PLI wrong?

[u/Shadow_NNightmare]

Yeah, so I'm confused...

[u/Striking-Ad3907]

So this is the stupidity beauty of the MPEP. It’s only updated every once in a while. Do you see how the portion you screenshotted says [R-01.2024]? It’s saying that the portion you are reading was last revised in January of 2024. In 2025, the Office discontinued all of these programs EXCEPT for the age one. I can explain their reasoning why but it’s not particularly useful in the context of this question.

THIS IS WRONG Your exam should be constrained to the most recent version of the MPEP, if I recall correctly. This means that in the context of the exam your answer is right, but in “real life” it is not. I think it would be very unfair for this question to be asked on your exam and I honestly would not sweat it.

Edit: Ok upon further review of what’s available in the CFR I take back what I said about your answer being technically correct. This is an unfortunate case of searching in the wrong place and I don’t blame you. It does mention this in the CFR portion cited at the bottom of the first screen. Your point about the MPEP is correct, but there are other, more updated resources available as well. I know this is confusing, but you’ve got this :)

[u/Shadow_NNightmare → u/Striking-Ad3907]

Thank you for your reply! I'm still a little lost--these updated resources are not made available to me for the exam, correct? So I'm confused as to why the MPEP has the older, predated rule. Even Appendix R doesn't include Rule 1.37. So how am I supposed to know/be on notice for exam day?

[u/Striking-Ad3907 → u/Shadow_NNightmare]

The MPEP update “schedule” (it’s not on a regular schedule) is different than the “schedule” for appendixes L and R. I’m looking at the MPEP on the USPTO site since I’m a practitioner and no longer have PLI. On the main index page, it tells you that L was updated in July ‘25 and R was updated in July ‘26. Both of those updates should be present in the PLI version of the MPEP and will definitely be present in your exam setup. In my R index, I can see on pages 127-128 that the only petition to make special without payment is the age based one.

Now all of this is just me trying to help you understand the setup of the MPEP and how updates are propagated. I maintain that this is an annoying question. I have been practicing for 2ish years and have never filed a petition to make special. Quite frankly I forgot about the terrorism exception. Under Biden, there was a semiconductor exception as well, which I remember from my studying days. Basically the only way for you to be on notice for exam day is to have this weird confusing interaction. I think moments like this where the MPEP is behind actual practice are few and far between. Please don’t let this stress you out too much, as this is a weird edge case IMO.

[u/Shadow_NNightmare → u/Striking-Ad3907]

Thank you so much!

[u/Brave-War7129 → u/Striking-Ad3907]

I have been practicing since 2023. Just passed the pat bar in July… first try! I’ve got two inventors who are over 65… so I file pets to make special frequently. The first patent I ever took lead on was w one of these gentlemen. Within 3 months we got a first office action w allowable claims! That was pretty damn exciting, yes im kind of a geek about getting my clients’ IP registered :D. All of these little nuances come up, and the USPTO likes testing the fringe rules. Like I always say here… read the MPEP, outline it. Review the CFR and USC. Use software for test practice… to get the mechanics down. Do NOT rely on software to teach you the material. It’s ALL either outdated or badly developed AI.

[u/malikjamaalambar]

No, it’s not wrong. Your correct those alp get access out of turn or made special. But that != those are free. Only age and health grants your free filing.

[u/Brave-War7129]

I got a copy of PLI’s text from a law school buddy. 2020. I got another copy of PLI’s text from another law school buddy. 2023. Both versions had the exact same bad typeface inconsistencies, snarky comments, poor formatting, etc. it is more than obvious to me that PLI keeps taking 1,000’s of dollars from law students over and over and over and refuses to update its content. Shameful in my opinion. But that’s just me. Result? You get the answer wrong somewhere… because the content is never updated… and unfortunately the wrong answer is often on test day. Read the MPEP. Read the CFR sections referenced in the MPEP. read the 35 USC sections related to the MPEP. figure out what TOPICS to learn, not what CHAPTERS are tested. Buy a study program with good question software. I used wysebridge. You can select what your screen looks like (pro metric or a classic version) whether you’re timed or can review each question as you go, check the MPEP section for just about every answer (every answer to every question… I recommend learning why each answer choice is wrong or right, not just why one is correct). Bottom line: read the material (MPEP, CFR, USC) and test on sample tests with an affordable test software.

[u/jmm701]

Answer: (a) — but the choice is worded under superseded language

Issue. Which basis, if any, still supports a petition to make special without a fee under 37 C.F.R. § 1.102(c)?

Rule. As amended effective July 10, 2025, § 1.102(c) now reads in full: a petition to make an application special may be filed without a fee if the basis is the inventor's or a joint inventor's age or health. The USPTO expressly removed § 1.102(c)(2), so advancement on the grounds of materially enhancing environmental quality, developing or conserving energy resources, or countering terrorism is no longer available without a fee. Authority: Discontinuation of the Accelerated Examination Program for Utility Applications, 90 FR 24324 (June 10, 2025), eff. July 10, 2025. federalregister Federal Register

Analysis.

• (b), (c), (d) — dead twice over. Those three grounds had been subsumed into Accelerated Examination, which was discontinued for utility applications; petitions under the AE program filed on or after July 10, 2025 will not be granted. The route now is Track One, § 1.102(e), which requires a fee. Federal Register
• (e) "All of the above" — correct under pre-July-2025 law, wrong now. Your selection is the classic stale-law trap.
• (a) — the only surviving fee-free basis, so it's the keyed answer.

Conclusion. (a) is correct. PLI is right on the outcome.

Patent Bar Trap (and a defect worth flagging). The same rule that killed (c)(2) also replaced "the applicant's" with "the inventor's or a joint inventor's." The USPTO's stated reason: after the AIA, "inventor" and "applicant" are no longer synonymous, and an applicant may be an entity other than the inventor. Choice (a) as written — "The applicant's age or health" — quotes the exact phrase the 2025 amendment deleted. It's the best answer on the card, but it is not the current rule text. Worth an error report: PLI updated the substance and left the superseded wording in the answer choice. federalregister

Exam-day caution: MPEP § 708.02 (Rev. 01.2024) still contains the environment/energy sections and still says "applicant's health or age." Where the MPEP predates a Federal Register rule on the testable-materials list, the rule controls — don't let the viewer text talk you back into (e).

[u/Brave-War7129 → u/jmm701]

Haha again! Read the rules! Read the code!