QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: Judy Practitioner is preparing the declaration form (PTO/SB/01) for her clients, inventors A and B, to sign prior to filing their utility patent application. Inventor A lives in California, and inventor B lives in Germany. Prior to sending declaration forms to the inventors, only inventor A had reviewed the final version of the application. Which of the following situations below would result in the declaration form(s) being compliant with 37 CFR 1.63(a) and (b)?
A. Judy mailed only a copy of the declaration form (PTO/SB/01), which identified the application and both inventors by their full names and citizenships, to inventor A with the instruction to return to her after he signs the declaration form. After inventor A returned the form, Judy then proceeded to mail out the declaration form to inventor B. After inventor B signed the declaration, Judy then attached the declaration, signed by both inventors, to the application and filed it with the USPTO.
B. Judy mailed to inventor A only a copy of the declaration form (PTO/SB/01) which identified the application and only inventor A's full name and citizenship. At the same time, Judy sent by facsimile to inventor B only a copy of the declaration form, which identified the application and only inventor B's full name and citizenship. Judy then attached both signed declaration forms to the patent application and filed it with the USPTO.
C. Judy sent by facsimile (e.g. fax) to inventor A only a copy of the declaration form (PTO/SB/01) which identified the application and both inventors by their full names and citizenships. At the same time, Judy mailed to inventor B a copy of the application and a copy of the declaration form, which identified the application and both inventors by their full name and citizenship. Judy then attached both signed declaration forms to the patent application and filed it with the USPTO.
D. Judy mailed only a copy of the declaration form (PTO/SB/01), which identified the application and both inventors by their full names and citizenships, to inventor A. Judy then attached the declaration, signed only by inventor A, to the application and filed it with the USPTO.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On June 1, 2001, a redacted copy of a pending patent application is filed by the inventor, I. M. Abridged and is published pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 122(b). J. Q. Practitioner has reason to believe that the application is still pending. J. Q. Practitioner is not an attorney or agent for I. M. Abridged. J. Q. Practitioner is entitled to see or obtain copies of which, if any, portions of the Abridged application?
A. J.Q. Practitioner may order only the redacted printed publication document since pending patent applications are otherwise preserved in confidence.
B. J.Q. Practitioner may order a copy of the redacted printed publication document, and inspect, but not copy, the file.
C. J.Q. Practitioner may inspect the contents of the entire patent application file and obtain copies thereof in addition to obtaining copies of the redacted application publication.
D. J.Q. Practitioner may inspect and obtain copies of only the redacted application and no other documents unless applicant I. M. Abridged supplied them in a redacted form.
(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 tables and chemical formulas.
B. The specification must begin with one or more claims.
C. The specification may include hyperlinks or other forms of browser-executable code embedded in the text.
D. The specification may include graphical illustrations or flowcharts.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant Smith filed a nonprovisional utility application on January 2, 2001 claiming the benefit of a prior provisional application filed January 3, 2000. He received a filing receipt with a projected publication date of July 5, 2001. He did not want his application to be published under the provisions of eighteen-month publication. On April 2, 2001, Applicant Smith asked you what is the best way to avoid pre-grant publication of his application with respect to proper USPTO procedure. Which of the following represents the best advice to Applicant Smith without forfeiting his patent rights if you are representing him?
A. File a nonpublication request that certifies that the invention disclosed in the nonprovisional application has not been and will not be the subject of an application filed in another country (or under international agreement) that requires eighteen-month publication.
B. File a petition to convert the nonprovisional application to a provisional application under 37 CFR 1.53(c)(2) accompanied by the petition fee, and then file a second non-provisional application with a nonpublication request that includes a proper certification, claiming the benefit of the prior provisional application under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e).
C. File a petition for express abandonment to avoid publication under 37 CFR 1.138(c) accompanied by the petition fee.
D. File (1) a continued prosecution application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) claiming the benefit of the prior applications under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119(e) and 120 with a nonpublication request that includes a proper certification, (2) a petition for express abandonment to avoid publication under 37 CFR 1.138(c) for the application filed on January 2, 2001, and (3) the required fees.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On behalf of your client you have appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences a final rejection of claims in the client's patent application. To request an oral hearing for the appeal, you must in a timely manner:
A. show that the hearing is necessary and desirable for a proper presentation of the appeal.
B. telephone the Board to schedule the hearing and pay the appropriate fee.
C. visit the Board to schedule the hearing and pay the appropriate fee.
D. confer with the examiner for a date, file a written request, and pay the appropriate fee.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In early 1999, at the request of MC Motors, Eve demonstrated her reverse automobile heating system at a testing facility in Germany. MC Motors signs a confidentiality agreement and agrees not to disclose the invention to anyone. The test is conducted in a secluded area and the persons involved are sworn to secrecy. Unbeknownst to Eve, MC Motors installs the reverse heating system on its MC cars and begins selling its cars with the reverse heating system in the United States in September 1999. In August 2000, MC files a patent application in the United States for the reverse automobile heating system. In December 2000, Eve files a patent application claiming the automobile heating system. The examiner rejects all the claims in Eve's application based upon an MC Motors brochure advertising its cars in September 1999. Which of the following is true?
A. Eve is not entitled to a patent since the invention was on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.
B. Since the MC Motors misappropriated the invention and since Eve did not authorize the sale, the rejection may be overcome by showing that the sales by MC Motors were not authorized by Eve.
C. MC Motors is entitled to a patent since although it misappropriated the idea for the invention from Eve, the misappropriation was beyond the jurisdiction of the USPTO.
D. (A) and (C)
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On June 9, 1995 you filed a nonprovisional utility patent application on behalf of your client. On May 30, 2000, you have successfully obtained allowance of the claims, and you have paid the issue fee. After further discussions with your client you discover that the client would like to amend the claims by possibly adding new claims that are fully supported by the original disclosure. The new claims would likely be allowable over the prior art in the record. Shortly after paying the issue fee, but before issuance of a patent on the application, you file a request for continued examination along with a proposed amendment and the necessary fee. No other documents are filed. Have you done all that is necessary for your request for continued examination to be granted?
A. Yes, since prosecution was closed and your filing date was after June 8, 1995, you can file an RCE upon submitting a request, a submission and the proper fee.
B. No, because after the issue fee is paid, you cannot file an RCE unless you have successfully withdrawn the case from issue by petition under 37 CFR 1.313.
C. Yes, because the application had not yet been abandoned.
D. No, because the application was not a provisional application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Ramone filed a nonprovisional patent application in the USPTO on November 5, 1999. A patent was granted on the application on December 5, 2000. On January 5, 2001, Ramone files an application for reissue of the patent accompanied by an amendment enlarging the scope of the claims. On February 5, 2001, Ramone also files in the USPTO a copy of the application, as amended, in compliance with the Office electronic filing system requirements. Which of the following statements is true based upon proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. The copy of the reissue application as amended is subject to pre-grant publication because it was supplied to the USPTO within one month of the actual filing date of the reissue application, i.e., within one month of January 5, 2001.
B. The copy of the reissue application as amended is subject to pre-grant publication because it was supplied to the USPTO within fourteen months of the filing date of the issued patent, i.e., within fourteen months of November 5, 1999.
C. The reissue application is subject to pre-grant publication because it was not accompanied by a nonpublication request at the time of filing.
D. The reissue application is exempt from pre-grant publication.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure regarding design patent applications filed in March 2001?
A. The expedited treatment available for design applications under 37 CFR 1.155 expedites design application processing by, among other things, decreasing clerical processing time as well as the time spent routing the application between processing steps.
B. The "petition to make special" procedure is also available for designs and the petition fee is less than the fee for expedited examination.
C. To qualify for expedited examination: (1) the application must include drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84; (2) the applicant must have conducted a preexamination search; and (3) the applicant must file a request for expedited examination including: (i) The appropriate fee; and (ii) a statement that a preexamination search was conducted. The statement must also indicate the field of search and include an information disclosure statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.98.
D. If the design application is not effectively expedited by the Office, the fee for expediting the application will be refunded.
(category: design patent, Chinese translation: 设计专利)
Question: Applicant Einstein files a patent application on November 26, 1999, that claims a new type of football pads. Prosecution is conducted and the application issues as a patent to Einstein on April 3, 2001. A competitor, Weisman, who has been making and selling football pads since April of 1998, learns of Einstein's patent when Einstein approaches him on May 3, 2001, with charges of infringement of the Einstein patent. Weisman makes an appointment to see you to find out what he can do about Einstein's patent, since Weisman believes that he is the first inventor of the claimed subject matter. At your consultation on May 17, 2001, with Weisman, you discover that Weisman widely distributed printed publications containing a fully enabling disclosure of the invention and all claimed elements in the Einstein patent. Weisman used the printed publication for marketing his football pads in April of 1998. Weisman explains that he wishes to avoid litigation. Which of the following is a proper USTPO practice and procedure that is available to Weisman?
A. Weisman should file a petition to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.324 in the patent, along with a statement by Weisman that such error arose without any deceptive intention on his part, requesting that a certificate of correction be issued for the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 256, naming the correct inventive entity, Weisman.
B. Weisman should file a reissue application under 35 U.S.C. § 251, requesting correction of inventorship as an error in the patent that arose or occurred without deceptive intention, wherein such error is corrected by adding the inventor Weisman and deleting the inventor Einstein, as well as citing Joe Weisman's April 1998 printed publication for the football pads as evidence that Weisman is the correct inventor.
C. Weisman should file a prior art citation under 35 U.S.C. § 301, citing the sales in April 1998 of football pads, and explain the pertinency and manner of applying such sales to at least one claim of the Einstein patent.
D. Weisman should file a request for ex parte reexamination of the Einstein patent under 35 U.S.C. § 302, citing the April 1998 printed publication of football pads in, and explain the pertinency and manner of applying such prior art to at least one claim of the Einstein patent.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following can correct the inventorship of a patent application in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. An unexecuted nonprovisional application was filed January 3, 2001 naming Jones and Smith as inventors. Smith was named an inventor in error. A Notice to File Missing Parts of Application was mailed by the Office, that requested a surcharge and an executed oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 by Jones and Smith. A registered practitioner in timely response to the Notice submitted the requested surcharge and a declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 that named only Jones as the inventor, which declaration was only executed by Jones. The registered practitioner had determined that a request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) was unnecessary. No papers were submitted, by Smith, clarifying that she is not an inventor.
B. A nonprovisional application was filed January 3, 2001 with a declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 naming Jones and Smith as inventors, which declaration was signed only by Jones. Smith was named an inventor in error. A Notice to File Missing Parts of Application was mailed by the Office that requested a surcharge and an executed oath or declaration by Smith. A registered practitioner timely responded to the Notice by submitting the requested surcharge and a new declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 that identified Jones as the sole inventor, which declaration was executed only by Jones.
C. A nonprovisional application was filed February 28, 2000 that improperly named Jones as the sole inventor in a declaration under 37 CFR 1.63. Only Jones executed the declaration. Applicant need only re-file the application as a continued prosecution application naming the correct inventorship of Jones and Smith in the new application's transmittal letter.
D. A continuation application was filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) using a copy of an executed declaration from the prior application for which a continuation was filed to correct the inventorship. The continuation application papers were accompanied by a request by a registered practitioner, in the continuation application transmittal paper, that Smith, named as an inventor in the prior application, be deleted as an inventor in the continuation application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A nonprovisional application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) is filed with a check for the exact amount of a small entity basic filing fee. A registered practitioner's well trained legal assistant when filing the application forgot to also submit a written assertion of entitlement to small entity status that had been executed by the sole assignee who is a small entity. Which of the following is/are in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. Applicant need not supplement the initial filing with the omitted written assertion of small entity status as the payment of the small entity filing fee will suffice to accord small entity status.
B. If the application is allowed, applicant cannot pay the issue fee in the small entity amount unless the fee is accompanied by a written assertion of small entity status.
C. If after filing of the application small entity status becomes no longer appropriate, applicant may continue to pay small entity fees for newly added claims in a response to a first Office action rejection.
D. If the application is allowed, a registered practitioner could pay a small entity issue fee solely based on the assignee's written assertion of small entity status that was not originally submitted if the practitioner now submits it with the issue fee.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Claims 1 and 2 in a patent application state the following: 
Claim 1. An apparatus for sitting comprising: (i) a square shaped base member; (ii) four elongated members mounted to the bottom of the base member; and (iii) a circular back member mounted to the base member. 
Claim 2. An apparatus as in claim 1, further comprising a spring connected to the back member and to the base member. Which, if any, of the following claims fully supported by the specification and presented in the application, is in accordance with USPTO rules and procedure?
A. 3. An apparatus as in claim 1, wherein the base member is rectangularly shaped.
B. 3. An apparatus as in claim 2, wherein the wheels connected to each of the elongated members are plastic.
C. 3. An apparatus as in the preceding claims, further comprising a pressuresensing device connected to the base member.
D. 3. An apparatus as in any of the preceding claims, in which the circular back member is wooden.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following USPTO practices or procedures may be properly employed to overcome a rejection properly based on 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)?
A. Timely perfecting a claim to 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. Filing a declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 that antedates the cited prior art.
C. Timely perfecting 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 that antedates the reference.
D. (A) and (C).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Regarding a power of attorney or authorization of agent in a patent application, which of the following is in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. Powers of attorney to firms submitted in applications filed in the year 2001 are recognized by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
B. The associate attorney may appoint another attorney.
C. The filing and recording of an assignment will operate as a revocation of a power or authorization previously given.
D. Revocation of the power of the principal attorney or agent does not revoke powers granted by him or her to other attorneys or agents.
(category: trademark, Chinese translation: 商标)
Question: On December 24, 2001, you were retained to file a U.S. nonprovisional patent application for inventions X, and Y. In preparing the U.S. patent application, you discovered that the same inventors filed an application for invention X in Germany on December 28, 2000 and an application for inventions X and Y in France on March 13, 2001. The German application was never published and was abandoned on July 2, 2001. What is the latest date you could file a U.S. patent application at the USPTO to properly have the right of priority for the inventions disclosed in the U.S. patent application?
A. December 27, 2001 (Thursday)
B. December 28, 2001 (Friday)
C. January 2, 2002 (Wednesday)
D. March 12, 2002 (Tuesday)
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A U.S. patent application discloses an adhesive composition described as useful for causing a football to stick to human skin. The application discloses that the composition is made of known materials in equal amounts by weight of A and B. The application discloses that A must be at a temperature between 10 and 30 degrees Celsius, and that B can be either of known materials X or Y. The application discloses that by adding different effective amounts of known material C to the composition, the composition's stickiness or hardness can be changed. In one example, the application discloses an effective amount of material C that can be added to the composition to increase stickiness of the composition. The application also discloses in another example a different effective amount of material C that must be added to the composition to increase the composition's hardness. The effective amounts of material C used in the two examples differ, and the examples describe the effective amounts. Which of the following claims, included in the application, complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. § 101?
A. Claim 1. A process for using a composition to cause a football to stick to human skin.
B. Claim 2. A composition comprising equal amounts by weight of A and B, wherein A is at a temperature between 10 and 30 degrees Celsius, and B is X or Y.
C. Claim 3. A composition comprising equal amounts by weight of A and B, and an effective amount of C, wherein A is at a temperature between 10 and 30 degrees Celsius.
D. Claim 4. A composition comprising equal amounts by weight of A and B, wherein A is at a temperature between 10 and 30 degrees Celsius, preferably between 15 and 20 degrees Celsius.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is/are information which the USPTO may require an attorney of record in a reissue application to submit in a reply to a first Office action dated April 12, 2001?
A. Information used in invention process: A copy of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent (U.S. or foreign) that was used in the invention process, such as by designing around or providing a solution to accomplish an invention result.
B. The publication date of an undated document mentioned by applicant which may qualify as printed publication prior art.
C. Comments on a new decision by the Federal Circuit that appears on point in the examination of the application.
D. (A), (B), and (C).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Practitioner prepared a patent application containing a table of 52 pages and a computer program listing of 360 lines (up to 72 characters per line). The application is sent via the U.S. Mail to the USPTO. Which of the following identifies the proper submission using electronic media in accordance with USPTO rules and procedure?
A. The computer program listing must be submitted on a duplicate set of compact discs, while the table may be submitted on a duplicate set of compact discs.
B. The computer program listing may be submitted on a magnetic floppy disc and the rest of the application must be submitted on paper.
C. The computer program listing and the table may be submitted on a magnetic floppy disc, magnetic tape or paper.
D. The table must be submitted, and optionally the computer program listing may be submitted, on either magnetic floppy disc, compact disc, magnetic tape.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)