QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: A petition to make a patent application special may be filed without fee in which of the following cases?
A. The petition is supported by applicant's birth certificate showing applicant's age is 62.
B. The petition is supported by applicant's unverified statement that applicant's age is 65.
C. The petition is supported by applicant's statement that there is an infringing device actually on the market, that a rigid comparison of the alleged infringing device with the claims of the application has been made, and that applicant has made a careful and thorough search of the prior art.
D. The petition is accompanied by a statement under 37 C.F.R. § 1.102 by applicant explaining the relationship of the invention to safety of research in the field of recombinant DNA research.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You are preparing a patent application for your client, Perry. The invention is disclosed in the specification as a doodad making machine comprising elements A, B, and means C for performing a function. The specification discloses two specific embodiments for performing the function defined by means C, namely C' and C". The specification also discloses that components D or E may be combined with A, B, and means C to form: (i) A, B, D, and means C; or (ii) to form A, B, E, and means C. The specification also discloses that component G may be used, but with only means C' to improve the machine's performance. The specification also states that the machine is rendered inoperative if component G is used with C", or whenever components D or E are present. The first three claims in the application are: 1. A doodad making machine comprising A, B, and means C for performing a function. 2. A doodad making machine as claimed in Claim 1 wherein means C is C'. 3. A doodad making machine as claimed in Claim 1 or 2 further comprising D. Which of the following would be a proper claim 4 and be supported by the specification?
A. A doodad making machine as claimed in Claim 2, further comprising E.
B. A doodad making machine consisting essentially of A, B, means C for performing a function, D and G.
C. A doodad making machine as claimed in Claim 1 or 2, further comprising D.
D. A doodad making machine as claimed in Claims 1 and 2, further comprising G.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Inventor Charles patented a whirlwind device for defeathering poultry. Although the scope of the claims never changed substantively during original prosecution of the patent application, practitioner Roberts repeatedly argued that limitations appearing in the original claims distinguished the claimed subject matter from prior art relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the claims. After the patent issued, Charles realized that the claims were unduly narrow, and that the limitations argued by Roberts were not necessary to patentability of the invention. Accordingly, a timely application was made for a broadened reissue patent in which Charles sought claims without limitations relied upon by Roberts during original prosecution. The new claims were properly supported by the original patent specification. Charles asserted in his reissue oath that there was an error in the original patent resulting from Roberts' failure to appreciate the full scope of the invention during original prosecution of the application. No supporting declaration from Roberts was submitted in the reissue application. Based on the foregoing facts and controlling law, which of the following statements is most accurate?
A. Although the scope of the claims was not changed substantively during prosecution of the original patent, the recapture doctrine may preclude Charles from obtaining the requested reissue because of the repeated arguments made by practitioner Roberts.
B. The recapture doctrine cannot apply because the claims were not amended substantively during original prosecution.
C. The reissue application will not be given a filing date because no supporting declaration from practitioner Roberts was submitted.
D. The doctrine of prosecution history estoppel prevents Charles from seeking by reissue an effective claim scope that is broader than the literal scope of the original claims.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Impermissible recapture in an application exists
A. if the limitation now being added in the present reissue was originally presented/argued/stated in the original application to make the claims allowable over a rejection or objection made in the original application.
B. if the limitation now being omitted or broadened in the present continuation was originally presented/argued/stated in a parent application to make the claims allowable over a rejection or objection made in the parent application.
C. if the limitation now being omitted or broadened in the present reissue was originally presented/argued/stated in the original application to make the claims allowable over a rejection or objection made in the original application.
D. if the limitation now being omitted or broadened in the present reissue was being broadened for the first time more than two years after the issuance of the original patent.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is true?
A. Once the claims of a patent application are determined to be invalid by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, an applicant may not thereafter file another patent application regarding the same invention with narrower claims.
B. Once the claims of a patent application are determined to be invalid by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, an applicant may not thereafter file another patent application regarding the same invention with narrower claims.
C. Collateral estoppel bars an applicant from filing several applications for obvious improvements of the same invention.
D. The failure of an independent claim in a patent to claim a feature of the invention, which is not found in a genus, results in Jepson estoppel against the inventor claiming the invention with the feature in another patent application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On July 1, 1998, you file an application wherein the inventors are listed as Mae, Bea and Seya. The application is filed with an unexecuted declaration. On July 15, 1998, Mae and Bea sell their patent rights by assignment of the application to Seya. On July 25, 1998, Seya advises the practitioner that Bea has died, and Mae has moved to the West Indies. On July 27, 1998, you receive a notice from the PTO indicating that declaration was not executed and an executed declaration must be submitted. As a registered practitioner, what would you do in accordance with proper PTO practice and procedure to file a proper reply?
A. Find out who is the executor or administrator of the estate of Bea, and file a declaration (naming Mae, Bea, and Seya as inventors) executed by the executor or administrator in the signature block for Bea.
B. Since Bea and Mae assigned their rights in the patent application to Seya, only Seya needs to sign the declaration. A declaration should be filed with the PTO, which is signed only by Seya with the names of Bea, and Mae deleted, and with an explanation that they no longer have rights in the application and should no longer be listed as inventors.
C. Attempt to contact Mae and, if after a diligent effort, no response is forthcoming, file a statement executed by practitioner stating the diligent effort made to obtain the signature of Mae, and that she could not be located and no response ensued. File a declaration (naming Mae, Bea, and Seya as inventors) signed by Seya in the signature block for Seya's signature.
D. Have Seya sign the declaration on his own behalf and on behalf of the missing inventors.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following can never properly be available as prior art for purposes of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)?
A. A drawing, labeled "Prior Art," submitted by the applicant.
B. Canceled matter in an application that matured into a U.S. patent where the matter is not published in the patent.
C. An abandoned patent application referenced in a publication available to the public.
D. The combination of two references, where one of the references is used merely to explain the meaning of a term used in the primary reference.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On January 3, 2000, inventor Jones became aware of a patent issued to Smith that was directed to subject matter very similar to that claimed in Jones' pending application. Smith's patent issued on February 2, 1999, but was based on an application filed after Jones' application. On January 14, 2000, Jones sent a letter to registered practitioner Wilson requesting that Wilson copy claims 1-5 of the Smith patent and seek to have an interference declared between Jones and Smith. The letter arrived in Wilson's office on January 18. However, Wilson was away on an extended vacation, and did not see Jones' letter until his return to the office on February 7, 2000. The next day Wilson filed an Amendment adding to Jones' application claims 21-25, which were directed to the same invention as Smith's claims 1-5. Wilson informed the PTO that these claims were copied from Smith's patent for the purpose of instituting an interference. However, the examiner rejected the claims and refused to declare an interference because the copied claims were not presented in a timely manner. Which of the following should help Jones obtain priority in the PTO to the commonly claimed subject matter?
A. Jones petitions the Commissioner under 37 C.F.R. § 1.183 for acceptance of the copied claims on the basis that any delay in presenting the claims was unavoidable, and requesting that an interference then be declared. Jones pays the appropriate fee.
B. Jones petitions the Commissioner under 37 C.F.R. § 1.183 for acceptance of the copied claims on the basis that any delay in presenting the claims was unintentional, and requesting that an interference then be declared. Jones pays the appropriate fee.
C. While his application is still pending, Jones files a civil action against Smith in U.S. District Court under 35 U.S.C. § 291 seeking to adjudge the validity of the Smith patent.
D. Jones files with the examiner a request for reconsideration noting that Smith's filing date is subsequent to Jones' filing date and, therefore, an interference should be declared and Jones named the senior party.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not prohibited conduct for a practitioner under the PTO Code of Professional Responsibility?
A. Entering into an agreement with your client to limit the amount of any damages which your client may collect for any mistakes you make during prosecution of your client's patent application in exchange for prosecuting the application at a reduced fee.
B. Encouraging your client to meet with an opposing party for settlement discussions.
C. Failing to disclose controlling legal authority which is adverse to the client's interest when arguing the patentability of claims in a patent application.
D. In reply to an Office action, stating honestly and truthfully in the remarks accompanying an amendment that you have personally used the device and found it to be very efficient and better than the prior art.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following presents a Markush group in accordance with proper PTO practice and procedure?
A. R is selected from the group consisting of A, B, C, or D.
B. R is selected from the group consisting of A, B, C, and D.
C. R is selected from the group comprising A, B, C, and D.
D. R is selected from the group comprising A, B, C or D.
(category: trademark, Chinese translation: 商标)
Question: Which of the following statements regarding amending a reissue application is not correct?
A. In a claim, hand entry of an amendment of five words or less is permitted.
B. Each amendment submission must set forth the status, on the date of the amendment, of all patent claims and of all added claims.
C. An entire paragraph in the specification other than the claims may be deleted by a statement deleting the paragraph without presentation of the text of the paragraph.
D. When responding to an Office action, each amendment when originally submitted must be accompanied by an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the amendment.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following, if any, is true?
A. The loser in an interference in the PTO is estopped from later claiming he or she was the first to invent in a Federal District Court since the loser must win in the PTO or he/she will lose the right to contest priority.
B. A person being sued for infringement may file a request for reexamination without first obtaining the permission of the Court in which the litigation is taking place.
C. A practitioner may not represent spouses, family members or relatives before the PTO since such representation inherently creates a conflict of interest and a practitioner is likely to engage in favoritism over his/her other clients.
D. Employees of the PTO may not apply for a patent during the period of their employment and for two years thereafter.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Kevin invents a solar energy device for cooking food having a parabolic reflector with a rod connected along the center axis of the reflector, and a cooking grill connected to the top of the rod. A thorough search of the prior art results in locating Bill's United States patent, issued July 22, 1997. Bill's patent discloses a parabolic reflector having a cut-out portion from the base of the reflector with a rod connected along the center axis of the reflector, and a grill for cooking connected to the top of rod. Figures in Bill's patent show the invention with (Fig. 2) and without (Fig. 1) the cut-out portion, respectively. Bill's patent specifically teaches away from making the device by omitting the cut-out portion because the base portion of the reflector would unnecessarily gather fat and grease when the device is used to cook meat. On July 1, 1998, you, a registered practitioner, discuss the patent with Kevin, who states that his invention would be advantageous, since by leaving out the cut-out portion, the invention could be used to collect fat and grease, which could be sold. On July 20, 1998, you file a patent application for Kevin disclosing the solar energy device and its advantages, and claiming the device. During examination of the application, an examiner finds a publication disclosing a solar energy cooking device having a reflector without a cut-out portion. Which of the following accurately describes the duty to disclose Bill's patent to the PTO?
A. Only you have a duty to disclose the patent to the PTO.
B. Both you and Kevin have a duty to disclose the patent to the PTO, but the disclosure need not be in writing.
C. Both you and Kevin have a duty to disclose the patent to the PTO, and the disclosure must be in writing.
D. There is no duty to disclose the patent to the PTO, since it is a United States patent, and the examiners already independently have access to electronically search the database with all the United States patents.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements is NOT true?
A. In representation of a client, a patent practitioner may not refuse a client's request that the practitioner aid or participate in conduct that the practitioner believes to be unlawful so long as there is some support for an argument that the conduct is legal.
B. A patent practitioner may not form a partnership with a non-practitioner if any of the activities of the partnership consists of the practice of patent law before the PTO.
C. In a patent case, a practitioner may take an interest in the patent as part or all of his or her fee.
D. If a practitioner receives information clearly establishing that a client has, in the course of representation, perpetrated a fraud on the PTO that the client refuses or is unable to reveal, the practitioner must reveal the fraud to the PTO.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On Saturday, February 6, 1999, in Texas, inventor Smith successfully tested a wireless telephone. On Sunday, February 7, 1999, Smith began testing the market place by offering to sell the wireless telephone in a variety of urban and rural regions, throughout Texas. On Tuesday, February 8, 2000, registered practitioner Bill filed a patent application for inventor Smith fully disclosing and claiming the same wireless telephone he tested on February 6, 1999, and offered for sale on February 7, 1999. Bill received a non-final Office action rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Smith's activities in testing the wireless telephone, and testing the market place. Which, if any, of the following actions taken by Bill comport with proper PTO rules and procedure, and will overcome the rejection?
A. Filing a timely reply traversing the rejection on the grounds that February 7, 1999 was a Sunday, that Smith could not file an application on the one-year anniversary Sunday because the PTO is closed, so Smith's activities must be measured from Monday, February 8, 1999, which is not more than one year prior to the application date.
B. Filing a timely reply traversing the rejection on the grounds that Smith's activities were experimental only and therefore excepted from 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
C. Filing a timely reply with an affidavit under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 presenting statements by Smith that the activities were by Smith, himself, as opposed to another, and the activities were experimental.
D. Filing a timely reply with an affidavit under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 demonstrating by objective evidence of the commercial success of the wireless telephone.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Regarding the specification of a nonprovisional patent application, which of the following practices is in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. The specification may include graphical illustrations or flowcharts.
B. The specification may include tables and chemical formulas.
C. The specification may include hyperlinks or other forms of browser-executable code embedded in the text.
D. The specification must begin with one or more claims.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On December 31, 1998, Sam Practitioner files a notice of appeal in a patent application assigned to ABC Corp. after the examiner has rejected all of the claims on prior art. Within two months he sends in his appeal brief and three months after the examiner's answer is filed the case is sent to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board). Subsequently, while reading the Official Gazette Sam notices that a patent issued to XYZ Corp. on October 26, 1999, contains claims which read on an unclaimed embodiment in the ABC application, which is an invention that is not within the scope of the invention claimed in the ABC application. The ABC application was filed one month after the issuance of the XYZ patent. Upon learning of the XYZ patent, ABC Corp. wants to provoke an interference by adding additional claims to its application relating to the previously unclaimed embodiment. It is October 18, 2000 and Sam comes to you for advice. Which of the following is the best and correct course of action?
A. Since the ABC application is at the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences already, Sam need only request that the case be transferred to the Interference part of the Board where an interference can be declared between the ABC application and the XYZ patent.
B. Sam should file an amendment adding the claims copied from the XYZ patent and the Board is required to enter the amendment.
C. Sam should promptly file an amendment containing the claims copied from the XYZ patent and request entry. If the Board declines to enter the amendment, Sam should file a separate, continuation application no later than October 26, 2000, containing the claims copied from the XYZ patent as well as claims previously appealed, and then, to avoid the rendering of a decision of the Board, he should promptly inform the clerk of the Board in writing that they have decided to refile and abandon the application containing an appeal waiting a decision.
D. Sam should file an amendment containing the claims copied from the XYZ patent and ask that the interference between the ABC application and the XYZ patent be considered while the case is at the Board.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You are a registered practitioner and filed a new application on behalf of John. All claims were drawn to a single invention. With the application, you submitted an offer to elect without traverse if the Office deems the application to be drawn to more than one invention, a search made by a foreign patent office, one copy each of the references deemed most closely related to the claimed subject matter, and a detailed discussion of the references pointing out with the particularity required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) and (c), how the claimed subject matter is patentable over the references. You also submitted a petition to make John's application special. John was 75 years of age at the time of filing, and in such poor health that his doctor had issued a certificate stating that John is unable to assist in the prosecution of his application. Which of the following, singularly or in combination, submitted with the petition, is not sufficient to result in the petition being granted? 
I: The fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(i). 
II: John's birth certificate showing his date of birth. 
III: The doctor's certificate stating that John's health is such that he is unable to assist in the prosecution of his application.
A. I
B. II
C. III
D. II and III
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Regarding amendments to the specification of an application or the claims in an application, which of the following is not true?
A. If an amendment signed by the applicant is received in an application in which there is a duly appointed registered patent attorney or agent, the amendment should be entered and acted upon.
B. Where, by amendment under 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(a), a dependent claim is rewritten to be in independent form, the subject matter from the prior independent claim is considered to be "added" matter and should be underlined.
C. Any amendment using parentheses to indicate canceled matter in a claim rewritten under 37 C.F.R. 1.121(a) may be held nonresponsive.
D. Amendments to the original patent drawings in a reissue application are not permitted. Any change to the patent drawings must be by way of a new sheet of drawings with the amended figures identified as "amended" and with added figures identified as "new" for each sheet changed.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)