QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: Mary, a legally competent adult inventor, filed provisional application A on January 3, 2000, a nonprovisional application B one year later on January 3, 2001, and nonprovisional application C on February 28, 2001. Nonprovisional application B was abandoned when nonprovisional application C was filed. The provisional application and both nonprovisional patent applications were in Mary's name only, but a declaration has not yet been filed. Mary is living on a remote island in the middle of the Arctic Ocean where the only communication is in the summer months. Sam, the father of Mary, has been authorized by Mary to sign Mary's name to the § 1.63 declaration and also Sam's name. Sam, unbeknownst to Mary, also wants access to all three application files at the USPTO before he files the declaration to make certain Mary has properly described her invention. Sam acknowledges he is not an inventor but insists he must sign as an inventor so that he may act on behalf of Mary. Which of the following is not in accordance with proper USPTO procedure in relation to applications filed on or after January 1, 2001?
A. Sam may not add his name as an inventor since a patent is applied for only in the name or names of the actual inventor or inventors.
B. Since no declaration was filed during the pendency of application B, Sam may not see the Application papers for application B since he has not been authorized by Mary to see the application A and Sam is not an inventor.
C. Sam is not entitled to access to the provisional application A since he has not been authorized by Mary to see the application A and Sam is not an inventor.
D. Sam is precluded from access to the Application B since his name does not appear on the application papers and Sam is not an inventor.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In which of the following instances is the reference properly available as prior art under 35 U.S.C § 102(d)?
A. A U.S. patent application is filed within the one year anniversary date of the filing date of the foreign application. The reference is the foreign application.
B. The applicant files a foreign application, later timely files a U.S. application claiming priority based on the foreign application, and then files a continuation - in - part (CIP) application, and the claims in the CIP are not entitled to the filing date of the U.S. parent application. The foreign application issues as a patent before the filing date of the CIP application and is used to reject the claims directed to the added subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(d)/103. The reference is the foreign application.
C. The applicant files a foreign application, and later timely files a U.S. application claiming priority based on the foreign application. The examined foreign application has been allowed by the examiner and has not been published before the U.S. application was filed. The reference is the foreign application.
D. The reference is a defensive publication.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. A Certificate of Mailing or Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8 is proper for filing a Continued Prosecution Application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) to obtain the date of the Certificate as the filing date for the application.
B. The fee an applicant must pay to request continued examination of an application is set in an amount equal to the basic filing fee the same applicant must pay for a utility patent application.
C. The Office does not charge a fee for processing a fee paid by a check that has been refused, i.e., dishonored and returned, by a financial institution.
D. To first request conversion of a provisional application containing a claim to a nonprovisional application after the provisional application has become abandoned, a petition to revive, accompanied by the appropriate fees, a showing of unavoidable delay, and a request for the conversion must be filed within one year of the date of abandonment.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You file a nonprovisional patent application in the USPTO on December 27, 1999, on behalf of your client. On the basis of information provided to you, you assert entitlement to small entity status and pay the small entity status basic filing fee of $345. On December 27, 2000, a first Office action is mailed. You file a reply to the Office action on February 2, 2001, accompanied by an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) and the required fee of $240 for filing the IDS at such time. You now learn that the small entity status was erroneous at the time it was established, although it was established in good faith, and the deficiency resulting from the previous erroneous payment must be paid and can be calculated from the following table:   Basic Fee at time of payment, $690.00(Other than Small Entity), $345.00(Small Entity); IDS Fee at time of payment, $240.00(Other than Small Entity),  $240.00(Small Entity); Current Basic Fee, $710.00(Other than Small Entity),  $355.00(Small Entity); Current IDS Fee, $180.00(Other than Small Entity),  $180.00(Small Entity). In accordance with USPTO proper practice and procedure, which of the following is the proper deficiency amount?
A. 365
B. 355
C. 305
D. 295
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Zak had expended a considerable amount of money, time, and effort in the pursuit of patent protection for an invention that he had conceived of many years before. His sacrifices had been large and his frustration and disappointment could be observed in the expression on his face when his attorney informed him that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences ("BPAI") issued a decision on February 19, 2001, affirming the examiner's rejection of all the claims in his application. Zak didn't even think twice when he directed his attorney to immediately file a Request for Rehearing or Reconsideration. Assuming action on the Request for Rehearing or Reconsideration is unfavorable to Zak, which of the following options is available to Zak?
A. File a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") within 6 months of the BPAI decision, accompanied by a request for extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136 and the appropriate fee.
B. File a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia ("DDC") within 5 months of the BPAI decision, accompanied by a request for extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136 and the appropriate fee.
C. File a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") within 6 months after action on the Request for Rehearing or Reconsideration, accompanied by a request for extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136 and the appropriate fee.
D. File a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia ("DDC") within 5 months after action on the Request for Rehearing or Reconsideration, accompanied by a request for extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136 and the appropriate fee.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is true?
A. Once the issue fee has become due, provided an original application has not been pending more than three years, the applicant may request and the Office may grant a request for deferral of payment of the issue fee.
B. The time period set for the payment of the issue fee is statutory and cannot be extended. However, if payment is not timely made and the delay in making the payment is shown to be unavoidable, upon payment of a fee for delayed payment, it may be accepted as though no abandonment had occurred, but there will be a reduction on the patent term adjustment for the period of abandonment.
C. Upon written request, a person citing patents and printed publications to the Office that the person believes has a bearing on the patentability of a particular patent, may request that his or her name remain confidential.
D. To obtain benefit of priority based on an earlier filed patent application, an applicant in a later filed continuation application is not required to claim priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to an earlier filed application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant Sonny filed a patent application having an effective U.S. filing date of February 15, 2000. The application fully discloses and claims the following: Claim 1. An apparatus for converting solar energy into electrical energy comprising: (i) a metallic parabolic reflector; (ii) a steam engine having a boiler located at the focal point of the metallic parabolic reflector; and (iii) an electrical generator coupled to the steam engine. In a non-final Office action dated March 15, 2001, the examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(d) as anticipated by a patent granted in a foreign country to Applicant Sonny ("Foreign patent"). The Foreign patent was filed February 1, 1999, and was patented and published on January 17, 2000. The examiner's rejection points out that the invention disclosed in the Foreign patent is a glass lens with a steam engine having a boiler at the focal point of the glass lens, and an electrical generator coupled to the steam engine. The rejection states that the examiner takes official notice that it was well known by those of ordinary skill in the art of solar energy devices, prior to Applicant Sonny's invention, to use either a lens or a parabolic reflector to focus solar rays. Sonny informs you that you should not narrow the scope of the claims unless absolutely necessary to overcome the rejection. Which of the following, in reply to the Office action dated March 15, 2001, is best?
A. Traverse the rejection arguing that the examiner's use of the Foreign patent is improper because an applicant cannot be barred by a foreign patent issued to the same applicant.
B. Amend claim 1 to further include a feature that is disclosed only in the U.S. application, and point out that the newly added feature distinguishes Sonny's invention over the invention in the Foreign patent.
C. Traverse the rejection arguing that the examiner does not create a prima facie case of obviousness because the examiner does not show why one of ordinary skill in the art of solar energy devices would be motivated to modify the Foreign patent.
D. Traverse the rejection arguing that the examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(d) was improper because claim 1 is not anticipated by the Foreign patent.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant Sonny filed a patent application having an effective U.S. filing date of February 15, 2000. The application fully discloses and claims the following: Claim 1. An apparatus for converting solar energy into electrical energy comprising: (i) a metallic parabolic reflector; (ii) a steam engine having a boiler located at the focal point of the metallic parabolic reflector; and (iii) an electrical generator coupled to the steam engine. In a non-final Office action dated March 15, 2001, the examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(d) as anticipated by a patent granted in a foreign country to Applicant Sonny ("Foreign patent"). The Foreign patent was filed February 1, 1999, and was patented and published on January 17, 2000. The examiner's rejection points out that the invention disclosed in the Foreign patent is a glass lens with a steam engine having a boiler at the focal point of the glass lens, and an electrical generator coupled to the steam engine. The rejection states that the examiner takes official notice that it was well known by those of ordinary skill in the art of solar energy devices, prior to Applicant Sonny's invention, to use either a lens or a parabolic reflector to focus solar rays. Which of the following claims, if fully disclosed and presented in Sonny's U.S. application, provides a proper basis for an objection under 37 CFR 1.75(c)?
A. Claim 2. An apparatus as in claim 1, further comprising a voltage regulator coupled to the electrical generator.
B. Claim 2. An apparatus as in claim 1, wherein the metallic parabolic reflector is aluminum.
C. Claim 2. An apparatus as in claim 1, wherein the steam engine has two cylinders.
D. Claim 2. An apparatus as in claim 1, wherein the parabolic reflector is either metallic or plastic.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Tony, a client, comes to you with regard to a competitor's two published patent applications, A and B, which were published one month ago. Tony shows you several material prior art publications and patents that he discovered for the first time while cleaning out his brother-in-law's attic last week. Assume no Notice of Allowance has been mailed in application A and a Notice of Allowance has been mailed in application B. Tony wants to know if it is too late to submit the information to the USPTO for consideration by the examiner. He also wants to know how it is accomplished, if the applicant needs to be served a copy, whether a fee is required and whether an explanation is needed for each reference. Which of the following is not accurate with respect to proper USPTO procedure?
A. The submission by Tony of patents or publications relevant to pending published application A will be permitted without the necessity of paying the processing or petition fee required by 37 CFR 1.17(i) if the patents or publications are submitted within two months of the publication of the competitor's application.
B. Each submission must identify the application to which it is directed by application number and include: (1) the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p); (2) a list of the patents or publications submitted for consideration by the Office, including the date of publication of each patent or publication; (3) a copy of each listed patent or publication in written form or at least the pertinent portions; and (4) an English language translation of all the necessary and pertinent parts of any non-English language patent or publication in written form relied upon.
C. The submissions by Tony of patents or publications relevant to both of the pending published applications A and B need not be served upon the applicant.
D. The submissions by Tony of patents or publications relevant to the pending published applications A and B shall not include any explanation of the patents or publications, or any other information.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Upon examination of your client's patent application, the patent examiner is considering whether and what rejections to apply to the claims. One or more of the limitations in the claims is indefinite or lacks supporting disclosure. The examiner may not properly take which of the following actions or inactions?
A. If the claim is subject to plural interpretations due to a limitation being indefinite, the examiner may disregard any possibility of multiple interpretations.
B. If a claim is subject to more than one interpretation due to a limitation being indefinite, at least one of which would render the claim unpatentable over the prior art, the examiner should reject the claim as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and should reject the claim over the prior art based on the interpretation of the claim that renders the prior art applicable.
C. If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain claim language, the examiner should reject the claim as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and not reject the claim as obvious.
D. When evaluating claims for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, all the limitations of the claims, including new matter lacking supporting disclosure in the originally filed specification, must be considered and given weight.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is true?
A. A claim to a process omitting a step in a disclosed process, where the step is disclosed in the specification to be essential to the invention, may not be properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of enablement where the specification provides an enabling disclosure only for the process which includes the essential step.
B. Failure to disclose the best mode must rise to the level of active concealment or grossly inequitable conduct in order to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C.§ 112, first paragraph.
C. A claim failing to interrelate essential elements of the invention, as defined by the applicant in the specification, where the interrelation is critical to the invention may be properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for failure to properly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
D. Where the best mode contemplated by the inventor at the time of filing the application is not disclosed, a proposed amendment adding a specific mode of practicing the invention would not be new matter.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Your clients, Able and Baker, filed a patent application. In accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure, in which of the following instances, absent additional facts, is the reference or event either prior art or an act that may not be properly applied to reject claims in your client's application?
A. The patent application was filed on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 in the USPTO. The reference is an article in a trade magazine published on November 10, 2000. Able, Baker and McGeiver are the authors of the article. The article fully discloses the claimed invention and how to make and use it.
B. The patent application was filed on Monday, June 25, 2001 in the USPTO. Able and Baker placed the invention on sale in the United States on Monday, June 26, 2000. The public came into possession and understands the invention the day it is placed on sale. Your clients have disclosed this information when they filed the application.
C. The patent application was filed on Monday, June 25, 2001, in the USPTO. McGeiver, a friend of Baker, publicly used the invention in Hawaii on April 15, 2000. The public use was not experimental and was without Baker's knowledge or consent. The public came into possession of the invention the day it was used by McGeiver.
D. The patent application was filed on Monday, June 25, 2001, in the USPTO. The invention became known to the public in the United States in April 2000 as a result of disclosure on the Internet by Wilson, a party unknown to Able and Baker. The invention was not placed on sale or in public use prior to the filing date of the application.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A grant of small entity status entitles an applicant to which of the following?
A. Applicant will receive an accelerated examination by having the application advanced out of order.
B. Applicant can use a certificate of mailing under 37 CFR 1.8 to obtain a U.S. filing date that is earlier than the actual USPTO receipt date of the application.
C. Applicant will obtain a refund of all fees paid to the USPTO where applicant demonstrates: (i) a changed purpose for which the fees were paid, (ii) the fees were not paid by mistake, and (iii) the fees were not paid in excess of the amount required.
D. Applicant can pay a fee to file a request for continued examination pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 that is less than the fee paid by other than a small entity.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. Conversion of a provisional application to a nonprovisional application will result in the term of any patent to issue from the application being measured from at least the filing date of the provisional application.
B. Conversion of a provisional application to a nonprovisional application cannot adversely impact on the term of any patent to issue from the application.
C. An applicant having filed a provisional application can avoid any adverse patent term impact resulting from converting the provisional application to a nonprovisional application by instead filing a nonprovisional application claiming the benefit of the provisional application under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e).
D. An applicant filing nonprovisional application claiming the benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78 of the earlier provisional application, and not requesting conversion of the provisional to the nonprovisional application can avoid the fee required to convert a provisional application to a nonprovisional application, as well as any adverse patent term effect that would result from a conversion.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Mark Twine obtains a patent directed to a machine for manufacturing string. The patent contains a single claim (Claim 1) which recites six claim elements. The entire interest in Twine's patent is assigned to the S. Clemens String Co., and Twine is available and willing to cooperate with S. Clemens String Co. to file a reissue application. A subsequent reissue application includes Claim 2, which is similar to original Claim 1. However, one of the elements recited in Claim 2 is broader than its counterpart element in the original claim. The remaining five elements are narrower than their respective counterpart elements in the original patent claim. Which of the following scenarios accords with USPTO proper practice and procedure?
A. The S. Clemens String Co. files the reissue application more than 2 years after the issue date of the original patent application.
B. The S. Clemens String Co. files the reissue application less than 2 years after the issue date of the original patent but more than 2 years after original application filing date.
C. Mark Twine files the reissue application less than 2 years after the issue date of the original patent but more than 2 years after original application filing date.
D. Mark Twine files the reissue application more than 2 years after the issue date of the original patent.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A maintenance fee in the correct amount is received by the USPTO in September 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 the 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)