QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: Regarding an affidavit or declaration filed pursuant to 37 CFR 1.131, which of the following statements is incorrect?
A. The affidavit or declaration may establish a date of completion of applicant's claimed invention before January 1, 1996 in a NAFTA country or before December 8, 1993 in a WTO member country other than a NAFTA country.
B. The affidavit or declaration cannot be used to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §? 102(e) based on a U.S. patent which claims the same patentable invention as defined in ?37 CFR 1.601(n).
C. The affidavit or declaration may be used to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §? 103 based on reference to a foreign patent which qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. ?§ 102(a).
D. The affidavit or declaration containing references to notebook entries may properly include reproductions of the notebook entries, as opposed to the original notebook pages.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant Homer filed a nonprovisional utility application on December 3, 2001 with 3 sheets of drawings. He received a non-final Office action on the merits on March 1, 2002 rejecting all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) with reference A and including objections to the drawings. The Office action set a shortened statutory period of 3 months for reply. Homer wants to submit several references in an information disclosure statement (IDS) for the examiner's consideration. Under proper USPTO practices and procedures which of the following actions, if taken, would avoid abandonment?
A. Homer timely files a continued prosecution application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) with an IDS and required fees.
B. Homer timely files a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 with an IDS and required fees.
C. Homer timely files a request for suspension of action under 37 CFR 1.103 with an IDS and required fees.
D. Homer timely files a photocopy of the originally filed claims with proposed amendments marked in red, arguments that support the claims are patentable over the reference, proposed drawing corrections, an IDS, and any required fees or certification.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: The Commissioner may issue a certificate of correction to correct a mistake in a patent, incurred through the fault of the Office:
A. only if demanded by a third party having standing with the Office and the third party pays the fee required by 37 CFR 1.20(a).
B. without notifying the patentee, (including any assignee of record) if the correction is of a nature that the meaning intended is obvious from the context of the portion of the patent where the mistake occurs.
C. only if the request for correction relates to a patent involved in an interference.
D. acting sua sponte, after first notifying the patentee, for mistakes that the Office discovers.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An amendment filed in January 8, 2002, in an unassigned nonprovisional application seeks to cancel claims so that fewer than all of the currently named inventors are the actual inventors of the invention being claimed. The amendment includes a request to delete the names of the persons who are not inventors. In accordance with proper USPTO rules and procedure, the request may be signed by which of the following?
A. A registered practitioner not of record who acts in a representative capacity under 37 CFR 1.34(a).
B. All of the applicants (37 CFR 1.41(b)) for patent.
C. A registered practitioner of record appointed pursuant to 37 CFR 1.34(b).
D. (B) and (C).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following practices or procedures may be properly employed to overcome a rejection properly based on 35 U.S.C. § 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: A product-by-process claim is properly rejected over a reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Which of the following statements is incorrect?
A. There is no anticipation unless each of the process steps recited in the claim is disclosed or inherent in the applied reference.
B. If the applied reference reasonably indicates that a product disclosed therein is the same or substantially the same as the claimed product, the burden shifts to the applicant to provide evidence to the contrary.
C. The rejection cannot be overcome by evidence of unexpected results.
D. The rejection can be overcome by evidence that the product in the reference does not necessarily or inherently possess a characteristic of the applicant's claimed product.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Xavier residing in Canada, a NAFTA country, files an application for a Canadian patent Monday, September 18, 2000. At the same time, Xavier forwards a copy of the Canadian application to registered practitioner Young in the United States, asking that Young prepare a U.S. application based on the Canadian application and claim the benefit of the Canadian filing. Young advises Xavier on the relative merits of filing a provisional versus a non-provisional application and Xavier decides to have Young initially file a provisional U.S. application. Young prepares the application and files it as a provisional application on Friday, January 19, 2001, claiming the benefit of the Canadian application. In August 2001, Young reminds Xavier that the filing was only provisional and that Xavier must decide whether to file a non-provisional application. In early January 2002, Xavier directs Young to get a non-provisional application, with a certified copy of the English language Canadian application, into the Office, which Young does on Friday January 11, 2002. Young files no other correspondence prior to the first Office action. Which of the following is true?
A. Because of the federal holiday, the filing of the non-provisional is timely to maintain a priority claim to the provisional application under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e), and therefore also to maintain a priority claim to the Canadian application filed less than 12 months before the initial US application.
B. If Young files the non-provisional application by converting the provisional application to a non-provisional application. The patent term will be measured from the date of conversion.
C. If Young files the non-provisional application by submitting a new application that claims the benefit of the provisional application and the Canadian application, in a first Office action rejection an examiner may apply a reference published September 19, 2000 as a prior art publication.
D. (A) and (B).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Engineers and scientists at Poly Tech Institute (PTI) have invented a new system for a wireless computer network. On November 9, 2001, they asked you to file a U.S. patent application for their invention. PTI is located in the United States, has an attendance of over 5,000 students, and (1) admits, as regular students, only persons having a certificate of graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the recognized equivalent of such a certificate, (2) is legally authorized within the jurisdiction in which it operates to provide a program of education beyond secondary education, (3) provides an educational program for which it awards a bachelor's degree or provides less than a 2-year program which is acceptable for full credit toward such a degree, (4) is a public institution, and (5) is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency. You also find out that Poly Tech's research which led to the invention of the new system was funded by Atlantic Telcom Corporation (ATC) (a for profit corporation with over 500 employees and that does not meet the small business standard defined in 13 CFR 121) and a license agreement has been signed which would give ATC the right to participate in the prosecution of the patent application and also the right to make and use the invention, upon the payment of royalties, if the application ultimately issues as a patent. Based on the above facts, you should advise PTI that:
A. the application must be filed under large entity status because enrollment in the university exceeds 500.
B. the application must be filed under large entity status because PTI has entered into a license agreement.
C. the application may be filed under small entity status because the enrollment at PTI exceeds 5000 students.
D. the application may be filed under small entity status because PTI is an institution of higher education located in the United States.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following practices or procedures may be properly employed to overcome a rejection properly based on 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)?
A. Claiming priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) based on a foreign application having a foreign priority filing date that antedates the reference.
B. Claiming priority under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119(e) or 120 by filing an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 that contains a specific reference to the prior application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.78(a), where the prior application has a filing date prior to the reference.
C. Claiming priority under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119(e) or 120 by amending the specification of the application to contain a specific reference to a prior application having a filing date prior to the reference.
D. Amending the claims to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not required in order for a foreign application that has matured into a foreign patent to qualify as a reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(d)?
A. The foreign application must have actually been published before the filing of an application in the United States, but the patent rights granted need not be enforceable.
B. The foreign application must be filed more than 12 months before the effective filing date of the United States application.
C. The foreign and United States applications must be filed by the same applicant, his or her legal representatives or assigns.
D. The foreign application must have actually issued as a patent or inventor's certificate before the filing of an application in the United States. It need not be published but the patent rights granted must be enforceable.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the MPEP and USPTO rules and procedure, an application for patent may be made on behalf of a joint inventor in certain situations. Who, by petition, may make application on behalf of a joint inventor who has refused to sign the application ("nonsigning inventor"), if the other joint inventor ("signing inventor") executes the application?
A. A person other than the signing inventor, to whom the nonsigning inventor has assigned the invention.
B. A person other than the signing inventor, with whom the nonsigning inventor has agreed in writing to assign the invention.
C. The signing inventor.
D. A person other than the signing inventor, who shows a strong proprietary interest in the invention.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: To satisfy the written description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 USC 112, an applicant must show possession of the invention. An applicant's lack of possession of the invention may be evidenced by:
A. Describing an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention.
B. Describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention.
C. Requiring an essential feature in the original claims, where the feature is not described in the specification or the claims, and is not conventional in the art or known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
D. Amending a claim to add a limitation that is supported in the specification through implicit or inherent disclosure.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accordance with the recommended format for a claim set forth in the provisions of the MPEP?
A. Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation.
B. A claim may include plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps.
C. The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet after the detailed description of the invention.
D. Each claim should end with a period.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An application as originally filed contains the following Claim 1: ... Which of the following original claims is an improper dependent claim?
A. Claim 2. The doughnut making machine of Claim 1, wherein said placing means is a conveyor that extends from said applying means to said flat sheet.
B. Claim 3. The doughnut making machine of Claim 1, wherein said forming means includes a cutter that removes a center portion of each of said dough balls to form a ring of dough.
C. Claim 4. The doughnut making machine of Claim 1, wherein said applying means includes a sprayer which receives a sugar based flavored coating, wherein said sugar based flavored coating is sprayed on said cooked rings of dough.
D. Claim 5. The doughnut making machine of Claim 1, wherein said applying means is a sprayer.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Where a final rejection of claims has been made, any question of prematureness of the final rejection should be raised, if at all:
A. as a ground of appeal.
B. as the basis of a complaint before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
C. by petition under 37 CFR 1.181 while the application is pending before the examiner.
D. after 2 months from the examiner's answer plus mail room time, if no reply brief has been timely filed during an appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: According to USPTO rules and procedure, which of the following can be overcome by an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131?
A. A rejection properly based on statutory double patenting.
B. A rejection properly made under 35 USC 102(d) based on a foreign patent granted in a non-WTO country.
C. A rejection properly made under 35 USC 102(a) based on a journal article dated one month prior to the effective filing date of the U.S. patent application. Applicant has clearly admitted on the record during the prosecution of the application that subject matter in the journal article relied on by the examiner is prior art.
D. A rejection properly made under 35 USC 102(b) based on a U.S. patent that issued 18 months before the effective filing date of the application. The patent discloses, but does not claim, the invention.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Paul, a registered patent practitioner and counsel for Superior Aircraft, Inc. ("Superior"), filed a patent application naming chief engineer Davis as sole inventor, and claiming a titanium and aluminum alloy designed for use in advanced gas turbine engines in aircraft. The application described the alloy as having unexpectedly excellent and improved room temperature ductility. The application was filed with an assignment document transferring all right, title and interest in the application to Superior. During prosecution of the application, the examiner had an interview with Paul and Davis of Superior. The examiner noted the existence of a prior art publication that disclosed test data demonstrating that the claimed alloys exhibited poor room temperature ductility, and stated that he had personal knowledge that the alloy was old and well known. Davis agreed with the examiner, and stated that such information was "old hat," but that they overcame the ductility problem by simply resorting to a 3-step process of microstructure refinement. Paul concurred and pointed to the fact that not only had they disclosed the process in the application, but that microstructure refinement of alloys to improve ductility was so wellknown that the technique was even taught in metallurgy courses in college. Which of the following statements is false?
A. The examiner may reject the alloy claims on the basis of the prior art publication.
B. The examiner may not reject the alloy claims on the basis of the prior art publication, because the alloys of the application are characterized by unexpected, improved ductility properties.
C. The examiner may rely upon the chief engineer's statement as an admission against patentability.
D. The examiner may rely upon the patent counsel's statement as an admission against patentability.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: The MPEP and USPTO rules and procedure provide for ways that a nonstatutory double patenting rejection can be overcome. Which of the following is an effective way to overcome a nonstatutory double patenting rejection?
A. Filing a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit to swear behind the patent on which the rejection is based.
B. Filing a terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321(c).
C. Filing a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit arguing that the claims are for different inventions that are not patentably distinct.
D. Filing a reply arguing that there is only one common inventor regarding the claims of the application and the claims of the patent.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accordance with the provisions of the MPEP?
A. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless it is provided in the application data sheet.
B. The title need not be technically accurate, but should be descriptive and should contain fewer than 10 words.
C. Inasmuch as the words "improved," "improvement of," and "improvement in" are not considered as part of the title of an invention, these words should not be included at the beginning of the title of the invention and will be deleted when the Office enters the title into the Office's computer records, and when any patent issues.
D. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant the examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by examiner's amendment. If the change to the title is the only change being made by the examiner at the time of allowance, a separate examiner's amendment need not be prepared and the examiner is to indicate the change in title in the file.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with MPEP § 1500, relating to design patent applications:
A. the invention may be properly represented in a single application by both an ink drawing and a black and white photograph.
B. the invention may be properly represented in a single application by a black and white photograph disclosing environmental structure by broken lines, in lieu of an ink drawing if the invention is shown more clearly in the photograph.
C. the invention may be properly represented in a single application by both an ink drawing and a color photograph, and the application should be accompanied by the required petition, fee, three sets of color photographs, and an amendment to the specification.
D. the invention may be properly represented by a color photograph disclosing environmental structure by broken lines, in lieu of an ink drawing if the invention is not capable of being illustrated in an ink drawing.
(category: design patent, Chinese translation: 设计专利)
Question: Inventor A filed a patent application and assigned the entire interest in the application to his employer, MegaCorp. The application issued as a utility patent on July 9, 2002. In June 2004, MegaCorp's management first learns that a second inventor, Inventor B, should have been named as a co-inventor with respect to at least one claim of the issued patent. There was no deceptive intent in failing to name Inventor B in the original application. Inventor A, who is unfamiliar with patent law and concepts of inventorship, incorrectly believes that he should be the sole named inventor on the patent, and refuses to cooperate with any effort by MegaCorp to change the named inventive entity. The issued patent contains no other error. In accordance with the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, which of the following procedures is/are available for MegaCorp to seek correction of the named inventive entity without any agreement, cooperation or action from Inventor A?
A. File, on or before July 9, 2004, a reissue application, made by MegaCorp only, that seeks to add Inventor B.
B. File, after July 9, 2004, a reissue application, made by MegaCorp only, that seeks to add Inventor B.
C. Request a Certificate of Correction to add Inventor B as a named inventor.
D. Submit in the issued patent file: a Request for Correction of Inventorship Under the Provisions of 37 CFR 1.48 that sets forth the desired inventorship change; a statement by Inventor B that the error in inventorship occurred without deceptive intention on her part; an oath or declaration executed by Inventor B; all required fees; and the written consent of MegaCorp.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements concerning reliance by an examiner on common knowledge in the art, in a rejection under 35 USC 103 is correct? I. An examiner's statement of common knowledge in the art is taken as admitted prior art, if applicant does not seasonably traverse the well known statement during examination. II. Applicant can traverse an examiner's statement of common knowledge in the art, at any time during the prosecution of an application to properly rebut the statement. III. If applicant rebuts an examiner's statement of common knowledge in the art in the next reply after the Office action in which the statement was made, the examiner can never provide a reference to support the statement of common knowledge in the next Office action and make the next Office action final.
A. I.
B. II.
C. III.
D. I and II.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Claims in your client's patent application have been rejected as unpatentable over prior art. In accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure, which, if any, of the following statements is true?
A. The prior art is a U.S. patent issued five years before the effective date of your client's application. The claims are properly rejected under 35 USC 102(b) of the disclosure in the patent that anticipates the claimed invention. Evidence of secondary considerations, such as unexpected results or commercial success, is relevant to the rejection and thus can overcome the rejection.
B. The prior art is a U.S. patent issued five years before the effective date of your client's application. The claims are properly rejected under 35 USC 102(b) over the disclosure in the patent that anticipates the claimed invention. The rejection can be overcome by arguing that the alleged anticipatory prior art is "nonanalogous art."
C. The prior art is a U.S. patent issued five years before the effective date of your client's application. The claims are properly rejected under 35 USC 102(b) over the disclosure in the patent that anticipates the claimed invention. The rejection can be overcome by arguing that the alleged anticipatory prior art teaches away from the invention.
D. The prior art is a U.S. patent issued five years before the effective date of your client's application. The claims are properly rejected under 35 USC 102(b) over the disclosure in the patent that anticipates the claimed invention. The rejection can be overcome by arguing that the alleged anticipatory prior art is not recognized as solving the problem solved by the claimed invention.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)