QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: After filing a Notice of Appeal, an appeal brief is due. In accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure:
A. The brief is due within two months of the date of appeal. The Office date of receipt of the Notice of Appeal is the date from which this two month period is measured.
B. The brief is due within two months of the date of appeal, the date indicated on any Certificate of Mailing under 37 C.F.R. § 1.8 attached to the Notice of Appeal is the date from which this two month period is measured.
C. Failure to file the appeal brief within the permissible time will result in dismissal of the appeal and abandonment of the application, including any allowed claims.
D. Failure to file the appeal brief within the permissible time will result in dismissal of the appeal and abandonment of the application containing no allowed claims, and an appeal brief will be due within two months after the date a petition is granted to revive the application and reinstate the appeal.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements regarding an applicant's duty to submit a drawing in a U.S. patent application is true? 
I: The examiner may only require a drawing where the drawing is necessary for the understanding of the invention. 
II: If a drawing is not necessary for the understanding of the invention, but the case admits of illustration, the examiner may require the drawing, but the lack of a drawing in the application when filed will not affect the filing date of the application. 
III: If a drawing is necessary for the understanding of an invention, but is not submitted on filing, the application cannot be given a filing date until the drawing is received by the USPTO.
A. I
B. II
C. III
D. II and III
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Blackacre is a registered patent agent employed by an intellectual property law firm located in Arlington, Virginia. He is awakened at 5:30 AM one morning by a frantic call from Whiteaker, a senior partner at the law firm. Whiteaker informs Blackacre that she has an examiner interview scheduled for 3:00 PM that day in connection with an important patent application she is handling. However, a family emergency arose during the night and she will not be able to attend the interview. It is also the last day of the statutory six-month period for reply, so the interview cannot be rescheduled. She requests that Blackacre conduct the examiner interview for her and, based on the outcome of the interview, file appropriate papers with the USPTO. She tells him exactly where he can locate the file in her office. Blackacre has not been given a power of attorney in the application, but has been given a power to inspect the USPTO file for the application. Assuming Blackacre has adequate time to prepare for the interview and will competently represent the applicant, which of the following statements is true?
A. Blackacre can participate in the interview if he brings along a copy of the application file and states to the examiner that he is authorized to represent the applicant.
B. Blackacre cannot participate in the examiner interview because he does not have an express power of attorney and has not previously made an appearance in the application.
C. The power to inspect alone is sufficient authority for an examiner to grant an interview involving the merits of an application.
D. Blackacre must obtain either a written power of attorney from the applicant or a written associate power of attorney from Whiteaker before he can participate in the examiner interview.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A nonprovisional patent application is filed on June 3, 1999, and on September 3, 1999, an Office action is mailed setting a 3 month shortened statutory period for reply. On March 3, 2000, a proper reply is filed together with a petition for a 3 month extension of time accompanied by the appropriate petition fee. A proper petition for conversion of the nonprovisional patent application to a provisional patent application along with the appropriate petition fee is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service as Express Mail pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.10 on Saturday, June 3, 2000. Assuming the petition for conversion is granted shortly thereafter, which of the following statements is true?
A. The provisional application is entitled to a filing date of June 3, 1999.
B. The provisional application is entitled to a filing date of September 3, 1999.
C. The provisional application is entitled to a filing date of March 3, 2000.
D. The provisional application is entitled to a filing date of June 3, 2000.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is true?
A. When an applicant petitions to make his case special, he forfeits the opportunity to request an oral hearing if he should decide to appeal his application to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
B. An oral hearing is a good way to argue a case before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences as an appeal decided by an oral hearing is likely to be given closer consideration by the Board of Appeals and Patent Interferences than those without such a hearing.
C. During an appeal to the Board of Appeals and Patent Interferences, it is a good idea to schedule the oral hearing before filing a reply brief so that if questions arise at the hearing they may be responded to in the reply brief.
D. A rehearing of an appeal involves conducting an oral hearing a second time.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is true?
A. In order to have a reissue application expedited, the reissue applicant should file a Petition to Make Special.
B. Once a reissue issues, the date on which the maintenance fee is due is calculated from the date of issuance of the reissue certificate.
C. A dependent claim may not be broadened during a reexamination proceeding.
D. If the examiner raises a new ground of rejection in the Examiner's Answer, the applicant has the option of continuing with the appeal or asking that prosecution be reopened.
(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 not passed to the Board, the examiner may admit the Affidavit but require a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the Affidavit was not earlier presented.
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: 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 C.F.R. § 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 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.
B. 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.
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 is not in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure regarding patent applications filed in March 2001?
A. If a non-English reference is submitted in an information disclosure statement, the applicant shall include a copy of the translation if a written English-language translation of the non-English-language document, or portion thereof, is within the possession, custody, or control of, or is readily available to any individual designated in § 1.56(c).
B. Each U.S. patent listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by inventor, application number, and issue date.
C. Each publication listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date, and place of publication.
D. When the disclosures of two or more patents or publications listed in an information disclosure statement are substantively cumulative, a copy of one of the patents or publications may be submitted without copies of the other patents or publications, provided that it is stated that these other patents or publications are cumulative.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A maintenance fee in the correct amount is received by the USPTO on February 8, 2001, prior to the due date. The maintenance fee payment includes identification of a U.S. patent number. In accordance with proper USPTO rules and procedure, in which of the following situations may the USPTO return the maintenance fee payment?
A. The maintenance fee payment is submitted by the patentee's grandmother, without authorization by the patentee, and includes identification of the U.S. application number for patent.
B. The maintenance fee payment is submitted by the attorney of record in the application, without authorization by the patentee, and includes identification of the U.S. application number for the patent.
C. The maintenance fee payment is submitted by the attorney of record in the application, with authorization by the patentee, and does not include identification of the U.S. application number for the patent.
D. (A) and (B).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent issued to Joe Inventor on July 25, 2000 based on an application filed in January 1999. Larry Practitioner was the registered practitioner of record in the application, and all correspondence from the USPTO during prosecution was directed to Larry at his then-current address. At the time he paid the issue fee, Larry designated a "fee address" for payment of maintenance fees. Larry moved his office on September 1, 2000, and notified the Office of Enrollment and Discipline of his new address in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 10.11. Larry did not, however, file a change of correspondence address in the patent file. An assignment of all rights in the patent from Joe Inventor to Big Corporation was made September 5, 2000 and was recorded in the USPTO on September 14, 2000.Under standard USPTO practice and procedure, where will the USPTO send any Maintenance Fee Reminder?
A. Joe Inventor's address as indicated on the inventor's declaration, unless a change of address had been filed for Mr. Inventor.
B. Larry Practitioner's address prior to September 2000.
C. Larry Practitioner's address subsequent to September 1, 2000.
D. The fee address designated by Larry Practitioner at the time he paid the issue fee.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent issued to Joe Inventor on July 25, 2000 based on an application filed in January 1999. Larry Practitioner was the registered practitioner of record in the application, and all correspondence from the USPTO during prosecution was directed to Larry at his then-current address. At the time he paid the issue fee, Larry designated a "fee address" for payment of maintenance fees. Larry moved his office on September 1, 2000, and notified the Office of Enrollment and Discipline of his new address in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 10.11. Larry did not, however, file a change of correspondence address in the patent file. An assignment of all rights in the patent from Joe Inventor to Big Corporation was made September 5, 2000 and was recorded in the USPTO on September 14, 2000. Under standard USPTO practice and procedure, where will the USPTO send a communication for Big Corporation concerning a request for reexamination involving the patent?
A. Joe Inventor's address as indicated on the inventor's declaration, unless a change of address had been filed for Mr. Inventor.
B. Larry Practitioner's address prior to September 2000.
C. Larry Practitioner's address subsequent to September 1, 2000.
D. The fee address designated by Larry Practitioner at the time he paid the issue fee.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: For purposes of determining whether a request for continued examination is in accordance with proper USPTO rules and procedure, in which of the following situations will prosecution be considered closed?
A. The last Office action is a final rejection.
B. The last Office action is an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle.
C. A notice of allowance has issued following a reply to a first Office action.
D. The application is under appeal.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accord with proper USPTO practice and procedure regarding ex parte reexaminations filed in March 2001?
A. In every instance of an interview with an examiner in an ex parte reexamination proceeding, a complete written statement of the reasons presented at the interview as warranting favorable action must be filed by the patent owner.
B. An interview does not remove the necessity for reply to Office actions as specified in 37 CFR § 1.111.
C. A patent owner's reply to an outstanding Office action after the interview does not remove the necessity for filing the written statement of the reasons presented at the interview as warranting favorable action.
D. The written statement must be filed as a separate part of a reply to an Office action outstanding at the time of the interview, or as a separate paper within one month from the date of the interview, whichever is later.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accord with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. A written description as filed in a nonprovisional patent application is presumed adequate under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in the absence of evidence or reasoning to the contrary.
B. An examiner may show that a written description as filed in a nonprovisional patent application is not adequate by presenting a preponderance of evidence why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize in the applicant's disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.
C. A general allegation of "unpredictability in the art" is sufficient to support a rejection of a claim for lack of an adequate written description.
D. When filing an amendment, a practitioner should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Registered practitioner Ethel prepares a utility patent application (not a CPA) for inventor Fred, using her only copy of a published article, "Engineering Design," published June 8, 1995, to draft the application. Thereafter, Ethel accidentally runs the copy of the article through her paper shredder. Ethel duly files the application in the USPTO on May 29, 1999. The examiner sends Ethel a non-final Office action dated December 7, 2000, setting a three-month period for reply, including a rejection of claim 1 and a requirement for information under 37 CFR § 1.105 requiring her to submit a copy of the article, "Engineering Design." Which of the following will properly be accepted by the USPTO as a complete reply to the requirement for information?
A. An information disclosure statement, filed by Ethel on Monday, January 15, 2001, that complies with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.98, listing a foreign patent, and stating that each item of information contained in the information disclosure statement was first cited in a communication from a foreign patent office less than three months prior to the filing of the information disclosure statement.
B. A statement filed by Ethel on Wednesday, March 7, 2001, stating that Ethel is not an individual identified under 37 CFR § 1.56(c).
C. A statement filed by Ethel on Thursday, March 8, 2001, with the appropriate petition and fee for a one-month extension, that states that the information required to be submitted is not readily available to the party from which it was requested.
D. A statement filed by Ethel on Thursday, March 8, 2001, with the appropriate petition and fee for a one month extension, which states that Ethel has a good faith belief that the information required is not material to patentability.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In January 2000, Chris invents an electrical door stop for automatically stopping a door at any position by simply pressing the doorknob downward. The doorknob is such that when carrying a large package, one may rest the package on the doorknob to stop the motion of the door. During a lunch break before completing the writing of the application for the patent on the automatic door stop, Chris' patent agent, Sam, visits a local Shack restaurant and notices a door stop which is actuated by stepping with one's foot on a mechanical lever located at the bottom of the door. Sam makes a mental note to ask a colleague as to whether he needs to disclose the doorstop at the Shack restaurant to the USPTO in conjunction with Chris' application in an information disclosure statement, but ultimately neglects to do so. Sam knows that the restaurant (and doorstop) was in existence at least one year prior to Sam's visit. In the first Office action, the only prior art uncovered by the examiner relates to stopping a door using a lever that engages a channel in the ceiling upon being pressed upward. The examiner rejects the claim asserting it would have been obvious to have either upward or downward actuating motion. In the reply to the first Office action Sam argues that the downward motion is essential because it affords the ability to actuate when one is carrying a package and that the prior art does not disclose a downwardly actuated doorstop. Following Sam's argument, the case issues. Claim 1 reads as follows: 1. A door stop for automatically stopping the pivoting action of a door by pressing downward, said door stop comprising: a) first means attached to a door for receiving a downward movement; b) second means for actuating a mechanism for engaging the floor surface in response to the downward movement of the first means, said first and second means being operatively connected. Which of the following is true?
A. Since Sam knew of the doorstop at the restaurant and not Chris, there is no duty to disclose the Shack restaurant doorstop. An attorney need not disclose that which is within his personal knowledge in an information disclosure statement.
B. Since Sam discovered the Shack restaurant device after he had started writing the application, the invention was fully disclosed to Sam. There is no need to disclose that which occurs after an inventor completes his application disclosure.
C. Sam needs to disclose only patents or printed publications to the USPTO to satisfy the duty of disclosure. Since Sam was unaware of any patent or printed publication for the Shack restaurant doorstop, Sam does not need to file an information disclosure in this regard.
D. Chris should file a request for reexamination seeking to have the Shack restaurant door stop considered.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: The following statements relate to "multiple dependent claims." Which statement is not in accord with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. A multiple dependent claim contains all the limitations of all the alternative claims to which it refers.
B. A multiple dependent claim contains in any one embodiment only those limitations of the particular claim referred to for the embodiment under consideration.
C. A multiple dependent claim must be considered in the same manner as a plurality of single dependent claims.
D. Restriction may be required between the embodiments of a multiple dependent claim.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Regarding claims, which of the following practices is not in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. A singular dependent claim 2 could read as follows: 2. The product of claim 1 in which…
B. An application may contain a series of singular dependent claims in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
C. A dependent claim may refer back to any preceding independent claim.
D. A claim which depends from a dependent claim may be separated therefrom by any claim which does not also depend directly or indirectly from said \"dependent claim.\"
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is/are information which the USPTO may require an attorney of record in a reissue application to submit in a reply to a first Office action dated April 12, 2001?
A. Information used in invention process: A copy of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent (U.S. or foreign) that was used in the invention process, such as by designing around or providing a solution to accomplish an invention result.
B. The publication date of an undated document mentioned by applicant which may qualify as printed publication prior art.
C. Comments on a new decision by the Federal Circuit that appears on point in the examination of the aplication.
D. (A), (B), and (C).
(category: trade secret, Chinese translation: 商业秘密)