Patent bar Design and plant applications question: design application rely

Patent barDesign and plant applications

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?

A Both, because the provisional was filed within twelve months
B Only the European application, by a priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 172 and 119(a)
C Only the U.S. provisional, under 35 U.S.C. 119(e)
D Neither, because design applications cannot claim any earlier date
E Both, because each was filed within six months

Show the answer and explanation

Answer: B. Only the European application, by a priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 172 and 119(a)

Answer: Only the European application, by a priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 172 and 119(a). A design application may claim foreign priority under 119(a) if filed within six months of the foreign application (35 U.S.C. 172); July 27, 2026 is within six months of February 2, 2026. But 119(e) benefit of a provisional is not available to designs (35 U.S.C. 172; 37 CFR 1.78(a); MPEP 1504.10, 1504.20). Why not the others: - The provisional: designs cannot claim provisional benefit. - Both: the provisional is unavailable whatever its timing. - Neither: foreign priority within six months is available. - Twelve months: neither the period nor the provisional route applies to designs. Rule: Designs: six-month foreign priority yes; provisional benefit no. Source: MPEP § 1504.10, § 1504.20 (9th ed., Rev. 01.2024); 35 U.S.C. 119, 172; as at Oct 2026

Common mistake

Letting a design claim a provisional.

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

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?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 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.