Patent bar Design and plant applications question: applicant seeks a design patent on the shape of a wrench handle

Patent barDesign and plant applications

An applicant seeks a design patent on the shape of a wrench handle. The examiner finds that every feature of the shape is dictated solely by its function, with no ornamental aspect. What rejection is appropriate?

A A restriction requirement between function and appearance
B A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 171 for lack of ornamentality
C A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility
D A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
E No rejection, because designs need not be ornamental

Show the answer and explanation

Answer: B. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 171 for lack of ornamentality

Answer: A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 171 for lack of ornamentality. 35 U.S.C. 171 protects new, original and ornamental designs for articles of manufacture. A design dictated solely by function is not ornamental and is rejected under 171 (MPEP 1504.01(c)). Why not the others: - 112(f): means-plus-function does not apply to design claims. - 101 utility: the utility requirement does not apply to designs. - Need not be ornamental: ornamentality is a statutory requirement. - Restriction: restriction separates distinct designs, not function from appearance. Rule: Designs must be ornamental; a purely functional design is rejected under 171. Source: MPEP § 1504.01(c) (9th ed., Rev. 01.2024); 35 U.S.C. 171; as at Oct 2026

Common mistake

Using utility-patent rejections for a design problem.

Practice more Patent bar Design and plant applications questions

Exam-style questions with worked answers, then full timed mocks. Free to start.

Start practicing →

Study note: Design and plant applications Patent barpractice questions & mock exams

Related Patent bar practice questions

A company filed a European design application on February 2, 2026 and a U.S. provisional application on the same design on February 9, 2026. On July 27, 2026, it files a U.S. design application. Which earlier filings can the design application rely on?In a design application for a shoe, the drawings show the sole in solid lines and the upper in broken lines. The specification states that broken lines show portions of the shoe that form no part of the claimed design. What is claimed?A claim recites a mathematical formula for calculating the optimal cure time of rubber, and further recites constantly measuring mold temperature, recalculating the cure time with the formula, and automatically opening the press when the calculated time has elapsed. Under the USPTO's analysis, which conclusion is best supported?

Build a daily practice habit — a few exam-style questions a day, with worked answers. Free to start.

Start practicing →

Original study material written from the MPEP; not a question from the current exam.Independent. Not affiliated with or endorsed by the USPTO. Verify figures and rules against current guidance before relying on them.