QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: On January 2, 1999, Billie files a U.S. patent application that discloses forming a naturally occurring composition X by a chemical reaction of compounds A, B and C under specified ranges of temperature and pressure. The application includes a statement "The most common meaning of the term 'fluid' includes both gases and liquids. However, it has been determined that the present invention properly operates when B is in a gaseous, fluid, or solid state, so long as temperature of the solid B is above 2掳C. Below that temperature, it is believed the chemical reaction will not occur. Thus, in the context of the present invention, the term 'fluid' means 'gaseous', 'liquid', and/or certain solid states." However, research conducted in 1998 by Greene in England shows that the desired chemical reaction would occur with solid compound B at a temperature of 1掳C. Greene also showed the reaction with compound B in a liquid and gaseous states. Greene submitted his research results to a British technical journal in November 1998, and they were published on January 5, 1999. Originally filed Claim 1 of Billie's application is directed to "[a] method for forming composition X comprising mixing compound A with fluid compound B at a temperature between 0掳C and 10掳C". Examiner Redd locates the published Greene research results that disclose the identical method set forth in Billie's Claim 1. Which rejection of Claim 1 is in accordance with proper PTO practices and procedures?
A. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 2 as being indefinite because the meaning of the term "fluid" is unclear. Billie is encouraged to clarify the claim by deleting "fluid" and inserting --liquid-- in its place.
B. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Greene because, although the research results were published after Billie's filing date, the research results were submitted to the British technical journal before the filing date and were therefore known in the art.
C. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 1 as being based on an insufficient specification because the claim does not specify a pressure at which A and B are mixed and, depending on that pressure, compound B could be either a gas or a liquid at the recited temperature range.
D. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because composition X occurs naturally.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An international application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), which designated the United States, was filed on November 1, 1996. The application claimed priority of a prior French national application filed on December 6, 1995. A copy of the international application was communicated to the United States as a designated office on June 20, 1997. A demand for international preliminary examination, in which the United States was elected, was filed on June 5, 1997. Accordingly, the thirty month period of PCT Article 39(1)(a) expired at midnight on June 6, 1998. The applicant submitted the basic national fee to enter the United States national stage on June 2, 1998. On August 3, 1998, the applicant timely submitted a translation of the international application and a declaration of the inventors in compliance with PCT regulations in reply to a Notice of Missing Requirements. Also, on August 10, 1998, the applicant timely submitted a translation of amendments under Article 19 of the PCT in reply to the Notice of Missing Requirements. On August 29, 1998, a Notice of Acceptance was mailed to the applicant. The national stage application issued as a U.S. patent on October 13, 1999. What is the effective date of the U.S. patent as a reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)?
A. November 1, 1996.
B. June 2, 1998.
C. August 3, 1998.
D. August 10, 1998.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A client comes to you and tells you that he has been informed by his competitor that he is infringing the competitor's patent. Your client tells you that the competitor's invention was well known in the field at the time the application for the patent was filed. Your client shows you several published articles, two United States patents, and two written statements by experts in the field which clearly support his conclusion. Upon further investigation, you find that the published articles and patents were not considered by the examiner during the prosecution of the patent application. Your client informs you that he would like to avoid litigation, and have the PTO take action to invalidate the patent. Which of the following choices would be an appropriate course of action to take on behalf of your client?
A. Petition the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks to revoke the patent.
B. File a request and fee for reexamination of the claims in the patent relying on the published articles and the U.S. patents as the basis for reexamination, and include all statements, information, and documents required by PTO rules for initiating reexamination proceedings.
C. File a protest in the PTO with copies of the published articles, patents and the written statements from the experts, along with an explanation of their pertinence to the claims of the patent.
D. File in the PTO copies of all of the documents provided to you by your client and request that they be made of record in the patented file.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Ann invented an electrical signal filter for obtaining increased signal-to-noise ratios in certain electrical systems. Ann filed a first non-provisional patent application on May 1, 1997, fully disclosing and claiming one embodiment of her invention, a capacitor. The sole claim stated: "a capacitor for filtering electrical signals, comprising: a first terminal connected to a first plate; a second terminal connected to a second plate; and an electrical insulator between said first plate and said second plate." The first application also disclosed that even better results could be obtained if the capacitor were coupled to a resistor. Ann wanted to file a second application in the future specifically claiming the combination of the capacitor and resistor. On February 1, 1999, while Ann's first application was still pending, Ann filed a continuation application under 37 CFR § 1.53(b). The continuation application contains the following single claim: "a capacitor for filtering electrical signals, comprising: a first terminal connected to a first plate; a second terminal connected to a second plate; an electrical insulator between said first plate and said second plate; and a resistor, connected to said first terminal." Ann received a non-final Office action wherein the claim in the continuation application was provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of double patenting over the claim drawn to a capacitor in Ann's copending first application. The rejection correctly stated that the subject matter claimed in Ann's continuation application was fully disclosed in her copending first application and would be covered by a patent granted containing the claim in the first application. Neither application was ever assigned to anyone. The rejection may be properly overcome by a timely reply:
A. traversing the rejection and arguing that since the first application had not yet matured into a patent, a double patenting rejection was unfounded.
B. arguing that rejections of this type are no longer warranted for continuation applications, since any utility application filed on or after June 8, 1995, will expire 20 years from its filing date, and therefore Ann's continuation application, which gets the benefit of the filing date of the first application, would expire at the same time as the first application, anyway.
C. arguing that the claim in the continuation application is patentably distinct and unobvious from the claim in the first application.
D. including a terminal disclaimer, signed by Ann, disclaiming any portion of the term of any patent granted on the continuation application beyond twenty years from May 1, 1997, and including a provision in the terminal disclaimer that any patent granted on the continuation application shall be enforceable only for and during such period that said patent is commonly owned with the first application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Your client, Vada, disclosed the following information to you. While vacationing on a desert island, she discovered a salt lake where the water was a solution saturated with NaCl. Vada experimented with the solution and determined that it could be used to cure skin rashes if applied directly to the skin. By further experimentation, Vada determined that the best results could be obtained if the solution were first heated to an ideal temperature (Ti) equal to skin temperature (Ts) plus the square of the difference between room temperature (Tr) and skin temperature (Ts). Vada documented her findings in the form of the following equation: Ti = Ts + (Tr ...?Ts)2. Vada further experimented and found that she could obtain the exact same solution that she discovered while vacationing, by mixing NaCl with water followed by heating the mixture to 212掳F and cooling it to 80掳F. You draft a patent application with a specification including all the information disclosed to you by Vada. Which, if any, of the following claims, included in the application, would provide the proper basis for a rejection pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101?
A. A composition comprising: water saturated with NaCl.
B. A composition for restoring youth.
C. A composition and method for treating skin rashes, comprising: a solution of water saturated with NaCl; heating said solution to a temperature defined by skin temperature plus the square of the difference between room temperature and skin temperature; and applying said solution to skin rashes.
D. An expression comprising: Ti = Ts + (Tr ...?Ts)2.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which, if any, of the following statements is true according to PTO rules and procedure?
A. If a claim is cancelled by an amendment and a new claim is added in the amendment, then the new claim should be numbered using the number previously assigned to the canceled claim.
B. A claim which recites the best mode of carrying out the invention can only properly incorporate by reference the limitations having the essential material into the claim, for purposes of satisfying the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, if the reference is made to a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application.
C. For fee calculation purposes, a multiple dependent claim which refers directly to independent claims and dependent claims will always be considered to be the number of independent claims to which direct reference is made therein.
D. The subject matter disclosed in a first claim which is part of the original disclosure in a nonprovisional patent application may be relied upon for purposes of enabling a second claim in the application in order to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, even if the detailed description and drawings, taken alone, are inadequate to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, with respect to the second claim.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent application includes a specification describing a mechanical fastener that attaches a rubber heel to the bottom of a shoe. The particular structure of the fastener allows the heel to maintain a secure attachment to the shoe while providing a cushioning effect when the shoe is worn. The specification includes a drawing clearly illustrating the fastener. The written portion of the specification accurately explains the structure of the fastener, the manner in which the fastener attaches the heel to the shoe, and how the cushioning effect is obtained. Additionally, the last paragraph of the specification states "It should be understood that the present invention is not limited to the preferred embodiment described above, and that changes may be made without departing from the spirit or scope of the invention. For example, an adhesive may be used in conjunction with the mechanical fastener to more securely attach the heel to the shoe." No specific formulation of adhesive is given in the specification, but such adhesives are well known in the art. Claim 1 of the application reads: 1. A system for securely attaching a rubber heel to the bottom of a shoe and providing a cushioning effect when worn, said system comprising cushioning means for mechanically fastening said heel to said shoe. Which of the following statements is correct?
A. Claim 1 is a "means plus function" claim subject to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6 and is therefore construed to cover the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification for performing the recited function and equivalent structures. Thus, claim 1 is properly construed to cover only the specific mechanical structure of the fastener described in the specification and equivalents of that mechanical structure.
B. Claim 1 is a "means plus function" claim subject to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6 and is therefore construed to cover the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification for performing the recited function and equivalent structures. Thus, claim 1 is properly construed to cover both (a) the specific mechanical structure of the fastener described in the specification and equivalents of that mechanical structure; and (b) the specific mechanical structure of the fastener described in the specification together with an adhesive and equivalents of that mechanical structure together with an adhesive.
C. Claim 1 is indefinite because it covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated result.
D. Claim 1 is not supported by an enabling specification because the claim covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated result.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Fred files a patent application disclosing and claiming an electrical circuit. The disclosed circuit has, in series, (i) a DC current source capable of producing a variable current of 10-30 amperes, preferably 18-22 amperes; (ii) a resistor having a value in the range of 10-20 ohms, preferably 14-16 ohms; and (iii) a fixed capacitor in the range of 3-8 microfarads (mf), preferably 5-6 mf. The application includes the following four original claims: Claim 1. An electrical circuit comprising, in series, a DC current source, a resistor and a capacitor, wherein said DC current source is capable of producing current of 18-22 amperes, said resistor has a value in the range 10-20 ohms, and said capacitor has a value in the range of 5-6 mf. Claim 2. The electrical circuit of claim 1, wherein said resistor has a value in the range of 14-16 ohms. Claim 3. The electrical circuit of claim 1, wherein said capacitor has a value in the range of 3-8 mf. Claim 4. The electrical circuit of claim 1, wherein the DC current source produces variable current in the range of 18-22 amperes. Barry's Canadian patent, published thirteen months before the effective filing date of Fred's application, discloses an electrical circuit having, in series, a DC current source which produces 20 ampere current, a 12 ohm resistor, and a 6 mf capacitor. Which of the following statements regarding the claims is correct?
A. Each of Claims 1- 4 is patentable over Barry's Canadian patent.
B. Claim 1 is unsupported by a sufficient written description because the specification does not set forth the claimed combination of component values in a single disclosed embodiment.
C. Claim 2 is an improper dependent claim.
D. Claim 3 is an improper dependent claim.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Assuming that each of the following claims is in a different utility patent application, and each claim is fully supported by the disclosure in the preceding claims or in the application in which it appears, which of the claims properly presents a process claim?
A. A process for using monoclinal antibodies to isolate and purify interferon.
B. A process of using paint to cover a surface comprising applying paint to a surface and removing any excess paint.
C. A use of a metallic fibrous compound having a proportion of metallic granules as a motor compression part subject to stress by sliding friction.
D. The use of a sustained release therapeutic agent in a human body wherein said sustained release therapeutic agent comprises a painkiller absorbed on a polymeric surface.
(category: patent (utility patent)，Chinese translation: 专利（实用专利）)
Question: You prepared a patent application on behalf of inventors Jo and Tommie. Jo invented a new and unobvious technique for inexpensively manufacturing a known chemical compound. Tommie invented a new and unobvious technique that uses the chemical to clean-up toxic waste spills. Both inventions have been assigned to Ace Chemical Company. The patent application fully discloses and claims both inventions. Both inventors approve the application, but Tommie is unavailable to sign an inventors' oath before an upcoming statutory bar date. In accordance with instructions, you to immediately file the application under 37 CFR §1.53(b) without an executed oath, but with an information sheet to identify the application. Tommie was inadvertently left off the list of inventors on the information sheet, which listed Jo as a sole inventor. After receiving a Notice to File Missing Parts, you submit an oath executed by both Jo and Tommie. No paper was filed to change the named inventive entity. You later receive an Office action restricting the application between Jo's invention, and Tommie's invention. In response, you elect Jo's invention, cancel the claims directed to Tommie's non-elected invention, and immediately file a divisional application directed to Tommie's invention together with an inventor's oath executed by Tommie only. The divisional application includes a specific reference to the original application. Which of the following statements is correct?
A. Because the original application as filed named only Jo as an inventor, Tommie's divisional application is not entitled to the filing date of the original application because there is no common inventor between the original application and the divisional application.
B. The incorrect inventorship listed on the information sheet of the original application was never properly corrected and, therefore, any patent issuing on that application will be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 116 unless the inventorship is later corrected.
C. After canceling the claims to Tommie's non-elected invention, it is necessary to change the named inventive entity in the original application by filing a petition including a statement identifying Tommie as being deleted and acknowledging that Tommie's invention is no longer being claimed in the application, and an appropriate fee.
D. Written consent of Ace Chemical Company is required before any change of inventorship can be made.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following factors would not be indicative of an experimental purpose for testing a utility invention?
A. Testing is conducted over a substantial period of time to determine the operativeness of the invention.
B. Testing is conducted under the supervision and control of the inventor.
C. Testing to determine product acceptance or market testing.
D. The nature of the invention was such that any testing had to be, to some extent, public.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Your client has invented a miniature vacuum tube comprising a capacitor having a capacitance of 0.003 to 0.012 碌f, preferably 0.006 碌f. You draft a patent application directed to your client's invention and satisfying the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. You draft the following independent claim: 1. A miniature vacuum tube comprising a capacitor having a capacitance of 0.003 to 0.012 碌f. Which of the following would not be a proper dependent claim if presented as an original claim in the application when the application is filed in the PTO?
A. 2. The miniature vacuum tube of Claim 1 wherein the capacitor has a capacitance of 0.006 碌f.
B. 2. A miniature vacuum tube as in Claim 1 wherein the capacitor has a capacitance of 0.006 to 0.012 碌f.
C. 2. A miniature vacuum tube as in Claim 1 wherein the capacitor has a capacitance of about 0.003 to 0.011 碌f.
D. 2. The miniature vacuum tube of Claim 1 wherein the capacitor has a capacitance of between 0.005 and 0.012 碌f.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In which of the following situations, considered independently of each other, does the event described below not constitute a statutory bar to the granting of a patent on an application filed August 30, 1999, claiming a bottle cap?
A. The inventor reduced the invention to practice in June, 1998, and sold the claimed bottle caps to a bottling company on July 30, 1998. The sale was conditioned on the bottling company's satisfaction. The inventor and the company are located in New York.
B. The inventor reduced the invention to practice in June, 1998, sold the claimed bottle caps to bottling companies beginning on July 30, 1998. Although the inventor sold the bottlecaps to commercially exploit his invention, the inventor's manufacturing and overhead costs exceeded his income from the sales and the inventor did not profit from the sales. The inventor and the companies are located in New York.
C. The inventor reduced the invention to practice in June, 1998, and on July 30, 1998, assigned to Company X his patent rights to the claimed bottle cap invention for good and valuable consideration. The inventor and Company X are located in New York.
D. The inventor reduced the invention to practice in June, 1998, and on July 30, 1998, the inventor offered to sell his inventory of the claimed bottle cap to a bottling company. The sale was not consummated until September 3, 1999. The inventor and the company are located in New York.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: G is the sole inventor in a patent application filed in the PTO describing and claiming a surgical instrument. H is the sole inventor in a patent application filed in the PTO describing G's surgical instrument, as well as describing and claiming a modified embodiment of G's surgical instrument. Following proper PTO practices and procedures, under which circumstance is it most likely that you will need to overcome a provisional 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)/103 rejection in G's application?
A. G's application is filed in the PTO before H's application, and they do not have a common assignee.
B. H's application is filed in the PTO before G's application, and they do not have a common assignee.
C. G's application is filed in the PTO on the same date as H's application, and they have a common assignee.
D. G's application is filed in the PTO after H's application, and they have a common assignee.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)