QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: On February 1, 1999, you filed an application on behalf of Williams directed to a system for detecting expired parking meters. The specification fully supports original Claim 1, the sole claim. The application includes several drawings. One of the drawings shows a block diagram of the system, illustrating the electronics control unit as a box, labeled "electronics control unit." Claim 1 of the Williams application is as follows: Claim 1. A system for detecting expired parking meters, comprising: a timer mechanism; an infrared sensor for detecting the presence of a parked vehicle; and an electronics control unit coupled to the infrared sensor and the timer mechanism. You received a final Office action, dated February 1, 2000, containing an indication that claim 1 is allowable subject matter, but objecting to the specification, on the grounds that the subject matter of the electronics control unit, though adequately described in the original specification, was required to be shown in the drawings. Which of the following actions, if any, comports with proper PTO practice and procedure for overcoming the objection?
A. On April 1, 2000, file a Notice of Appeal, appropriate fees, and a brief pointing out that a patent should issue since the subject matter of the electronics control unit was adequately described in the original specification.
B. On April 1, 2000, file in the PTO a drawing illustrating only the portion of the electronics control unit that was described in the original specification.
C. On April 1, 2000, file a Notice of Appeal, appropriate fees, and a brief pointing out that the addition of a drawing showing the electronics control unit would not constitute addition of new matter since the electronics control unit was adequately described in the original specification.
D. On September 1, 2000, file a petition urging that no further drawing should be required because the subject matter of the electronics control unit, for purposes of the application, was adequately disclosed in the block diagram drawing.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In the course of prosecuting a patent application, you receive a final rejection wherein the examiner has set a 3 month shortened statutory period for reply. You file an initial reply with a Certificate of Mailing in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.8 within 2 months of the final rejection mail date. The examiner responds with an Advisory Action having a mail date before the end of the 3 month shortened statutory period. In accordance with proper PTO practice and procedure, the fee for an extension of time for applicant to take subsequent appropriate action in the PTO is calculated from:
A. the mail date of the Advisory Action.
B. the date your reply is received by the PTO.
C. the date your reply is mailed with a Certificate of Mailing in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.8.
D. the mail date of the Final Rejection.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following rejections can properly be overcome using a 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 affidavit?,
I: A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) based on a journal article that describes the invention as claimed. 
II: A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on a patent that discloses but does not claim the invention. 
III: A rejection based on statutory double patenting. 
IV: A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based on a patent that discloses but does not claim the same patentable invention.
A. I.
B. II.
C. III.
D. IV.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Jo invented a new and unobvious technique for inexpensively manufacturing a chemical that has been used in paper mills for years to bleach paper. Tommie developed a new and unobvious technique to clean-up toxic waste spills. Jo and Tommie collaborated to invent a method to clean-up toxic waste spills using the chemical made according to the unobvious technique invented by Jo. The inventions have been assigned to your client, Dowel Chemical Company. You prepared a single patent application fully disclosing and claiming each invention. Claims 1-9 were directed to the method of manufacturing; claims 10-19 were directed to the method of cleaning up toxic waste spills; and claim 20 was directed to a method of cleaning up toxic waste spills using the chemical manufactured in accordance with claim 1. Both inventors approve the application, but Tommie is unavailable to sign an oath before an upcoming statutory bar date. Accordingly, you are instructed to immediately file the application without an executed oath. On June 1, 1999, you file the application along with an information sheet to identify the application. However, you do not notice that Tommie was inadvertently left off the list of inventors on the information sheet, which listed Jo as a sole inventor. After receiving a Notice to File Missing Parts, you submit an oath executed by both Jo and Tommie. No paper was filed to change the named inventive entity. You later receive an Office action requiring restriction between Jo's invention and Tommie's invention. In reply to the restriction requirement, you elect Jo's invention, cancel claims 10-20, and immediately file a divisional application directed to the invention of claims 10-19. Claim 20 was omitted from the divisional application. The divisional application includes a specific reference to the original application and is filed with an inventor's oath executed by Tommie only. The divisional application incorporated the original application by reference. Which of the following statements is correct?
A. Because the original application as filed named only Jo as an inventor, Tommie's divisional application is not entitled to the filing date of the original application because there is no common inventor between the original application and the divisional application.
B. The incorrect inventorship listed on the information sheet of the original application was never properly corrected and, therefore, any patent issuing on that application will be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 116 unless the inventorship is later corrected.
C. After canceling claims 10-20, it is necessary to change the named inventive entity in the original application by filing a petition including a statement identifying Tommie as being deleted and acknowledging that Tommie's invention is no longer being claimed in the application and an appropriate fee.
D. Written consent of Dowel Chemical Company is required before Tommie can be deleted as an inventor in the original application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Jo invented a new and unobvious technique for inexpensively manufacturing a chemical that has been used in paper mills for years to bleach paper. Tommie developed a new and unobvious technique to clean-up toxic waste spills. Jo and Tommie collaborated to invent a method to clean-up toxic waste spills using the chemical made according to the unobvious technique invented by Jo. The inventions have been assigned to your client, Dowel Chemical Company. You prepared a single patent application fully disclosing and claiming each invention. Claims 1-9 were directed to the method of manufacturing; claims 10-19 were directed to the method of cleaning up toxic waste spills; and claim 20 was directed to a method of cleaning up toxic waste spills using the chemical manufactured in accordance with claim 1. Both inventors approve the application, but Tommie is unavailable to sign an oath before an upcoming statutory bar date. Accordingly, you are instructed to immediately file the application without an executed oath. On June 1, 1999, you file the application along with an information sheet to identify the application. However, you do not notice that Tommie was inadvertently left off the list of inventors on the information sheet, which listed Jo as a sole inventor. After receiving a Notice to File Missing Parts, you submit an oath executed by both Jo and Tommie. No paper was filed to change the named inventive entity. You later receive an Office action requiring restriction between Jo's invention and Tommie's invention. In reply to the restriction requirement, you elect Jo's invention, cancel claims 10-20, and immediately file a divisional application directed to the invention of claims 10-19. Claim 20 was omitted from the divisional application. The divisional application includes a specific reference to the original application and is filed with an inventor's oath executed by Tommie only. The divisional application incorporated the original application by reference. Which of the following statements is most correct?
A. Since claim 20 was omitted from the divisional application as filed, it cannot be added to the divisional application by a subsequent Amendment because such an Amendment would constitute new matter.
B. It was improper to include Tommie and Jo as joint inventors in the parent application.
C. The examiner may properly make a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection in the divisional application based on the parent application, but that rejection may be readily overcome with the filing of a terminal disclaimer.
D. Because the inventive entity of the amended parent application is different than the inventive entity of the divisional application, the examiner may reject the claims of the divisional application under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: GMD Corp. files a patent application on a computer with a display screen which powers itself by solar panels. The examiner restricts the claims into two groups. Group 1 contains claims 1-5 directed to the combination of the computer and display screen. Group 2 contains claims 6-10 directed solely to the display screen. Practitioner Sam advises GMD Corp. that (a) the restriction requirement could be traversed since the inventions are not separate and distinct and (b) the restriction requirement may be traversed by adding patentable claims linking the two inventions. Nonetheless, GMD instructs Sam to delete claims 6-10 and file a divisional application incorporating claims 6-10. Sam deletes the claims 6-10, and the patent is granted on May 4, 1999 for claims 1-5. However, Sam inadvertently failed to file a divisional application. Today, April 12, 2000, GMD's president comes to you for advice as to how they can obtain patent protection for the subject matter in claims 6-10. Which of the following is the best advice you can offer in accordance with proper PTO practice and procedure?
A. GMD is barred from filing an application for claims 6-10 since during the original prosecution they deleted the very same claims following a restriction requirement.
B. Since GMD instructed Sam to file a divisional application and because his failure to do so was inadvertent, GMD may file a reissue application to obtain patent protection for those claims based upon inadvertent error without deceptive intent.
C. Since the restriction was made in the original case and not contested, a divisional reissue and appropriate fees must be filed to obtain patent coverage for claims 6-10.
D. Since the inventions were not separate and distinct, a reissue application and appropriate fees may be filed in which the restriction requirement may be traversed, and if successful, claims 6-10 can be added and entered.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements is most correct?
A. The same evidence sufficient to establish a constructive reduction to practice is necessarily also sufficient to establish actual reduction to practice.
B. Proof of constructive reduction to practice does not require sufficient disclosure to satisfy the "how to use" and "how to make" requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph.
C. A process is reduced to actual practice when it is successfully performed.
D. The diligence of 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) requires an inventor to drop all other work and concentrate on the particular invention.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On February 8, 1999, you filed a patent application that you prepared for Mr. Bond. The application contains only one claim. The application disclosed a composition having 20%A, 20%B, and either 60%C or 60%D. Claim 1 is as follows: Claim 1. A composition useful for bonding semiconductor materials to metals, comprising 20%A, 20%B, and 60%C." The examiner found a patent to Gold, dated March 8, 1998, which only disclosed and claimed a composition, having 20%A, 20%B, and 60%C, and also taught that the composition would only be useful for insulating metals from corrosion. The examiner rejected Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Gold, in an Office action dated August 9, 1999. Which of the following is most likely to overcome the rejection, and comports with proper PTO rules and procedure?
A. Filing a reply, on March 9, 2000, with a petition for a three-month extension and the fee for a three-month extension, traversing the rejection on the ground that Gold does not disclose using the composition for bonding semiconductor materials to metals, and therefore does not disclose all the elements of Claim 1.
B. Filing a reply, on September 9, 1999, traversing the rejection on the ground that Gold does not disclose using the composition for bonding semi-conductor materials to metals, and therefore does not disclose all the elements of Claim 1.
C. Filing a reply on October 9, 1999, amending Claim 1 to state as follows: "Claim 1. A composition comprising: 20%A, 20%B, and 60%D." In the reply, pointing out why the amendment gives the claim patentable novelty.
D. Filing a reply on October 9, 1999, traversing the rejection on the grounds that the patent to Gold teaches away from using the invention in the manner taught in Bond's application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following three statements is(are) true? 
i: An applicant cannot use a patent to prove the state of the art for the purpose of satisfying the enablement requirement if the patent has an issue date later than the effective filing date of the applicant's application.
ii: A publication dated after the effective filing date of an application may be properly used to demonstrate that an application is nonenabling if the publication provides evidence of what one skilled in the art would have known on or before the application's effective filing date.,
iii: The state of the art existing at the issue date of the patent is used to determine whether a particular disclosure in the patent is enabling.
A. (i), (ii) and (iii)
B. (i) and (ii)
C. (i)
D. (ii) and (iii)
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You are attorney of record appointed by XYZ Corp. to prosecute a patent application directed to an invention assigned to the XYZ Corp. by an employee-inventor. In the course of prosecution, you receive an Office action rejecting all the claims as anticipated by a patent to Williams. After carefully reviewing the Office action and discussing the same with XYZ officers, it is concluded that the rejection is sound. In accordance with instructions from XYZ officers, you file in the PTO a certification by XYZ Corp. that it is the assignee of the invention, and an express abandonment signed by you under 37 C.F.R. § 1.138. An appropriate PTO official acknowledges receipt and accepts the express abandonment. Shortly thereafter, you receive an urgent call from the employee-inventor, who informs you that she just learned of the action taken to abandon the application, and that she has reviewed the Williams patent and concluded that her invention differs therefrom in a subtle but significant manner. Which of the following courses of action, if any, are properly available to you to successfully revive the application in accordance with proper PTO practice and procedure?
A. Request reconsideration of the abandonment on the ground that the filing of the express abandonment was without the inventor's consent.
B. Request reconsideration of the abandonment on the ground that the filing of the express abandonment was the result of a mistake.
C. File a petition to revive the application with all the elements required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.137(a) on the ground that the filing of the express abandonment was unavoidable.
D. File a petition to revive the application with all the elements required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.137(b) on the ground that the filing of the express abandonment was unintentional.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On February 8, 1999, you prepared and filed a patent application for Smith disclosing and claiming a new method for heating automobile windshields. The specification disclosed connecting a variable voltage source to a resistive heating element, connecting the heating element to the windshield, and adjusting the voltage of the voltage source to an effective amount. The specification stated certain advantages of heating automobile windshields by the invention's method, including protecting the internal structure of the glass from cracking, and defrosting the glass. The specification also fully disclosed guidelines adequately explaining that an effective amount of voltage to protect windshield glass from cracking was at least 0.5 volts, regardless of the outside temperature. The specification disclosed that an effective amount of voltage for defrosting windshields was at least 1.0 volt, regardless of the outside temperature. Claim 1 stated the following: Claim 1. A method for heating an automobile windshield, comprising: connecting a variable voltage source to a resistive heating element; connecting the resistive heating element to the automobile windshield; and adjusting the voltage source to an effective amount of voltage. You received a non-final Office action, dated February 4, 2000, rejecting claim 1 only under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. The rejection stated that the use of the limitation, "an effective amount of voltage," rendered the claim indefinite. Which, if any, of the following actions, taken by you, comport with proper PTO rules and procedure, and will overcome the rejection? 
I: Filing an appeal with a brief, on August 3, 2000, arguing that the only remaining issue is the definiteness of claim 1, and that the claim is not rendered indefinite by the use of the limitation, "an effective amount of voltage," since guidelines in the specification fully disclosed what "an effective voltage" would be. 
II: Filing a reply on May 4, 2000, traversing the rejection on the grounds that claim 1 is not rendered indefinite by the use of the limitation, "an effective amount of voltage," since guidelines in the specification fully disclosed what "an effective voltage" would be. 
III: Filing a reply on May 4, 2000, amending the limitation, "an effective amount of voltage" to read, "an effective amount of voltage for defrosting the automobile windshield".
A. I.
B. II.
C. III.
D. II and III.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A prima facie case of obviousness requires a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to modify the references to produce the claimed invention. The suggestion, teaching, or motivation is established:
A. only if the suggestion, teaching, or motivation to do so is found in the references themselves.
B. if the claimed invention is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art.
C. by the mere fact that the references can be combined.
D. if the suggestion, teaching, or motivation is found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Nonobviousness of a claimed invention may be demonstrated by:
A. producing evidence that all the beneficial results are expected based on the teachings of the prior art references.
B. producing evidence of the absence of a property the claimed invention would be expected to possess based on the teachings of the prior art.
C. producing evidence showing that unexpected results occur over less than the entire claimed range.
D. producing evidence showing that the unexpected properties of a claimed invention have a significance less than equal to the expected properties.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant filed a utility patent application in the PTO on Wednesday, June 8, 1994, and the examiner issued a requirement for restriction to one of two inventions claimed. On Wednesday, June 7, 1995, applicant then elected one of the inventions and filed a divisional application thereon in compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120. During prosecution of the divisional application, the examiner issued a Final Rejection, and following a successful appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences by applicant, the application issued as a patent on Tuesday, February 11, 1997. Assuming all required maintenance fees are timely paid, on which of the following dates will the patent term end?
A. Tuesday, February 11, 2014.
B. Sunday, June 8, 2014.
C. Sunday, June 7, 2015.
D. Friday, August 8, 2014.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You have just received an Office action rejecting all of your claims in your patent application as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) using published declassified material as the reference. The examiner explains that the declassified material is being used as prima facie evidence of prior knowledge as of the printing date. The published declassified material contains information showing that it was printed six months before the filing date of the application, and that it was published two months after the application's filing date. You correctly note that although the printing date precedes your application filing date by six months, you note that the publication was classified as of its printing date (thus, available only for limited distribution even when the application was filed), and was not declassified until its publication date (when it became available to the general public). Each element of the claimed invention is described in the publication of the declassified material. Which of the following statements is true?
A. The rejection is not supported by the reference.
B. The publication is not available as a reference because it did not become available to the general public until after the filing date of your patent application.
C. The publication is prima facie evidence of prior knowledge even though it was available only for limited distribution as of its printing date.
D. The publication constitutes an absolute statutory bar.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On July 1, 1998, a registered practitioner files an application containing 10 claims that are directed to a computer. The practitioner thereafter receives an Office action wherein claims 1 - 5 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based upon reference A dated January 3, 1999. Reference A is an abstract identifying a computer, the computer's vendor, and information informing potential buyers whom to contact, price terms, documentation, warranties, training and maintenance programs, and the date of the computer's release to the public. In sufficient detail to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, reference A describes a computer having all of the elements of the rejected claims. According to reference A, the computer described therein was publicly sold in the United States in June 1997. As a practitioner, what should you advise your client to do in accordance with proper PTO practice and procedure?
A. File a reply arguing that Reference A cannot constitute prior art since it is dated subsequent to the filing date of the application.
B. File an amendment canceling the rejected claims and argue patentability of the remaining claims.
C. Argue that reference A constitutes hearsay evidence because there is no direct evidence that the computer of Reference A was actually in existence in June 1997.
D. Argue that even if the computer of Reference A was in existence in June 1997, the failure to disclose the invention until 1999 constituted abandonment of the invention.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)