QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: You filed an application on behalf of inventor Sam, obtaining an effective filing date of September 7, 1999. You received a non-final Office action dated August 7, 2000. On October 6, 2000, you timely filed a reply under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111. You received a Notice of Allowance dated October 12, 2000. On October 15, 2000, Sam showed you a journal article dated September 5, 1998, which is material to the patentability of Sam's invention as claimed. Which of the following actions, if taken by you, are in accordance with proper USPTO rules and procedure? 
I: Pay the issue fee on October 18, 2000 and do not file an information disclosure statement disclosing the article dated September 5, 1999, since after the issue fee has been paid on an application, it is impractical for the Office to attempt to consider newly submitted information. 
II: Prior to paying the issue fee, file an information disclosure statement disclosing the article dated September 5, 1998, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(p). 
III: Prior to paying the issue fee, file an information disclosure statement disclosing the article dated September 5, 1998, a statement as specified in 37 C.F.R. § 1.97(e), a petition requesting consideration of the information disclosure statement, and the petition fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(i).
A. I
B. II
C. III
D. I and III
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Your Canadian client, UpNorth Incorporated, came to you on August 11, 2000 with a valuable invention for pulping timber. UpNorth informed you it had been successfully using the invention commercially for the past fourteen months deep in the Canadian forests. The invention has not been used anywhere else by UpNorth, and the pulped timber from the UpNorth operations has not left Canada. At least one competitor, another Canadian company, lawfully observed the invention in operation during its first month of use with no restriction as to confidentiality or disclosure. UpNorth filed a Canadian patent application prior to commercial use of the invention, but (in an effort to hold down expenses) chose not file a corresponding application in the United States. The Canadian patent application remains pending. UpNorth just learned that two months ago its competitor began using the invention commercially in the United States. The invention was never disclosed or used in the United States prior to two months ago. UpNorth would like for you seek a United States patent on the invention to block the competitor from continued use of the invention. Which of the following would be reasonable advice from you to UpNorth?
A. Since Canada is a NAFTA country, UpNorth is precluded from getting a United States patent because the Canadian application was filed more than twelve months ago and the invention was in public use more than one year prior to any possible United States filing date for an UpNorth patent application.
B. UpNorth should promptly file an application in the United States claiming the benefit of the filing date of the Canadian application and should fully disclose the Canadian commercial activities, the observation of the invention in Canada by UpNorth's competitor, and the competitor's commercial activities in the United States.
C. UpNorth should promptly file an application in the United States without claiming the benefit of the filing date of the Canadian application and should fully disclose the Canadian commercial activities, the observation of the invention in Canada by UpNorth's competitor, and the competitor's commercial activities in the United States.
D. UpNorth should abandon the pending Canadian application to avoid the possibility the Canadian application could be used as prior art against a United States patent application, and then file a patent application in the United States.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You prepare and file a patent application directed to an invention for improving the saf.ety of research in the field of recombinant DNA. Your client, Inventor Joe, informs you he has licensed exclusive rights to his invention to a major pharmaceutical company. Inventor Joe also informs you that another pharmaceutical company, Titan Pharmaceuticals, learned of the invention from a paper he presented at a technical conference, and is preparing to use the technology in its commercial research labs in the United States. Inventor Joe demonstrates that Titan is about to begin practicing the invention by showing you a rigid comparison of Titan's intended activities and the claims of the application. He also informs you that although he is currently in very good health, he is 67 years old and fears he will not be in good health when the invention reaches its peak commercial value. Accordingly, if possible he would like for you to expedite prosecution in the simplest, most inexpensive way. Given the foregoing circumstances, which of the following statements is most correct?
A. Since the invention relates to improving the safety of research in the field of recombinant DNA, you should recommend filing a petition to make special on that basis.
B. Since Titan is actually practicing the invention set forth in the pending claims, you should recommend filing a petition to make special on that basis.
C. You should recommend filing a petition to make special on the basis of Inventor Joe's age.
D. Statements (A), (B) and (C) are equally correct.
(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. Diligence need not be considered.
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, 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.
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: Which of the following statements is not true?
A. The failure to perfect a claim to foreign priority benefit prior to issuance of the patent may be cured by filing a reissue application.
B. The failure to both express a desire to obtain the benefits of foreign priority and perfect a claim to foreign priority benefit prior to issuance of a parent patent may be cured by filing a Certificate of Correction request provided the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) are satisfied in a continuation application.
C. The failure to perfect a claim to foreign priority benefit prior to issuance of a patent on a continuation application may be cured by filing a Certificate of Correction request provided the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) are satisfied in the parent application prior to issuance, and the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.55 are satisfied.
D. No renewal of previously made claims for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119 or continuation status of an application under 35 U.S.C. § 120 is necessary during reexamination.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Mike and Jill are members of the Virginia Bar with a general law practice. Jill is registered to practice before the USPTO and is constantly poking fun at Mike for not being registered. Jake, one of Mike's former clients, owns a small tool shop and while attempting to remove a broken drill bit from a workpiece, invented a tool that easily extracts a broken bit. The tool is simple to make. Jake asked Mike if he could patent his invention, and Mike, desiring to impress Jill with his patent skills, said, "No problem." Using a "how to" book that he obtained from the INTERNET, Mike prepared an application on Jake's invention and filed it in the USPTO together with a power of attorney which Jake executed naming Jack as attorney of record. Shortly thereafter, the Mike and Jill firm hired Jim, a registered patent attorney, and Mike physically filed a document with the USPTO naming Jim as an associate attorney in Jake's application. Upon reviewing Jake's application, Jim discovered that the original claims omitted the recitation of a critical element which was disclosed in the specification. Assuming a preliminary amendment is filed with the USPTO adding the critical element to the claims, and explaining in the REMARKS that the critical element was inadvertently omitted at the time of filing the application, which of the following is the most comprehensive answer in identifying the individual(s), if any, who by signing the amendment will be recognized by the USPTO for representation?
A. Jake
B. Jim
C. Jill
D. All of the above
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You filed a patent application naming your client, Sam, as the sole inventor without an executed declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.63. The USPTO mailed you a Notice to File Missing Parts dated January 3, 2000. The Notice to File Missing Parts set a 2-month period for reply. Which of the following statements is in accordance with proper USPTO rules and procedure?, I: An appropriate reply by you to the Notice to File Missing Parts is, on August 3, 2000 you file a declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.63 executed by Sam, with a petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) for an extension of five months, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)., II: In no situation can any extension requested by you carry the date on which reply is due to the Notice to File Missing Parts beyond Monday, July 3, 2000., III: An appropriate reply by you to the Notice to File Missing Parts is, on August 3, 2000 you file a declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.63 executed by Sam, with a petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(b).
A. I
B. II
C. III
D. I and III
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent application filed in the USPTO contains the following dependent 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. 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. 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. 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. 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: You have taken over prosecution of a patent application in January 1998 that had previously been handled by another patent practitioner. The original application had been filed with all required fees, a preliminary amendment, and a signed inventor's declaration referring to the original application. The original application contained independent claims 1 and 7 and dependent claims 2-6 and 8-14. The preliminary amendment added independent claim 15 and dependent claims 16-19, but made no changes to the specification. A first, nonfinal Office action issued wherein the examiner determined that claim 17 included new matter. The examiner rejected claim 17 on this basis and required cancellation of the claim. All other claims were allowed. You have been asked to respond to the Office action. Which of the following is the most reasonable reply?
A. File a Request for Reconsideration explaining that since the Preliminary Amendment was filed concurrently with the original application, the examiner should consider the Preliminary Amendment to be part of the original disclosure and the rejection should be removed.
B. File a Petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 for a review of the examiner's determination that claim 17 includes new matter along with any required fees.
C. File a Notice of Appeal along with any required fees.
D. Submit a new inventor's declaration that refers to both the original application and the preliminary amendment along with a Request for Reconsideration explaining that since the Preliminary Amendment was filed concurrently with the original application, the examiner should consider the Preliminary Amendment to be part of the original disclosure and the rejection should be removed.
(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 any of the preceding claims, in which the circular back member is wooden.
B. 3. An apparatus as in claim 1, wherein the base member is rectangularly shaped.
C. 3. An apparatus as in claim 2, wherein the wheels connected to each of the elongated members are plastic.
D. 3. An apparatus as in the preceding claims, further comprising a pressure-sensing device connected to the base member.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Al files an application for a patent. After the Notice of Allowance is mailed and the issue fee has been paid Al discovers a prior art reference which is material to patentability. What should Al do?
A. Al should file a prior art statement under 37 C.F.R. § 1.501 that will be placed in the patent file upon issuance of the application as a patent.
B. Since the issue fee has been paid, Al no longer has a duty to disclose to the Office material prior art. He is under no obligation to submit the prior art reference to the Office.
C. Since the issue fee has been paid, it is too late to have the examiner consider the reference in this application. Al should file a continuation application to have the reference considered and allow the original patent application to issue as a patent.
D. Al should file a petition to have the application withdrawn from issuance, citing the finding of additional material prior art as the reason for withdrawal. A continuation application should also be filed with an information disclosure statement containing the reference in order to have the reference considered.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Stan, through a registered practitioner, files an application for a patent. During the prosecution of Stan's patent, in an amendment, the practitioner admitted in his discussion as to "all the claims" of Stan's application, that "the most pertinent available prior art known to the Applicants and their representatives is the Acme Patent, cited by the examiner." Within one year after the patent issues, Stan comes to you and wants to file a reissue to broaden his claims, based on the fact that the Acme patent is not prior art. He has ample evidence to show that he conceived and reduced his invention to practice before the filing date of the Acme patent. Which of the following is true?
A. Stan should file a reissue application accompanied by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.131 to swear behind the date of the Acme reference. The statement by the registered practitioner, who formerly represented Stan, that the Acme patent was prior art constituted error without deceptive intent and may be corrected by reissue.
B. Stan should file a request for reexamination and submit the Acme patent along with evidence in the form of affidavits or declarations showing that the Acme patent is not prior art.
C. The explicit admission by registered practitioner, who formerly represented Stan, that the Acme patent constituted prior art is binding on Stan in any later proceeding involving the patent.
D. Since Acme patent was cited by the examiner and not by the registered practitioner, who formerly represented Stan, Stan can not be held accountable for the error. Moreover, the statement by was directed to the pertinence of the prior art and not to the issue of whether the date of the Acme patent could be sworn behind. Accordingly, the statement has no binding effect.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Where an amendment of a specification or claims is filed after a notice of allowance has been mailed, which of the following is not in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. Even though prepared by a practitioner and mailed without a certificate of mailing and not by express mail, all prior to allowance, and the amendment reaches the Office only after the notice of allowance has been mailed, such amendment has the status of one filed after the mailing of the notice of allowance.
B. A supplemental oath or declaration is treated as an amendment of the specification or claims.
C. The amendment may be refused entry because an additional search is required.
D. The amendment may be refused entry because more than a cursory review of the record is necessary.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You are assigned by your firm to prosecute a patent application which had been prepared and prosecuted by a former member of the firm. A Notice of Appeal had been filed and while in the process of preparing the Appeal Brief, you discover that data in the applicant's original notes would materially aid in persuading the Board as to the patentability of the appealed claims. Accordingly, you incorporate the data in an Affidavit and file the Affidavit with the USPTO together with the Appeal Brief. In light of this scenario, which of the following statements is true?
A. Since jurisdiction has passed to the Board, the Board will consider the Affidavit concurrently with the Appeal Brief.
B. Since jurisdiction has not passed to the Board, the Board will automatically remand the Affidavit for consideration by the examiner and hold consideration of the Appeal Brief in abeyance.
C. Since jurisdiction has passed to the Board, the Board may or may not consider the Affidavit as it sees fit.
D. Although authority from the Board is not necessary to consider the Affidavit, the examiner may not consider the Affidavit unless it is remanded to the examiner by the Board.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An article in a popular scientific journal, dated January 13, 1998, fully discloses and teaches how to make a "Smart Shoe" wireless telecommunications device. The article discloses a shoe having a dialer in a rubber sole of the shoe. The article does not teach or suggest using a metallic shoelace as an antenna or for any other purpose. Which of the following claims in an application filed January 20, 1999 is/are anticipated by the journal article, and is/are not likely to be properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as indefinite? Claim 1. A telecommunications device comprising: a shoe having a rubber sole; a dialer in the rubber sole; and optionally a metallic shoelace. Claim 2. A telecommunication device comprising: a shoe having a rubber sole; a dialer in the rubber sole; and a metallic shoelace. Claim 3. A telecommunication device comprising: a shoe having a rubber sole; a dialer in the rubber sole; and optionally a random access memory for storing telephone numbers.
A. Claim 1.
B. Claim 2.
C. Claim 3.
D. Claims 1 and 3.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is true?
A. A claim to a process omitting a step in a process, where the step is disclosed in the specification to be essential to the invention, may not be properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of enablement where the specification provides an enabling disclosure for the process which includes the essential step.
B. A claim failing to interrelate essential elements of the invention as defined by the applicant in the specification, where the interrelation is critical to the invention may be properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, for failure to properly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
C. The best mode requirement is the same as the enablement requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112.
D. If the best mode contemplated by the inventor at the time of filing the application is not disclosed, a proposed amendment adding a specific mode of practicing the invention would not be new matter.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: If an application is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service in the manner recited in each of the following answers, and there is a dispute as the filing date of the application, which will result in the earliest filing date?
A. As "Express Mail Post Office to Addressee" without the Express Mail mailing label number being placed on the application and with the "date-in" entered by the USPS on Saturday, June 24, 2000, and the application being received in the USPTO on Tuesday, June 27, 2000.
B. As "Express Mail Post Office to Post Office" without the Express Mail mailing label number being placed on the application and with the "date-in" entered by the USPS on Friday, June 23, 2000, and the application being received in the USPTO on Monday, June 26, 2000.
C. As "Express Mail Post Office to Addressee" without the Express Mail mailing label number being placed on the application and with the "date-in" entered by the applicant on Thursday, June 29, 2000, and the application being received in the USPTO on Wednesday, July 5, 2000.
D. As "Express Mail Post Office to Addressee" with the Express Mail mailing label number being placed on the application and with the "date-in" entered by the applicant on Thursday, June 29, 2000, and the application being received in the USPTO on Monday, July 3, 2000.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A non-final Office action was mailed in a pending patent application on Friday, November 12, 1999. The examiner set a three month shortened statutory period for reply. The practitioner petitioned for a one-month extension of time on Monday, February 14, 2000 and paid the appropriate one-month extension fee. An amendment responsive to the Office action was filed Tuesday, March 14, 2000. Each independent claim in the application was revised and two dependent claims were cancelled. No claim was added by the amendment. In the Remarks portion of the amendment, the practitioner express his belief that no fees are required by the amendment, but nevertheless gave authorization to charge any fees to the practitioner's account, nn-nnnn, if any fees are necessary, including fees for any required extension of time. A duplicate copy of the amendment was filed. No fees were submitted with the amendment. Assuming nn-nnnn is a valid deposit account, which of the following statements is true?
A. The amendment should be entered with no fees charged to practitioner's deposit account.
B. The amendment should be entered, but the fee for a second month extension of time should be charged to the practitioner's deposit account.
C. The amendment should not be entered because it is untimely.
D. The request to charge any required fees, including fees for any necessary extension of time, is ineffective because it was not made in a separate paper.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)