QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: Which of the following actions accords with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. Filing a petition to make special on the ground of applicant's health accompanied by a doctor's certificate showing that the state of health of the applicant is such that he might not be available to assist in the prosecution of the application if it were to run its normal course, unaccompanied by a petition fee.
B. Filing a petition to make special on the ground of prospective manufacture by applicant's business competitor accompanied by the required petition fee and a statement by applicant alleging the possession by the competitor of sufficient available capital (stating an approximate amount) and facilities (stating the nature) to manufacture the invention in quantity, that the business competitor is manufacturing the invention in the United States, and that the competitor has a good knowledge of the pertinent prior art, on information and belief.
C. Filing a petition to make special on the ground of prospective infringement accompanied by the required fee and a statement by the applicant alleging that an infringing device is about to be put on the market, that a rigid comparison of the alleged infringing device with the claims of the application has been made, and that in applicant's opinion, some of the claims are unquestionably infringed, and that applicant has made a careful and thorough search of the prior art.
D. Filing a petition to make special on the ground of environmental quality accompanied by a statement from a Professor of Environmental Engineering at a leading university explaining how the invention contributes to the restoration of lakes and streams, but unaccompanied by a petition fee.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In June 1997, Jack and Jill, a married couple, are vacationing in Vietnam (not a WTO country) when they encounter a man selling bamboo knives for cleaning fish. The particular curvature of the bamboo both lends support to the knife to prevent it from bending and breaking and facilitates cleaning inside the fish. Jill takes a picture of Jack with the knife cleaning the fish. Subsequently, in November 1997, when Jack returns to the United States he begins to make and sell a identical knife to the one seen in Vietnam. In July 1998, he files a patent application claiming the nearly identical knife. Jack discloses no prior art during the prosecution of his application and fails to mention the knife he saw in Vietnam. The examiner finds no prior art similar to the claimed knife, and Jack is awarded a patent in December 1999. Meanwhile, Jill divorces Jack, and associates with Sam. Unfortunately, Sam is penniless. To raise cash, Sam and Jill begin selling a knife identical to the one Jack produces, only Sam and Jill make their knife out of plastic. The knives of Sam and Jill sell like hotcakes. Jack sues for infringement. Jill and Sam come to you for advice. Which of the following is not true?
A. Jack had a duty under 37 C.F.R. §1.56 to disclose his discovery of the bamboo knife in Vietnam to the examiner during the original patent prosecution.
B. Jack is entitled to patent protection since Vietnam is not a WTO country and evidence of the Vietnamese knife cannot be used against him to reject his patent claims.
C. Since the use in Vietnam was not in this country, it does not constitute a public use bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
D. If Jill's attorney files a request for reexamination, it will be denied because the picture is not a patent or printed publication.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In a reissue patent application, which of the following statements is correct?
A. It is unnecessary to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date in a foreign country in order to gain the benefits of 35 U.S.C. § 119(a) - (d) so long as such a claim was made in the application on which the original patent was granted.
B. New matter, that is, matter not present in the patent sought to be reissued, may be included in a reissue application in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 251.
C. No additional certified copy of the foreign application is necessary if a claim for the benefit of an earlier filing date in a foreign country under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a) (d) is made in a reissue application as well as in the application on which the original patent was granted.
D. The recapture rule permits a patentee to acquire through reissue claims that are, in all respects, of the same scope as, or are broader than, those claims canceled from the original application to obtain a patent.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: If a prima facie case of obviousness is properly established by a primary examiner, how can an applicant effectively rebut the rejection in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. Rebuttal may be by way of arguments of counsel used in place of factually supported objective evidence to rebut the prima facie case.
B. Rebuttal may be by way of an affidavit or declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 containing objective evidence arising out of a secondary consideration related to the claimed invention.
C. No substantive showing is required by applicant. The burden remains on the examiner to maintain a prima facie case.
D. Rebuttal evidence must be found elsewhere than in the specification.
(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 U.S.C. § 112.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which, if any, of the following statements relating to amendments of claims in reissue applications accords with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. To distinguish cancellation of an original patent claim from a claim previously added in the reissue, it is necessary to direct cancellation of the latter by the statement: Cancel reissue claim [recite number].
B. Each claim not found in the patent that is newly presented in the reissue application should be presented in brackets.
C. In amending original patent claims more than once, the second amendment need not include the changes previously presented in the first amendment.
D. Since matter not present in the patent sought to be reissued is excluded from a reissue application, changes made to the claims require an explanation in the Remarks.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Assuming that each of the following claims is in a separate application, and there is no preceding multiple dependent claim in any of the applications, which claim is in acceptable multiple dependent claim form?
A. Claim 8. A machine according to any one of the preceding claims wherein...?"Claim 5. A device as in one of claims 1-4
B.  wherein...?
C. Claim 10. A device as in any of claims 1-4 or 6-9, in which...?,Claim 4. A machine according to claim 2 or 3
D.  also comprising...?
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following do not represent prior art?
A. The preamble of a Jepson claim.
B. A technical journal as of its date of publication which is accessible to the public as of the date of its publication.
C. A doctoral thesis indexed, cataloged and shelved in a university library.
D. A disclosure publicly posted on the INTERNET, but containing no publication or retrieval date.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent application filed in the USPTO claims a nylon rope coated with element E for the purpose of preventing breakage of the rope. In the first Office action, the examiner rejects the claim as obvious over P in view of a trade journal publication, T. P teaches a nylon rope coated with resin for the purpose of making the rope waterproof. T teaches a nylon tent fabric coated with element E for the purpose of making the tent waterproof, and suggests the use of element E for making other nylon products waterproof. Following proper USPTO practices and procedures, the combination of P and T:
A. cannot support a prima facie case of obviousness because T lacks a suggestion to combine with P for the purpose of preventing breakage in nylon rope.
B. cannot support a prima facie case of obviousness because P lacks a suggestion to combine with T for the purpose of preventing breakage in nylon rope.
C. cannot support a prima facie case of obviousness because T only contains a suggestion to combine with P for the purpose of waterproofing nylon rope.
D. can support a prima facie case of obviousness, even though T only contains a suggestion to combine with P for the purpose of waterproofing nylon rope.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In which of the following situations would the finality of an Office action rejection be improper? 
I: The final Office action rejection is in a first Office action in a substitute application that contains material which was presented in the earlier application after final rejection but was denied entry because the issue of new matter was raised. 
II: The final Office action rejection is in a first Office action in a continuing application, all claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the earlier application, and the claims would have been properly finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. 
III: The final Office action rejection is in a first Office action in a continuation-in-part application where at least one claim includes subject matter not present in the earlier application.
A. I
B. II
C. III
D. I and III
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You, a registered patent practitioner, receive a Notice of Allowance and Issue Fee Due in an application you know is very important to your client, Acme Incorporated. The application has been pending for several years. In accordance with standing instructions from Acme, you immediately pay the issue fee and then report to the client receipt of the Notice of Allowance and payment of the issue fee. One week later, you receive a call from Acme's CEO informing you that three weeks earlier a competitor, Zenith Manufacturing, had forwarded to her copies of several prior art patents. Although she had never seen these prior art patents before, she immediately recognized their materiality to the claims of the pending Acme application. However, she was very busy with other business and therefore did not previously inform you of the patents. Given the importance of the application to Acme, she wants you to ensure that the examiner officially considers the prior art patents during prosecution of the Acme application. Which of the following is likely to be your best course of action to ensure proper consideration of the prior art by the examiner, while minimizing unnecessary costs and delays in issuance of a patent to Acme?
A. Promptly file an Information Disclosure Statement ("IDS") signed by you that includes a statement that no item of information contained in the IDS was cited in a communication from a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application, and, to your knowledge after a reasonable inquiry, no item of information contained in the IDS was known to any individual designated in 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(c) more than three months prior to the filing of the IDS.
B. Promptly file an Information Disclosure Statement ("IDS") signed by you that includes a statement that no item of information contained in the IDS was cited in a communication from a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application, and, to your knowledge after a reasonable inquiry, no item of information contained in the IDS was known to any individual designated in 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(c) more than three months prior to the filing of the IDS; and pay a fee for late submission of the IDS.
C. Promptly file an Information Disclosure Statement ("IDS") along with payment of a fee for late submission of the IDS.
D. Promptly file an Information Disclosure Statement ("IDS") signed by you that includes a statement that no item of information contained in the IDS was cited in a communication from a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application, and, to your knowledge after a reasonable inquiry, no item of information contained in the IDS was known to any individual designated in 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(c) more than three months prior to the filing of the IDS; and submit a petition requesting consideration of the IDS and payment.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In July 1999, Pete Practitioner files a reissue application for Sam's patent on a combination washing machine and dryer, which issued on August 5, 1997. The original 20 claims are filed in the reissue application along with two additional dependent claims. The declaration indicates that there was error without deceptive intent in that applicant failed to claim the subject matter of the two newly added dependent claims. Sam also indicates in the declaration that he has no intention doing anything other than adding the two dependent claims. In September 1999 the examiner allows claims 1-10 of the reissue but rejects claims 11-22. Sam is eager to enforce claims 1-10 against a competitor but does not want to give up prosecuting claims 11-22. Sam also wants to add additional claims 23-30 directed to an entirely different invention, which was disclosed in the patent but not claimed. To claim the new invention, Sam must file new independent claims, which claim subject matter not previously claimed. Pete practitioner has retired and Sam comes to you for advice. Which of the following is true?
A. Sam may file a second continuing reissue application with claims 11-20 as well as new claims 23-30. Sam would then cancel claims 11-20 from the first reissue application. The second reissue application would then issue and Sam could file a Notice of Appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in the first reissue application. Since the first application was filed within the two year time limit, Sam would not be subjected to a rejection for broadening his claims
B. Since Sam's reissue application was filed within the two-year statutory time limit on broadening, Sam may add the additional claims 23 -30 to the reissue application.
C. Although Sam's reissue application was filed within two years, Sam did not indicate his intention to broaden the claims until after the two year period had expired. Sam may not now file broader reissue claims.
D. Since Sam had only one patent and all reissue applications for the same patent must issue simultaneously, it would not be advantageous to file two reissue applications since they must issue at the same time.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An Office action was mailed in a pending patent application on Wednesday, November 17, 1999. The examiner set a three month shortened statutory period for reply. The applicant petitioned for a one-month extension of time on Thursday, February 17, 2000 and paid the appropriate one-month extension fee. No further papers or fees were submitted and the application became abandoned. What was the date of abandonment?
A. Friday, February 18, 2000.
B. Friday, March 17, 2000.
C. Saturday, March 18, 2000.
D. Monday, March 20, 2000.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Ace Equipment Corp., approaches you with information concerning a pending original U.S. patent application of its chief competitor. A copy of the patent application, which was filed July 9, 1999, and its entire prosecution history was provided to Ace during negotiations concerning the competitor's trade secret technology. The application stands rejected by the examiner on the basis of a prior art patent. A foreign patent application corresponding to the competitor's U.S. patent application had previously published, and Ace was not required to maintain its knowledge of the U.S. application in confidence. Ace is virtually certain that the competitor had used the claimed invention publicly more than one year before the filing date of the patent application and would like to take whatever steps are available to prevent the application from issuing as a patent. However, Ace does not want the competitor to know they oppose issuance of the patent. The competitor does not know that you represent Ace. Which of the following would be the best advice from you to Ace?
A. Recommend initiating a public use proceeding by filing a petition signed by you and serving a copy of the petition on the competitor. The petition would assert that a statutory bar exists that prohibits the patenting of the subject matter of the application, would be supported by appropriate affidavits or declarations, and would describe the subject matter that was in public use sufficiently to enable the examiner to compare the claimed subject matter to the subject matter in public use. The petition would indicate that a copy of the petition was served on the applicant and would specifically identify the application by serial number and filing date, but would not identify Ace. Any required fee would also be submitted with the petition.
B. Recommend filing a copy of the competitor's application as a new patent application naming an Ace employee as the inventor. You then submit a statement that the claims have been copied from the competitor's application, and request that an interference proceeding be declared. During the interference proceeding, you can file a preliminary motion under 37 C.F.R. § 1.633(a) in an effort to obtain a ruling that the subject matter is not patentable to the competitor due to the earlier public use.
C. Inform Ace that because patent applications are maintained in confidence under 35 U.S.C. § 122 and because patent prosecution is conducted ex parte, there is nothing that can be done until the patent issues. Once the patent issues, you can file an anonymous request for re-examination based on the competitor's public use of the invention more than one year before the filing date.
D. For strategic reasons, recommend waiting to see if the competitor is able to overcome the examiner's rejection. If the patent issues, you can then file an anonymous request for re-examination on Ace's behalf based on the competitor's public use of the invention more than one year before the filing date.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Ace Equipment Corp., approaches you with information concerning a pending original U.S. patent application of its chief competitor. A copy of the patent application, which was filed July 9, 1999, and its entire prosecution history was provided to Ace during negotiations concerning the competitor's trade secret technology. The application stands rejected by the examiner on the basis of a prior art patent. A foreign patent application corresponding to the competitor's U.S. patent application had previously published, and Ace was not required to maintain its knowledge of the U.S. application in confidence. Ace is virtually certain that the competitor had used the claimed invention publicly more than one year before the filing date of the patent application and would like to take whatever steps are available to prevent the application from issuing as a patent. However, Ace does not want the competitor to know they oppose issuance of the patent. The competitor does not know that you represent Ace. Based on the foregoing facts, which of the following statements is true?
A. Since the corresponding foreign patent application was published, confidentiality of the U.S. application is waived and Ace may inspect the Patent Office file to monitor its progress simply by filing a request for access.
B. Since the competitor provided Ace with a copy of the U.S. patent application and the prosecution history, confidentiality of the U.S. application is waived and Ace may inspect the Patent Office file to monitor its progress simply by filing a request for access.
C. The competitor violated 35 U.S.C. § 122 by providing a copy of the application to Ace.
D. A violation of 35 U.S.C. § 122 would occur if Ace publicly disclosed the competitor's patent application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You are a partner in a prestigious Virginia intellectual property law firm, and Mr. Laden is a newly hired associate, having recently passed the patent registration examination and been registered as a patent attorney. Shortly after joining your firm, the Supreme Court of Virginia issued an order, dated November 10, 1998, suspending Mr. Laden on ethical grounds from practicing law in Virginia for a period of 3 years from the date of the order. On July 11, 2000, a Fortune 500 company retains your services to continue prosecution of a case in which the joint inventors are obligated to assign to the Fortune 500 company. You immediately mail a paper, signed by the joint inventors, revoking the power of attorney of the present patent counsel giving you a power of attorney as sole attorney of record. On July 17, 2000, you are requested by the Apex Steel Co., one of your most important clients, to immediately file a patent infringement suit against a competitor. Which of the following actions does not accord with proper practice and procedure, and would not permit timely copying of the Fortune 500 case file without detracting from your litigation time?
A. File a power to inspect over your signature with the USPTO identifying the Fortune 500 patent application to be inspected, and authorizing Mr. Laden to inspect the application.
B. File a power to inspect signed by you with the USPTO identifying the Fortune 500 patent application to be inspected, and your secretary as authorized to have access.
C. File a written authority under your signature with the USPTO appointing a registered agent of your firm as an associate in the Fortune 500 patent application to be inspected.
D. Record the obligation of assignment to the Fortune 500 company of the patent application to be inspected and instruct the legal representative of the Fortune 500 company to provide proof of identity when requesting access.
(category: trade secret, Chinese translation: 商业秘密)
Question: Which of the following is true?
A. The statement, "Whether claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable," complies with the requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(6) for a concise statement in the appeal brief of the issues presented for review.
B. A reissue application may be filed in order to broaden claims back to their original form where the claims were mistakenly narrowed during the original prosecution to avoid the prior art provided that the narrowing of the claims was made without deceptive intent on the part of the applicant.
C. If the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decides to require an appellant to address a particular matter, and the appellant cannot respond within the time period set, he may obtain an extension of time by paying the requisite fee.
D. Following a new ground of rejection raised by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, the applicant may request a rehearing, or submit an appropriate amendment of the rejected claims or a showing of facts relating to the rejected claims.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following definitions does not accord with proper USPTO practice and procedure relating to drawings in patent applications?
A. Original drawings are drawings submitted with the application when filed, and may be either formal or informal.
B. Formal drawings are stamped "approved" by the Draftsperson.
C. Drawings may be informal for reasons such as the size of reference elements.
D. A substitute drawing is usually submitted to replace an original formal drawing.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)