Patent Bar Mock Exam (Timed Prometric Simulator)

Q: How is the real USPTO Patent Bar Exam timed at Prometric?

The official USPTO Patent Bar Exam consists of 100 multiple-choice questions split into two 3-hour sessions (50 questions in the morning session and 50 questions in the afternoon session), giving you an average of 3.6 minutes (216 seconds) per question.

Q: What is a passing score on the Patent Bar Mock Exam?

On the official exam, 90 of the 100 questions are scored and 10 are unscored pilot questions. You must score at least 70% (63 out of 90 scored questions) to pass. On our timed mock exams, aim for 75%+ so you have a comfortable safety margin on test day.

Q: Can I review my wrong answers with MPEP citations after submitting the mock exam?

Yes. Immediately upon submitting your timed mock exam, the simulator displays your percentage score, pass/fail status, and a filterable review screen where every question links directly to the underlying MPEP Ninth Edition, Rev. 01.2024 section.

Question 1

Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), an international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) has the prior art effect of an application filed in the United States only if which of the following conditions are satisfied?

Accepted Answer

C. The international application designated the United States and was published under PCT Article 21(2) in the English language. — According to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) has the effect for the purposes of subsection 102(e) of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.

Question 2

According to MPEP § 2120.02, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b) regarding knowledge by others, public use, or placement of the invention on sale may be established by which of the following?

Accepted Answer

D. An applicant admission, evidence submitted of sale or knowledge of the invention by others, or the examiner's personal knowledge that the invention was sold by applicant or known by others. — MPEP § 2120.02 states that an applicant may make an admission, or submit evidence of sale of the invention or knowledge of the invention by others, or the examiner may have personal knowledge that the invention was sold by applicant or known by others to establish or support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b).

Question 3

According to USPTO guidelines regarding prior art searches conducted by Office personnel, what should the search cover when determining what to search for?

Accepted Answer

A. The search should cover the claimed subject matter and should also cover the disclosed features which might reasonably be expected to be claimed. — According to the MPEP text, under 'What To Search For', the search should cover the claimed subject matter and should also cover the disclosed features which might reasonably be expected to be claimed. See MPEP § 904.02.

Question 4

Under USPTO practice regarding claim clarity and antecedent basis, which of the following statements is CORRECT?

Accepted Answer

B. Inherent components of elements recited in a claim have antecedent basis in the recitation of the elements themselves. — According to MPEP 2173.05(e), inherent components of elements recited have antecedent basis in the recitation of the elements themselves (e.g., "the outer surface of said sphere" does not require explicit prior recitation of an outer surface). Option C is incorrect because failure to provide explicit antecedent basis does not always render a claim indefinite if the scope is reasonably ascertainable. Option D is incorrect because an outer surface is an inherent component of a sphere. Option A is incorrect as Ex parte Porter held that "controlled stream of fluid" provided reasonable antecedent basis for "the controlled fluid."

Question 5

According to USPTO guidance on claim interpretation regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(f), how are non-traditional terms such as 'code' and 'application' evaluated when determining if a claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f)?

Accepted Answer

C. They have been found not to be generic placeholders where a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the terms, in combination with the function performed, as connoting structure. — Under USPTO claim interpretation guidelines (citing Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp. and Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc.), terms such as 'code' and 'application' are not generic placeholders where persons of ordinary skill in the art would understand the terms in combination with the function performed by the code or application as connoting structure.

Patent Bar Mock Exam (Timed)

10-Question Sprint (36 Mins)

50-Question Session (3 Hours)

100-Question Full Exam (6 Hours)

How to Pace Your 3-Hour Prometric Patent Bar Sessions

Mock Exam Frequently Asked Questions

How is the real USPTO Patent Bar Exam timed at Prometric?

What is a passing score on the Patent Bar Mock Exam?

Can I review my wrong answers with MPEP citations after submitting the mock exam?

Drill Specific Weak Areas Before Your Next Mock