QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: An application is transmitted to the USPTO on January 12, 2001, without an oath or declaration by any of the inventors. Which of the following, prior to the filing of an oath or declaration, may properly change the address to which the Office will direct all notices, official letters, and other communications relating to the application?
A. A registered practitioner that filed the application.
B. Any registered practitioner named in the transmittal papers accompanying the original application, if the application was filed by a registered practitioner.
C. One inventor who solely filed the application, where two inventors are named in the transmittal papers accompanying the original application.
D. (A), (B), and (C).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In July 2000, Pete Practitioner files a reissue application for Sam's patent on a combination washing machine and dryer, which issued on August 4, 1998. The original 20 claims are filed in the reissue application along with two additional dependent claims. The declaration indicates that there was error without deceptive intent in that applicant failed to claim the subject matter of the two newly added dependent claims. Sam also indicates in the declaration that he has no intention doing anything other than adding the two dependent claims. In September 1999 the examiner allows claims 1-10 of the reissue but rejects claims 11-22. Sam is eager to enforce claims 1-10 against a competitor but does not want to give up prosecuting claims 11-22. Sam also wants to add additional claims 23-30 directed to an entirely different invention, which was disclosed in the patent but not claimed. To claim the new invention, Sam must file new independent claims, which claim subject matter not previously claimed. Pete practitioner has retired and Sam comes to you for advice. Which of the following is true?
A. Although Sam's reissue application was filed within two years, Sam did not indicate his intention to broaden the claims until after the two year period had expired. Sam may not now file broader reissue claims.
B. Sam may file a second continuing reissue application with claims 11-20 as well as new claims 23-30. Sam would then cancel claims 11-20 from the first reissue application. The second reissue application would then issue and Sam could file a Notice of Appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in the first reissue application. Since the first application was filed within the two year time limit, Sam would not be subjected to a rejection for broadening his claims.
C. Since Sam's reissue application was filed within the two-year statutory time limit on broadening, Sam may add the additional claims 23 -30 to the reissue application.
D. Since Sam had only one patent and all reissue applications for the same patent must issue simultaneously, it would not be advantageous to file two reissue applications since they must issue at the same time.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not a USPTO recommendation or requirement?
A. Every application should contain no more than three dependent claims.
B. Claims should be arranged in order of scope so that the first claim presented is the least restrictive.
C. Product and process claims should be separately grouped.
D. A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated from that dependent claim by any claim which does not also depend from the dependent claim.
(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. § 1.131 "swearing back" of a U.S. patent which substantially shows or describes, and claims the same patentable invention as the rejected invention.
B. Filing an affidavit under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 showing that the reference invention is not by "another."
C. Perfecting a claim to priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d).
D. Amending the claims to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Mr. and Mrs. Noteworthy (Henry and Alice) are registered patent practitioners maintaining an office. After completing their busiest year since opening their practice, the Noteworthys decide to take a break from their hectic business routine and embark on a two week vacation in Acapulco, Mexico. On the third day of their vacation, Henry fell ill, and was laid up in bed for two days. Feeling somewhat better on the second day of his illness, and bored while Alice was on the beach, Henry phoned his office and learned from his secretary that an Office action in a case that he had overlooked contained a shortened statutory period (SSP) which expires on the very same day. He immediately had the Office action faxed to him, and upon receipt, he worked feverishly to prepare a reply. Upon completion of the reply, Henry prepared a certificate of mailing in accordance with the suggested format set forth in MPEP § 512 and deposited the reply accompanied by the certificate of mailing, properly addressed to the USPTO, in the local post office on the very same day before the post office closed. On the 5th day of their vacation, Alice became ill and required bed rest. While Henry was on the beach, Alice called her office and learned that one of her cases had a SSP expiring on the same day. Alice immediately had the Office action faxed to her. Upon receipt of the fax, Alice prepared a proper response and forwarded same to the USPTO by facsimile accompanied by a certificate of transmission in accordance with the suggested format set forth in MPEP § 512 and in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.6(d). Assume the certificate of mailing and the certificate of transmission recite deposit and transmission dates that are the same as their respective SSP expiration dates. Also assume that both communications are received in the USPTO after their respective SSP expiration dates and are stamped with the actual date of receipt. Which of the following statements is true?
A. The application wherein Henry filed a reply is abandoned because the USPTO stamped date is controlling.
B. The application wherein Henry filed a reply is not abandoned because the certificate of mailing date is controlling.
C. The application wherein Alice filed a reply is abandoned because the USPTO stamped date is controlling.
D. Both the application wherein Henry filed a reply and the application wherein Alice filed a reply are abandoned.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is entitled to the benefit of a certificate of mailing under 37 CFR § 1.8?
A. Filing a request for continued examination under 37 CFR § 1.114.
B. Filing a request for a continued prosecution application under 37 CFR § 1.53(d).
C. Filing a reply under 37 CFR § 1.111 in a non-provisional patent application.
D. (A) and (C)
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. The filing of a request for continued examination and payment of the fee for the request in a nonprovisional utility application that was filed in January 2000, is sufficient to toll the running of any time period set in a final rejection for reply to avoid abandonment of the application.
B. Where a request for continued examination, a submission, and requisite fee are filed in April 2001 for a nonprovisional utility application that was filed in January 2000, the submission will be considered though it was filed after the application became abandoned in February 2001.
C. An applicant in a utility application originally filed on or after June 8, 1995, and before May 29, 2000, may obtain further examination either by timely filing a request for continued examination, a proper submission, and requisite fee, or by timely filing a continued prosecution application.
D. An applicant in a utility application originally filed on or after June 8, 1995, and before May 29, 2000, may obtain further examination by timely filing in April 2001 a request for continued examination, a proper submission, and requisite fee, and the application is entitled to patent term adjustment provisions of the Patent Statute.
(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)
Question: In December 1988, 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 2000, 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, 2001. Molly, after seeing the success of Troy's invention in the marketplace, decides to file an application, also on February 1, 2001. 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 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.
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 invented the cutter before Troy, she is entitled to a patent and not Troy.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is true?
A. The statement, "Whether claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable," complies with the requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(6) for a concise statement in the appeal brief of the issues presented for review.
B. Following a new ground of rejection raised by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, the applicant may request a rehearing, or submit an appropriate amendment of the rejected claims or a showing of facts relating to the rejected claims.
C. A reissue application may be filed in order to broaden claims back to their original form where the claims were mistakenly narrowed during the original prosecution to avoid the prior art provided that the narrowing of the claims was made without deceptive intent on the part of the applicant.
D. If the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decides to require an appellant to address a particular matter, and the appellant cannot respond within the time period set, he may obtain an extension of time by paying the requisite fee.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Assume that conception of applicant's complex invention occurred prior to the date of the reference, but reduction to practice occurred after the date of the reference. Which of the following is sufficient to overcome the reference in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. In a 37 C.F.R. 1.131 affidavit or declaration, it is sufficient to allege that applicant or patent owner has been diligent.
B. In a 37 C.F.R. 1.131 affidavit or declaration, it is sufficient to clearly establish conception of the invention prior to the effective date of the reference, and diligence from just prior to the effective date of the reference to actual reduction to practice. The presence of a lapse of time between the reduction to practice of an invention and the filing of an application thereon is not relevant.
C. In a 37 C.F.R. 1.131 affidavit or declaration, it is sufficient to clearly establish conception of the invention prior to the effective date of the reference. Diligence need not be considered.
D. In a 37 C.F.R. 1.131 affidavit or declaration, it is sufficient to show conception and reduction to practice in any country.
(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 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. 
Claim 3: A composition for bonding asphalt shingles to wood sheathing, comprising 10% A, 30% B, and 60% C.
A. Claim 1.
B. Claim 2.
C. Claim 3.
D. Claims 2 and 3.
(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: 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: Registered practitioner Mike files a utility patent application in the USPTO having one claim on May 6, 1998. Following a proper final rejection dated June 28, 2000, of claim 1, Mike files a notice of appeal with the appropriate fee on September 12, 2000, and an appeal brief with the appropriate fee on October 12, 2000. On February 14, 2001, Mike learns about a publication (the "Valentine reference") which he knows to be material to patentability of claim 1. The Valentine reference was not considered by the examiner during prosecution of the application. According to proper USPTO rules and procedure, which of the following actions if taken by Mike on February 16, 2001, prior to a decision on the appeal, will be treated by the USPTO as a request to withdraw the appeal?
A. Filing a request for continued examination of the application with an information disclosure statement that complies with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.98, listing the Valentine reference, submitting the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e), and notifying the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the same.
B. Filing a request for continued examination of the application, and submitting the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e), without filing any other submission, and notifying the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the same.
C. Filing a request for continued examination of the application, and filing an information disclosure statement that complies with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.98, listing the Valentine reference, without submitting the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e), and notifying the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the same.
D. Filing a request for continued examination of the application, without submitting the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e), and without filing any other submission, and notifying the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the same.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent application filed in the USPTO contains the following dependent claim: Claim 2. The method of Claim 1, further consisting of the step of cooling the mixture to a temperature of 32掳 F. Following proper USPTO practices and procedures, from which of the following claims does Claim 2 not properly depend? 
A. Claim 1. A method of making liquid compound A comprising the steps of mixing equal quantities of material C and material D in a beaker and heating the mixture to a temperature of 212掳 F.
B. Claim 1. A method of making liquid compound A consisting of the steps of mixing equal quantities of material C and material D in a beaker and heating the mixture to a temperature of 212掳 F.
C. Claim 1. A method of making liquid compound A including the steps of mixing equal quantities of material C and material D in a beaker and heating the mixture to a temperature of 212掳 F.
D. Claim 1. A method of making liquid compound A characterized by the steps of mixing equal quantities of material C and material D in a beaker and heating the mixture to a temperature of 212掳 F.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A member of the public submits a protest under 37 CFR § 1.291 relating to a public sale of the subject matter of a patent application (effective filing date June 1, 1999). The protest includes submission of a business circular authored by the assignee of the invention. In a first Office action dated January 10, 2001, the examiner includes a requirement for information requesting the date of publication of the business circular. The reply to the requirement for information states that the publication date is "approximately June 1, 2000." Which of the following would be proper for the examiner to include in the next Office action?
A. A requirement that the date in the reply be made more specific.
B. A holding that the previous reply is incomplete.
C. A requirement seeking confirmation that "approximately June 1, 2000" is the most specific date that was obtained or can be obtained based on a reasonable inquiry if that is not already clear from the reply.
D. (A) and (C)
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure regarding patent applications filed in March 2001?
A. The claim for priority and the certified copy of the foreign application specified in 35 U.S.C. 119(b) or PCT Rule 17 must, in any event, be filed before the examiner allows the claims.
B. If the claim for priority or the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, it must be accompanied by the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(i), but the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR § 1.323.
C. In an application that entered the national stage from an international application after compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 371, the claim for priority must be made during the pendency of the application and within the time limit set forth in the PCT and the Regulations under the PCT.
D. If a U.S. patent application publication or patent incorporates by reference, or includes a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119(e) or 120 to, a pending or abandoned application, a copy of that application-as-filed may be provided to any person upon written request including the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.19(b)(1).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements concerning preliminary amendments is/are in accordance with proper USPTO rules and procedure?
A. A preliminary amendment filed in a continuation-in-part application cannot be disapproved if it is filed within three months from the December 7, 2000, filing date.
B. A preliminary amendment filed in a continued prosecution application cannot be disapproved if it is filed four months from the December 7, 2000, filing date with a petition for a one month extension of time.
C. A preliminary amendment filed in a continued prosecution application cannot be disapproved if it is filed four months from the December 7, 2000, filing date with a petition for a one month extension of time and the appropriate fee for the extension.
D. A preliminary amendment filed in a continuation prosecution application after the filing date of the application cannot be disapproved.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following requests by the registered practitioner of record for an interview with an examiner concerning an application will be granted in accordance with proper USPTO rules and procedure?
A. A request for an interview in a substitute application prior to the first Office action, for the examiner and attorney of record to meet in the practitioner's office without the authority of the Commissioner.
B. A request for an interview in a continued prosecution application prior to the first Office action, to be held in the examiner's office.
C. A request for an interview in a non-continuing and non-substitute application, prior to the first Office action to be held in the examiner's office.
D. None of the above.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)