apparatus as in the preceding claims, in which the tube is plastic.' The phrase 'the preceding claims' (plural, non-alternative) constitutes improper multiple dependent claim language because it refers to multiple claims in a cumulative (conjunctive) manner rather than in the alternative. This is expressly prohibited — a multiple dependent claim must use language such as 'any one of claims 1 or 2' or 'either claim 1 or 2,' not 'the preceding claims' (which is read as incorporating all preceding claims simultaneously). Choices (A), (B), (D), and (E) use acceptable alternative language ('any one of the preceding claims,' 'claims 1 or 2'). Therefore, claim (C) provides a proper basis for an objection under 37 CFR 1.75(c).

    Question from the USPTO registration exam, October 2002 AM, question 28. Answer shown is the answer under current law. See MPEP § 608.01(n).

  3. Question 3

    Regarding claims, which of the following practices is not in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?

    1. A singular dependent claim 2 could read as follows: 2. The product of claim 1 in which…
    2. An application may contain a series of singular dependent claims in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
    3. A dependent claim may refer back to any preceding independent claim.
    4. A claim which depends from a dependent claim may be separated therefrom by any claim which does not also depend directly or indirectly from said “dependent claim.”
    5. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period.

    Answer: (D) Under MPEP § 608.01(n), a claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated from that dependent claim by any claim which does not also depend from it. This requirement regarding claim arrangement and form remains unchanged under the AIA. Options (A), (B), (C), and (E) all represent encouraged or acceptable practices under MPEP §§ 608.01(m) and 608.01(n), while option (D) describes a prohibited or discouraged practice — specifically, separating a dependent claim from the claim it depends upon by an intervening claim that does not also depend from it.

    Question from the USPTO registration exam, April 2001 AM, question 14. Answer shown is the answer under current law. See MPEP § 608.01(n).

  4. Question 4

    You are preparing a patent application for filing in the PTO. The application describes a microcomputer having several components. You have drafted the following independent claim:

    1. A micro-computer comprising:

    (i) a central processing unit for processing information;

    (ii) a memory unit for storing information;

    (iii) an input device for entering information characterized by a keyboard;

    (iv) an output device for viewing information consisting of a video monitor; and

    (v) a bus for interconnecting the central processing unit to the memory unit, the input device and the output device.

    In the absence of issues of supporting disclosure, and following proper PTO practices and procedures, which of the following dependent claim(s) is (are) an improper dependent claim?

    Claim 2. The micro-computer of Claim 1, wherein the memory unit contains random access memory.

    Claim 3. The micro-computer of Claim 1 or 2, wherein the input device includes a light pen.

    Claim 4. The micro-computer in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the output device is a printer or a video monitor.

    Claim 5. The micro-computer of Claim 4, wherein the memory unit contains read- only memory.

    1. Claim 2.
    2. Claim 2 and Claim 3.
    3. Claim 3.
    4. Claim 5.
    5. Claim 4 and Claim 5.

    Answer: (E) Under the current MPEP 9th Edition and AIA regime, the analysis of dependent claims and the 'consisting of' transitional phrase remains unchanged. 'Consisting of' when used in the body of a claim (rather than after the preamble) limits only the clause in which it appears. Here, 'consisting of a video monitor' limits the output device element to only a video monitor. Claim 4, which recites 'a printer' as an output device, is improper because it contradicts the 'consisting of' limitation in Claim 1 (it cannot add a printer as an output device when the output device is limited to a video monitor), and also because simply repeating 'a video monitor' does not further limit the base claim. Claim 5, which depends from improper Claim 4, is itself improper. The most complete answer identifying all improper dependent claims is answer (E), which encompasses Claims 4 and 5 both being improper. This analysis is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) (post-AIA, formerly § 112 para. 4/5) and 37 CFR § 1.75(c), along with MPEP § 608.01(n) and MPEP § 2111.03.

    Question from the USPTO registration exam, November 1999 PM, question 22. Answer shown is the answer under current law. See MPEP § 608.01(n), MPEP § 2111.03.

  5. Question 5

    Which of the following is not a USPTO recommendation or requirement?

    1. Claims should be arranged in order of scope so that the first claim presented is the least restrictive.
    2. Product and process claims should be separately grouped.
    3. Every application should contain no more than three dependent claims.
    4. A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated from that dependent claim by any claim which does not also depend from the dependent claim.
    5. Each claim should start with a capital letter and end with a period.

    Answer: (C) Under current rules, the USPTO does not impose a minimum or maximum number of dependent claims. 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(c) places no such restriction. By contrast: (A) is a USPTO recommendation per MPEP 608.01(m) that claims be arranged in order of scope with the least restrictive first; (B) is a USPTO recommendation per MPEP 608.01(m) that product and process claims be separately grouped; (D) is a USPTO recommendation per MPEP 608.01(n) regarding dependent claim placement; and (E) is a USPTO requirement per MPEP 608.01(m) regarding formatting. The statement in choice (C) — that every application should contain no more than three dependent claims — is not a USPTO recommendation or requirement and remains incorrect under current rules.

    Question from the USPTO registration exam, October 2000 PM, question 50. Answer shown is the answer under current law. See MPEP § 608.01(m).

  6. Question 6

    In accordance with USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, claims in a patent application may not contain:

    1. chemical formulas.
    2. mathematical equations.
    3. drawings or flow diagrams.
    4. only one sentence.
    5. tables not necessary to conform with 35 USC 112.

    Answer: (C) Under MPEP § 608.01 (9th Edition, Rev. 01.2024), the specification, including any claims, may not contain drawings or flow diagrams. The specification may contain chemical formulas (A) and mathematical equations (B). Tables are permissible only if necessary to conform with 35 U.S.C. 112 (ruling out E as incorrect — tables CAN be included if necessary). A claim consisting of only one sentence is permissible under MPEP § 608.01(m), which requires each claim to begin with a capital letter and end with a period (a single sentence satisfies this). Therefore, (C) remains the correct answer: drawings or flow diagrams may not appear in the specification.

    Question from the USPTO registration exam, April 2003 AM, question 47. Answer shown is the answer under current law. See MPEP § 608.01.

  7. Question 7

    Regarding the specification of a nonprovisional patent application, which of the following practices is in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?

    1. The specification may include graphical illustrations or flowcharts.
    2. The specification may include tables and chemical formulas.
    3. The specification may include hyperlinks or other forms of browser-executable code embedded in the text.
    4. The specification must begin with one or more claims.
    5. The specification may include a reservation for a future application of subject matter disclosed but not claimed in the application.

    Answer: (B) Under current USPTO practice and MPEP 9th Edition, Rev. 01.2024, 37 C.F.R. § 1.58(a) still permits tables and chemical formulas in the specification in lieu of formal drawings. (A) remains incorrect because graphical illustrations, flowcharts, and diagrams in the descriptive portion of the specification are not within the purview of 37 C.F.R. § 1.58(a), and examiners should object and request formal drawings per 37 C.F.R. § 1.81. (C) remains incorrect because USPTO policy does not permit hyperlinks or browser-executable code in specifications. (D) remains incorrect because per 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(a), the specification must conclude (not begin) with one or more claims.

    Question from the USPTO registration exam, October 2000 AM, question 1. Answer shown is the answer under current law. See MPEP § 608.01.

  8. Question 8

    Which of the following is not in accordance with the provisions of the MPEP?

    1. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless it is provided in the application data sheet.
    2. The title need not be technically accurate, but should be descriptive and should contain fewer than 10 words.
    3. Inasmuch as the words “improved,” “improvement of,” and “improvement in” are not considered as part of the title of an invention, these words should not be included at the beginning of the title of the invention and will be deleted when the Office enters the title into the Office’s computer records, and when any patent issues.
    4. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant the examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by examiner’s amendment. If the change to the title is the only change being made by the examiner at the time of allowance, a separate examiner’s amendment need not be prepared and the examiner is to indicate the change in title in the file.
    5. A title in a U.S. application need not be identical to the corresponding foreign filed application.

    Answer: (B) Under MPEP § 606 (9th Ed., Rev. 01.2024), the title of the invention must be as short and specific as possible, technically accurate, descriptive, and must contain fewer than 500 characters. Choice (B) is incorrect per MPEP because it states the title need not be technically accurate (it must be) and limits the title to fewer than 10 words (the actual limit is 500 characters, not 10 words). Therefore, choice (B) is not in accordance with MPEP provisions and remains the correct answer to 'which is NOT in accordance with the MPEP.'

    Question from the USPTO registration exam, October 2002 AM, question 9. Answer shown is the answer under current law. See MPEP § 606.

  9. Question 9

    The specification in a patent application has been objected to for lack of enablement. To overcome this objection in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, a registered practitioner may do any of the following except:

    1. traverse the objection and specifically argue how the specification is enabling.
    2. traverse the objection and submit an additional drawing to make the specification enabling.
    3. file a continuation-in-part application that has an enabling specification.
    4. traverse the objection and file an amendment without adding new matter in an attempt to show enablement.
    5. traverse the objection and refer to prior art cited in the specification that would demonstrate that the specification is enabling to one of ordinary skill.

    Answer: (B) Under 35 U.S.C. § 113, drawings submitted after the filing date of an application may not be used to overcome any insufficiency of the specification due to lack of an enabling disclosure. This statutory provision remains unchanged under AIA. Therefore, submitting an additional drawing after the filing date to make the specification enabling (choice B) is not a permissible way to overcome an enablement objection. The other options remain valid: (A) traversing the objection with argument is permissible under 37 CFR 1.111; (C) filing a continuation-in-part with an enabling specification is permissible under 35 U.S.C. § 120 and MPEP 201.08; (D/E) filing an amendment without adding new matter is permissible under 37 CFR 1.121 and MPEP 714. The question asks what a practitioner may NOT do, and the answer remains B — submitting an additional drawing after filing to cure an enablement deficiency is expressly prohibited by 35 U.S.C. § 113.

    Question from the USPTO registration exam, April 2003 PM, question 25. Answer shown is the answer under current law. See MPEP § 608.02.

  10. Question 10

    Which of the following is not in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure regarding patent applications filed in March 2001?

    1. If a non-English reference is submitted in an information disclosure statement, the applicant shall include a copy of the translation if a written English-language translation of the non-English-language document, or portion thereof, is within the possession, custody, or control of, or is readily available to any individual designated in § 1.56(c).
    2. Each U.S. patent listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by inventor, application number, and issue date.
    3. Each publication listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date, and place of publication.
    4. When the disclosures of two or more patents or publications listed in an information disclosure statement are substantively cumulative, a copy of one of the patents or publications may be submitted without copies of the other patents or publications, provided that it is stated that these other patents or publications are cumulative.
    5. A copy of any patent, publication, pending U.S. application or other information listed in an information disclosure statement is required to be provided, even if the patent, publication, pending U.S. application or other information was previously submitted to, or cited by, the Office in an earlier application, unless: (1) the earlier application is properly identified in the information disclosure statement and is relied on for an earlier effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120; and (2) the information disclosure statement submitted in the earlier application is in full compliance with appropriate regulations.

    Answer: (B) Under current 37 CFR 1.98(b)(1), each U.S. patent listed in an IDS must be identified by inventor, patent number, and issue date. The application number of each patent is NOT required. This rule remains unchanged under the AIA regime. The other answer choices (A, C, D, E) all reflect actual requirements under 37 CFR 1.98, making B (the absence of the application number requirement) the correct answer identifying what is NOT required.

    Question from the USPTO registration exam, April 2001 AM, question 3. Answer shown is the answer under current law. See MPEP § 609.04(a).

Start a free trial of the full question bank · See plans

Chapter 600 FAQ

How many patent bar questions come from MPEP Chapter 600?

133 of the 899 questions the USPTO released from its 1999–2003 registration exams cite a section of Chapter 600 (Parts, Form, and Content of Application), the third most of any chapter. 107 of them are still answered the same way under current law. The USPTO does not publish how many questions on today's exam come from each chapter, so treat these counts as a guide to what the exam has emphasised, not a quota.

Which sections of MPEP Chapter 600 are tested most?

In the released questions, the most-cited sections are § 608 (Disclosure, 85 questions), § 601 (Content of Provisional and Nonprovisional Applications, 17 questions), § 609 (Information Disclosure Statement, 17 questions). Counts include questions that cite a subsection.

Are the old USPTO questions on Chapter 600 still useful?

Yes, if you check them against current law. Of the 133 released questions citing Chapter 600, 107 are marked current under today's rules; the rest turn on rules that have since changed. Every question in the quiz on this page is a current one, and the answer shown is the answer under current law.

How are these counts worked out?

Each released question is mapped to the MPEP sections that govern it under the current edition. A question counts once for each section it cites (and once for the chapter), and a section's count includes its subsections. The questions come from the 899 questions the USPTO released for its exams from 1999 to 2003.