October 03 PM Flashcards
1
Q
- In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, for a nonprovisional application to receive a filing date in the USPTO under 37 CFR 1.53(b), all of the following must be filed except:
A The basic filing fee required by 37 CFR 1.16(a).
B A specification as prescribed by the first paragraph of 35 USC 112.
C A description pursuant to 37 CFR 1.71.
D At least one claim pursuant to 37 CFR 1.75.
E Any drawing required by 37 CFR 1.81(a).
A
Correct Answer(s):
A
Related MPEP Chapter(s):
MPEP 600 - Parts, Form, and Content of Application
Answer Reasoning:ANSWER: (A) is the most correct answer. 35 U.S.C. § 111; 37 CFR § 1.53; MPEP § 601.01. As provided in MPEP § 601.01(a), the filing fee for an application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) can be submitted after the filing date. (B), (C), (D) and (E) are incorrect. 37 CFR § 53(b); MPEP § 601.01. 37 CFR § 1.53(b) provides that a filing date is granted on the date on which a specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 containing a description pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.71 and at least one claim pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.75, and any drawing required by 37 CFR § 1.81(a) are filed in the Office. Thus, (B), (C), (D) and (E) are needed to obtain a filing date.
2
Q
- A U.S. patent was granted on May 8, 2001. The sole independent claim in the patent is directed to a combination of elements ABCD. A registered practitioner filed a reissue application on April 11, 2003 to narrow sole independent claim. In the reissue application, the independent claim is amended to a combination to elements ABCDE. The reissue application is accompanied by a transmittal letter stating that the application was filed to narrow a claim, that all inventors could not be located to sign the reissue oath or declaration at that time, and that a declaration would be submitted in due course. No other amendments to the claims were filed on April 11, 2003. On May 8, 2003, a declaration signed by all inventors is filed declaring that they had claimed less than they had a right to claim, and that the error arose without deceptive intent. The inventors also filed on May 8, 2003 a preliminary amendment deleting element A from the sole independent claim leaving elements BCDE. The amendment and declaration are filed using the provisions of 37 CFR 1.10. The practitioner included an authorization to charge the practitioner’s deposit account for any necessary fees. Which of the following actions by the primary the examiner in the first Office action is in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
A Reject all the claims based upon a broadening reissue outside the two year statutory period authorized by 35 USC 251 since applicant did not file a broadened reissue claim at the time of filing.
B Reject all the claims based upon a broadening reissue outside the two year statutory period authorized by 35 USC 251 since applicant did not file a claim to a broadened reissue claim within the two year period set by 35 USC 251.
C Reject all the claims based upon a broadening reissue outside the two year statutory period authorized by 35 USC 251 since applicant’s indication in the transmittal letter indicated that the filing of the reissue application was a narrowing reissue and that the broadening amendment was not permissible even if filed within the two-years from the grant of the original patent.
D Determine that the application is a proper broadening reissue and perform an examination and issue an Office action in due course.
E Determine that the application is a proper broadening reissue and reject the claims under the recapture doctrine since the claims are broader than the issued claims.
A
Correct Answer(s): D Related MPEP Chapter(s): MPEP 1400 - Correction of Patents Answer Reasoning:ANSWER: (D) is the most correct answer. MPEP §§ 1403 and 1412.03, under the heading "When A Broadened Claim Can Be Presented." A broadening reissue claim must be filed within the two years from the grant of the original patent. (D) is the most correct and the examiner should examine the case as any other application and address appropriate issues concerning reissue examination. See Switzer v. Sockman, 333 F.2d 935, 142 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1964) (a similar rule in interferences). Since applicant filed the amendment by Express Mail, the amendment is treated as being filed with the USPTO on the date of deposit with the US Postal Service. Therefore, (A), (B) and (C) are incorrect answers. A reissue application can be granted a filing date without an oath or declaration, or without the filing fee being present. See 37 CFR § 1.53(f). Applicant will be given a period of time to provide the missing parts and to pay the surcharge under 37 CFR § 1.16(e). See MPEP § 1410.01. Choice (E) is not correct since the mere deletion of an element of a claim does not automatically raise a ground of rejection based on the recapture doctrine. See MPEP § 1412.02
3
Q
- An applicant submits a product-by-process claim to a shoe made by a series of specific process steps. The claim is rejected over a publication under 35 USC 102(b) and 103. Assume for this question that the publication reasonably appears to show the identical shoe, but describes a different method of making the shoe. What is the proper procedure to try to overcome the rejection in accordance with the patent laws, rules and the procedures as related in the MPEP?
A Argue that all limitations in the claim must be given weight and that rejection must be withdrawn because the reference does not disclose the claimed method of making steps.
B Argue that the examiner has not carried the burden of proving that the shoes are identical.
C Present evidence why the steps of the claimed process produce a patentably different structure.
D Submit a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 by the author of the publication describing in more detail how the shoe in the publication was made by a different method.
E Argue that the inventor was not aware of the publication when the invention was made.
A
Correct Answer(s): C Related MPEP Chapter(s): MPEP 2100 - Patentability Answer Reasoning:ANSWER: (C) is correct. MPEP § 2113, under the heading "Once A Product Appearing To Be Substantially Identical Is Found And A 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejection Made, The Burden Shifts To The Applicant To Show An Unobvious Difference," states "[o]nce the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983)." (A) is incorrect because the patentability of product-by-process claims is based on the product itself. See In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Where the end products are the same, the process of making limitations do not have to be given weight in ex parte examination. See Atlantic Thermoplastics Co. v. Faytex Corp., 23 USPQ2d 1481, 1490-91 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (product-by-process claims are treated differently for patentability purposes during ex parte examination in the USPTO than for infringement and validity purposes during litigation). (B) is incorrect because "[o]nce the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product." MPEP § 2113. "To the extent that the process limitations distinguish the products over the prior art, they must be given the same consideration as traditional product characteristics." In re Hallman, 210 USPQ 609, 611 (CCPA 1981). Thus, (C) is correct because applicant can show by factual arguments and/or declarations or affidavits under 37 CFR § 1.132 that the .method of making produces a different product and that the differences are unobvious. (D) is incorrect because it does not tend to show that the products are different. (E) is incorrect because the inventor's awareness of prior art is of no consequence to patentability.
4
Q
- A registered practitioner files an international application submission that includes a description, claims and drawings in the United States Receiving Office (RO/US) on Wednesday, January 8, 2003. The submission did not include the required request, international and search fees, or the designation of a PCT contracting State. The RO/US mails an “Invitation to Correct the Purported International Application,” dated January 10, 2003, to the practitioner indicating that the designation of at least one Contracting State, as required by PCT Article 11(1)(iii)(b), was not included. A one-month period for response is set in the Invitation. On Monday, February 10, 2003, the practitioner submits by facsimile a designation sheet of the Request Form designating every available Contracting State, and authorization to charge all required fees. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, will the application be accorded an international filing date?
A Yes. The application will be accorded a filing date of January 8, 2003.
B Yes. The application will be accorded an international filing date of February 10, 2003.
C No. The application will not be accorded an international filing date because the failure to designate at least one contracting State cannot be cured by a facsimile transmission.
D No. The application was given a one-month period for response. The practitioner would have had to have filed the response on Friday, February 7, 2003 in order to have been timely.
E None of the above.
A
Correct Answer(s):
C
Related MPEP Chapter(s):
MPEP 500 - Receipt and Handling of Mail and Papers
Answer Reasoning:ANSWER: (C) is the correct answer. 37 CFR §§ 1.6(d)(3) and 1.8(a)(2)(i)(d); MPEP § 502 (reproducing Rule 1.6(d)(3)); MPEP § 512 (reproducing Rule 1.8(a)(2)(i)(d)); and MPEP §1817.01. As stated in MPEP § 1817.01, “[a]ll designations must be made in the international application on filing; none may be added later.” The application will not be accorded an international filing date since the practitioner has tried to cure the failure to designate at least one contracting State by filing a paper using facsimile which is not permitted according to 37 CFR §§ 1.6(d)(3) and 1.8(a)(2)(i)(d). (But, bear in mind since 1/1/04 - a designation is automatic as a part of a PCT filing.) (A) is wrong because applicant has failed to comply with Article 11(1)(iii)(b) on such date. See MPEP § 1810 (reproducing PCT Article 11(1)(iii)(b). (B) is wrong because according to 37 CFR 1.6(d)(3) and 37 CFR 1.8 (a)(2)(i)(d), applicant cannot file an international application by facsimile. See MPEP § 502 (reproducing 37 CFR § 1.6(d)(3)); MPEP § 512 (reproducing 37 CFR § 1.8(a)(2)(i)(d)). Since no designations were included on filing, the application papers cannot be accorded an international filing date. See PCT Article 11(1)(iii)(b). Applicant cannot correct this by filing the designation sheet by facsimile. See MPEP § 502 (reproducing Rule 1.6(d)(3)); MPEP § 512 (reproducing Rule 1.8(a)(2)(i)(d)). (D) is wrong because according to PCT Rule 80.5, when a response is due on a day where the receiving Office is not open for business, applicant has until the next business day. See Appendix T of the MPEP. (E) is incorrect because (C) is correct.
5
Q
- In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, satisfaction of the written description requirement may not be demonstrated by:
A including in the specification a description of an actual reduction to practice.
B describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention.
C describing during prosecution of a new or amended claim an element or limitation (omitted from the original disclosure in the specification) as an essential or critical feature of the invention.
D including in the specification a description of distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
E including in the patent application disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas showing that the invention is complete.
A
Correct Answer(s):
C
Related MPEP Chapter(s):
MPEP 2100 - Patentability
Answer Reasoning:ANSWER: (C) is the most correct answer. MPEP § 2163, under the heading "GENERAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING COMPLIANCE WITH THE "WRITTEN DESCRIPTION" REQUIREMENT FOR APPLICATIONS," and subheading "New or Amended Claims," states "A claim that omits an element which applicant describes as an essential or critical feature of the invention originally disclosed does not comply with the written description requirement. See Gentry Gallery, 134 F.3d at 1480, 45 USPQ2d at 1503; In re Sus, 306 F.2d 494, 504, 134 USPQ 301, 309 (CCPA 1962) ('[O]ne skilled in this art would not be taught by the written description of the invention in the specification that any 'aryl or substituted aryl radical' would be suitable for the purposes of the invention but rather that only certain aryl radicals and certain specifically substituted aryl radicals [i.e., aryl azides] would be suitable for such purposes.')." (A), (B), (D) and (E) are incorrect. Each lists a proper way to demonstrate satisfaction of the written description requirement. MPEP § 2163.02, under the heading "STANDARD FOR DETERMINING COMPLIANCE WITH THE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENT," provides that the written description requirement is met "when the specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991)." Possession may be shown in a variety of ways "including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was 'ready for patenting' such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly, 119 .F.3d 1559, 1568, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical, 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991)."
6
Q
- The claimed invention in a patent application is directed to an explosive composition “comprising 60-90% solid ammonium nitrate, and 10-40% water-in-oil in which sufficient aeration is entrapped to enhance sensitivity to a substantial degree.” The application discloses that the explosive requires both fuel (the ammonium nitrate), and oxygen to “sensitize the composition.” A prior art reference, published more than two years before the effective filing date of the application, discloses explosive compositions containing water-in-oil emulsions having identical ingredients to those claimed, in ranges overlapping with the claimed composition. The only element of the claim not recited in the reference is “sufficient aeration entrapped to enhance sensitivity to a substantial degree.” The reference does not recognize that sufficient aeration sensitizes the fuel to a substantial degree. In addition to the prior art reference, a printed publication contains test data demonstrating that “sufficient aeration” is necessarily an inherent element in the prior art blasting composition under the circumstances. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and the procedures as related in the MPEP, the prior art reference:
A anticipates the claim because it discloses every limitation of the claim either explicitly or inherently.
B does not anticipate the claim because the prior art reference does not recognize an inherent property.
C does not anticipate the claim because the prior art reference does not recognize an inherent function of oxygen.
D does not anticipate the claim because the prior art reference does not recognize an inherent ingredient, oxygen.
E (B), (C) and (D).
A
Correct Answer(s): A Related MPEP Chapter(s): MPEP 2100 - Patentability Answer Reasoning:ANSWER: (A) is the best answer. 35 U.S.C. § 102; MPEP § 2131.01, under the heading "Extra Reference or Evidence Can Be Used To Show an Inherent Characteristic of the Thing Taught by the Primary Reference," states "that as long as there is evidence of record establishing inherency, failure of those skilled in the art to contemporaneously recognize an inherent property, function or ingredient of a prior art reference does not preclude a finding of anticipation. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1948 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Two prior art references disclosed blasting compositions containing water-in-oil emulsions with identical ingredients to those claimed, in overlapping ranges with the claimed composition. The only element of the claims arguably not present in the prior art compositions was "sufficient aeration . . . entrapped to enhance sensitivity to a substantial degree." The Federal Circuit found that the emulsions described in both references would inevitably and inherently have "sufficient aeration" to sensitize the compound in the claimed ranges based on the evidence of record (including test data and expert testimony). (B) is incorrect. The prior art reference, to anticipate the claimed invention, is not required to recognize an inherent property. See MPEP § 2131.01. (C) is incorrect. The prior art reference, to anticipate the claimed invention, is not required to recognize an inherent function of oxygen. See MPEP § 2131.01. (D) is incorrect. The prior art reference, to anticipate the claimed invention, is not required to recognize an inherent ingredient, oxygen. See MPEP § 2131.01. (E) is incorrect because (B), (C), and (D) are incorrect, as explained above.
7
Q
- With respect to establishing “reasonable diligence” for under pre-AIA 35 USC 102(g), which of the following statements is or are in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
(1) The inventor and his attorney must drop all other work and concentrate on the particular invention involved.
(2) The entire period during which diligence is required must be accounted for by either affirmative acts or acceptable excuses.
(3) Work relied upon to show reasonable diligence must be directly related to the reduction to practice. A Statement (1) only B Statement (2) only C Statement (3) only D Statements (1) and (3) E Statements (2) and (3)
A
Correct Answer(s): E Related MPEP Chapter(s): MPEP 2100 - Patentability Answer Reasoning:ANSWER: (E) is the most correct, because statements (2) and (3) are true. The entire period for which diligence is required must be accounted for. MPEP § 2138.06, under the heading "The Entire Period During Which Diligence Is Required Must Be Accounted For By Either Affirmative Acts Or Acceptable Excuses," states "[a]n applicant must account for the entire period during which diligence is required. Gould v. Schawlow, 363 F.2d 908, 919, 150 USPQ 634, 643 (CCPA 1966) (Merely stating that there were no weeks or months that the invention was not worked on is not enough.)." MPEP § 2138.06, under the heading "Work Relied Upon To Show Reasonable Diligence Must Be Directly Related To The Reduction To Practice," states "[t]he work relied upon to show reasonable diligence must be directly related to the reduction to practice of the invention in issue. Naber v.Cricchi, 567 F.2d 382, 384, 196 USPQ 294, 296 (CCPA 1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 826 (1978). 'U]nder some circumstances an inventor should also be able to rely on work on closely related inventions as support for diligence toward the reduction to practice on an invention in issue.'" (A) is incorrect because statement (1) is not true - an inventor or his attorney need not drop all other work to establish reasonable diligence. Emery v. Ronden, 188 USPQ 264, 268 (Bd. Pat. Inter. 1974); MPEP § 2138.06. (B) is incorrect because it does not include true statement (3). (C) is incorrect because it does not include true statement (2). (D) is incorrect because it includes false statement (1).
8
Q
- Which one of the following statements is in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP regarding double patenting rejections?
A A rejection of application claims for obviousness-type double patenting over the claims of a patent which names a different inventive entity (where one inventor is in common with the inventive entity in the application) and was not commonly owned at the time applicant made his or her invention can be overcome with an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 showing that the applicant made the invention in the United States prior to the effective filing date of the patent.
B A rejection for obviousness-type double patenting of application claims over patent claims can properly rely on an embodiment which is disclosed in the patent and provides support for the patent claims on which the rejection is based.
C The filing of a terminal disclaimer to overcome an obviousness-type double patenting rejection constitutes a binding admission that the rejection is proper.
D Application claims are properly rejected for obviousness-type double patenting over claims of a patent having an effective filing date earlier than the effective filing date of the application only if both of the following two conditions are satisfied: (a) the rejected application claims recite an obvious variation of the subject matter recited in the patent claims on which the rejection is based; and (b) the patent claims on which the rejection is based recite an obvious variation of the subject matter recited in the rejected application claims.
E None of statements (A) though (D) is correct.
A
Correct Answer(s): A B C D E Related MPEP Chapter(s): Answer Reasoning:CREDIT GIVEN FOR ALL ANSWERS. (B) is the best answer, even so.
9
Q
- In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following can a third party submit in a pending pre-AIA published application within two months from the publication date where the submission identifies the application to which it is directed by application number and includes the appropriate fee?
A A list referencing a videotape and copy of the tape showing that the process claimed in the application was in use more than one year before the filing date of the application.
B A U.S. patent issued more than one year before the filing date of the application and a written explanation of the patent made by the third party on the patent.
C A publication with a publication date more than one year before the filing date of the application and including underlining made by the third party on the publication.
D A protest raising fraud and inequitable conduct issues.
E A list of the sole Japanese language publication submitted for consideration, including the publication date of the publication, a copy of the Japanese language publication and a written English language translation of the pertinent parts of the publication.
A
Correct Answer(s):
E
Related MPEP Chapter(s):
MPEP 600 - Parts, Form, and Content of Application
Answer Reasoning:
ANSWER: (E) is the most correct answer. 37 CFR § 1.290: MPEP 1900. The Rule allows that a third party may submit in an application a foreign-language publication and an English language translation of pertinent portions of the publication. The submission must “identify the application to which it is directed by application number,” . . “include the fee (if more than 3 eeferemces are submitted) include “a list of the patents or publications submitted for consideration by the Office, including the date of publication of each patent or publication;”. . . a “ copy of each listed patent or publication in written form or at least the pertinent portions;” and an “English language translation of all the necessary and pertinent parts of any non-English language patent or publication in written form relied upon.” Post 9/16/12, third party submissions are much broader than under old Rule 99. (A) is incorrect. The rule does not authorize a third-party submission of materials or things other than patents or publications. (B) is incorrect. A third-party submission may not include explanations beyond a concise explanation.. (C) is incorrect. A third-party submission may not include markings or highlights on the publications. (D) is incorrect because a protest cannot be filed in a published application. See 37 CFR § 1.291(a)(1); MPEP 1901.06
10
Q
- A U.S. patent was granted on May 8, 2001 to five inventors. The five inventors assigned their entire patent rights to Q Company. Q Company needs to file a reissue application to broaden the claims of the patent. The registered practitioner preparing the application has been unable to locate any of the five inventors to sign the reissue oath or declaration. Today is May 8, 2003. Which of the following should the practitioner do to enable the applicant to broaden the patent claims in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
A Wait to file the reissue application until the first day the signatures of all five inventors can be obtained. At that time, pay the filing fee and file a petition seeking May 8, 2003 as the filing date. File with the petition a showing of the unavailability of all inventors until the filing of the application.
B Wait to file the reissue application until the signatures of at least three inventors can be obtained. At that time, file a petition seeking May 7, 2003 as the filing date accompanied by a showing of the unavailability of all inventors on May 8th. Payment of the filing fees may be postponed until receipt of a decision on the petition.
C File the reissue application on May 8, 2003, presenting only the claims in the patent, and include a listing of inventors, but not pay the filing fee at the time of filing.
D Wait to file the reissue application until the signature of one of the inventors has been obtained since at least one inventor is needed to show a lack of deceptive intent on the part of the applicants.
E File the complete reissue application complying with 37 CFR 1.173(a) and 1.53(b) with an unexecuted reissue declaration listing the names of all the inventors with at least one broadening claim on May 8, 2003.
A
Correct Answer(s): E Related MPEP Chapter(s): MPEP 1400 - Correction of Patents Answer Reasoning:ANSWER: (E) is the most correct answer. 35 U.S.C. § 251; 37 CFR § 1.53(f); MPEP § 1403. Filing a broadened reissue application with at least one broadening claim prior to the expiration of the two-year time period set in the statute satisfies the diligence provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 251. The executed reissue oath/declaration and the filing fee may be filed at a later time. According to MPEP § 1403, a reissue application can be granted a filing date without an oath or declaration, or without the filing fee being present. See 37 CFR § 1.53(f). The reissue applicant will be given a period of time to provide the missing parts and to pay the surcharge under 37 CFR § 1.16(e). See MPEP § 1410.01. (A), (B) and (D) are clearly incorrect since the inventors and assignee would be barred from a broadening reissue if filed after the two year period set in the statute. (C) is incorrect since the reissue application was filed without at least one broadening claim prior to the expiration of the two-year time period set in 35 U.S.C. § 251.
11
Q
- Which of the following is patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 in accordance with the patent laws, rules, and procedures as set forth in the MPEP?
A A claim to a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild.
B A claim to a method of using a computer to select a set of arbitrary measurement point values. (The selected values are not to be transformed outside of the computer into computer data).
C A claim to a method of controlling a mechanical robot which relies upon storing data in a computer that represents various types of mechanical movements of the robot.
D A claim to a method of updating alarm limits by changing the number value of a variable to represent the result of the calculation.
E A claim to a data structure per se. (The claim does not specify any location where the data structure is stored).
A
Correct Answer(s): C Related MPEP Chapter(s): MPEP 2100 - Patentability Answer Reasoning:ANSWER: (C) is the most correct answer. MPEP § 2106(IV)(B)(2)(b)(i), under the heading "Safe Harbors," subheading "Independent Physical Acts (Post-Computer Process Activity)," states that "[e]xamples of this type of statutory process include ...[a] method of controlling a mechanical robot which relies upon storing data in a computer that represents various types of mechanical movements of the robot, using a computer processor to calculate positioning of the robot in relation to given tasks to be performed by the robot, and controlling the robot 's movement and position based on the calculated position." (A) is a true statement, and is therefore an incorrect answer. As set forth in MPEP § 2105 a " new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter." (B) is an incorrect answer. As set forth in MPEP § 2106(IV)(B)(2)(b)(i), under the heading "Safe Harbors," subheading "Manipulation of Data Representing Physical Objects or Activities (Pre-Computer Process Activity)," states that "[e]xamples of claimed processes that do not limit the claimed invention to pre-computing safe harbor include: . . . - selecting a set of arbitrary measurement point values ([In re] Sarkar, 588 F.2d [1330] at 1331, 200 USPQ [132] at 135)." (D) is an incorrect answer. MPEP § 2106(IV)(B)(2)(b)(i) under the heading "Safe Harbors," subheading "Independent Physical Acts (Post-Computer Process Activity)," states that "[e]xamples of claimed process that do not achieve a practical application include:-step of 'updating alarm limits' found to constitute changing the number value of a variable to represent the result of the calculation (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S.584, 585, 198 USPQ 193, 195 (1978)." (E) is a true statement, and therefore is an incorrect answer. MPEP § 2106(IV)(B)(1), under the heading "Nonstatutory Subject Matter" states "[In re]Warmerdam, 33 F.3d [1354,] at 1361, 31 USPQ2d [1754,] at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held nonstatutory)." This is consistent with Bilski guidelines.
12
Q
- On January 2, 2001, a registered practitioner filed a patent application with the USPTO for inventor Beck. The application includes a specification and a single claim to the invention which reads as follows:
- Mixture Y made by the process Q1.
In the specification, Mr. Beck discloses that mixture Y has a melting point of 150 degrees F. On June 2, 2001, the practitioner received an Office action from the primary examiner rejecting the claim. The claim is rejected under 35 USC 102/103 as being clearly anticipated by or obvious over Patent A. The examiner states “Patent A teaches mixture Y but made by a different process Q2.” Beck believes he is entitled to a patent to mixture Y. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following would be the best reply to the rejection of his claim?
A An argument that the claimed product has an unexpectedly low melting point of 150 degrees F, supported by an affidavit showing that the mixture Y made by process Q2 exhibits a melting point of 300 degrees F.
B An argument that the processes used by applicant and patent A are different, supported by a third-party declaration stating only that the processes are different.
C An argument that the claimed product has an unexpectedly low melting point of 150 degrees F, supported by a third-party declaration stating only that the products are different.
D An argument that the processes used by applicant and patent A are different, supported by an affidavit showing that the mixture Y made by process Q2 exhibits a melting point of 300 degrees F.
E An argument that the claimed product has an unexpectedly low melting point of 150 degrees F because the claimed mixture Y has a melting point of 150 degrees F and the mixture Y of patent A has a melting point of 300 degrees F.
A
Correct Answer(s): A Related MPEP Chapter(s): MPEP 2100 - Patentability Answer Reasoning:ANSWER: (A) is the most correct answer. MPEP § 2113, under the heading "Product-By-Process Claims Are Not Limited To The Manipulations Of The Recited Steps, Only The Structure Implied By The Steps," states "'even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the .product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.' In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)." The issue is whether the claimed mixture Y is the same as or obvious over the patented mixture Y. MPEP § 2113, under the heading "Once A Product Appearing To Be Substantially Identical Is Found And A 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejection Made, The Burden Shifts To The Applicant To Show An Unobvious Difference," states "[o]nce the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983)." Evidence that the two processes produce different properties is germane to the issue of patentability of the product-by-process claim. Accordingly, a comparison of the results obtained by conducting the process recited in the claim versus the process used by patent A and which shows that the claimed product exhibits an unexpectedly lower melting point would be a persuasive demonstration that, although the products would appear to be substantially identical, in fact, they are patentably different. Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). Therefore, the best reply to the outstanding rejection would be to argue that the claimed product has an unexpectedly lower melting point and to support that argument with evidence showing that the result of the patent A process is a mixture with higher melting point as compared to the claimed product. (B) is incorrect. The patentability of a product-by-process claim is determined on the basis of product characteristics, not process steps. (C) is incorrect. The declaration is conclusory, as opposed to being factual. Thus, the argument is not supported by facts. As stated in MPEP § 716.02(c), under the heading "Opinion Evidence," "Although an affidavit or declaration which states only conclusions may have some probative value, such an affidavit or declaration may have little weight when considered in light of all the evidence of record in the application. In re Brandstadter, 484 F.2d 1395, 179 USPQ 286 (CCPA 1973)." Thus, the reply in (A) is the most correct answer vis-ˆ-vis (C). (D) like (B), is incorrect for the same reason discussed for (B). (E) is incorrect. Like (C), this reply rightly focuses on product properties. But without the comparative factual evidence to support it, this reply is weaker than one described in (A).
13
Q
- Inventor Jones files an application under 35 USC 111(a) on March 27, 2002. The application is a continuation of an international application, which was filed on December 1, 2000. The international application claims priority to a U.S. provisional application filed December 2, 1999. The international application designated the United States, and was published in English under PCT Article 21(2). All applications contained the exact same disclosure. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, what, if any, is the earliest prior art date under 35 USC 102(e) for the publication of the 35 U.S.C. 111(a) application under 35 USC 122(b)?
A None, the publication has no prior art date under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)
B 27-Mar-02
C 11-Dec-01
D 1-Dec-00
E 2-Dec-99
A
Correct Answer(s): E Related MPEP Chapter(s): MPEP 700 - Examination of Applications Answer Reasoning:ANSWER: The correct answer is answer (E). See MPEP § 706.02(f)(1) in general and Example 7 in particular. (A) is not correct as the publication under 35 U.S.C. § 122(b) does have a prior art date under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). (B) and (D) are not correct because March 27, 2002 and December 1, 2000 are not the earliest prior art date under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The publication has an earlier prior art date than March 27, 2002 and December 1, 2000 because of its benefit/priority claims to the international application and the provisional application. See MPEP § 706.02(f)(1). (C) is not correct as it is not a filing date for any application in this question.
14
Q
- Applicant filed an international patent application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) designating the United States. A copy of the international application has not been submitted to the USPTO by the International Bureau. The deadline for entering the national stage under 35 USC 371(c) was August 15, 2002. Applicant submitted all of the national stage items required by 35 USC 371(c) by facsimile transmission on August 15, 2002. The facsimile transmission was successfully received by the USPTO on August 15, 2002. The submission included an authorization to charge any required fees to the valid deposit account of the registered practitioner representing applicant. The account contained sufficient funds. Assuming that applicant has made no other national stage submissions under 35 USC 371(c), which of the following statements is most correctly describes why the national stage submission in accordance with the patent laws, rules and the procedures as related in the MPEP is proper or improper?
A The national stage submission was proper because facsimile transmission is a valid method of correspondence in the USPTO.
B The national stage submission was proper because a copy of an originally executed oath or declaration is acceptable, but the original oath or declaration should be retained as evidence of authenticity.
C The national stage submission was improper because a copy of the international application and the basic national fee necessary to enter the national stage as required by 35 USC 371(c) may not be submitted by facsimile transmission.
D The national stage submission was improper because the USPTO does not accept fee payments via facsimile transmission.
E The national stage submission was improper because facsimile transmission may never be used for PCT applications.
A
Correct Answer(s): C Related MPEP Chapter(s): MPEP 1800 - Patent Cooperation Treaty Answer Reasoning:ANSWER: (C) is the most correct answer. 37 §§ CFR 1.6(d)(3); 1.8(a)(2)(i)(F); 1.495(b); MPEP § 1893.01(a)(1), 2nd paragraph. The filing of the copy of the international application and the basic national fee in order to avoid abandonment under 37 CFR § 1.495(b), as appropriate, may not be transmitted by facsimile. See 37 CFR § 1.6(d)(3) and 37 CFR § 1.8(a)(2)(i)(F). (A) is not the most correct answer because facsimile transmission is not permitted in the situations set forth in 37 CFR § 1.6(d). (B) is not the most correct answer because even though an oath or declaration may be submitted by facsimile transmission as set forth in MPEP § 602, the national stage submission was improper for the reasons discussed in (C). (D) is not the most correct answer because (C) is the most complete answer. Facsimile transmissions may not be used to file a copy of the international application necessary to enter the national stage. (E) is not the most correct answer because facsimile transmission may be used to file certain correspondence in PCT applications. See MPEP § 1805.
15
Q
- Which of the following statements is or are in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
(1) In a 35 USC 103 obviousness analysis, the proper question is whether the differences between the prior art and the claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
(2) In a 35 USC 103 obviousness analysis, an inventor’s assertion the he has discovered the source or cause of an identified problem should never be considered.
(3) A 35 USC 103 obviousness analysis requires consideration not just of what is literally recited in the claims, but also of any properties inherent in the claimed subject matter that are disclosed in the specification. A Statement 1 B Statement 2 C Statement 3 D Statements 1 & 2 E Statements 1 & 3
A
Correct Answer(s): C Related MPEP Chapter(s): MPEP 2100 - Patentability Answer Reasoning:ANSWER: (C) is the most correct answer. The principle in Statement 3, that consideration of inherent properties is part of proper consideration of the invention as a whole, is recited in MPEP § 2141.02, under the heading "Disclosed Inherent Properties Are Part Of 'As A Whole' Inquiry," and in In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1977). (A) is incorrect, because the proper question is whether the invention as a whole, not just the differences, would have been obvious. See MPEP § 2141.02, under the heading "The Claimed Invention As A Whole Must Be Considered," (citing Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 218 USPQ 871 (Fed. Cir. 1983). (B) is incorrect because an examiner should consider such assertions by an inventor as part of the "subject matter as a whole." See MPEP § 2141.02 (citing In re Sponnoble, 405 F.2d 578, 585, 160 USPQ 237, 243 (CCPA 1969)). (D) and (E) are incorrect because they include incorrect Statements 1 and/or 2.
16
Q
- A patent application was filed on November 1, 2000 for the invention of J.J. Smithy. The application has no priority or benefit claims to any other application. Claims in the application are separately rejected under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by each of the following references. Which reference can be properly applied under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
A A WIPO publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), which has an international filing date of October 3, 2000, was published in English and designated the United States.
B A U.S. patent by J.J. Smithy that has a filing date of September 5, 2000.
C A U.S. application publication under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) by inventor Jones that was filed on August 8, 2000.
D A journal article by Marks published on October 11, 2000.
E All of the above.
A
Correct Answer(s): C Related MPEP Chapter(s): MPEP 700 - Examination of Applications Answer Reasoning:ANSWER: The correct answer is answer (C). 35 U.S.C. § 102(e); MPEP § 706.02(f). The application publication is a proper reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) because it was filed by another prior to the filing date of the invention. See MPEP § 706.02(f) et seq. Answer (A) is incorrect. The reference in answer (A) is not a proper reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because its international filing date was prior to November 29, 2000 thereby failing one of the three conditions for a WIPO publication of an international application to be applied under 35.U.S.C. § 102(e). See MPEP § 706(f)(1), under the heading "I. Determine The Appropriate 35 .U.S.C. 102(e) For Each Potential Reference By Following The Guidelines, Examples And Flow Charts Set Forth Below," subpart (C), which states "[I]f the potential reference resulted from, or claimed the benefit of, an international application, the following must be determined: (1) If the international application meets the following three conditions: (a) an international filing date on or after November 29, 2000 . . . then the international filing date is a U.S. filing date for prior art purposes under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)." The reference in (B) is not a proper reference under 35.U.S.C. § 102(e) because the reference is not by another. See MPEP § 706.02(f). The reference in (D) is not a proper reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) refers to patents and patent applications, not journal articles. See MPEP § 706.02(f)(1). (E) is not correct because (C) is correct and (A), (B) and (D) are incorrect.
17
Q
- A registered practitioner filed a design patent application on December 30, 2003. The application was filed with an inventor-executed declaration naming Jon Jones as the sole inventor, who has not assigned the invention and is not under an obligation to assign his invention. The filing receipt was recently received, indicating that the application will be published on Thursday, July 1, 2004. In reviewing the filing receipt the practitioner realizes that the typed name of the inventor contained a typographical error (an “h” was missing) and that the correct spelling was John Jones. Which of the following would be the course of action at the least expense to correct the error in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
A The practitioner should file a request under 37 CFR 1.48 to correct the inventorship of the application with a new declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 signed by John Jones (with the correct spelling of this name), a statement by Mr. Jones as to how the error occurred and that the error was without deceptive intention, and the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(q).
B The practitioner should file a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 and the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), requesting correction of the spelling of the inventor’s name.
C The practitioner should file a request for a corrected filing receipt and a separate letter to the Office explaining that the declaration contains a typographical error, that the correct spelling of the inventor’s name is John Jones, and requesting correction of the Office records.
D The practitioner should expressly abandon the application, and file a continuation with a new declaration with the correct spelling.
E The practitioner should call the examiner and tell the examiner that the inventor’s name is wrong, and ask for the examiner to change the name on the declaration.
A
Correct Answer(s):
C
Related MPEP Chapter(s):
MPEP 600 - Parts, Form, and Content of Application
Answer Reasoning:ANSWER: (C) is the most correct answer. See MPEP § 605.04(b), which states “Except for correction of a typographical or transliteration error in the spelling of an inventor’s name, a request to have the name changed to the signed version or any other corrections in the name of the inventor(s) will not be entertained…When a typographical or transliteration error in the spelling of an inventor’s name is discovered during pendency of an application, a petition is not required, nor is a new oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 needed. The U.S.[PTO] should simply be notified of the error and reference to the notification paper will be made on the previously filed oath or declaration by the Office.” (A), (B) and (D) could result in the spelling of Jon’s name being corrected in USPTO records, but would do so at a higher cost to applicant, and therefore neither one is the most correct answer. Furthermore, (A) is also not correct in that if a request to add John Jones as an inventor was to be filed, another request (and fee) to delete Jon Jones would be required. (B) is wrong because a petition under 37 CFR § 1.182 is not required if the error in the name is a typographical error, and the facts specify that the error in the spelling of “John” as “Jon” is a typographical error. (D) is not correct because not only would filing a continuation create an additional expensive, but filing a new application could also delay examination. (E) is not correct because pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.2, business with the Office is to be conducted in writing, and, even more importantly, because “it is improper for anyone, including counsel, to alter, rewrite, or partly fill in any part of the application, including the oath or declaration, after execution of the oath or declaration by the applicant.” MPEP § 605.04(a).
18
Q
- The claims in an application are rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious over prior art reference A in view of prior art reference B. All of the following statements are in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP except:
A Where the combination of prior art references provides motivation to make the claimed invention to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by the applicant, the references do not have to expressly suggest the combination of references.
B The rationale to modify or combine the prior art references may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law.
C In considering the disclosure of the prior art references, it is proper to take into account the specific teachings of the references, as well as the inferences that one skilled in the art could reasonably draw from the specific teachings.
D An examiner may take official notice of facts outside the record that are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being “well known” prior art or common knowledge in the art.
E To rely on equivalence as a KSR rationale supporting an obviousness rejection under 35 USC 103 an examiner may base the rejection on the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents without further explanation of the rationale.
A
Correct Answer(s): E Related MPEP Chapter(s): MPEP 2100 - Patentability Answer Reasoning:ANSWER: (E) is the most correct answer. See KSR Guidelines and MPEP § 2144.06, under the heading "Substituting Equivalents Known For The Same Purpose," states "[i]n order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant's disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958)." (A) is incorrect. MPEP § 2144, under the heading "Rationale Different From Applicant's Is Permissible," states "[t]he reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972). . . ; In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). . . ." (B) is incorrect. MPEP § 2144, under the heading "Rationale May Be In A Reference, Or Reasoned From Common Knowledge In The Art, Scientific Principles, Art-Recognized Equivalents, Or Legal Precedent," states "[t]he rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also . . . In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings)." (C) is incorrect. MPEP § 2144.01, quotes In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) as stating "[i]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." (D) is incorrect. MPEP § 2144.03 under the heading "A. Determine When It Is Appropriate To Take Official Notice Without Documentary Evidence To Support The Examiner's Conclusion," states "[o]fficial notice without documentary evidence to support an examiner's conclusion is permissible only in some circumstances. . . . Official notice unsupported by documentary evidence should only be taken by the examiner where the facts asserted to be well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. As noted by the court in In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420 (CCPA 1970), the notice of facts beyond the record which may be taken by the examiner must be 'capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute (citing In re Knapp Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230, 132 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1961)."
19
Q
- Recommend which of the following rejections under 35 USC 102 in a Exparte reexamination proceeding is in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP for pre-03/16/13 filed patents.
A A rejection under 35 USC 102(a) based on an affidavit that the invention was known or used by others before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.
B A rejection under 35 USC 102(b) based on an affidavit that the invention was in the public use in this country more than one year prior to the date of the application for a patent in the United States.
C A rejection under 35 USC 102(e) that the invention was described in a patent by another filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the patent applicant.
D A rejection under 35 USC 102(f) based on an affidavit that the applicant did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented.
E A rejection under 35 USC 102(b) that the invention was on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.
A
Correct Answer(s):
C
Related MPEP Chapter(s):
MPEP 2200 - Citation of Prior Art and Ex Parte Reexamination of Patents
Answer Reasoning:ANSWER: (C) is the most correct answer. 35 U.S.C. § 302; 37 CFR § 1.552; and MPEP § 2258. MPEP § 2258, under the heading “Prior Patents Or Printed Publications,” states “[r]ejections on prior art in reexamination proceedings may only be made on the basis of prior patents or printed publications. Prior art rejections may be based upon the following portions of 35 U.S.C. 102: . . .(e).” (A), (B), (D) and (E) are incorrect. MPEP § 2258, under the heading “Matters Other Than Patents or Printed Publications,” states “[r]ejections will not be based on matters other than patents or printed publications, such as public use or sale, inventorship, 35 U.S.C. 101, fraud, etc. In this regard, see In re Lanham, 1 USPQ2d 1877 (Comm’r Pat. 1986), and Stewart Systems v. Comm’r of Patents and Trademarks, 1 USPQ2d 1879 (E.D. Va. 1986). A rejection on prior public use or sale, insufficiency of disclosure, etc., cannot be made even if it relies on a prior patent or printed publication. Prior patents or printed publications must be applied under an appropriate portion of 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 when making a rejection.” Reexamination is limited to substantially new questions of patentability based on patents and publications.
20
Q
- Which of the following would comply with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP and would be a fully responsive reply to a non-final Office action on the merits rejecting all the claims in the application as being unpatentable under 35 USC 102 and/or 103 over prior art references?
A A timely filed and properly signed written reply which does not include an amendment to the claims, but includes a request for the examiner’s rejections to be reconsidered supported by arguments replying to every ground of rejection and distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in every rejection. and pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims patentable over any applied references.
B A timely filed and properly signed written reply which includes an amendment canceling all the claims in the application and adding new claims, and a request for the examiner’s rejections to be reconsidered in view of the newly presented claims.
C A timely filed and properly signed written reply which does not include an amendment to the claims, but does generally alleges that the claims define a patentable invention.
D A timely filed and properly signed written request for continued examination (RCE).
E All of the above.
A
Correct Answer(s): A Related MPEP Chapter(s): MPEP 700 - Examination of Applications Answer Reasoning:ANSWER: (A) is the most correct answer. 37 CFR § 1.111; MPEP § 714.02. Section 1.111 states in pertinent part: "(a)(1) If the Office action after the first examination (§ 1.104) is adverse in any respect, the applicant or patent owner, ... must reply and request reconsideration or further examination, with or without amendment. ... (b) In order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner's action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. ...The applicant's or patent owner's reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section." MPEP § 714.02 states "In all cases where reply to a requirement is indicated as necessary to further consideration of the claims ... a complete reply must either comply with the formal requirements or specifically traverse each one not complied with." (B) and (C) are not the most correct answers. 37 CFR § 1.111; MPEP §§ 714.02 and 714.04. Neither reply specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner's action and neither reply present arguments pointing out how the newly presented claims overcome the rejections. (D) is not the most correct answer. See 37 CFR § 1.114. A request for continued examination can only be made if prosecution of an application is closed. In this question the Office action is a non-final office action. (E) is not the most correct answer since (A) is correct and (B), (D) and (D) are incorrect.
