QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: The MPEP and USPTO rules and procedure provide for ways that a statutory double patenting rejection can be overcome. Which of the following is an effective way to overcome a statutory double patenting rejection?
A. Filing a 37 CFR .131 affidavit to swear behind the patent on which the rejection is based.
B. Filing a terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321(c).
C. Filing a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit and arguing that the conflicting claims are coextensive in scope.
D. Amending the conflicting claims so that they are not coextensive in scope.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant received a final rejection dated and mailed Wednesday, February 28, 2001. The final rejection set a three month shortened statutory period for reply. In reply, applicant filed an amendment on Wednesday, March 21, 2001. In the amendment, applicant requested that block diagrams, figures 32-34, be amended by inserting the term - -computer- - in place of [CPU] in block "2" of each block diagram. Applicant further supplied a clean version of the entire set of pending claims. Applicant did not provide the proposed changes to the drawings on separate sheets marked in red nor did the applicant supply a marked-up version of any claim. The examiner upon receipt and review of the amendment discovered that the applicant made changes to pending claims 2 and 15 and that the applicant added claims 21-25 to the application. The examiner in an Advisory Action notifies the applicant that the amendment fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121. Which of the following answers is most correct?
A. Applicant is given a time period of one month or thirty days from the mailing date of the Advisory Action, whichever is longer, within which to supply the omission or correction in order to avoid abandonment. This time period is in addition to any remaining period of time set in the final rejection.
B. Applicant may not provide a clean version of the entire set of pending claims because the applicant may only consolidate all previous versions of pending claims into a single clean version in an amendment after a non-final Office action.
C. Applicant must submit the proposed changes to figures 32-34 on a separate paper showing the proposed changes in red and a marked up version of new claims 2125 as required by 37 CFR 1.121(c).
D. Applicant should request reconsideration by the examiner, pointing out that the Final Rejection was mailed on February 28, 2001, which precedes the March 1, 2001 effective date of the changes to patent rule 37 CFR 1.121.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements is true?
A. In the context of 35 USC 102(b), a magazine need only be placed in the mail to be effective as a printed publication.
B. The earliest date declassified printed material may be taken as prima facie evidence of prior knowledge under 35 USC 102(a) is as of the date the material is cataloged and placed on the shelf of a public library.
C. Declassified printed material is effective as a printed publication under 35 USC 102(b) as of the date of its release following declassification.
D. The American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) amended 35 USC 102(e) to provide that U.S. patents, U.S. application publications, and certain international application publications can be used as prior art under 35 USC 102(e) based on their earliest effective filing date only against applications filed on or after November 29, 2000.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: While traveling through Germany (a WTO member country) in December 1999, Thomas (a Canadian citizen) conceived of binoculars for use in bird watching. The binoculars included a pattern recognition device that recognized birds and would display pertinent information on a display. Upon Thomas' return to Canada (a NAFTA country) in January 2000, he enlisted his brothers Joseph and Roland to help him market the product under the tradename "Birdoculars." On February 1, 2000, without Thomas' knowledge or permission, Joseph anonymously published a promotional article written by Thomas and fully disclosing how the Birdoculars were made and used. The promotional article was published in the Saskatoon Times, a regional Canadian magazine that is also widely distributed in the United States. Thomas first reduced the Birdoculars to practice on March 17, 2000 in Canada. A United States patent application properly naming Thomas as the sole inventor was filed September 17, 2000. That application has now been rejected as being anticipated by the Saskatoon Times article. Which of the following statements is most correct?
A. Thomas can rely on his activities in Canada in establishing a date of invention prior to publication of the Saskatoon Times article.
B. In a priority contest against another inventor, Thomas can rely on his activities in Canada in establishing a date of invention.
C. In a priority contest against another inventor, Thomas can rely on his activities in Germany in establishing a date of invention.
D. Statements (A) and (B) are correct, but statement (C) is incorrect.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accordance with the provisions of the MPEP Chapter 600?
A. A request for a refund must be filed within two years from the date the fee was paid or, in the case of a fee paid by mistake, within one year from the time the error was discovered.
B. A change of purpose after the payment of a fee, such as when a party desires to withdraw a patent filing for which the fee was paid, including an application, an appeal or a request for an oral hearing, will not entitle a party to a refund of such fee.
C. The Office will not refund amounts of twenty-five dollars or less, unless a refund is specifically requested.
D. Any refund of a fee paid by credit card will be by a credit to the credit card account to which the fee was charged.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." Which of the following are among the factors for determining whether necessary experimentation is "undue"?
A. The breadth of the claims.
B. The nature of the invention.
C. The state of the prior art.
D. The level of one of ordinary skill.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following documents is not open to public inspection?
A. The abandoned parent application of a divisional application. A patent was granted on the divisional application, which refers to the abandoned parent application.
B. Assignment document relating to both an issued patent and a patent application not published under 35 USC 122(b).
C. Assignment document relating to a pending reissue application.
D. Copy of assignment record relating to both a pending patent application and an abandoned patent application not published under 35 USC 122(b).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accordance with provisions of the MPEP?
A. In return for a patent, the inventor gives a complete disclosure of the invention for which protection is sought.
B. Amendments filed after the filing date that lack descriptive basis in the original disclosure involve new matter.
C. If during the course of examination of a patent application, an examiner notes the use of language that could be deemed offensive to any race, religion, sex, ethnic group, or nationality, he or she should object to the use of the language as failing to comply with the Rules of Practice.
D. The examiner should object to application drawings that include depictions or caricatures that might reasonably be considered offensive to any race, religion, sex, ethnic group or nationality.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is the best way to recite a claim limitation so that it will be interpreted by the examiner in accordance with 35 USC 112, paragraph 6?
A. dot matrix printer for printing indicia on a first surface of a label.
B. dot matrix printer means coupled to a computer.
C. means for printing indicia on a first surface of a label.
D. printer station for printing indicia on a first surface of a label.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accordance with Office practice under 35 USC 42?
A. The Director may refund any fee paid by mistake or any amount paid in excess of that required.
B. A change of purpose after the payment of a fee, such as when a party desires to withdraw a patent for which the fee was paid, including an application, an appeal or a request for an oral hearing, will not entitle a party to a refund of such fee.
C. Even if an applicant specifically requests a refund, the Office will not refund amounts of twenty-five dollars or less.
D. Any refund of fee paid by credit card will be by a credit to the credit card account to which the fee was charged.
(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 CFR 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 not in accordance with the recommended form for an abstract of the disclosure as provided for in the MPEP?
A. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains.
B. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure.
C. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement.
D. In certain patents, particularly those for compounds and compositions, wherein the process for making and/or the use thereof are not obvious, the abstract should set forth a process for making and/or a use thereof.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Office policy has consistently been to follow Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), in the consideration and determination of obviousness under 35 USC 103. Each of the following are the four factual inquires enunciated therein as a background for determining obviousness except:
A. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
B. Resolving any issue of indefiniteness in favor of clarity.
C. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims in issue.
D. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Claims 1 and 2, fully disclosed and supported in the specification of a patent application having an effective filing date of March 15, 2000, for sole inventor Ted, state the following: Claim 1. An apparatus intended to be used for aerating water in a fish tank, comprising: (i) an oxygen source connected to a tube, and (ii) a valve connected to the tube. Claim 2. An apparatus as in claim 1, further comprising an oxygen sensor connected to the valve. Which of the following claims, if fully disclosed and supported in the specification, and included in the application, provides a proper basis for an objection under 37 CFR 1.75(c)?
A. Claim 3. An apparatus as in any one of the preceding claims, in which the tube is plastic.
B. Claim 3. An apparatus according to claims 1 or 2, further comprising a temperature sensor connected to the valve.
C. Claim 3. An apparatus as in the preceding claims, in which the tube is plastic.
D. Claim 3. An apparatus as in any preceding claim, in which the tube is plastic.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Claims 1 and 2, fully disclosed and supported in the specification of a patent application having an effective filing date of March 15, 2000, for sole inventor Ted, state the following: Claim 1. An apparatus intended to be used for aerating water in a fish tank, comprising: (i) an oxygen source connected to a tube, and (ii) a valve connected to the tube. Claim 2. An apparatus as in claim 1, further comprising an oxygen sensor connected to the valve.  Which of the following, if relied on by an examiner in a rejection of claim 2, can be a statutory bar under 35 USC 102 of claim 2?
A. A U.S. patent to John, issued February 2, 1999, that discloses and claims an apparatus intended to be used for aerating ice cream, having an oxygen source connected to a tube, a valve connected to the tube, and a battery coupled to the oxygen source.
B. A U.S. patent to John, issued April 6, 1999, that discloses and claims an apparatus intended to be used for aerating water in a fish tank, having an oxygen source connected to a tube, a valve connected to the tube, and an oxygen sensor connected to the tube.
C. A U.S. patent to Ned, issued February 9, 1999, that discloses, but does not claim, an apparatus intended to be used for aerating ice cream, having an oxygen source connected to a tube, a valve connected to the tube, an oxygen sensor connected to the valve, and a battery coupled to the oxygen source.
D. A foreign patent to Ted issued April 12, 2000, on an application filed on March 12, 1997. The foreign patent discloses and claims an apparatus intended to be used for aerating water in a fish tank, having an oxygen source connected to a tube, a valve connected to the tube, and an oxygen sensor connected to the tube.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the MPEP, and USPTO rules and procedure, a patent application may be made by someone other than the inventor in certain situations. In which of the following situations would an application not be properly made by someone other than the inventor?
A. The inventor is deceased, and the application is made by the legal representative of the deceased inventor.
B. The inventor is deceased, and the application is made by one who has reason to believe that he or she will be appointed legal representative of the deceased inventor.
C. The inventor is a minor (under age 18) who understands and is willing to execute the declaration, but the application is made by the minor's legal representative.
D. The inventor is insane, and the application is made by the legal representative of the insane inventor.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A product-by-process claim is properly rejected over a reference under 35 USC 102(b). Which of the following statements is incorrect?
A. There is no anticipation unless each of the process steps recited in the claim is disclosed or inherent in the applied reference.
B. If the applied reference reasonably indicates that a product disclosed therein is the same or substantially the same as the claimed product, the burden shifts to the applicant to provide evidence to the contrary.
C. The rejection cannot be overcome by evidence of unexpected results.
D. The rejection can be overcome by evidence that the product in the reference does not necessarily or inherently possess a characteristic of the applicant's claimed product.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Xavier files a complete first reply exactly 2 months after the mailing date of a final Office action which sets a 3 month shortened statutory period for reply. An Examiner's Amendment is necessary for the purpose of placing the application in condition for allowance. Which of the following statements is true?
A. If the Examiner's Amendment is mailed exactly 5 months after Xavier's reply, the application will be allowed.
B. The Examiner's Amendment must be made within the 3 month shortened statutory period of the final Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
C. If the Examiner's Amendment is made exactly 4 months after Xavier's reply, the application will be allowed.
D. The Examiner's Amendment may be made at any time within 6 months of Xavier's reply to avoid abandonment.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Jane files a nonprovisional application with the USPTO containing at least one drawing figure under 35 USC 113 (first sentence) and at least one claim. Subsequently, Jane receives a "Notice of Omitted Items" from the USPTO indicating that the application which Jane filed lacks page 5 of the specification. Assuming that the application without page 5 satisfies 35 USC 112, which of the following statements is true based on proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. If Jane is willing to accept the application as filed, she need not respond to the Notice, and the Office will accord the filing date of the original application. Jane will need to file an amendment renumbering the pages consecutively and canceling incomplete sentences caused by the missing page 5.
B. Jane must promptly submit the omitted page and accept an application filing date as of the date of submission of the omitted page.
C. Jane must promptly submit the omitted page and will be accorded a filing date as of the date of filing the original application.
D. Within 3 months of the Notice date, Jane must file an affidavit asserting that page 5 was in fact deposited in the USPTO with the original application. Jane will be accorded the filing date of the original application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Where subject matter for which there is an enabling disclosure, but is not shown in the drawing or described in the detailed description preceding the claim(s), which of the following is not in accordance with the provisions of the MPEP?
A. In establishing a disclosure, applicant may rely not only on the description and drawing as filed but also on the original claims to show compliance with the first paragraph of 35 USC 112.
B. Where subject matter not shown in the drawing or described in the description is claimed in the application as filed, and such original claim itself constitutes a clear disclosure of this subject matter, then the claim should be treated on its merits, and the applicant should be required to amend the drawing and description to show this subject matter.
C. If subject matter appearing in the original claim is not found in the drawing or detailed description, the claim should be rejected for noncompliance with the first paragraph of 35 USC 112.
D. If the subject matter found in the claim is lacking in the drawing or detailed description, it is the drawing and description that are defective, not the claim.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accordance with the provisions of the MPEP regarding an abstract of the disclosure?
A. The abstract of the disclosure has been interpreted to be a part of the specification for the purpose of compliance with paragraph 1 of 35 USC 112.
B. Any submission of a new abstract of the disclosure or amendment to an existing abstract should be carefully reviewed for introduction of new matter.
C. If an application is otherwise in condition for allowance except that the abstract of the disclosure does not comply with the guidelines, the examiner generally cannot make any necessary revisions by examiner's amendment, but should instead issue an Ex parte Quayle action requiring applicant to make the necessary revisions.
D. Under current practice, in all instances where the application contains an abstract of the disclosure when sent to issue, the abstract will be printed on the patent.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant files an application claiming a nutritional supplement comprising ingredients (1) through (9) on September 6, 2001. The examiner's search on November 12, 2001 retrieved several documents, each of which provides an enabling disclosure of a nutritional supplement comprising ingredients (1) through (9). Which of the following documents retrieved by the examiner may be properly used by the examiner to reject applicant's claims under 35 USC 102(b)?
A. An advertisement in the September 2000 issue of Dieticians and Nutritionists Health Weekly where the examiner is not able to determine the actual date of publication.
B. A printout on November 12, 2001 by the examiner of a MEDLINE database abstract 123456 of an article by Food et al., "Nutritional supplements for infants," published in Azerbijan Pediatrics, Vol. 33, No. 8, pp. 33-37 (September 2000). The printout does not include the date on which the MEDLINE abstract was publicly posted.
C. A printout, on November 12, 2001 by the examiner, of a product brochure from the Internet website of PRO-BIOTICS VITAMIN CORP. The examiner determines that the brochure was posted on September 7, 2000 on the website.
D. A Japanese patent application published on September 1, 2000.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accordance with the provisions in the MPEP?
A. A continuation-in-part is an application filed during the lifetime of an earlier nonprovisional application by the same applicant, which repeat either some substantial portion or all of the earlier nonprovisional application, and adds matter not disclosed in the said earlier nonprovisional application.
B. A continuation-in-part application may only be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b).
C. A continuation-in-part application cannot be filed as a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d).
D. An application claiming the benefits of a provisional application under 35 USC 119(e) should not be called a "continuation-in-part" of the provisional application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Absent a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission, or use of Express Mail, which of the following actions requires a petition for an extension of time and the appropriate fee?
A. Applicant's complete first reply to a final Office action filed on the first day following the end of a shortened statutory period for reply. The Shortened Statutory Period ended on a Wednesday that was not a federal holiday, and the Office is open.
B. Interview with examiner conducted after the expiration of the shortened statutory period for reply to a final Office action, but within the 6 months statutory period.
C. Action by applicant to correct formal matters identified for the first time after a reply was made to a final Office action in an Ex parte Quayle action where the application is otherwise in condition for allowance.
D. Applicant's complete first reply to a final Office action filed within 2 months of the final Office action setting a 3 month shortened statutory period for reply.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)