QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: Which one of the following applications is eligible for Patent Term Adjustment under the Patent Term Guarantee Act of 1999?
A. A plant application filed June 8, 1995.
B. A utility application filed June 8, 1995.
C. A design application filed May 29, 2000.
D. A continued prosecution application (CPA) filed on June 6, 2001 where the CPA is based upon a plant application originally filed on February 2, 2000.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: To satisfy the written description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, an applicant must show possession of the invention. An applicant's lack of possession of the invention may be evidenced by:
A. Describing an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention.
B. Describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention.
C. Requiring an essential feature in the original claims, where the feature is not described in the specification or the claims, and is not conventional in the art or known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
D. Amending a claim to add a limitation that is supported in the specification through implicit or inherent disclosure.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On June 9, 2000, you file two complete patent applications on behalf of your client, ABC Inc. The subject matter of the patent applications relates to a new automotive body design. One of the applications is filed as a utility application (A#1), and other is filed as a design application (A#2). Prosecution of each application moves forward independently of each other, and you receive final office actions in each application rejecting the respective claim(s) in each application. Your client, in consultation with you, decides that she would rather pursue prosecution in each case rather than appeal the final rejections. Which of following options is available to you under the USPTO rules and procedures ?
A. File a request for continuing examination (RCE) for both A#1 and A#2.
B. File a request for continuing examination (RCE) for A#1 and a continuing prosecution application (CPA) for A#2.
C. File a request for continuing examination (RCE) for A#2 but not A#1.
D. File a continuing prosecution application (CPA) for both A#1 and A#2.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: J. Q. Practitioner represents the IMAKECOPY Corp., which is an importer of widgets into the USA. At the request of his client, J. Q. Practitioner is reviewing the prosecution history of a published patent application filed under 35 U.S.C. § 111, that contains process claims for making widgets and other claims directed to the widget products. The application lists Rob M. Blind as the inventor and Wesue Corp. as the assignee. Rob M. Blind is an employee of the Wesue Corp. which is a competitor of the IMAKECOPY Corp. The prosecution history of the published patent application contains a restriction requirement made by the examiner followed by an election of the process claims by the applicant, and cancellation of the non-elected product claims. No related patent applications are referenced in the published patent application or its prosecution history. A search of public USPTO databases indicates no divisional patent application has been published or issued as a patent. J. Q. Practitioner wants to obtain more information concerning the cancelled product claims. Which of the following statements is true?
A. J. Q. Practitioner cannot obtain other information because no information about pending unpublished applications is available under 35 U.S.C. § 122, except for previously filed applications.
B. J. Q. Practitioner may obtain a copy of the originally filed application and a copy of all unpublished divisional applications containing the nonelected product claims.
C. J. Q. Practitioner may obtain a copy of all unpublished applications including their prosecution histories for any patent application containing the non-elected product claims.
D. J. Q. Practitioner may file a written request for the File Information Unit (FIU) to ascertain if there are any earlier or subsequently filed applications claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 120 of the published application and their status.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Company X competes with Patentee Y. In response to an accurate notification from Company X, acting as a third party, that Patentee Y's patent contains a printing error, incurred through the fault of the USPTO, the USPTO:
A. must issue a certificate of correction.
B. must reprint the patent to correct the printing error.
C. need not respond to Company X.
D. should include Company X's notification in the patent file.
(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 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.
B. 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.
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: An international application designating the United States is filed with the USPTO in its capacity as a Receiving Office, which properly accords the application an international filing date of 02 August 2001. The application properly claims priority solely to an earlier British application filed 02 August 2000. A Demand was not filed within 19 months from this priority date. On 10 April 2002, applicant filed a "Transmittal Letter to the United States Designated/Elected Office (DO/EO/US) Concerning a Filing Under 35 U.S.C. § 371" (Form PTO-1390), which identified the international application, and was accompanied by payment in full of the basic national fee. An oath or declaration, as required under 35 U.S.C. § 371(c)(4), was not submitted. As of 10 April 2002, the U.S. national stage application was:
A. Abandoned for failure to submit the basic national fee within 20 months from the priority date.
B. Abandoned for failure to submit the basic national fee and copy of the international application within 20 months from the priority date.
C. Abandoned for failure to submit the basic national fee, copy of the international application, and oath or declaration within 20 months from the priority date.
D. Abandoned for failure to submit the basic national fee within 20 months from the international filing date.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Mr. Brick, the inventor, files an application with the USPTO on January 2, 2001 containing a single claim for his invention: a new bouncing ball called "Y". Brick receives a first Office action dated June 4, 2001 from the primary examiner handling Brick's application. The examiner rejected Brick's claim only under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the grounds that Reference X teaches a bouncing ball called "Q," and that although "Y" and "Q" are not the same, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to make changes to the "Q" ball in order to obtain a ball just like Brick's "Y" ball. On August 2, 2001, Brick responds by stating that his new "Y" ball bounces unexpectedly higher than the "Q" ball described in Reference X. Brick includes a declaration, signed by Mrs. Kane, that includes extensive data comparing the bouncing results for the "Y" and "Q" balls and showing that the "Y" ball bounces unexpectedly higher than the "Q" ball. Brick argues that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should be withdrawn because he has proven that, in view of the unexpectedly higher bounce of the "Y" ball as compared to the "Q" ball, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make changes to the "Q" ball to obtain Brick's "Y" ball. On October 2, 2001, Brick receives a final rejection from the examiner. The rejection states, in its entirety: "The response has been reviewed but has not been found persuasive as to error in the rejection. The claim is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons given in the first Office action." Brick believes he is entitled to a patent to his new bouncing ball "Y." How should Brick proceed?
A. Brick should give up because the declaration did not persuade the examiner of the merits of Brick's invention.
B. Brick should timely file a Request for Reconsideration asking the examiner to reconsider the rejection on the basis of the Kane declaration and, as a precaution against the Request for Reconsideration being unsuccessful, also timely file a Notice of Appeal.
C. Brick should respond by submitting a request for reconsideration presenting an argument that Reference X does not provide an enabling disclosure for a new ball with the unexpectedly higher bounce of his "Y" ball.
D. Brick should respond by submitting a request for reconsideration presenting an argument that Reference X does not provide a written description for a new ball with the unexpectedly higher bounce of his "Y" ball.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: John filed a utility patent application for a high strength steel composition on June 9, 1997. During prosecution of the application, an interference under 35 U.S.C. § 135(a) was declared on June 9, 1998 between John's application and an unexpired patent. Subsequently, the interference was terminated in John's favor on June 9, 2000. The year 2000 was a leap year having 366 days. Ultimately, John's application was allowed and issued as a patent on June 12, 2001. Based on proper USPTO practice and procedure, and absent any other events necessitating adjustment of the patent term, when should John's patent expire?
A. Twenty (20) years from issue date.
B. Twenty (20) years and one day from filing date.
C. Twenty (20) years plus three years inasmuch as granting of the patent was delayed by the interference.
D. Twenty (20) years plus the number of days in the period beginning the date prosecution is suspended in another application that is not in the interference, but is related to the application in interference.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following practices or procedures may be properly employed to overcome a rejection properly based on 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)?
A. 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 showing that the cited prior art antedates the invention.
C. Filing a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 showing that the reference invention is by "others."
D. Perfecting priority under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119(e) or 120 by, in part, amending the declaration of the application to contain a specific reference to a prior application having a filing date prior to the reference.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Johnnie owns a supermarket store in Cleveland, Ohio, and is constantly frustrated when little children drop their chewing gum on Johnnie's clean floor in the supermarket. In her spare time, Johnnie develops an entirely novel type of coating material that she applies to floor tile. The coating material resists adhesion to chewing gum. In order to check out the effectiveness of the floor tile coating material, on December 31, 2000, she secretly covers the floor tiles in her supermarket with the new chewing gum resistant floor tile coating material. Johnnie is amazed at the results inasmuch as cleaning the floor was never easier. On January 30, 2001, Johnnie, satisfied with the experimental use results, ceased testing the use of the coating material. The ability of the coating material to withstand chewing gum adhesion continued unabated throughout the remainder of 2001. On January 1, 2002, one of Johnnie's many customers, James, remarked at how clean the floor looked. Johnnie then told James of her invention. James thinks for one moment and suggests that the floor tile coating material may be useful in microwave ovens, so that food will not stick to the interior sides of the microwave oven. James discusses getting patent protection with Johnnie. Which of the following is true?
A. Johnnie could never be entitled to a patent on a floor tile in combination with a coating material affixed to the outer surface of the tile.
B. James can be named as a coinventor with Johnnie in a patent application claiming a microwave oven wherein the internal surfaces of the oven are coated with the coating material.
C. Since for one year Johnnie told nobody that the floor tile in her supermarket contained the new chewing gum resistant coating material, she would never be barred from obtaining patent protection for the floor coating material.
D. Use of the floor tile coating material in microwave ovens would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since James thought of it within seconds after first learning of the floor tile coating material, and James was not skilled in the art.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following may properly be required to submit information in reply to a requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105 in a patent application filed in December 2002?
A. A named inventor in the application.
B. An assignee of the entire interest in the application.
C. An attorney who prepares and prosecutes the application.
D. All of the above.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant received a final rejection dated and mailed Wednesday, February 28, 2001. The final rejection set a three month shortened statutory period for reply. In reply, applicant filed an amendment on Wednesday, March 21, 2001. In the amendment, applicant requested that block diagrams, figures 32-34, be amended by inserting the term - -computer- - in place of [CPU] in block "2" of each block diagram. Applicant further supplied a clean version of the entire set of pending claims. Applicant did not provide the proposed changes to the drawings on separate sheets marked in red nor did the applicant supply a marked-up version of any claim. The examiner upon receipt and review of the amendment discovered that the applicant made changes to pending claims 2 and 15 and that the applicant added claims 21-25 to the application. The examiner in an Advisory Action notifies the applicant that the amendment fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121. Which of the following answers is most correct?
A. Applicant is given a time period of one month or thirty days from the mailing date of the Advisory Action, whichever is longer, within which to supply the omission or correction in order to avoid abandonment. This time period is in addition to any remaining period of time set in the final rejection.
B. Applicant may not provide a clean version of the entire set of pending claims because the applicant may only consolidate all previous versions of pending claims into a single clean version in an amendment after a nonfinal Office action.
C. Applicant must submit the proposed changes to figures 32-34 on a separate paper showing the proposed changes in red and a marked up version of new claims 21-25 as required by 37 CFR 1.121(c).
D. Applicant should request reconsideration by the examiner, pointing out that the Final Rejection was mailed on February 28, 2001, which precedes the March 1, 2001 effective date of the changes to patent rule 37 CFR 1.121.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Joe Inventor received a patent in July 1999, containing claims to both an article and an apparatus. When filed in the USPTO, the application contained disclosure of a method, but the method was not claimed. The patent contained the same disclosure of the method, but the method had never been claimed in the application. In May 2001, Joe asks Pete Practitioner to file a reissue application to add claims to the method disclosed in the specification. Once filed, which of the following will most likely occur during the prosecution of the reissue application in accordance with published USPTO practice and procedure?
A. The examiner should reject the added method claims on the basis of not being for the invention claimed in the original patent, under 35 U.S.C. § 251, citing In re Rowand, 187 USPQ 487, and allow the original unamended article and apparatus patent claims in the reissue application.
B. Following a restriction requirement by the examiner in the reissue application, the original unamended article and apparatus patent claims will be constructively elected, examined, and, if found allowable, passed to issue, while the non-elected method claims should be filed in a divisional application.
C. Following a restriction requirement in the reissue application and the filing of a divisional application to claim the method, the applicant should request a duplicate copy of the original patent so that a copy of said patent can be surrendered in each reissue application.
D. Following a restriction requirement by the examiner in the reissue application, the original unamended article and apparatus patent claims will be considered constructively elected; if after examination they become allowable in unamended form, they will be held in abeyance in a withdrawn status inasmuch as no "error" under 35 U.S.C. § 251 exists, while Joe prosecutes the claims to the method in a divisional application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not a USPTO recommendation or requirement?
A. Product and process claims should be separately grouped.
B. Claims should be arranged in order of scope so that the first claim presented is the least restrictive.
C. Every application should contain no more than three dependent claims.
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: Select from the following an answer which completes the following statement, such that the completed statement accords with proper USPTO practice and procedure: "When the reference in question is a noncommonly owned U.S. patent claiming the same invention as applicant, and its issue date is _____________________"
A. less than one year prior to the presentation of claims to that invention in the application being examined, applicant's remedy, if any, is by way of requesting an interference.
B. exactly one year prior to the presentation of claims to that invention in the application being examined, applicant's remedy, if any, is by way of requesting an interference.
C. more than one year prior to the presentation of claims to that invention in the application being examined, applicant's remedy, if any, is by way of requesting an interference.
D. less than one year prior to the presentation of claims to that invention in the application being examined, applicant's remedy, if any, is by way of affidavit or declaration "swearing back" of reference.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant files an application claiming a nutritional supplement comprising ingredients (1) through (9) on September 6, 2001. The examiner's search on November 12, 2001 retrieved several documents, each of which provides an enabling disclosure of a nutritional supplement comprising ingredients (1) through (9). Which of the following documents retrieved by the examiner may be properly used by the examiner to reject applicant's claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)?
A. An advertisement in the September 2000 issue of Dieticians and Nutritionists Health Weekly where the examiner is not able to determine the actual date of publication.
B. A printout on November 12, 2001 by the examiner of a MEDLINE database abstract 123456 of an article by Food et al., "Nutritional supplements for infants," published in Azerbijan Pediatrics, Vol. 33, No. 8, pp. 33-37 (September 2000). The printout does not include the date on which the MEDLINE abstract was publicly posted.
C. A printout, on November 12, 2001 by the examiner, of a product brochure from the Internet website of PRO-BIOTICS VITAMIN CORP. The examiner determines that the brochure was posted on September 7, 2000 on the website.
D. A Japanese patent application published on September 1, 2000.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You are deciding whether to file continued prosecution applications (CPA) for prior applications before the earliest of payment of any issue fee on the prior application (and absent any petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c)), abandonment of the prior application, or termination of proceedings on the prior application. In which of the following circumstances is it proper to use the CPA procedure to file the application?
A. To file a continuation-in-part application of a prior complete nonprovisional utility application filed under 35 U.S.C. § 111(a). The nonprovisional application has an actual filing date prior to November 29, 1999.
B. To file a divisional application of a prior complete provisional application for a utility invention filed under 35 U.S.C. § 111(b). The provisional application has an actual filing date after June 8, 1995.
C. To file a continuation utility application of a prior complete nonprovisional utility application filed under 35 U.S.C. § 111(a). The nonprovisional application has an actual filing date prior to May 29, 2000.
D. To file a continuation utility application of a prior complete CPA utility application. The prior CPA application has an actual filing date of June 1, 2000, and is a continuation application of a prior complete utility application filed under 35 U.S.C. § 111(a) having an actual filing date of November 28, 1999.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following identifications of document(s) set forth in a return postcard that is stamped and returned by the USPTO will suffice for the postcard receipt to serve as prima facie evidence of the USPTO's receipt of the document(s) specified where the USPTO cannot locate the document(s)?
A. For all pages of a complete new application B an identification stating: "the items listed in the transmittal letter that accompanied the application", where the registered practitioner can furnish a copy of the transmittal letter, and where the transmittal letter contained a list of the component parts of a complete application.
B. For all pages of a complete new application B an identification stating: "a complete application".
C. For all pages of a complete new application containing the following components B an identification stating: "specification (including written description, claims and abstract), drawings, declaration".
D. For two sheets of drawings B an identification stating "2 sheets of drawings".
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)