QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: A patent application filed in the USPTO contains the following three original claims, including product by process Claim 3: Claim 1. A method for making an Ethernet cable comprising the steps of A, B and C. Claim 2. The method of claim 1, further characterized by the step of D. Claim 3. The Ethernet cable as in any one of the preceding claims. In the first Office action, the examiner objects to Claim 3 as being an improper dependent claim and requires cancellation of the claim. Following proper USPTO practices and procedures, which of the following replies best overcomes the examiner's objection and provides the client with the broadest patent protection?
A. Amend Claim 3 to read: "The Ethernet cable as made by the process set forth in claims 1-2."
B. Cancel Claim 3.
C. Cancel Claim 3 and add Claim 4, which reads: "An Ethernet cable made by a process comprising the steps of A, B and C."
D. Cancel Claim 3 and add Claim 5, which reads: "An Ethernet cable made by a process comprising the steps of A, B, C and D."
(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 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.\"
D. A dependent claim may refer back to any preceding independent claim.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A complete continuation application by the same inventors as those named in the prior application may be filed under 35 U.S.C. § 111(a) using the procedures of 37 C.F.R. § 1.53(b) by providing:
A. A copy of the prior application, including a copy of the signed declaration in the prior application, as amended.
B. A new and proper specification (including one or more claims), any necessary drawings, a copy of the signed declaration as filed in the prior application (the new specification, claim(s), and drawings do not contain any subject matter that would have been new matter in the prior application), and all required fees.
C. A new specification and drawings and a newly executed declaration. The new specification and drawings may contain any subject matter that would have been new matter in the prior application.
D. A new specification and drawings, and all required fees.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not a USPTO recommendation or requirement?
A. Claims should be arranged in order of scope so that the first claim presented is the least restrictive.
B. Product and process claims should be separately grouped.
C. Every application should contain no more than three dependent claims.
D. A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated from that dependent claim by any claim which does not also depend from the dependent claim.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is in accord with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. Upon request to convert a provisional application to a nonprovisional utility application, the nonprovisional application is accorded a filing date as of the date on which the request to convert was filed, but the original filing date of the provisional application is preserved.
B. If a provisional application does not have a claim as filed, and a claim is not filed with a timely request to convert the provisional application to a nonprovisional utility application, the Office will notify the applicant and set a time period for submitting a claim for examination.
C. A provisional application filed in November 2000 is entitled to the right of priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119 of a copending utility application for patent filed in Great Britain in January 2000.
D. A request filed in January 2001, to convert a provisional application filed in the USPTO in April 2000, to a nonprovisional utility application is timely if filed after the abandonment of the provisional application, i.e., after the pendency of the provisional application, but within twelve months of the filing date of the provisional application provided no petition to revive has been filed and granted.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is an incorrect statement concerning the difference between the request for continued examination procedure under 37 CFR § 1.114 and the continued prosecution application (CPA) procedure under 37 CFR § 1.53(d)?
A. The filing of a CPA is the filing of a new application, whereas a request for continued examination under 37 CFR § 1.114 merely continues the examination of the same application.
B. The fee for a request for continued examination under 37 CFR § 1.114 does not have an additional claims fee component, but the filing fee for a CPA includes a fee based on the number of claims remaining in the application after entry of any amendment accompanying the request for CPA and entry of any amendments under 37 CFR § 1.116 unentered in the prior application which applicant has requested to be entered in the CPA.
C. A CPA may be filed before prosecution in the prior application is closed, but a request for continued examination under 37 CFR § 1.114 is not permitted unless prosecution in the application is closed.
D. None of the above are incorrect statements.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following may properly be required to submit information in reply to a requirement for information under 37 CFR § 1.105 in a patent application filed December 5, 2000?
A. A named inventor in the application.
B. An assignee of the entire interest in the application.
C. An attorney who prepares and prosecutes the application.
D. All of the above.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is or are a factor that will be considered in disapproving a preliminary amendment in an application filed November 10, 2000?
A. The nature of any changes to the claims or specification that would result from entry of the preliminary amendment.
B. The state of preparation of a first Office action as of the date of receipt of the preliminary amendment by the Office.
C. The state of preparation of a first Office action as of the certificate of mailing date under 37 CFR § 1.8, of the preliminary amendment.
D. All of the above.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent application filed in the USPTO contains the following three original claims, including product by process Claim 3: Claim 1. A method for making an Ethernet cable comprising the steps of A, B and C. Claim 2. The method of claim 1, further characterized by the step of D. Claim 3. The Ethernet cable as in any one of the preceding claims. In the first Office action, the examiner objects to Claim 3 as being an improper dependent claim and requires cancellation of the claim. Following proper USPTO practices and procedures, which of the following replies best overcomes the examiner's objection and provides the client with the broadest patent protection?
A. Amend Claim 3 to read: "The Ethernet cable as made by the process set forth in claims 1-2."
B. Cancel Claim 3.
C. Cancel Claim 3 and add Claim 4, which reads: "An Ethernet cable made by a process comprising the steps of A, B and C."
D. Cancel Claim 3 and add Claim 4, which reads: "An Ethernet cable made by a process comprising the steps of A, B, C and D."
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure regarding design patent applications filed in March 2001?
A. The elements of the design application, if applicable, should appear in the following order: (1) design application transmittal form; (2) fee transmittal form; (3) application data sheet; (4) specification; (5) drawings or photographs; and (6) executed oath or declaration.
B. The specification should include the following sections in order: (1) preamble, stating the name of the applicant, title of the design, and a brief description of the nature and intended use of the article in which the design is embodied; (2) crossreference to related applications (unless included in the application data sheet); (3) statement regarding federally sponsored research or development; (4) description of the figure or figures of the drawing; (5) feature description; and (6) a single claim.
C. The text of the specification sections, if applicable, should be preceded by a section heading in uppercase letters without underlining or bold type.
D. The elements of the design application, if applicable, should appear in the following order: (1) design application transmittal form; (2) fee transmittal form; (3) photographs; (4) application data sheet; (5) specification; (6) drawings; and (7) executed oath or declaration.
(category: design patent, Chinese translation: 设计专利)
Question: While travelling 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. The promotional article in the Saskatoon Times constituted an offer to sell that operates as an absolute bar against Thomas' patent application.
B. Thomas, as the inventor, can overcome the rejection by establishing he is also the author of the promotional article.
C. The Saskatoon Times article is not prima facie prior art because it was published without Thomas' knowledge or permission.
D. The Saskatoon Times article is not prima facie prior art because it does not evidence knowledge or use in the United States.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: While travelling 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: Sally, an employee of Ted, conceived of and reduced to practice a spot remover for Ted on May 1, 1998. Sally's spot remover was made from water, chlorine, and lemon juice. On June 2, 1998, Sally filed a nonprovisional U.S. patent application for the spot remover, and assigned the entire rights in the application to Ted. Sally's assignment was not recorded in the USPTO, but was referenced in her application. On June 12, 1999, Jane, also an employee of Ted, having no knowledge of Sally's spot remover, conceived of and reduced to practice a spot remover for Ted. Jane's spot remover was made from carbonated water, chlorine, and lemon juice. On May 25, 1999, the USPTO granted Sally a patent. On November 5, 1998, Jane filed a nonprovisional U.S. patent application for the spot remover. As noted in Jane's application, Jane assigned the entire rights in her application to Ted. Jane's assignment was duly recorded in the USPTO. The examiner mailed a non-final Office action rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 to Jane in March 2001, citing the patent to Sally as prior art.Which of the following, if timely filed by Jane, would be effective in disqualifying Sally's patent? 
I: An affidavit by Jane stating that the application files of Sally and Jane both refer to assignments to Ted. 
II: A copy of Sally's assignment to Ted, clearly indicating that common ownership of Jane's and Sally's inventions existed at the time Jane's invention was made. 
III: An affidavit by Ted stating sufficient facts to show that there is common ownership of the Sally and Jane inventions and that common ownership existed at the time the Jane invention was made.
A. I.
B. II.
C. III.
D. II and III.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accord with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. If a claim limitation invokes the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, it must be interpreted to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts in the specification and "equivalents thereof."
B. If means-plus-function language is employed in a claim, the specification must set forth an adequate disclosure showing what that language means.
C. A means-plus-function claim limitation satisfies the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 if the written description links or associates particular structure, material, or acts to the function recited in a means-plus-function claim limitation.
D. A step-plus-function claim limitation satisfies the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 if it is clearly based on the disclosure in the application that one skilled in the art would have known what structure, material, or acts perform the function recited in a step-plus-function limitation.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure regarding patent applications filed in March 2001?
A. An applicant in a nonprovisional application may only claim the benefit of the filing date of the earliest one of prior foreign applications under the conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. §§ 119(a) through (d) and (f), 172, and 365(a) and (b).
B. In an original application filed under 35 U.S.C. § 111(a), the claim for priority must be presented within either four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application, whichever occurs earlier.
C. Notwithstanding the fact that the claim for foreign priority was not filed within either four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application, if the claim for priority and the certified copy of the foreign application specified in 35 U.S.C. § 119(b) or PCT Rule 17 is filed before the patent is granted and the claim was unintentionally delayed, a petition to accept a delayed claim for priority, with the appropriate fee and statement, may be filed.
D. The claim for foreign priority need only identify foreign applications for which priority is claimed.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In August 2000, a recently registered patent agent, who is not an attorney, asked a registered patent attorney to help the agent establish a practice. Considering the additional facts in the following choices separately, which choice best comports with the professional responsibilities of both the agent and the attorney?
A. The agent advertises as a registered practitioner authorized to practice before the Office in patent and trademark cases. The attorney supervises all the trademark work done by the agent.
B. The attorney has the agent prosecute trademark applications before the Office and the attorney signs all the papers submitted to the Office without reading the papers.
C. The attorney and agent enter into a partnership agreement that has no health or retirement benefits, but specifies that after termination of the partnership, the agent and the attorney will not practice in each other's neighborhoods or accept each other's established clients.
D. The agent advertises on television and radio as a registered patent agent and accepts patent cases on a reasonable contingent fee.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements concerning a restriction requirement in a reissue application filed January 10, 2001, is in accordance with proper USPTO rules and procedure?
A. The Office cannot properly make a restriction requirement in the reissue application between claims added in the reissue application and the original patent claims, where the added claims are directed to an invention which is separate and distinct from the invention defined by the original patent claims.
B. The Office cannot properly make a restriction requirement involving only subject matter of the original patent claims.
C. If restriction is required by the Office, the subject matter of the original patent claims will not be held to be constructively elected unless a disclaimer of all the patent claims is filed in the reissue application, which disclaimer cannot be withdrawn by applicant.
D. (A) and (B)
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Joe and Jim, local businessmen, conceived the idea of an improved fishing pole. Thereafter, they had a prototype made, and after successfully testing the pole, they filed a patent application on their invention. Both men are widowers, Joe with a grown son, and Jim with a grown daughter. Joe and Jim invite their children to come to the next Lions Club social event, and it isn't long before the children are thinking in terms of wedding bells. Ecstatic at the thought of the upcoming marriage, Joe and Jim decide to assign their patent application to their children as a wedding present. Accordingly, they execute a document properly assigning their patent application to their children effective on the date of their marriage, and mail it to the USPTO with a cover letter requesting that the document be recorded. Shortly after the document is recorded, Joe's son meets another woman, and breaks off his engagement to Jim's daughter. In light of this scenario, which of the following statements is true?
A. Since the assignment was conditioned on the marriage of the children, and the condition was not fulfilled, the USPTO will regard the assignment as without effect for Office purposes.
B. Since the assignment was recorded, the USPTO will require the parties to certify that the marriage condition was fulfilled before the assignment will be effective for Office purposes.
C. Since the assignment was recorded, the USPTO will not determine whether the marriage condition was fulfilled and will regard the assignment as absolute.
D. Since the USPTO does not record conditional assignments, the recording of the assignment document will be regarded as inadvertent, and without effect for Office purposes.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In June 1998 Michael buys a television set with a remote control for automatically changing channels on the television set. In June 2000, Michael moves to a new neighborhood and discovers while watching television that the remote control for his television not only changes the channels on his television set but also operates to open his neighbor's garage door. Michael, believing that people no longer need to have separate devices for operating their television and opening their garage doors, goes to a registered practitioner to seek patent protection on his new idea. The practitioner files a patent application in 2000. During the prosecution of the patent for the circuit board device, the practitioner files the following claims 11 and 12: 
 11. An electronic device comprising: circuitry; said circuitry operating to emit signals of a predetermined waveform; said signals being used to automatically change channels on a television set and automatically open the door of a garage. 
12. A method for opening a garage door comprising using a television remote control device to emit signals, comprising the steps of: 
a) adapting a television remote control device to emit signals to open a garage door; 
b) pointing said television remote control device at said garage door; and 
c) actuating said television remote control to cause said garage door to open. 
Which of the following is true?
A. Since the television and remote control were sold in June 1998, claims 11 and 12 are barred by 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) since the device was on sale more than one year prior to the invention by Michael.
B. Since the television remote control device was in public use more than one year prior to the filing date of the application, Michael may obtain the patent coverage for the method claim 12 but not the device of claim 11.
C. Although the device was bought in June 1998, Michael did not use it to open a garage door until 2000. Since claim 11 requires that the signals of the remote control operate to open the garage door, the limitations of claim 11 are not met by the device bought in 1998, and 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) does not apply.
D. Since Michael did not make the remote control himself and only inadvertently discovered that his neighbor's garage door opens when changing the channel on his television set, this is merely an inadvertent discovery and not entitled to patent protection.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not required in order for a foreign application that has matured into a foreign patent to qualify as a reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(d)?
A. The foreign application must have actually been published before the filing of an application in the United States, but the patent rights granted need not be enforceable.
B. The foreign application must be filed more than 12 months before the effective filing date of the United States application.
C. The foreign and United States applications must be filed by the same applicant, his or her legal representatives or assigns.
D. The foreign application must have actually issued as a patent or inventor's certificate before the filing of an application in the United States. It need not be published but the patent rights granted must be enforceable.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)