QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: A registered practitioner properly recorded an assignment document for application A identifying XYZ Company as the assignee. The document assigns to XYZ Company the "subject matter claimed in Application A." A proper restriction requirement was made by a primary examiner in application A between two distinct inventions, and the practitioner elected to prosecute one of the inventions. Application A was prosecuted, and later became abandoned. Before the abandonment date of application A, the practitioner filed a complete application B as a proper divisional application of application A. Application B claimed the nonelected invention of Application A, and was published as a U.S. application publication. XYZ Company remains the assignee of application A. What must the practitioner do in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP to ensure that XYZ Company is listed as the assignee on the face of any patent issuing from application B?
A. File a proper assignment document in application B identifying XYZ Company as the assignee.
B. File a proper assignment document in application B identifying XYZ Company as the assignee, and confirm that USPTO's bibliographic data for application B identifies XYZ Company as the assignee by checking the filing receipt for application B, the U.S. application publication of application B, or the USPTO's Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system data for application B, depending on when the practitioner filed the assignment document in application B.
C. Confirm that XYZ Company is identified as the assignee on the U.S. application publication of application B.
D. File a proper assignment document in application B identifying XYZ Company as the assignee, and confirm that XYZ Company is identified as the assignee on the U.S. application publication of application B.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An international application is filed in the United States Receiving Office on September 18, 2002. In accordance with the PCT and USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following will result in the application not being accorded an international filing date of September 18, 2002?
A. The description and claims are in German.
B. The Request is signed by a registered attorney rather than the applicant.
C. The sole applicant is a Canadian resident and national.
D. The application does not contain a claim.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant files a patent application in Japan on January 5, 2000. Applicant files a PCT international application designating the United States on January 5, 2001, based on the Japanese application. The international application is published in English on July 5, 2001. The international application enters the national stage in the United States on September 5, 2001. The USPTO publishes the application on June 6, 2002. The application issues as a United States patent on December 3, 2002. What is its earliest possible 35 USC 102(e) prior art date for the application published by the United States, in view of the amendment to Title 35 by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002?
A. January 5, 2000.
B. January 5, 2001.
C. July 5, 2001.
D. June 6, 2002.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A non-final Office action contains, among other things, a restriction requirement between two groups of claims (Group 1 and Group 2). Determine which of the following, if included in a timely reply under 37 CFR 1.111, preserves applicant's right to petition the Commissioner to review the restriction requirement in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP.
A. Applicant's entire reply to the restriction requirement is: "The examiner erred in distinguishing between Group 1 and Group 2, and therefore the restriction requirement is respectfully traversed and no election is being made, in order that applicant's right to petition the Commissioner to review the restriction requirement is preserved."
B. Applicant's entire reply to the restriction requirement is: "Applicant elects Group 1 and respectfully traverses the restriction requirement, because the examiner erred in requiring a restriction between Group 1 and Group 2."
C. Applicant's reply distinctly points out detailed reasons why applicant believes the examiner erred in requiring a restriction between Group 1 and Group 2, and additionally sets forth, "Applicant therefore respectfully traverses the restriction requirement and no election is being made, in order that applicant's right to petition the Commissioner to review the restriction requirement is preserved."
D. Applicant's reply distinctly points out detailed reasons why applicant believes the examiner erred in requiring a restriction between Group 1 and Group 2, and additionally sets forth, "Applicant therefore respectfully traverses the restriction requirement and elects Group 2."
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: The primary examiner has rejected claims 1-10 under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over the Smith patent in view of the Jones reference. Appellant properly argues that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Smith and Jones. The examiner repeats the rejection of claims 1-10 as being "unpatentable over Smith in view of Jones." The examiner additionally cites a patent to Brown that was necessary to provide motivation for combining the teachings of Smith and Jones. The examiner does not list Brown in the statement of the rejection. Appellant timely appeals to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, and files a proper appeal brief. The examiner files an examiner's answer addressing the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Jones, and cites Brown in the argument as providing motivation to combine Smith and Jones. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, what will be the most proper decision of the Board?
A. The Board will affirm the rejection based on Smith and Jones only.
B. The Board will affirm the rejection based on Smith, Jones and Brown.
C. The Board will reverse the rejection based on Smith and Jones only.
D. The Board will reverse the rejection based on Smith, Jones and Brown.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statement(s) is in accordance with patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP regarding filing of an Application Data Sheet (ADS) in the USPTO?
A. All non-provisional applications must include an ADS when the application is originally filed.
B. If an ADS is filed at the same time as an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 or 1.67 and the information supplied in the two documents is inconsistent, the information provided in the ADS will always govern.
C. If an ADS is filed at the same time as an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 or 1.67 and the information supplied in the two documents is inconsistent, the oath or declaration will govern any inconsistency related the claiming of benefit under 35 USC 119(e), 120, 121 or 365(c).
D. If an ADS is filed after an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 or 1.67 is filed, and the information supplied in the two documents is inconsistent, the information provided in the ADS will always govern.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following statements regarding claim interpretation is the most correct?
A. A claim having the transition term "comprising" is limited to only the limitations, elements or steps recited in the claim, and is not inclusive or open-ended of other unrecited elements or steps.
B. The transition term "consisting essentially of" limits the claim to the limitations recited in the claim and additional elements or steps which do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention.
C. A claim having the transition term "consisting of" is not limited to the elements or steps recited in the claim, but can include elements or steps other than those recited in addition to any impurities ordinarily associated therewith.
D. A claim which depends from a claim which claims an invention "consisting of" the recited elements or steps can add an element or step to further limit the claimed invention.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent application has claims 1-10 pending. Claims 1 and 7 are independent claims. Claims 2-6 depend directly from claim 1 while claims 8-10 depend directly from claim 7. Claims 1-10 have been twice rejected by the primary examiner under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith patent in view of Jones patent. The applicant has appealed the rejection to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. In the brief under the "grouping of claims" section, appellant states that each of the claims is separately patentable. In the arguments section of the brief, appellant separately argues only claims 1, 4 and 6. In the examiner's answer, the examiner disagrees with appellant's claim grouping because all the claims present a similar issue of patentability. The examiner states that the claims all stand or fall together as a single group. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which claim(s) must the Board consider separately on the merits?
A. The Board must consider each of claims 1-10 separately on the merits.
B. The Board must only consider claims 1, 4 and 6 separately on the merits.
C. The Board must only consider claim 1 separately on the merits.
D. The Board must consider claim 1 and claim 7 separately on the merits as representative of all the claims on appeal.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A primary examiner is examining a patent application. The application includes a specification and a single claim to the invention that reads as follows: 1. A building material to be used as an alternative to brick in the construction of a house, said building material comprising compressed refuse, the majority of which is wood. In the specification, the inventor explains that the wood to be used in the inventive building material should be balsa wood. According to the specification, balsa-containing building material has the advantage of being lighter than brick. In a first Office action mailed to the registered practitioner representing the inventor the single claim was rejected as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Patent A. Patent A issued more than one year before the effective filing date of the application, and teaches a building material to be used as an alternative to brick in the construction of a house comprising compressed refuse, the majority of which is pine. The practitioner replies to the first Office action by arguing that the invention is different from that of Patent A. According to the practitioner, the inventor uses balsa wood, not pine. The claim has not been amended. Which of the following describes how the examiner should proceed in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
A. The examiner should allow the claim.
B. The examiner should allow the claim only after including a Reasons for Allowance pointing out that the inventor argues that her invention is directed to using balsa wood, not pine.
C. The examiner should issue a Final Rejection again rejecting the claim as anticipated under 35 USC102 over Patent A.
D. The examiner should reopen prosecution and begin anew, this time searching for a reference that shows a building material containing balsa wood.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: To rely in a rejection under 35 USC 102(a) on an invention that is known or publicly used in accordance with patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, the invention:
A. must be known or used in NAFTA or WTO member countries.
B. must be known or used in a NAFTA member country, but only if the filing date of the application is after the effective date of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.
C. must be known or used in this country.
D. can be known or used in any country.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A registered practitioner timely files a petition under 37 CFR 1.181 while the application is pending before the primary examiner to challenge the prematureness of the final rejection that set a shortened statutory period for reply. Assume the petition is filed within two months of the date on the final rejection. What is the next response that should be docketed by the practitioner in accordance with the patent laws, rules and the procedures as related in the MPEP to avoid a penalty or payment of fees?
A. A reply to the final rejection within 6 months.
B. A status inquiry 6 months after filing the petition.
C. A reply to the final rejection within the shortened statutory time period set for reply in the final rejection.
D. No reply is necessary until a decision is received on the petition.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent specification discloses a personal computer comprising a microprocessor and a random access memory. There is no disclosure in the specification of the minimum amount of storage for the random access memory. In the disclosed preferred embodiment, the microprocessor has a clock speed of 100-200 megahertz. Claims 9 and 10, presented below, are original claims in the application. Claim 11, presented below, was added by amendment after an Office action. 9. A personal computer comprising a microprocessor and a random access memory that includes at least 1 gigabyte of storage. 10. The personal computer of Claim 9, wherein the microprocessor has a clock speed of 100-200 megahertz. 11. The personal computer of Claim 10, wherein the random access memory is greater than 陆 gigabyte of storage. Which of the following statements is or are in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP regarding the respective claims under the fourth paragraph of 35 USC 112?
A. Claim 9 is a proper independent claim, and Claims 10 and 11 are proper dependent claims.
B. Claim 9 is a proper independent claim, and Claims 10 and 11 are improper dependent claims.
C. Claim 9 is an improper independent claim, and Claims 10 and 11 are improper dependent claims.
D. Claim 9 is an improper independent claim, and Claims 10 and 11 are proper dependent claims.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following facts are required for 35 USC 102(g) to form the basis for an ex parte rejection: (1) The subject matter at issue has been actually reduced to practice by another before the applicant's invention. (2) There has been no abandonment, suppression or concealment. (3) A U.S. patent application for the subject matter at issue has been filed by another prior to the filing of the applicant's application. (4) A U.S. patent has been granted for the subject matter at issue prior to the filing of the applicant's application.
A. Fact (1) only
B. Fact (2) only
C. Facts (1) and (2)
D. Facts (1), (2) and (3)
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)