QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: Igor filed a design patent application in the USPTO on January 24, 2000, which issued as a design patent on January 23, 2001. Igor's design patent covered a design that became immediately popular, resulting in numerous inquiries for licenses from various manufacturers. Igor would like to financially exploit his patent by licensing for five years. However, Igor has decided to dedicate five years of his patent term to the public. Which of the following is in accord with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, while best allowing Igor to pursue his intentions?
A. Record in the USPTO an assignment of all right, title, and interest in the patent to the public, conditioned on the receipt by Igor of all royalties from licensing the patent after the first five years of the patent term.
B. File a disclaimer in the USPTO dedicating to the public the first five years of the patent term.
C. File a disclaimer in the USPTO dedicating to the public that portion of the term of the patent from January 24, 2015 to January 24, 2020.
D. File a disclaimer in the USPTO dedicating to the public half of all royalties received from licensing the patent for the terminal part of the term of the patent.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Mike and Alice, who are not related, are shipwrecked on a heretofore uninhabited and undiscovered island in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. In order to signal for help, Mike invents a signaling device using bamboo shoots. Alice witnesses but does not assist in any way in the development of the invention. The signaling device works and a helicopter comes and rescues Alice. However, Mike remains on the island due to overcrowding on the helicopter. Unfavorable weather conditions have prevented Mike's rescue to date. Alice comes to you, a registered patent practitioner, to file an application for a patent and offers to pay you in advance. Which of the following, in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, is true?
A. Since Mike invented the invention, Alice cannot properly file an application for a patent in her name even though Mike is unavailable.
B. Since Mike is unavailable, you may properly file an application for a patent without his consent. You can accept the money from Alice as payment for the application.
C. Since Mike is not available and cannot be reached, Alice may properly sign the declaration on his behalf since she has witnessed the invention and knows how to make and use it.
D. Alice should file an application in her name since she has witnessed the invention and knows how to make and use it. Subsequently, when Mike becomes available, the inventorship may be changed to the correct inventorship.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant properly appealed the primary examiner's final rejection of the claims to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board). Claims 1 to 10 were pending in the application. The examiner did not reject the subject matter of claims 7 to 10, but objected to these claims as being dependent on a rejected base claim. Claim 1 was the sole independent claim and the remaining claims, 2 through 10, were either directly or indirectly dependent thereon. After a thorough review of Appellant's brief and the examiner's answer, the Board affirmed the rejection of claims 1 to 6. In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following is the appropriate action for the examiner to take upon return of the application to his jurisdiction when the time for appellant to take further action under 37 CFR 1.197 has expired?
A. Abandon the application since the Board affirmed the rejection of independent claim 1.
B. Convert the dependent claims 7 to 10 into independent form by examiner's amendment, cancel claims 1 to 6, and allow the application.
C. Mail an Office action to applicant setting a 1-month time limit in which the applicant may rewrite dependent claims 7 to 10 in independent form. If no timely reply is received, the examiner should amend the objected to claims, 7 to 10, and allow the application.
D. Mail an Office action to applicant with a new rejection of claims 7 to 10 based on the Board's decision.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following is true?
A. Once the issue fee has become due, provided an original application has not been pending more than three years, the applicant may request and the Office may grant a request for deferral of payment of the issue fee.
B. The time period set for the payment of the issue fee is statutory and cannot be extended. However, if payment is not timely made and the delay in making the payment is shown to be unavoidable, upon payment of a fee for delayed payment, it may be accepted as though no abandonment had occurred, but there will be a reduction on the patent term adjustment for the period of abandonment.
C. Upon written request, a person citing patents and printed publications to the Office that the person believes has a bearing on the patentability of a particular patent, may request that his or her name remain confidential.
D. To obtain benefit of priority based on an earlier filed U.S. patent application, an applicant in a later filed continuation application is not required to meet the conditions and requirements of 35 USC 120.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant received a Final Rejection with a mail date of Tuesday, February 29, 2000. The Final Rejection set a 3 month shortened statutory period for reply. Applicant files an Amendment and a Notice of Appeal on Monday, March 27, 2000. The examiner indicates in an Advisory Action that the Amendment will be entered for appeal purposes, and how the individual rejection(s) set forth in the final Office action will be used to reject any added or amended claim(s). The mail date of the examiner's Advisory Action is Wednesday, May 31, 2000. In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following dates is the last date for filing a Brief on Appeal without an extension of time?
A. Saturday, May 27, 2000.
B. Monday, May 29, 2000 (a Federal holiday, Memorial Day).
C. Tuesday, May 30, 2000.
D. Wednesday, May 31, 2000.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A claim in a pending patent application is rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being obvious over Barry in view of Foreman. The Barry reference is a U.S. Patent that was issued on an application filed before the date of the application in question. In accordance with USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following arguments, if true, would overcome the rejection?
A. The Foreman reference is nonanalogous art, but the reference may be reasonably pertinent to Barry's endeavor to solving the particular problem with which Barry was concerned.
B. The rejection does not address a claimed limitation, and neither of the references teaches the claimed limitation.
C. The Barry patent issued after the filing date of the pending patent application.
D. The original specification states that the results achieved by the claimed invention are unexpected. (The statement is unsubstantiated by evidence).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following practices or procedures may be employed in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP to overcome a rejection properly based on 35 USC 102(e)?
A. Persuasively arguing that the claims are patentably distinguishable from the prior art.
B. Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 showing that the reference invention is not by 'another'.
C. Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 showing prior invention, if the reference is not a U.S. patent that either claims the same invention or claims an obvious variation of the subject matter in the rejected claim(s).
D. (A) and (C).
(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 the USPTO rules and the procedure set forth in the MPEP?
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 USPTO.
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 claim in an application recites '[a] composition containing: (a) 35-55% polypropylene; and (b) 45-65% polyethylene.' The sole prior art reference describes, as the only relevant disclosure, a composition containing 34.9% polypropylene and 65.1% polyethylene. In accordance with USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP, the primary examiner should properly:
A. Indicate the claim allowable over the prior art because there is no teaching, motivation or suggestion to increase the amount of polypropylene from 34.9% to 35% and decrease the amount of polyethylene from 65.1% to 65%.
B. Reject the claim under 35 USC 102 as anticipated by the prior art reference.
C. Reject the claim under 35 USC 103 as obvious over the prior art reference.
D. Reject the claim alternatively under 35 USC 102 as anticipated by or under 35 USC 103 as obvious over the prior art reference.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An examiner's answer, mailed on January 2, 2003, contains a new ground of rejection in violation of 37 CFR 1.193(a)(2). If an amendment or new evidence is needed to overcome the new ground of rejection, what is the best course of action the appellant should take in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?
A. File a reply brief bringing the new ground of rejection to the attention of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences and pointing out that 37 CFR 1.193(a)(2) prohibits entry of the new ground of rejection.
B. File a timely petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.181 seeking supervisory review of the examiner's entry of an impermissible new ground of rejection in the answer, after efforts to persuade the examiner to reopen prosecution or remove the new ground of rejection are unsuccessful.
C. File a reply brief arguing the merits of the new ground of rejection.
D. File an amendment or new evidence to overcome the new ground of rejection.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Practitioner Smith filed a utility patent application on January 5, 2001, with informal drawings. Upon review of the drawings, the USPTO concluded that the drawings were not in compliance with the 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1) and (k), and were not suitable for reproduction. In an Office communication, Smith was notified of the objection and given two months to correct the drawings so that the application can be forwarded to a Technology Center for examination. Which of the following complies with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP for a complete bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action?
A. Smith timely files a response requesting that the objections to the drawings be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.
B. Smith timely files a response requesting that the objections to the drawings be held in abeyance since the requirement increases up-front costs for the patent applicant, and the costs can be avoided if patentable subject matter is not found.
C. Smith timely files a response requesting that the objections to the drawings be held in abeyance until fourteen months from the earliest claimed priority date.
D. Smith timely files a response correcting the drawings to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1) and (k), and making them suitable for reproduction.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following does not constitute probative evidence of commercial success to support a contention of non-obviousness?
A. In a utility case, gross sales figures accompanied by evidence as to market share.
B. In a utility case, gross sales figures accompanied by evidence as to the time period during which the product was sold.
C. In a utility case, gross sales figures accompanied by evidence as to what sales would normally be expected in the market.
D. In a utility case, gross sales figures accompanied by evidence of brand name recognition.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An examiner has advanced a reasonable basis for questioning the adequacy of the enabling disclosure in the specification of your client's patent application, and has properly rejected all the claims in the application. The claims in the application are drawn to a computer program system. In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, the rejection should be overcome by submitting _____________
A. factual evidence directed to the amount of time and effort and level of knowledge required for the practice of the invention from the disclosure alone.
B. arguments by you (counsel) alone, inasmuch as they can take the place of evidence in the record.
C. an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 by an affiant, who is more than a routineer in the art, submitting few facts to support his conclusions on the ultimate legal question of sufficiency, i.e., that the system "could be constructed."
D. opinion evidence directed to the ultimate legal issue of enablement.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Inventor files an application for a non-theoretical metal alloy. The application as originally filed contains the following Claim 1: Claim 1. A metal alloy comprising at least 20% by volume of iron; at least 10% by volume of gallium, and at least 10% by volume of copper. In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following claims would be properly held indefinite under 35 USC 112(2)?
A. Claim 2: The alloy of claim 1 containing 66% by volume of gallium and 14% by volume of copper.
B. Claim 2: The alloy of claim 1 containing at least 21% by volume of iron, 11% by volume of gallium, and 10.01% by volume of copper.
C. Claim 2: The alloy of claim 1 containing 20% by volume of iron, 10% by volume of gallium, and 10% by volume of copper.
D. Claim 2: The alloy of claim 1 containing 54% by volume of copper and 27% by volume of gallium.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Assuming that a rejection has been properly made final, which of the following statements is not in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
A. An objection and requirement to delete new matter from the specification is subject to supervisory review by petition under 37 CFR 1.181.
B. A rejection of claims for lack of support by the specification (new matter) is reviewable by appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
C. If both the claims and the specification contain the same new matter, and there has been both a rejection and objection by the primary examiner, the new matter issue should be decided by petition, and is not appealable.
D. If both the claims and the specification contain the same new matter, and there has been both a rejection and objection by the examiner, the new matter issue is appealable, and should not be decided by petition.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A claim in a pending patent application stands rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being obvious over Kim in view of Lance. The Kim and Lance references are both U.S. Patents issued on respective applications filed before the date of the application in question. In the rejection, the primary examiner asserted that no determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art was necessary because the subject matter of the application and of Kim and Lance were so easily understandable; and that the Kim reference relates to the applicant's endeavor. The examiner properly found motive in Kim and Lance for combining the references, but the motive would produce a benefit different from that offered by applicant's invention. Neither reference teaches or suggests the ambiguous limitation. In the rejection under 36 USC 103(a), the examiner did not address an ambiguous limitation in the claim. However, the examiner separately rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph as indefinite due to the ambiguity. According to the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following arguments, if true, would overcome the rejection?
A. The examiner asserted that because the subject matter of the application and of Kim and Lance were so easily understandable, a factual determination of the level of skill in the art was unnecessary.
B. The Kim reference is nonanalogous art because, although it relates to the field of the applicant's endeavor, it is not pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned.
C. The reason given by the examiner to combine Kim and Lance is to obtain a benefit different from that offered by the applicant's invention.
D. Neither the Kim nor Lance references teaches or suggests the ambiguous claimed limitation that the examiner separately rejected as indefinite.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Inventor Joe is anxious to get a patent with the broadest claim coverage possible for the invention. Joe retained a registered practitioner, Jane, to obtain the advantage of legal counsel in obtaining broad protection. Jane filed a patent application for the invention. The inventor heard that, although patent prosecution is conducted in writing, it is possible to get interviews with examiners. Joe believes an interview might hasten the grant of a patent by providing the examiner a better understanding of the true novelty of the invention. Which of the following are consistent with the patent law, rules and procedures as related by the MPEP regarding usage of interviews?
A. Prior to the first Office action being mailed the inventor calls the examiner to whom the application is docketed to offer help in understanding the specification.
B. After receiving the first Office action Jane calls the examiner for an interview for the purpose of clarifying the structure and operation of the invention as claimed and disclosed, because the examiner's analysis regarding patentability in the rejection is novel and suggests that the examiner is interpreting the claimed invention in a manner very different from the inventor's intent.
C. Jane has Larry, a registered practitioner in the Washington D.C. area, who is more familiar with interview practice to call the examiner. Jane gives Larry a copy of the first Office action, which suggests that the primary examiner's analysis is incorrect, and offers to explain why. Jane instructs Larry that because Larry is unfamiliar with the inventor, Larry should not agree to possible ways in which the claims could be modified, or at least indicate to the examiner that Jane would have to approve of any such agreement.
D. Jane calls the primary examiner after receiving the final rejection, demanding that the examiner withdraw the finality of the final action. When the examiner states that the final rejection is proper, Jane demands an interview as a matter of right to explain the arguments.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Claim 1 of an application recites "[a]n article comprising: (a) a copper substrate; and (b) a electrically insulating layer on said substrate." The specification defines the term "copper" as being elemental copper or copper alloys. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, for purposes of searching and examining the claim, the examiner should interpret the term "copper" in the claim as reading on:
A. Elemental copper only, based on the plain meaning of "copper."
B. Copper alloys only, based on the special definition in the specification.
C. Elemental copper and copper alloys, based on the special definition in the specification.
D. Any material that contains copper, including copper compounds.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following does not constitute prior art upon which a primary examiner could properly rely upon in making an obviousness rejection under 35 USC 103?
A. A U.S. patent in the applicant's field of endeavor which was issued two years before the filing date of applicant's patent application.
B. A non-patent printed publication in a field unrelated to the applicant's field of endeavor but relevant to the particular problem with which the inventor-applicant was concerned, which was published the day after the filing date of applicant's application.
C. A printed publication published more than 1 year before the filing date of applicant's patent application, which publication comes from a field outside the applicant's field of endeavor but concerns the same problem with which the applicant-inventor was concerned.
D. A printed publication in the applicant's field of endeavor published 3 years before the filing date of applicant's patent application.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In a reexamination proceeding a non-final Office action dated November 8, 2001 set a shortened statutory period of 2 months to reply. The patent owner, represented by a registered practitioner, filed a response on March 7, 2002, which included an amendment of the claims. No request for an extension of time was received. As of May 8, 2002, which of the following actions would be in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
A. The registered practitioner should file a request and fee for an extension of time of two months.
B. The registered practitioner should file a petition for revival of a terminated reexamination proceeding showing the delay was unavoidable or unintentional, and the appropriate petition fee for entry of late papers.
C. The primary examiner responsible for the reexamination should mail a Notice of Allowance and grant a new patent. The patent owner's failure to timely respond to the outstanding Office action does not affect the allowability of the claims in the patent.
D. The examiner should provide an Office action based upon the claims in existence prior to the patent owner's late amendment, and mail a Final Office action.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)