QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: A patent issued to Joe Inventor on July 25, 2000 based on an application filed in January 1999.Larry Practitioner was the registered practitioner of record in the application, and all correspondence from the USPTO during prosecution was directed to Larry at his then-current address. At the time he paid the issue fee, Larry designated a "fee address" for payment of maintenance fees. Larry moved his office on September 1, 2000, and notified the Office of Enrollment and Discipline of his new address in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 10.11. Larry did not, however, file a change of correspondence address in the patent file. An assignment of all rights in the patent from Joe Inventor to Big Corporation was made September 5, 2000 and was recorded in the USPTO on September 14, 2000.Under standard USPTO practice and procedure, where will the USPTO send any Maintenance Fee Reminder?
A. Joe Inventor's address as indicated on the inventor's declaration, unless a change of address had been filed for Mr. Inventor.
B. Larry's address prior to September 2000.
C. Larry's address subsequent to September 1, 2000.
D. The fee address designated by Larry at the time he paid the issue fee.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent issued to Joe Inventor on July 25, 2000 based on an application filed in January 1999.Larry Practitioner was the registered practitioner of record in the application, and all correspondence from the USPTO during prosecution was directed to Larry at his then-current address. At the time he paid the issue fee, Larry designated a "fee address" for payment of maintenance fees. Larry moved his office on September 1, 2000, and notified the Office of Enrollment and Discipline of his new address in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 10.11. Larry did not, however, file a change of correspondence address in the patent file. An assignment of all rights in the patent from Joe Inventor to Big Corporation was made September 5, 2000 and was recorded in the USPTO on September 14, 2000.Under standard USPTO practice and procedure, where will the USPTO send a communication for Big Corporation concerning a request for reexamination involving the patent?
A. Joe Inventor's address as indicated on the inventor's declaration, unless a change of address had been filed for Mr. Inventor.
B. Larry's address prior to September 2000.
C. Larry's address subsequent to September 1, 2000.
D. The fee address designated by Larry at the time he paid the issue fee.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is true?
A. Claims may be properly rejected on the ground that applicant has disclaimed the subject matter involved if the applicant fails to copy a claim from a patent when suggested by the examiner.
B. Res Judicata, as a proper ground for rejection, should be applied when the earlier decision was a final rejection by the same examiner.
C. If an article of manufacture capable of illustration is originally claimed and it is not shown in the drawing, the claim should be rejected based on the reason the claimed subject matter is not shown in the drawing, and applicant is required to add it to the drawing.
D. A thing occurring in nature, which is substantially unaltered, such as a shrimp with the head and digestive tract removed, is a "manufacture."
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On February 3, 1999, you filed an application for inventor Sam, fully disclosing and claiming only the following: Claim 1. A system for preventing unauthorized entry into a garage, comprising: an electric garage opener coupled to a computer and to a video camera. You received a non-final Office action dated February 4, 2000, wherein the examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Dan. The examiner attached a copy of Dan's journal article published on July 4, 1997, fully disclosing an electric garage opener coupled to a computer and to a video camera. Which of the following actions, if taken by you, can overcome the rejection in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. Timely filing a reply traversing the rejection, arguing that claim 1 is patentably distinguished from the Dan reference.
B. Timely filing a reply traversing the rejection, arguing that since the date of the Dan reference falls on a Federal holiday, the Dan reference is not a statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
C. Timely filing a reply with an affidavit under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 showing prior invention by Sam.
D. Timely filing a reply traversing the rejection, arguing that the examiner did not demonstrate why one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have been motivated to modify the system disclosed by Dan.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: The right of priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119 (a)-(d) may be obtained where, if all other requirements are met:
A. A is the inventor of the U.S. nonprovisional application, and B is the inventor of the foreign application, and the two applications are owned by the same party.
B. The United States nonprovisional application, or its earliest parent nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. § 120, was filed 18 months from the earliest, and only foreign filing.
C. The right is premised upon the second foreign filed application disclosing and claiming the same invention as is claimed in the earliest United States nonprovisional application, the first foreign application having been filed twentyfour months before said United States nonprovisional application.
D. The U.S. application contains only process claims, and the foreign application does not enable the disclosed process.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In December 1987, Molly invents a new potato cutter that cuts the potatoes into shapes having a star cross section. Because of the proximity of the star outer surface to the inter core of the potato, the shape achieves optimal cooking of the potato when fried without resulting in an overly cooked outer surface. Molly, thinking that the invention is important, has two people, Sue and Tom, both sworn to secrecy, witness a drawing of the invention. Molly then locks the drawing in a safe deposit box where it remains for the next twelve years. Neither Molly, Sue, or Tom discloses the invention to anyone for the next twelve years. In December 1999, Troy invents a new potato cutter which produces potatoes having a star cross section, and the potatoes are then fried. The invention becomes an overnight success. Troy files a patent application on February 1, 2000. Molly, after seeing the success of Troy's invention in the marketplace, decides to file an application, also on February 1, 2000. The examiner is unable to find any prior art and no other prior art is cited by either applicant. Which of the following is true?
A. Since Molly invented the cutter before Troy, she is entitled to a patent and not Troy.
B. Since Troy conceived of the idea after Molly and because Troy did not file a patent application before Molly, he is not entitled to priority over Molly.
C. Since Molly disclosed the invention to Sue and Tom, the invention was known by others prior to the invention by Troy. Therefore, Troy is precluded by 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) from obtaining a patent on his idea.
D. Since Molly effectively concealed her invention, Troy is entitled to a patent since although Molly conceived of the idea prior to Troy, she effectively abandoned the invention by not filing for twelve years.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In June 1995 Michael buys a television set with a remote control for automatically changing channels on the television set. In June 1997, Michael moves to a new neighborhood and discovers while watching television that the remote control for his television not only changes the channels on his television set but also operates to open his neighbor's garage door. Michael, believing that people no longer need to have separate devices for operating their television and opening their garage doors, goes to a registered practitioner to seek patent protection on his new idea. The practitioner files a patent application in 1997. During the prosecution of the patent for the circuit board device, the practitioner files the following claims 11 and 12: 11. An electronic device comprising: circuitry; said circuitry operating to emit signals of a predetermined waveform; said signals being used to automatically change channels on a television set and automatically open the door of a garage. 12. A method for opening a garage door comprising using a television remote control device to emit signals, comprising the steps of: a) adapting a television remote control device to emit signals to open a garage door; b) pointing said television remote control device at said garage door; and c) actuating said television remote control to cause said garage door to open. Which of the following is true?
A. Since the television and remote control were sold in June 1995, claims 11 and 12 are barred by 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) since the device was on sale more than one year prior to the invention by Michael.
B. Although the device was bought in June 1995, Michael did not use it to open a garage door until 1997. Since claim 11 requires that the signals of the remote control operate to open the garage door, the limitations of claim 11 are not met by the device bought in 1995, and 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) does not apply.
C. Since the television remote control device was in public use more than one year prior to the filing date of the application, Michael may obtain the patent coverage for the method claim 12 but not the device of claim 11.
D. Since Michael did not make the remote control himself and only inadvertently discovered that his neighbor's garage door opens when changing the channel on his television set, this is merely an inadvertent discovery and not entitled to patent protection.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent application filed in the USPTO contains the following original claim: Claim 1. A talbecloth for protecting the finish of a table comprising: a layer of cotton; a layer of vinyl affixed to the layer of cotton; and a backing of felt. Which of the following amendment(s) is/are not in accord with proper USPTO amendment practices and procedures?
A. In claim 1, line 3, add -with an epoxy resin-.
B. In claim 1, line 2, after "cotton" add -woven to have 250 threads per inch-.
C. In claim 1, line 3, before "layer" add ...搕hin-.
D. In claim 1, line 1, correct the spelling of "talbecloth" please.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Sally, an employee of Ted, conceived of and reduced to practice a spot remover for Ted on May 1, 1997. Sally's spot remover was made from water, chlorine, and lemon juice. On June 2, 1997, Sally filed a nonprovisional U.S. patent application for the spot remover, and assigned the entire rights in the application to Ted. Sally's assignment was not recorded in the USPTO, but was referred to in her application. On June 12, 1998, Jane, also an employee of Ted, having no knowledge of Sally's spot remover, conceived of and reduced to practice a spot remover for Ted. Jane's spot remover was made from carbonated water, chlorine, and lemon juice. On May 26, 1998, the USPTO granted Sally a patent. On November 6, 1998, Jane filed a nonprovisional U.S. patent application for the spot remover. As noted in Jane's application, Jane assigned the entire rights in her application to Ted. Jane's assignment was duly recorded in the USPTO. The examiner mailed a non-final Office action rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 to Jane in October 2000, citing the patent to Sally as prior art. Which of the following, if timely filed by Jane, would be effective in disqualifying Sally's patent? 
I: An affidavit by Jane stating that the application files of Sally and Jane both refer to assignments to Ted. 
II: A copy of Sally's assignment to Ted, clearly indicating that common ownership of Jane's and Sally's inventions existed at the time Jane's invention was made. 
III: An affidavit by Ted stating sufficient facts to show that there is common ownership of the Sally and Jane inventions and that common ownership existed at the time the Jane invention was made.
A. I
B. II
C. III
D. II and III
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Your client, Bill, disclosed to you the following. While hiking, he found a natural specimen of tree sap that had bonded rock material to a log, and was impervious to water. Bill realized that the sap would be an excellent roofing material for bonding asphalt shingles to wooden sheathing. Bill performed a chemical analysis of the sap and determined it was 10% A, 30% B, and 60% C. Bill experimented and found that he could synthetically produce the sap by mixing one part A by weight and three parts B by weight at 20 degrees Celsius, heating the mixture of A and B to 100 degrees Celsius, adding six parts C by weight, and cooling the mixture of A, B, and C to 20 degrees Celsius. Bill further experimented and found that if he added an effective amount of D to the mixture of A, B, and C, prior to cooling, the viscosity of the product would decrease, making it easier for roofers to apply it to wooden sheathing. You draft a patent application with a specification having all the information disclosed to you by Bill, including guidelines that explained that an effective amount of D for decreasing the viscosity is between 1% to 2% of the total weight of the mixture of A, B, and C, after cooling. The guidelines also explained that an effective amount of D for brightening the color of the composition is between 3% to 4% of the total weight of the mixture of A, B, and C, after cooling. Which if any of the following claims, included in Bill's application, would not be properly rejected pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101? Claim 1. A composition for bonding asphalt shingles to wood sheathing and a method, comprising: a mixture of 10%A, 30%B, and 60%C, and adding an effective amount of D to decrease the viscosity of the mixture. Claim 2. A composition for bonding asphalt shingles to wood sheathing, comprising 10% A, 30% B, and 60% C.Claim 3. A composition produced by the steps of: mixing one part A by weight with three parts B by weight at 20 degrees Celsius to form a mixture of A and B; heating the mixture of A and B to 100 degrees Celsius; adding six parts C by weight to form a mixture of A, B, and C; cooling the mixture of A, B, and C to 20 degrees Celsius; and adding an effective amount of D to decrease the viscosity of the composition.
A. Claim 1.
B. Claim 2.
C. Claim 3.
D. Claims 2 and 3.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Your client, Bill, disclosed to you the following. While hiking, he found a natural specimen of tree sap that had bonded rock material to a log, and was impervious to water. Bill realized that the sap would be an excellent roofing material for bonding asphalt shingles to wooden sheathing. Bill performed a chemical analysis of the sap and determined it was 10% A, 30% B, and 60% C. Bill experimented and found that he could synthetically produce the sap by mixing one part A by weight and three parts B by weight at 20 degrees Celsius, heating the mixture of A and B to 100 degrees Celsius, adding six parts C by weight, and cooling the mixture of A, B, and C to 20 degrees Celsius. Bill further experimented and found that if he added an effective amount of D to the mixture of A, B, and C, prior to cooling, the viscosity of the product would decrease, making it easier for roofers to apply it to wooden sheathing. You draft a patent application with a specification having all the information disclosed to you by Bill, including guidelines that explained that an effective amount of D for decreasing the viscosity is between 1% to 2% of the total weight of the mixture of A, B, and C, after cooling. The guidelines also explained that an effective amount of D for brightening the color of the composition is between 3% to 4% of the total weight of the mixture of A, B, and C, after cooling.Assuming that A, B, C, and D are known materials, which if any of the following claims, included in Bill's application, would not be properly rejected pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph?Claim 1. A composition produced by the steps of: mixing one part A by weight with three parts B by weight at 20 degrees Celsius to form a mixture of A and B; heating the mixture of A and B to 100 degrees Celsius; and adding six parts C by weight to the mixture of A and B. Claim 2. A composition for bonding asphalt shingles to wood sheathing, comprising 10% A, 30% B, and 60% C. Claim 3. A composition produced by the steps of: mixing one part A by weight with three parts B by weight at 20 degrees Celsius to form a mixture of A and B; heating the mixture of A and B to 100 degrees Celsius; adding six parts C by weight to form a mixture of A, B, and C; cooling the mixture of A, B, and C to 20 degrees Celsius; and adding an effective amount of D.
A. Claim 1.
B. Claim 2.
C. Claim 3.
D. Claims 1 and 2.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You are prosecuting a patent application wherein an Office action has been issued rejecting the claims as being obvious over the prior art and objecting to the drawings as failing to illustrate an item that is fully described in the specification and included in a dependent claim. The examiner has required an amendment to Figure 1 to illustrate the item. In preparing a reply to the Office action, you identify several errors in Figure 2 that should also be corrected. Assuming that you make a amendment to the claims and develop persuasive arguments to overcome the obviousness rejection and that the examiner will not object to your desired changes to Figure 2, which of the following actions is likely to lead to the most favorable result?
A. Submit a reply amending the claims and setting forth your arguments to overcome the obviousness rejection. Submit a separate cover letter for replacement Figures 1 and 2 that incorporate the amendments to the drawings.
B. Submit a reply amending the claims and setting forth your arguments to overcome the obviousness rejection. In the Remarks portion of the reply, explain the proposed drawing changes and attach copies of Figures 1 and 2 with the changes marked in red for the examiner's review and approval.
C. Submit a reply amending the claims and setting forth your arguments to overcome the obviousness rejection. In a separate paper, explain the proposed drawing changes and attach copies of Figures 1 and 2 with the changes marked in red for the examiner's review and approval.
D. Options (A), (B) and (C) are equally likely to lead to the most favorable result.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A rejection based on 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) cannot be overcome by:
A. Filing an affidavit under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 showing that the reference invention is not by "another."
B. Perfecting a claim to priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d).
C. Filing an affidavit under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 "swearing back" of a U.S. patent which substantially shows or describes, and claims the same patentable invention as the rejected invention.
D. Amending the claims to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements is correct regarding an antedating declaration or affidavit being used in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. Where the reference, a U.S. Patent, with a patent issue date less than one year prior to applicant's effective filing date, shows but does not claim the same patentable invention.
B. Where the reference publication date is more than one year before applicant's effective filing date.
C. Where the reference is a prior U.S. patent to the same entity, claiming the same invention.
D. Where the subject matter relied on in the reference is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g).
(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 U.S.C. § 103 is correct? 
I: 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. 
II: 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. 
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: In which of the following situations can the applicant overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over a U.S. patent in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. An applicant can antedate the filing date of the patent used to reject claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by relying upon the filing date of applicant's prior abandoned nonprovisional patent application, which was filed before the effective date of the prior art. The abandoned application was not copending with the applicant's current patent application. The applicant did not file any other patent applications, and is not entitled to benefit of priority of the abandoned application.
B. An applicant can antedate the filing date of the patent used to reject claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) if the applicant relies on the applicant's earlier foreign priority application, which conforms to the requirements of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for all claims in the applicant's U.S. patent application, and all relevant provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 119 have been met. The foreign application has a filing date prior to the filing date of the patent.
C. An applicant can antedate the publication of his own invention more than one year before his first patent application was filed by showing that it is a publication of his own work.
D. An applicant can antedate the patent to a different inventive entity where the patent discloses but does not claim the applicant's invention, the patent describes the applicant's own work, and the applicant states that the different inventive entity derived the invention from him. The applicant files an affidavit disclosing the foregoing, but lacks evidence showing who invented the claimed subject matter.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following properly creates a statutory bar to patentability of applicant's claimed invention? 
I: Applicant's invention was sold in Tokyo and New York more than one year prior to the effective U.S. filing date, but the sales were merely attempts at market penetration. 
II: Applicant's invention was experimented with and tested to further develop the invention more than one year prior to the effective U.S. filing date, but important modifications resulted from the experimentation causing the invention to be reduced to practice after the effective U.S. filing date. 
III: Applicant's invention was sold in Tokyo more than one year prior to the effective U.S. filing date, but the sale was merely market testing of the invention to determine product acceptance.
A. I
B. II
C. III
D. I and III
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)