The USPTO says the registration exam is computer-delivered with 100 multiple-choice questions. Of those, 90 are scored and 10 are unscored beta-test questions. Passing takes 63 of the 90 scored questions. Source: USPTO, Registration examination.
The exam is two three-hour sessions, and each question has five choices. Source: USPTO, Becoming a patent practitioner. Questions are based on the MPEP and other published USPTO policy and procedure reference materials. Source: General Requirements Bulletin. The USPTO updated the exam on September 23, 2026, and says it covers the source materials, including MPEP Ninth Edition, Revision 01.2024. Source: USPTO, Registration examination.
So each question rewards one habit: find the trigger, then find the section.
1. The grace period
Question. An inventor publishes a paper she alone wrote, describing the invention, on March 10, 2026. She files a US nonprovisional application claiming the invention on March 10, 2027, with no earlier priority claim. Is her own paper prior art against her claims?
Answer. No. A disclosure that would otherwise be prior art is excepted if it was made one year or less before the effective filing date and it is an inventor-originated disclosure: made by the inventor, a joint inventor, or someone who obtained the subject matter from them. Filing on March 11, 2027 would put the paper outside the one-year period.
Trap. Counting from the publication date instead of the effective filing date.
Source: MPEP 2153.01(a)
2. Claiming a provisional
Question. A provisional application was filed September 1, 2025. The applicant files a nonprovisional claiming its benefit on September 22, 2026, 12 months and 21 days later. The delay was unintentional. Can the benefit still be claimed?
Answer. Possibly. The nonprovisional must be filed within 12 months of the provisional, but the benefit may be restored if the nonprovisional is filed within two months after that period. The applicant files a petition under 37 CFR 1.78(b) with the petition fee and a statement that the delay was unintentional.
Trap. Answering no because 12 months passed.
Source: MPEP 211.01(a)
3. Late reply to an Office action
Question. A non-final Office action is mailed March 4, 2026, setting a three-month shortened statutory period. The applicant replies August 20, 2026. What is required for the application to stay alive?
Answer. A petition and fee for a three-month extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a). The shortened period ended June 4, 2026. The extension fees are cumulative, and no extension can carry the reply date beyond the six-month statutory maximum, which here is September 4, 2026.
Trap. Treating the shortened period as the deadline. It is the window in which no extension fee is due.
Source: MPEP 710.02(b), MPEP 710.02(e)
4. Timing an IDS
Question. An application is filed March 2, 2026. The first Office action on the merits has not yet been mailed. The applicant files an information disclosure statement on June 15, 2026. Does it need a fee or a statement?
Answer. No. An IDS filed within three months of the filing date or before the first Office action on the merits, whichever is later, requires neither a fee nor a 37 CFR 1.97(e) statement. Filed after the first action but before a final action, notice of allowance or Ex parte Quayle action, it would need either the 1.97(e) statement or the 1.17(p) fee.
Trap. Stopping at the three-month mark and missing "whichever is later."
Source: MPEP 609.04(b)
5. Replying to a restriction requirement
Question. The examiner restricts the claims into Group I (apparatus claims 1 to 10) and Group II (method claims 11 to 20). The applicant's reply says only "Group I is elected. Applicant traverses." What follows?
Answer. The reply is treated as an election without traverse. A traverse must include a written statement of reasons that distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the requirement. Without those reasons, the applicant has also not preserved the right to petition the Director to review the requirement.
Trap. Assuming the word "traverses" is enough.
Source: MPEP 818.01, MPEP 818.01(a), MPEP 818.01(c)
6. Transitional phrases
Question. A claim reads "A composition consisting of A, B, and C." A reference discloses a composition of A, B, C and D. Does the claim language cover the reference's composition?
Answer. No. "Consisting of" excludes any element, step or ingredient not specified in the claim, so a composition that also contains D falls outside this claim. "Comprising" would be open-ended and would not exclude D. "Consisting essentially of" sits between them: it also admits elements that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.
Trap. Reading all three phrases as "includes."
Source: MPEP 2111.03
7. Antecedent basis
Question. A claim reads: "A device comprising a housing and a lever, wherein the lever is coupled to said spring." Is the claim indefinite?
Answer. It may be. "Said spring" has no earlier recitation, so the reader may not know which element is meant. But the failure to provide explicit antecedent basis does not always make a claim indefinite. If the scope of the claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, the claim is not indefinite.
Trap. "Always" or "never" answers. The MPEP gives a test, not a rule.
Source: MPEP 2173.05(e)