QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: You filed a U.S. patent application for Pete, obtaining an effective filing date of January 5, 1999, for a legal slot machine, fully disclosing and claiming only one claim as follows. Claim 1. A slot machine comprising: a cylindrical drum mechanically coupled to a motor; an electronic random data generator electrically coupled to the motor; and a push button coupled to the random data generator. You received a non-final Office action dated September 20, 1999. The examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as anticipated by a U.S. patent dated May 4, 1999 to Bud. The examiner stated and pointed out that the Bud patent, filed January 7, 1998, disclosed a slot machine with a cylindrical drum mechanically coupled to a motor; a mechanically spinning random data generator electrically coupled to the motor; and a push button coupled to the random data generator. The examiner further stated, "The examiner takes official notice that it was well known by those of ordinary skill in the art of slot machines, prior to applicant's invention, to use interchangeably either a mechanically spinning, or an electronic random data generator." The examiner did not provide any references to support the official notice. Which of the following timely filed replies to the Office action (compared to each other) is best?
A. Traverse the rejection arguing that the examiner's use of official notice was improper because the examiner did not provide any references to support the official notice.
B. Traverse the rejection arguing that Bud's invention was patented after Pete's effective filing date.
C. Amend Pete's claim to further include a flat screen video monitor display and point out that the newly added feature distinguishes Pete's invention over Bud.
D. Traverse the rejection arguing that the examiner did not create a prima facie case of obviousness because the examiner did not show why one of ordinary skill in the art of slot machines would be motivated to modify the patent to Bud.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Evidence that a claim may not comply with the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 occurs in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure where:
A. Remarks filed by applicant in a reply or brief regarding the scope of the invention differ and do not correspond in scope with the claim.
B. There is a lack of agreement between the language in the claims and the language set forth in the specification.
C. The scope of the claimed subject matter is narrowed during pendency of the application by deleting the originally much broader claims, and presenting claims to only the preferred embodiment within the originally much broader claims.
D. Claims in a continuation application are directed to originally disclosed subject matter (in the parent and continuation applications) which applicants did not regard as part of their invention when the parent application was filed.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is true?
A. If after the filing of a reissue application no errors in the original patent are found, a reissue patent will be granted on the reissue application noting no change, and the original patent will be returned to the applicant.
B. In order to add matter not previously found in the patent, a continuation-in-part reissue application must be filed.
C. In a reissue application, additions and deletions to the original patent should be made by underlining and bracketing, respectively, except for changes made in prior Certificates of Correction and disclaimer(s) of claims under 37 C.F.R. §1.321(a).
D. A dependent claim may be broadened in a reissue application only in the first two years of the enforceable life of the patent.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements, in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure, is true?
A. Inasmuch as the Defensive Publication Program was removed from the rules in view of the applicant's ability to obtain a Statutory Invention Registration, a defensive publication is not available as prior art.
B. An application from which a defensive publication has been prepared may be used as a reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) effective only from the date of publication of the defensive application.
C. A defensive publication may be cited as prior art only if used alone, but not in combination with other prior art in rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103.
D. Abbreviatures contain specific portions of the disclosures of abandoned applications and were discontinued in 1965. They may be cited as prior art only if used in combination with other prior art in rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Independent claim 1, fully supported by the specification in a patent application states: Claim 1. An apparatus comprising: a plastic valve; a copper pipe connected to the plastic valve; and an aluminum pipe connected to the plastic valve. Which of the following claims, presented in the application, provide the basis for a proper rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph? Claim 2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said pipe is statically charged. Claim 3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the outer surface of said copper pipe is statically charged. Claim 4. The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a thermostat connected to said plastic valve.
A. Claim 2.
B. Claim 3.
C. Claim 4.
D. Claims 2 and 3.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An Office action issued with a three month shortened statutory period for reply. Four and one-half months after the mailing date of the Office action, the applicant submitted a fully responsive amendment along with a petition and fee for a one-month extension of time. The petition for extension of time included an authorization to charge fees under 37 C.F.R. § 1.17 to applicant's deposit account. The applicant knew at the time the amendment was filed that a two-month extension of time was required. Unfortunately, however, a clerical error was made that resulted in only a one-month extension of time being requested. Applicant overlooked this error when the amendment was filed. Assuming no further papers by applicant, which of the following statements is true?
A. The amendment is treated as untimely and the application becomes abandoned. However, applicant may petition to revive the abandoned application on the basis that the abandonment was unavoidable.
B. The amendment is treated as untimely and the application becomes abandoned. However, applicant may petition to revive the abandoned application on the basis that the abandonment was unintentional.
C. The petition for a one-month extension of time will be construed as a petition requesting the appropriate period of extension, and the appropriate fee will be charged to the deposit account.
D. Applicant will be notified that the petition for extension of time was insufficient and will be given 30 days from the mailing date of the notification to request an extension of time for a second month.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Regarding a power of attorney or authorization of agent in a patent application, which of the following is in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. All notices and official letters for the patent owner or owners in a reexamination proceeding will be directed to the attorney or agent of record in the patent file at the address listed on the register of patent attorneys and agents.
B. Powers of attorney to firms submitted in applications filed in the year 2000 are recognized by the United States Patent and Trademark Office
C. The associate attorney may appoint another attorney.
D. The filing and recording of an assignment will operate as a revocation of a power or authorization previously given.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A United States patent issued to inventor Smith on January 6, 1998. The Smith patent had a total of nine claims, with claim 1 being the only independent claim. Smith subsequently became aware of prior art that was not before the examiner that likely invalidated claim 1 of the patent. Accordingly, Smith properly filed a narrowing reissue application on September 30, 1999 along with a reissue oath stating that he believed the original patent to be wholly or partly invalid by reason of the patentee claiming more than he had the right to claim in the patent. As filed, the reissue application sought to narrow the first limitation of claim 1 to distinguish over the new prior art. Claims 2 through 9 were rewritten in independent form. On March 15, 2000, while preparing a reply to an Office action in the reissue application, Smith determined that he would like to add further claims to provide a desired range of patent protection. Thus, on March 17, 2000, Smith submitted an amendment that, inter alia, added new claims 10-19 to the reissue application, with claims 10 and 16 being presented in independent form. Each of claims 10-15 was narrower than original claim 1 in certain aspects, but broader than original claim 1 in other aspects. Each of claims 16-19 was narrower than claim 1 in all aspects, and was fully supported by the original reissue oath. Smith also submitted on March 17 a supplemental reissue oath stating that he believed the original patent to be wholly or partly inoperative by reason of the patentee claiming less than he had the right to claim in the patent. Which of the following best describes a likely action by the examiner in response to the amendment?
A. Each of claims 10-19 is rejected as being improper since the claims were added after the two-year anniversary of the original patent issuance.
B. Each of claims 10-19 is examined on the merits.
C. Claims 10-15 are rejected as being improper because they improperly seek to broaden the invention claimed in the original patent, and need not be further examined on their merits, but claims 16-19 are examined on the merits.
D. Claims 16-19 are examined on the merits, and claims 10-15 are examined on the merits if there is no prosecution history estoppel during the original prosecution relating to the broadened aspects of the claims.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Jack, a registered patent agent, received a final rejection of all of the claims in an application directed to an article of manufacture. Jack is about to file a timely Notice of Appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before filing his notice of appeal, Jack would like to tie up some loose ends by amendment. Which of the following reply (replies) may he file without triggering the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.116(b)?
A. A reply that presents his argument in a more defensible light and adds additional claims.
B. A reply amending the claims into process claims.
C. A reply amending all of the independent claims, accompanied by a declaration from the inventor.
D. A reply complying with a requirement of form expressly set forth in the previous Office action.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements regarding a proper prior art reference is true?
A. Canceled matter in the application file of a U.S. patent is a prior art reference as of the filing date under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
B. Where a patent refers to and relies on the disclosure of a copending subsequently abandoned application, such disclosure is not available as a reference.
C. Where the reference patent claims the benefit of an earlier filed, copending but subsequently abandoned application which discloses subject matter in common with the patent, and the abandoned application has an enabling disclosure for the common subject matter and the claimed matter in the reference patent, the effective date of the reference patent as to the common subject matter is the filing date of the reference patent.
D. Matter canceled from the application file wrapper of a U.S. patent may be used as prior art as of the patent date.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In June 1997, Rene invents a circuit board device which automatically logs a computer onto the Internet without the need for entering passwords. During the prosecution of the patent for the circuit board device, Rene's patent practitioner files the following claims 1 and 2: 1. An electronic device for automatically logging onto the Internet comprising: communication means for communicating on the Internet, said communication means further comprising circuit means for automatically entering a password, and storage means for automatically storing a password for logging onto the Internet. 2. The device of claim 1 wherein the communication means is a desktop computer. During the patent prosecution, the examiner cites as prior art a telephone with a memory, which automatically dials a telephone number. The examiner reasons that because the telephone can store the number in its memory, it would have been obvious to store a password in the memory as well. The examiner objects to claim 2 as being dependent upon a rejected claim. Being very eager to get patent protection and low on financial resources, Rene instructs the practitioner to combine claims one and two and allow the application to issue. One year and one day after issuance, Rene comes to you, a patent attorney, inquiring if her patent reads on a widely distributed, hand-held, pocket sized, portable device that is not a telephone and does not use a desktop computer to access the Internet automatically without a password, and if not, what corrective action is available. Which of the following choices is the best advice for Rene?
A. Since the two-year period for broadening has not expired, Rene may file a reissue with a declaration stating that the failure to claim more was due to error without deceptive intent. Rene may broaden her claims to the extent permitted by the prior art, since at no time did she narrow her claims to avoid the prior art.
B. Since the prior art device was a telephone, Rene is entitled to seek patent protection on all that which is not in the prior art. Rene should be able to obtain broadened patent protection by reissue of the patent.
C. Since Rene's original claim 1 was broadly written and since Rene narrowed her scope of patent protection by incorporating the limitations of the original claim 2 during the original prosecution, she is barred by the doctrine of recapture from enlarging her claims to the scope of the original claim 1.
D. Although Rene narrowed her claims during the original prosecution, she can file a declaration stating that the narrowing of her claims was not because she believed the prior art precluded her from claiming more but due to financial concerns. Therefore, the narrowing of the claim was error without deceptive intent and Rene may file a reissue seeking broader claims.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You are a registered patent practitioner handling prosecution of a patent application assigned to your client, Manufacturing Company, Inc. ("ManCo"). In discussing a reply to a first, non-final Office action with the sole named inventor (I. M. Putin) on August 11, 2000, you uncover evidence that suggests an individual employed by your client may have intentionally concealed the identity of a possible joint inventor (Phil Leftout). Leftout quit ManCo after a dispute with the company president, and is currently involved in litigation against ManCo over his severance package. You learn that Leftout would be entitled to additional severance payments if he were indeed a joint inventor. You decide it is necessary to further investigate the identity of the proper inventive entity and, if the inventive entity was misidentified on the application, determine the circumstances behind this misidentification. Particularly in light of the schedules of individuals with relevant information, such an investigation would take at least three months and perhaps longer to complete. The outstanding Office action issued 5陆 months ago with a 3-month shortened statutory period for reply. The examiner has raised only minor matters of form in the Office action, and you are confident the application would be in condition for allowance after you submit a reply. After discussing the matter with you, ManCo informs you they want the matter straightened out before any patent issues on the application. How do you best advise ManCo?
A. Recommend promptly filing a Request for Stay of Prosecution until you can complete your investigation, and upon completion of the investigation filing an appropriate reply to the outstanding Office action along with a petition and associated fees for a three month extension of time.
B. Recommend promptly filing a petition and associated fees for a three month extension of time along with a Request for Stay of Prosecution until you can complete your investigation, and upon completion of the investigation filing an appropriate reply to the outstanding Office action.
C. Recommend proceeding with prosecution by promptly filing an appropriate reply to the outstanding Office action along with a petition and associated fees for a three month extension of time; and allowing the patent to issue in Putin's name alone with the understanding that, if the investigation shows the possible joint inventor should have been named, correcting the inventorship after issuance of the patent in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.48.
D. Recommend promptly filing an appropriate reply to the outstanding Office action along with a petition and fees for a three-month extension of time and concurrently submitting a petition and associated fees for suspension of action for a reasonable time until you can complete your investigation.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Assume a "claim" for the benefit of an earlier filing date in a foreign country under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) was made and a certified copy of the foreign application was filed in a corresponding U.S. application on which the original U.S. patent was granted, and the benefit of priority is desired in a reissue patent application. Which of the following statements accords with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. It is unnecessary to make such claim in the reissue application.
B. It is unnecessary to make such claim in the reissue application provided a certified copy of the foreign application is provided in the reissue application.
C. It is unnecessary to make such claim in a reissue application provided the oath or declaration identifies the foreign application and its filing date.
D. It is necessary to make such claim in the reissue application, and in addition, the oath or declaration must identify the foreign application on which priority is claimed, and any foreign applications having a filing date before that of the application on which priority is claimed.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Joe and Jim, local businessmen, conceived the idea of an improved fishing pole. Thereafter, they had a prototype made, and after successfully testing the pole, they filed a patent application on their invention. Both men are widowers, Joe with a grown son, and Jim with a grown daughter. Joe and Jim invite their children to come to the next Lions Club social event, and it isn't long before the children are thinking in terms of wedding bells. Ecstatic at the thought of the upcoming marriage, Joe and Jim decide to assign their patent application to their children as a wedding present. Accordingly, they execute a document properly assigning their patent application to their children effective on the date of their marriage, and mail it to the USPTO with a cover letter requesting that the document be recorded. Shortly after the document is recorded, Joe's son meets another woman, and breaks off his engagement to Jim's daughter. In light of this scenario, which of the following statements is true?
A. Since the assignment was conditioned on the marriage of the children, and the condition was not fulfilled, the USPTO will regard the assignment as without effect for Office purposes.
B. Since the assignment was recorded, the USPTO will require the parties to certify that the marriage condition was fulfilled before the assignment will be effective for Office purposes.
C. Since the assignment was recorded, the USPTO will not determine whether the marriage condition was fulfilled and will regard the assignment as absolute.
D. Since the USPTO does not record conditional assignments, the recording of the assignment document will be regarded as inadvertent, and without effect for Office purposes.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is true?
A. When the subject matter of an appeal is particularly difficult to understand, a patentability report is prepared by an examiner in order to present the technical background of the case to the Board of Appeals and Patent Interferences.
B. In those appeals in which an oral hearing has been confirmed and either the Board of Appeals and Patent Interferences or the primary examiner has indicated a desire for the examiner to participate in the oral argument, oral argument may be presented by the examiner whether or not the appellant appears.
C. If a patent applicant files a notice of appeal which is unsigned, it will be returned for signature, but the applicant will still receive the filing date of the unsigned notice of appeal.
D. Statements made in information disclosure statements are not binding on an applicant once the patent has issued since the sole purpose of the statement is to satisfy the duty of disclosure before the Office.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Mitch and Mac are named inventors on an international application that is filed in the USPTO Receiving Office, and designates the United States of America. Mac now indicates that he will not sign the Request for the international application. Mitch wishes to proceed with the Request and seeks the advice of their patent agent. Which of the following answers accords with the provisions of the Patent Cooperation Treaty?
A. Mitch's agent should sign the Request and accompany it with a statement indicating why it is believed that Mac refuses to proceed with the Request.
B. Mitch should sign the request for himself and also sign on behalf of Mac.
C. Mitch should sign the request and seek a court order to obtain Mac's signature.
D. Mitch should sign the Request and accompany it with a statement providing a satisfactory explanation for the lack of Mac's signature.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)