QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: A claim in your client's patent application has been rejected as being anticipated by a prior art reference. In which of the following instances is the claim not necessarily anticipated?
A. The prior art is a U.S. patent issued five years before the effective date of your client's application. In your client's application, the claim is a generic claim. The prior art clearly discloses a species falling within the claimed genus in your client's application.
B. The prior art is a U.S. patent issued two years before the effective date of your client's application. In your client's application, claim 4 is directed to a species. The prior art discloses forty-six species. The species claimed in claim 4 is clearly disclosed by name in the prior art. The remaining forty-five species disclosed in the prior art do not anticipate or render obvious any subject matter claimed in your client's application.
C. The prior art is a U.S. patent issued two years before the effective date of your client's application. In your client's application, claim 1 is directed to "composition comprising copper oxygen, and 10 to 20 mg of sulfur." The prior art discloses a composition "comprising copper, oxygen and 15 mg. of sulfur."
D. The prior art is a U.S. patent issued two years before the effective date of your client's application. Claim 1 in your client's application is drawn to a composition of gases, and contains a narrow range of the amount of oxygen. The prior art discloses composition of the same gases, and a broad range of the amount of oxygen that is inclusive of the claimed narrow range, but does not disclose specific examples falling within the claimed narrow range. Your client not only discloses a different utility for the claimed invention, but also unexpected results achieved within the narrow range.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A condition for patentability is that an inventor is entitled to a patent unless he has abandoned the invention. Your client has engaged in conduct or omissions that may or may not be construed as abandonment of her invention. In which of the following situations would it be proper for a patent examiner to conclude, in an ex parte proceeding, that an inventor has abandoned the invention?
A. From the inventor's inaction, following conception, to do anything over a period of time to develop or patent his or her invention, the inventor's ridicule of another person's attempts to develop that invention, and the inventor's active show of interest in promoting and developing the invention only after successful marketing by another of a device embodying that invention.
B. When acts of another can be imputed to the inventor as an intent to abandon the invention.
C. From the inventor's delay alone in filing a first patent application for the invention.
D. From an inventor's delay in reapplying for patent after abandonment of a previous patent application.
(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 also should be corrected. Assuming that you make a small 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: 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 U.S.C. § 102(d) based on a foreign patent granted in a non-WTO country.
C. A rejection properly made under 35 U.S.C. § 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 U.S.C. § 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: 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 U.S.C. § 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 U.S.C. § 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 U.S.C. § 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 U.S.C. § 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)
Question: Your longstanding client, Acme Chemical, comes to you for advice concerning a competitor's patent that Acme fears might cover Acme's key commercial product. Acme informs you that it began selling its product approximately eleven months before the competitor filed its patent application, and that a complete description of the product and how to make it was published in a trade magazine approximately ten months before the competitor's December 8, 1999 application filing date. Acme asks you to recommend options short of litigation that might be available to challenge validity of the patent. Acme also asks that in making your recommendation you take into account that Acme will not challenge the patent's validity unless it can be actively involved in all phases of the proceeding, even if that involvement will increase Acme's costs. Which of the following is the most reasonable advice to Acme?
A. You suggest that Acme request ex parte reexamination on the basis of the trade magazine publication and that Acme file a reply to any statement by the patent owner concerning any new question of patentability.
B. You suggest that Acme request ex parte reexamination on the basis of Acme's prior sales and the trade magazine publication.
C. You suggest that Acme request inter partes reexamination on the basis of the trade magazine publication only.
D. You suggest that Acme request inter partes reexamination on the basis of Acme's prior sales and the trade magazine publication.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements accords with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. If a design patent was granted 3 years and 9 months ago, a maintenance fee paid today must include a surcharge because the payment is being made during the grace period.
B. If a design patent was granted 3 years and 9 months ago, and payment of the maintenance fee and surcharge is not paid through the day of the 4th anniversary of the grant for the first maintenance fee, the patent will expire.
C. If a plant patent was granted 7 years and 3 months ago, a maintenance fee must be paid, but a surcharge is not required, because the payment is not being made during the grace period.
D. If a utility patent was granted 7 years and 9 months ago, the first maintenance fee was timely paid, and the 8th anniversary of the patent grant falls on a Saturday, then the 2nd maintenance fee may be paid without surcharge on the next succeeding day which is not a Sunday or Federal holiday.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On February 15, 2000, Debbie conceived a new, useful and nonobvious improvement in saddles for horses. Debbie spent the next four months working regularly on the idea and she built a prototype that implemented the concept on June 17, 2000. The prototype worked perfectly for its intended purpose. The next day, Debbie visited a patent attorney, Ginny, and asked her to prepare a patent application on Debbie's behalf. Ginny explained that her workload would prevent her from working on the application for at least four months. Ginny therefore declined representation of Debbie and gave her the names of a number of other qualified patent practitioners. Debbie, however, did not contact any of the individuals recommended by Ginny. Debbie visited Ginny again on December 1, 2000. At that time Ginny agreed to represent Debbie. A patent application was filed in the Patent Office on December 11, 2000. On May 15, 2000, Billie conceived an idea substantively identical to Debbie's. Billie immediately prepared a detailed technical description including drawings and visited a patent attorney. Billie filed a patent application on June 14, 2000. Later, on July 9, 2000, Billie built a prototype that implemented the concept and had fully and successfully tested it by August 11, 2000. With regard to a priority contest between Debbie and Billie, which of the following statements is most correct?
A. Debbie will be awarded priority only if she can establish diligence for the entire time between May 14, 2000 and her actual reduction to practice in June 2000, and can establish that she did not suppress, abandon or conceal the invention.
B. Debbie will be awarded priority only if she can establish diligence for the entire time between her conception in February 2000 and actual reduction to practice in June 2000, and can establish that she did not suppress, abandon or conceal the invention.
C. Debbie will be awarded priority if she can establish diligence for the entire time between May 14, 2000 and her patent filing in December 2000, and can establish that she did not suppress, abandon or conceal the invention.
D. To encourage prompt disclosure of inventions to the public, priority is always awarded to the first to file an application, in this case Billie.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Mr. Block, the inventor, files an application with the USPTO on January 2, 2001 containing a single claim for his invention: a new bouncing ball called "O." As part of his duty of disclosure, he also files a copy of a written agreement that he and Mrs. Cone signed on January 2, 1998. The agreement states, in its entirety, that "Mr. Block will transfer my new bouncing ball 'O' to Mrs. Cone for experimental uses only to perfect the ball's bounce. Mr. Block retains full control over the new bouncing ball 'O.'" The primary examiner has no evidence that the ball was ever actually delivered to Cone. On June 2, 2001, Block receives an Office action dated June 4, 2001 from the primary examiner. The examiner has rejected Block's claim only under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The examiner explains in the Office action that "the 1998 written agreement signed by Block and Cone proves that the new bouncing ball 'O' was in public use more than one year prior to the January 2, 2001 filing date of the application." Block believes he is entitled to a patent for his new bouncing ball "O." How should Block respond to the rejection of his claim?
A. Block should give up because the agreement is dated more than one year before the filing date of the application and that is enough to statutorily bar Block from getting a patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
B. Block should respond by arguing that although the agreement was signed more than one year prior to the filing date of the application, it was never published and therefore cannot be relied upon as a "printed publication" under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
C. Block should respond by presenting evidence by way of an oath or declaration of experimental use and arguing that any use of the ball by Cone would have been experimental use, not "public" use.
D. Block should respond by arguing the agreement was signed by him, the same person who filed the application, which means that the invention was not "known or used by others in this country."
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: When filing a reissue application in November 2001 for the purpose of expanding the scope of the original patent claims, which of the following would not be in accordance with the USPTO rules of practice and procedure?
A. The specification, including the claims, of the patent for which reissue is requested, must be furnished in the form of a copy of the printed patent, in double column format, each page on only one side of a single sheet of paper.
B. Applicant's intent to broaden the scope of the claims can be made known in a reissue application filed within 2 years of the patent grant date by presenting in the application when filed new or amended claims.
C. Any amendments made to the original patent by physically incorporating the changes within the specification or by way of a preliminary amendment must comply with the revised amendment practice of 37 CFR 1.121(b) and (c) and include appropriate "clean" and "marked-up" versions of the paragraphs or claims being amended.
D. Applicant's intent to broaden the scope of the claims can be made in a reissue application filed within 2 years of the patent grant date by specifying in the reissue declaration as one of the errors on which the reissue is based is that applicant claimed less than he had a right to claim.
(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 CFR 1.131 affidavit or declaration, it is sufficient to allege that applicant or patent owner has been diligent.
B. In a 37 CFR 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 CFR 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 CFR 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: Regarding correction of inventorship in a pending application, where no waiver is granted, which of the following is not required under USPTO practice and procedure?
A. In connection with filing an amendment to correct inventorship in a nonprovisional application, seeking the deletion of one of the four coinventors, because, in light of the cancellation of three claims, that inventor's invention is no longer being claimed, the submission of a statement from the person whose name is being deleted that there was no deceptive intent on his part in being named in the original application.
B. In connection with filing an amendment to correct inventorship in a provisional application, seeking the deletion of one of the four coinventors, the submission of a statement from the person whose name is being deleted that there was no deceptive intent on his part in being named in the original application.
C. In connection with filing an amendment to correct inventorship by adding previously omitted inventors to a nonprovisional application that has been assigned, the submission of a written consent from the assignee.
D. In connection with filing an amendment to correct inventorship by adding previously omitted inventors to a provisional application, the submission of a statement that the inventorship error occurred without deceptive intention on the part of the omitted inventors.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Patent practitioner files a patent application on behalf of inventors X, Y and Z. The patent application includes ten claims. X, Y and Z are joint inventors of the subject matter of claims 1-5. X and Y are joint inventor of the subject matter of claims 6-8. Y invented the subject matter of claim 9. Z is the inventor of the subject matter of claim 10. A patent examiner properly rejects independent claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by reference A, which is not a patent. In an attempt to overcome this rejection, a declaration that clearly antedates reference A is filed under 37 CFR 1.131. The declaration is signed by inventor Z, but not by X and Y. The declaration is:
A. improper because all named inventors of an application must sign a declaration filed under 37 CFR 1.131.
B. improper because the patent practitioner did not sign the declaration.
C. proper if it is shows that inventor Z is the sole inventor of the subject matter of claim 10.
D. proper because 37 CFR 1.131 has no requirement on who must sign the declaration.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. Conversion of a provisional application to a nonprovisional application will result in the term of any patent to issue from the application being measured from at least the filing date of the provisional application.
B. Conversion of a provisional application to a nonprovisional application cannot adversely impact on the term of any patent to issue from the application.
C. An applicant having filed a provisional application can avoid any adverse patent term impact resulting from converting the provisional application to a nonprovisional application by instead filing a nonprovisional application claiming the benefit of the provisional application under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e).
D. An applicant filing a nonprovisional application claiming the benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78 of an earlier provisional application, and not requesting conversion of the provisional to a nonprovisional application can avoid the fee required to convert a provisional application to a nonprovisional application, as well as an adverse patent term effect that would result from a conversion.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A grant of small entity status entitles an applicant to which of the following?
A. Applicant can pay a fee to file an information disclosure statement pursuant to 37 CFR 1.97(c) that is less than the fee required to be paid by other than a small entity.
B. Applicant can file a Continued Prosecution Application ("CPA") using a certificate of mailing under 37 CFR 1.8 to obtain a U.S. filing date that is earlier than the actual USPTO receipt date of the CPA.
C. Applicant can pay a fee to file a petition for revival of an unavoidably abandoned application under 35 U.S.C. § 111 that is less than the fee required to be paid by other than a small entity.
D. After issuance of a non-final first action, but before the close of the prosecution in a patent application, applicant may properly file a Request for Continued Examination and pay a fee that is less than the fee required to be paid by other than a small entity.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An applicant's claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Larry in view of Morris. Larry and Morris are references published more than one year before applicant's effective filing. Although the examiner cites no suggestion or motivation for combining the references, they are, in fact, combinable. Which of the following arguments could properly show that the claim is not obvious?
A. The inventions disclosed by Larry and Morris cannot be physically combined.
B. Neither Larry nor Morris provides an express suggestion to combine the references.
C. As recognized by businessmen, the high cost of Larry's device teaches away from combining it with the simpler device of Morris.
D. Absent a suggestion or motivation, the examiner has not shown that combining Larry's with Morris's device would have been within the level of ordinary skill of the art.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: While vacationing in Mexico on April 14, 2001, Henrietta invented a camera that operated at high temperature and is waterproof. She carefully documented her invention and filed a provisional application in the USPTO on April 30, 2001. She conducted tests in which the camera withstood temperatures of up to 350 degrees Fahrenheit. However, when the camera was placed in the water leaks were discovered rendering the camera inoperable. On April 12, 2002, Henrietta conceived of means that she rightfully believed will fix the leakage issue. Henrietta came to you and asked whether she can file another application. Henrietta desires to obtain the broadest patent protection available to her. Which of the following is the best manner in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure for obtaining the patent covering both aspects of her invention?
A. She can file a nonprovisional application on April 30, 2002 claiming benefit of the filing date of the provisional application, disclosing the means for fixing the leak and presenting a claim covering a camera that operates at high temperatures and a claim covering a camera that is waterproof, or presenting a claim covering a camera that both operates at high temperatures and is waterproof.
B. Henrietta cannot rightfully claim a camera that is waterproof in a nonprovisional application filed on April 30, 2002, since she tested the camera and the camera developed leaks.
C. Henrietta can file another provisional application on April 30, 2002 and obtain benefit of the filing of the provisional application filed on April 30, 2001.
D. Henrietta may establish a date of April 14, 2001 for a reduction to practice of her invention for claims directed to the waterproofing feature.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)