QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: On March 29, 2002, you received a Notice of Allowability (PTO-37) and Notice of Allowance (PTOL-85) on the first application that you filed as a registered practitioner. The Notice of Allowability and the Notice of Allowance were dated March 26, 2002, and mailed from the USPTO on March 26, 2002. Each notice set a three month period for reply. The Notice of Allowability indicated that new drawings were required to incorporate the proposed drawing correction you filed with your reply to the final Office action. The Notice of Allowance indicated that you must pay the issue fee and publication fee. What is the latest date you could file new drawings to prevent the abandonment of the application?
A. June 25, 2002 (Tuesday).
B. June 26, 2002 (Wednesday).
C. July 29, 2002 (Monday), with a petition for a one-month extension of time.
D. August 26, 2002 (Monday), with a petition for a two-month extension of time.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On January 2, 2001, Mr. Star filed a patent application naming Mr. Stripe, Ms. Ross and Mr. Flag as joint inventors using the Express Mail service of the United States Post Office. The filing fee was included with the application on filing. The application that was filed on January 2, 2001 was not filed with an executed declaration, but the transmittal letter for the application clearly identified Stripe, Ross and Flag as joint inventors. On February 15, 2001, a "Notice to File Missing Parts of Application" was mailed, requiring an executed oath or declaration, and a surcharge for their late filing. Star mailed a copy of a blank declaration naming Stripe, Ross and Flag as joint inventors and a copy of the application papers (specification, claims and drawings) to each named inventor. Ross and Flag contact Star and inform him that Stripe was not an inventor. Stripe does not reply and Star is unable to reach Mr. Stripe. Star investigates the matter, and determines that the correct inventorship is Ross and Flag. Which of the following should be filed in reply to the Notice, together with a surcharge?
A. A declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 that names Stripe, Ross, and Flag as inventors, and is signed by Ross and Flag.
B. A request to delete Mr. Stripe as an inventor under 37 CFR 1.48 and an executed declaration signed by Ross and Flag.
C. A petition under 37 CFR 1.47 to accept a declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 signed by Ross and Flag, but without the signature of Stripe.
D. A declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 that names only Ross and Flag as inventors, and is signed by Ross and Flag.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accordance with the provisions of the MPEP?
A. Where joint inventors are named, the examiner should not inquire of the patent applicant concerning the inventors and the invention dates for the subject matter of the various claims until it becomes necessary to do so in order to properly examine the application.
B. Under 35 USC 119(a), the foreign priority benefit may be claimed to any foreign application that names a U.S. inventor as long as the U.S. named inventor was the inventor of the foreign application invention and 35 USC 119(a)-(d) requirements are met.
C. Where two or more foreign applications are combined in a single U.S. application, to take advantage of the changes to 35 USC 103 or 35 USC 116, the U.S. application may claim benefit under 35 USC 119(a) to each of the foreign applications provided all the requirements of 35 USC 119(a)-(d) are met.
D. One of the conditions for benefit under 35 USC 119(a) is that the foreign application must be for the same or a nonobvious improvement of the invention described in the United States application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following establishes a statutory bar under 35 USC 102 to patentability of Applicant's claimed invention?
A. To further develop the invention, Applicant's invention was tested and experimented with in the United States more than one year prior to applicant's effective U.S. filing date, but the invention at the time was not fit for its intended purpose and important modifications concerning the claimed features resulted from the experimentation. The first actual reduction to practice occurred after the effective U.S. filing date.
B. Applicant's invention was sold in a WTO member country outside the United States more than one year prior to applicant's effective U.S. filing date, and the sale was merely market testing of the invention to determine product acceptance.
C. Applicant's invention is rendered obvious by the combination of two U.S. patents, both of which were patented more than one year prior to applicant's effective filing date.
D. Applicant's invention was sold outside the United States in a non-WTO member country, more than one year prior to applicant's effective U.S. filing date, but the sale was merely an attempt at market penetration.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent examiner resigned from the USPTO on June 7, 2001, and returned to Sheboygan, Wisconsin. The next day, on June 8, 2001, the former examiner signed up for a one week seminar entitled, "How to Become Rich Without Really Working." During the seminar, the sponsors offered the former examiner a golden opportunity to purchase a 10% interest in a U.S. patent application that they stated is "guaranteed to produce significant royalties and give her a 1000% return on her investment." Soon after attending the seminar, the former examiner became a registered practitioner. Which of the following accords with proper practice and procedure?
A. The former examiner may accept the offer, but only if an ownership interest in the application is transferred to the former examiner by an instrument in writing.
B. The former examiner can accept the offer, but only if an ownership interest in the application is transferred to the former examiner by an instrument in writing, which is made of record in the assignment records of the USPTO.
C. The former examiner can accept the offer, but only if an ownership interest in the application is transferred to the former examiner by an instrument in writing, which is made of record in the file of the application.
D. The former examiner should accept the offer, but only if an ownership interest in the application is transferred to the former examiner by an instrument in writing, and the original or a true copy of the original instrument, in writing, is made of record in the assignment records of the USPTO and in the file of the application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the MPEP and USPTO rules and procedure, certain individuals owe a duty to the USPTO to disclose all information known to be material to patentability of the claim(s) pending in an application. Which of the following parties does not have the duty?
A. An inventor named in the application who relies on a patent attorney to prepare and prosecute the application.
B. A corporation to which an assignment of the entire interest in the application is on record at the USPTO.
C. An agent who prepares the application.
D. An attorney who prosecutes the application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An examiner has properly established a prima facie showing of no specific and substantial credible utility for the claimed invention in a patent application filed in February 2001. An applicant can sustain the burden of rebutting and overcoming the showing by:
A. Providing reasoning or arguments rebutting the basis or logic of the prima facie showing.
B. Amending the claims.
C. Providing evidence in the form of a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 rebutting the basis or logic of the prima facie showing.
D. Providing evidence in the form of a printed publication rebutting the basis or logic of the prima facie showing.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An application includes independent claims 1 and 2. Which of the following, in a reply to a non-final Office action, provides the proper basis for a rejection under 35 USC 112, first paragraph?
A. Applicant amends claim 2 of the originally filed application by adding a limitation which was previously written only in claim 1 of the originally filed application, and one of ordinary skill in the art is enabled by the original disclosure to make and use the invention as claimed in amended claim 2.
B. Applicant amends claim 1 of the originally filed application by adding a limitation that was written in the original disclosure of the application, but the original disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make or use the invention as claimed in amended claim 1.
C. Applicant amends and broadens claim 2 by removing a limitation which was written in the original disclosure of the application, and one of ordinary skill in the art is enabled by the original disclosure to make and use the invention as claimed in amended claim 2.
D. Applicant adds new matter to the disclosure, but does not amend the claims of the originally filed application, and one of ordinary skill in the art is enabled by the original disclosure to make and use the invention as described in each of the claims.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is true?
A. There is no practical difference between an objection and rejection of a claim.
B. If the form of the claim (as distinguished from its substance) is improper, an objection is made.
C. An objection, if maintained by an examiner, is subject to review by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
D. An example of a proper objection is where the claims are refused because they fail to comply with the second paragraph of 35 USC 112.
(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 USC 102(e)?
A. Persuasively arguing that the claims are patentably distinguishable from the prior art.
B. Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 showing that the reference invention is not by "another."
C. Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 showing prior invention, if the reference is not a U.S. patent that either claims the same invention or claims an obvious variation of the subject matter in the rejected claim(s).
D. (A) and (C).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the MPEP and USPTO rules and procedure, a joint inventor on behalf of himself or herself and a nonsigning joint inventor in certain circumstances may make a patent application. Which of the following is an acceptable reason for filing an application with a declaration signed by a joint inventor, who is not the legal guardian of the other joint inventor, on behalf of himself and the nonsigning joint inventor?
A. The nonsigning joint inventor refuses to join in the application.
B. The nonsigning joint inventor is on vacation and is temporarily unavailable to sign the declaration.
C. The nonsigning joint inventor is hospitalized and is temporarily unavailable to sign the declaration.
D. The nonsigning joint inventor is out of town and is temporarily unavailable to sign the declaration.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is in accordance with the practice and procedures of Chapter 600 of the MPEP and/or 37 CFR 1.52(c)?
A. Handwritten alterations to the claims in a newly filed patent application should be dated and initialed or signed by the applicant on the same sheet of paper.
B. The Office will consider evidence of whether noninitialed and/or nondated alterations were made before or after the signing of the oath or declaration rather than require a new oath or declaration.
C. Any alteration to a patent application made by the applicant may be made after the application was signed and sworn to.
D. Non-initialed or non-dated handwritten alterations to the claims on an application filed in the USPTO are considered to be a minor informality. Thus, the Office personnel should not object to the same.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following timely actions should you take to accord maximum patent protection at minimum government fees for your client whose invention is described in a provisional patent application that was filed 6 months ago with no claim?
A. File a request to convert the provisional application to a nonprovisional application, accompanied by a proper executed declaration, an amendment including at least one claim as prescribed by paragraph 2 of 35 USC 112 and the proper fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i).
B. File a request to convert the provisional application to a nonprovisional application, accompanied by a proper executed declaration, an amendment including at least one claim as prescribed by paragraph 2 of 35 USC 112, the proper fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i), and the basic filing fee for the nonprovisional application.
C. File a request to convert the provisional application to a nonprovisional application, accompanied by a proper executed declaration, an amendment including at least one claim as prescribed by paragraph 2 of 35 USC 112, the proper fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i), the basic filing fee for the nonprovisional application, and the surcharge required by 37 CFR 1.16(e).
D. File a nonprovisional application including at least one claim accompanied by a proper executed declaration, and the basic filing fee. The application contains a specific reference to the provisional application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78(a)(5).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Independent claim 1, fully supported by the specification in a patent application states: 
Claim 1. An apparatus comprising: a plastic valve; a copper pipe connected to the plastic valve; and an aluminum pipe connected to the plastic valve. Which of the following claims, presented in the application, provide the basis for a proper rejection under 35 USC 112, second paragraph? 
Claim 2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said pipe is statically charged. 
Claim 3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the outer circumference of said copper pipe is statically charged. 
Claim 4. The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a thermostat connected to said plastic valve.
A. Claim 2. 
B. Claim 3. 
C. Claim 4. 
D. Claims 2 and 3.
(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 pressure-sensing 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: A U.S. patent application for inventor William Tull discloses a target-shooting gun for improved accuracy, and a bullet impregnated with a new chemical composition. The new chemical composition minimizes damage to a target struck by the bullet. In a non-final Office action, an examiner includes a restriction requirement between a group of claims drawn to the target-shooting gun (Group 1), and a group of claims drawn to the bullet (Group 2). Which of the following, included in a timely reply to the non-final Office action, preserves Tull's right to petition for review of the restriction requirement, if the requirement is made final?
A. A reply that distinctly points out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, and also states, "The restriction requirement is traversed, and no election is made, thereby preserving Applicant's right to petition for review of the restriction requirement."
B. A reply that states, "Applicant elects Group 2 and traverses the restriction requirement because the requirement for restriction between Group 1 and Group 2 is in error."
C. A reply that distinctly and specifically points out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, and states, "Applicant traverses the restriction requirement and elects Group 2."
D. A reply that states, "The restriction requirement between Group 1 and Group 2 is traversed because it is in error, and no election is made, thereby preserving Applicant's right to petition for review of the restriction requirement."
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In connection with the utility of an invention described in a patent application, which of the following conforms to proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. A deficiency under 35 USC 101 also creates a deficiency under 35 USC 112, first paragraph.
B. To overcome a rejection under 35 USC 101, it must be shown that the claimed device is capable of achieving a useful result on all occasions and under all conditions.
C. A claimed invention is properly rejected under 35 USC 101 as lacking utility if the particular embodiment disclosed in the patent lacks perfection or performs crudely.
D. To overcome a rejection under 35 USC 101, it is essential to show that the claimed invention accomplishes all its intended functions.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the MPEP and USPTO rules and procedure, an applicant for a patent dissatisfied with the primary examiner's decision may appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences ("the Board") in certain situations. In which of the following situations may the applicant properly appeal to the Board?
A. Applicant's claims have been twice objected to, but have not been rejected.
B. Applicant's claims have been rejected once in a non-final Office action during examination of a parent application, and once in a non-final Office action during examination of a continuing application.
C. Applicant's claims in an original application have been rejected only once.
D. Applicant's claims have been objected to only once, and have been rejected only once in a non-final Office action.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is in accordance with the provisions in the MPEP?
A. In order to correct inventorship in a nonprovisional application where the statement of the lack of deceptive intent is not available from an inventor to be added, a petition under 37 CFR 1.181 may be properly filed.
B. If a person A learns that a patent application has been filed by person B without naming A as coinventor, A may file in the USPTO a petition that protests inventorship and directs B to add A's name as a coinventor to the patent application.
C. If the application is involved in an interference, and a petition under 37 CFR 1.48 is filed to correct inventorship, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences will remand the case to the primary examiner for consideration of the petition to ensure that a search of the relevant prior art is performed.
D. When a second conversion under 37 CFR 1.48(a) is attempted by the practitioner, the conversion decision will be decided by the Technology Center Director.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements relating to design patents does not accord with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. Both design and utility patents may be obtained on an article if the invention resides both in its utility and ornamental appearance.
B. The design for an article consists of the visual characteristics embodied in or applied to an article.
C. Design patent applications are included in the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), and the procedures followed for PCT international applications are to be followed for design patent applications.
D. A claim directed to a computer-generated icon shown on a computer screen complies with the "article of manufacture" requirement of 35 USC 171.
(category: design patent, Chinese translation: 设计专利)
Question: A patent application filed in the USPTO contains the following three original claims, including product by process Claim 3: 
Claim 1. A method for making an Ethernet cable comprising the steps of A, B and C. 
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, further characterized by the step of D. 
Claim 3. The Ethernet cable as in any one of the preceding claims. 
In the first Office action, the examiner objects to Claim 3 as being an improper dependent claim and requires cancellation of the claim. Following proper USPTO practices and procedures, which of the following replies best overcomes the examiner's objection and provides the client with the broadest patent protection?
A. Amend Claim 3 to read: "The Ethernet cable as made by the process set forth in claims 1-2."
B. Cancel Claim 3. Add Claim 4, which reads: "An Ethernet cable made by a process comprising the steps of A, B and C." Add Claim 5, which reads: "An Ethernet cable made by a process comprising the steps of A, B, C and D."
C. Cancel Claim 3 and add Claim 4, which reads: "An Ethernet cable made by a process comprising the steps of A, B and C."
D. Cancel Claim 3 and add Claim 4, which reads: "An Ethernet cable made by a process comprising the steps of A, B, C and D."
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Adams filed Application X on March 1, 2001. Beth filed application Y on May 1, 2001. Neither application has been published. Applications X and Y are copending and commonly assigned. Earlier filed application X claims the same invention as claimed in application Y using identical language. In accordance with the MPEP, which of the following actions should the examiner or assignee follow?
A. The claims to the same invention in application Y should be rejected under 35 USC 102(a) as being anticipated by application X.
B. The claims to the same invention in application Y should be rejected under 35 USC 102(b) as being anticipated by application X.
C. The claims to the same invention in application Y should be rejected under 35 USC 102(e) as being provisionally anticipated by application X.
D. The common assignee should file a terminal disclaimer in application Y to avoid any question of double patenting.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accordance with the provisions of 35 USC 115 (Oath of applicant)?
A. The applicant shall make oath (or declaration) that he believes himself to be the original and first inventor of the process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or improvement thereof, for which he solicits a patent.
B. In the oath or declaration, the applicant must state of what country he is a citizen.
C. An oath may be made before any person within the United States authorized by law to administer oaths.
D. An oath executed in a foreign country must be properly authenticated.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)