50q Exam | FITF
50q Exam | FITF
Quiz Summary
0 of 48 Questions completed
Questions:
Information
You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.
Quiz is loading…
You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.
You must first complete the following:
Results
Results
0 of 48 Questions answered correctly
Your time:
Time has elapsed
You have reached 0 of 0 point(s), (0)
Earned Point(s): 0 of 0, (0)
0 Essay(s) Pending (Possible Point(s): 0)
Categories
- 1800 0%
- 2100 0%
- 700 0%
- 900 0%
- FITF 0%
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- Current
- Review
- Answered
- Correct
- Incorrect
-
Question 1 of 48
1. Question
Who decides whether a disclosure was obtained “indirectly from the inventor” for the exceptions in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and (b)(2), and what is the measure for “indirectly from the inventor?”
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 2 of 48
2. Question
Inventor Y’s public disclosure covers X (e.g. methyls). A third party’s later disclosure covers a more general category of X (e.g., alkyls). If Y files a patent application on X after the third party disclosure, does Y’s disclosure shield the claimed invention from the third party’s intervening disclosure under 102(b)(1)(B)?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 3 of 48
3. Question
For AIA (FITF) applications, how does the addition of new matter into the application impact the effective filing date?
(i) Introduction of new matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132(a).(ii) For an application filed on or after March 16, 2013 that discloses and claims only subject matter also disclosed in a previously filed pre-AIA (FTI) application to which the application is entitled to priority or benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, or 365, an amendment (other than a preliminary amendment filed on the same day as such application) seeking to add a claim that is directed to new matter would not convert the application into an AIA (FITF) application.
(iii) The AIA does not change the existing rules for introducing new matter in an application under examination.
(iv) A new drawing should not be entered if the examiner discovers that the drawing contains new matter (MPEP § 608.02); and amendments to the written description or claims involving new matter are ordinarily entered, but the new matter is required to be cancelled from the written description and the claims directed to the new matter are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
(v) For an application filed on or after March 16, 2013 that discloses and claims subject matter not disclosed in a previously filed pre-AIA (FTI) application to which the application is entitled to priority or benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, or 365, an amendment (other than a preliminary amendment filed on the same day as such application) seeking to add a claim that is directed to new matter would convert the application into an AIA (FITF) application.
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 4 of 48
4. Question
Under the first-inventor-to-file provisions, does a public use or sale activity have to occur “in this country” to qualify as prior art?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 5 of 48
5. Question
If an applicant files a 37 CFR 1.55 or 1.78 statement, how will the USPTO acknowledge the statement?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 6 of 48
6. Question
Are affidavits under 37 CFR 1.131 and 37 CFR 1.132 still allowed after March 16, 2013 in applications filed before March 16, 2013?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 7 of 48
7. Question
Does the inventor need to show that he or she independently invented the subject matter to invoke the exceptions in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and (b)(2)?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 8 of 48
8. Question
An application, including claims 1-10, was filed on March 12, 2012 and abandoned on March 15, 2013. The application was then revived on March 16, 2013. Claims 1-10 of the revived application will be examined under?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 9 of 48
9. Question
How is double patenting affected by AIA?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 10 of 48
10. Question
How can an inventor prove that an intervening third party disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is subject to the exception of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) because it was obtained from the inventor and was not independently invented by the third party?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 11 of 48
11. Question
Does the AIA define a “third party” disclosure?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 12 of 48
12. Question
Must a public use or sale be enabled to qualify as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 13 of 48
13. Question
A new examiner who recently started working for the USPTO is concerned with whether to apply pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 102(e) or newly revised 35 U.S.C. 102(a). Since the examiner started with the USPTO shortly after Mar 16, 2013 and was given just a crash course in examination, upon returning from training, the examiner is confronted with a mountain of application in the in-bin. In the examiner’s pile are applications: A filed on Mar 15, 2013 and application B filed on Mar 16, 2013. How should the examiner address application A and application B?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 14 of 48
14. Question
If a provisional application is filed on January 1, 2013, and a nonprovisional application claiming the benefit of the provisional application is filed on April 1, 2013 with two claims, claim 1 being supported by the provisional application and claim 2 not being supported by the provisional application, how should the examiner treat the application?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 15 of 48
15. Question
Please consider how the following claims(s) should be best addressed by the examiner and / or the registered practitioner:
Claim: An ion powered platform, comprising a vehicle body, an electric load; and an electrically conductive probe on said vehicle body for generating electrical energy from an ambient electrostatic field gradient.
Reference A teaches a generator using Earths electrostatic field and meeting all the claimed elements, except for a vehicle body.
Reference B teaches a generator using Earths magnetic field having a long wire 307 on a vehicle body 301.
The prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the conductive probe for generating electrostatic energy is not on a vehicle body, but it is fixed to the ground.
As would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, the length of the electrostatic probe fixed to the ground would be limited in achievable length; whereas a probe extended from a vehicle body is not constrained by gravitation/physical limits. Therefore, the probe can be made in greater lengths and thereby generate more energy.
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 16 of 48
16. Question
If an applicant files a nonprovisional application on April 1, 2013, properly claiming domestic benefit for some of the claims to a provisional application filed on April 1, 2012, and also adds new claims not supported by the provisional application, will the application be subject to the first-inventor-to-file provisions?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 17 of 48
17. Question
With respect to the exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C), does common ownership have to continue after the filing date of the claimed invention to disqualify prior art under the exception in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C)?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 18 of 48
18. Question
Is examination under AIA (FITF) or pre-AIA (FTI) law determined by the actual or the effective filing date of the application?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 19 of 48
19. Question
Does an application need to be published to be prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)? Can a nonprovisional application that contains a nonpublication request be prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 20 of 48
20. Question
If the claims are amended after March 16, 2103 in an application in which all claims have an effective filing date prior to March 16, 2013, will the application remain a pre-AIA (FTI) application?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 21 of 48
21. Question
For transition applications, if the claims are amended, but the amended claims are fully supported by a foreign priority or domestic benefit application filed before March 16, 2013, is a 37 CFR 1.55 or1.78 statement required? If an amended claim has slightly different wording than the claims of the priority application, but it is not considered new matter, is a statement required?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 22 of 48
22. Question
Must priority have been perfected in order for a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication that claims priority to a foreign application published in a language other than English to be used as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 23 of 48
23. Question
Is an application filed on or after March 16, 2013 that is a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of a pre-AIA (FTI) application examined under the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the AIA or the first-to-invent provisions of pre-AIA law?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 24 of 48
24. Question
Does the date that subject matter is “effectively filed” under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) include the filing date of any provisional application or foreign application for which priority or benefit is claimed in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published PCT application that designated the United States being used as prior art?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 25 of 48
25. Question
What is the effective date of the first-inventor-to-file provisions?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 26 of 48
26. Question
What is the “effectively filed” date for a non-English PCT application publication being applied as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)? Are there language requirements for applying a published PCT application as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 27 of 48
27. Question
If a continuation-in-part application adds subject matter after March 16, 2013, but has support for some claims prior to March 16, 2013, is the continuation-in-part application treated as an AIA or pre-AIA (FTI) application? Are some claims AIA and some claims pre-AIA? Is the application examined under both the AIA and pre-AIA law?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 28 of 48
28. Question
Joe Practioner filed numerous nonprovisional patent applications before March 16, 2013, but examination on all of his cases begins long after March 16, 2013, will Joe’s application be subject to the first-inventor-to-file or first-to-invent provisions
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 29 of 48
29. Question
Is an applicant required to submit his or her prior public disclosure made during the grace period before a first action on the merits to get the benefit of the grace period?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 30 of 48
30. Question
Joe Airhead filed what he thought was a complete patent application on Apr 1, 2015 but forgot to include a translation of a previous foreign publication he wanted the examiner to be considered available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) until Apr 1, 2016. Joe then further amended his application with another one of his foreign publications from Apr 1, 2016 on Apr 1, 2017. The examiner’s first reply was a rejection based on 102(a)(2) on July 1, 2015, which Joe overcame on Sep 1, 2015. What will be the effective filing date of Joe’s Application?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 31 of 48
31. Question
Can a provisional application qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 32 of 48
32. Question
Does AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) include a joint research agreement exception similar to the provisions of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 33 of 48
33. Question
How should applicant’s admitted prior art be treated under the AIA?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 34 of 48
34. Question
Do foreign patent documents or publications need to be in English to be available as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 35 of 48
35. Question
Is there a special or preferred form for an applicant to use in providing evidence in support of an exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 36 of 48
36. Question
On January 5, 2013 Linda files a U.S. application disclosing but not claiming X. A year beforehand Pat told Linda about X privately. On March 16, 2014 Acme Corp. files a U.S. application with claim 1 directed to X; Pat is named as inventor in the signed ADS. On the August 3, 2014 the PGPub of Linda’s application is issued. On Apr 23, 2015 the examiner rejects claim 1 as anticipated under 102(a)(2) by disclosure of X in Linda’s PGPub. There is no 37 CFR 1.63 inventor’s oath or declaration on record. The practitioner for Acme Corp. files a 130(a) declaration that was signed by Pat in which Pat explains the circumstance under which Pat privately told Linda about X (i.e., not a public disclosure) before Linda’s filing date. The declaration does not state that Pat invented X. Is the declaration sufficient to disqualify the disclosure of X in Linda’s PGPub as prior art? If not sufficient, what else must the practitioner present to the Office to ensure a timely response?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 37 of 48
37. Question
If an applicant is required to submit a statement under 37 CFR 1.55 or 1.78 to indicate that an application filed on or after March 16, 2013 with a domestic benefit or foreign priority claim before March 16, 2013, contains claim(s) lacking support in the application filed before March 16, 2013 (i.e., should be examined under the first-inventor-to-file provision), what is an example of a compliant statement?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 38 of 48
38. Question
Can an inventor’s grace period disclosure be used to get rid of a rejection based on intervening prior art?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 39 of 48
39. Question
Does the AIA change the way PCT applications are reviewed by the USPTO as an International Search Receiving Office?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 40 of 48
40. Question
Is an applicant entitled to receive the benefit of a previously filed foreign priority application if the foreign priority document is not in the English language?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 41 of 48
41. Question
If an application has a filing date on or after March 16, 2013 but includes a foreign priority claim to an application filed before March 16, 2013. Which of the following is true regarding the effective filing date of the claimed invention?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 42 of 48
42. Question
Is an affidavit by the inventor sufficient to prove that the disclosure was “by another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor” under the exception of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A)?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 43 of 48
43. Question
Does an applicant need to claim priority to a prior-filed foreign application to get the benefit of the filing date of the foreign application?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 44 of 48
44. Question
If an applicant submits an interim copy of a foreign priority application, will the applicant still need to provide a certified copy of the foreign priority document? How will an interim copy submission be reflected in the USPTO’s records?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 45 of 48
45. Question
Does an applicant need to provide a translation of a foreign priority application to: (1) claim priority to the foreign application; (2) determine the effective filing date of the claims for purposes of determining whether the application is an AIA (FITF) application or a pre-AIA (FTI) application; (3) ensure that the subject matter of the U.S. nonprovisional application is supported by the foreign priority application; or (4) disqualify a reference with a prior effective date?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 46 of 48
46. Question
What constitutes a sufficient publication under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) or 102(b)(2)(B) for an inventor to remove an intervening reference? Would an email from an employee to a boss containing a description of the invention qualify as a “publication” to remove a reference in the grace period?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 47 of 48
47. Question
When the exception in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) is applicable, does it present a double patenting situation?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 48 of 48
48. Question
On Apr 1, 2016 Trish posts inventive subject matter on a public Web site. Trish did not obtain it from Amy, Rita, and/or Yolona. On Aug 1, 2016 the Office issues an effective filing date for Amy, Rita and Yolana’s claimed invention describing the subject matter contained in Trish’s posting. Is Trish’s posting properly considered to be prior art under 102(a)? Can Amy, Rita, and/or Yolona apply any AIA 102 exceptions to save their application?
CorrectIncorrect