QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: The MPEP sets forth a procedure whereby an examiner may contact an applicant to discuss election of claims after the examiner determines that a restriction requirement should be made. Assume that a primary examiner contacts a practitioner representing applicant by telephone prior to any Office action on the merits, and the examiner orally makes a restriction requirement. During the telephone conversation, the practitioner orally makes an election of claims without traverse. On examination, the examiner finds the elected claims to be allowable. Which of the following would be improper for the examiner to include in a letter to the practitioner attached to a Notice of Allowability?
A. A cancellation of the non-elected claims.
B. A statement that the prosecution is closed.
C. A statement that a Notice of Allowance will be sent in due course.
D. A statement that the applicant's election is not upheld because an election must only be made in writing, and cannot be made by telephone.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following practices or procedures may be properly employed to overcome a rejection properly based on 35 USC 102(a)?
A. Perfecting a claim to priority under 35 USC 119(a)-(d) based on a foreign application having a foreign priority filing date that antedates the reference.
B. Filing a declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 showing that the cited prior art antedates the invention.
C. Filing a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 showing that the reference invention is by "others."
D. Perfecting priority under 35 USC 119(e) or 120 by, in part, amending the declaration of the application to contain a specific reference to a prior application having a filing date prior to the reference.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Xavier files a complete first reply exactly 10 weeks after the mailing date of a final Office action that 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 Xavier gives authorization for the Examiner's Amendment exactly 2 months after his reply, the application will be allowed.
B. Authorization for the Examiner's Amendment may be made at any time within 6 months of Xavier's reply to avoid abandonment of the application.
C. Unless Xavier gives authorization for the Examiner's Amendment within the 3 months shortened statutory period for reply, the application will be abandoned.
D. If Xavier gives authorization for the Examiner's Amendment exactly 2 months after his reply, the application will be abandoned unless accompanied by a proper petition and fee for an extension of time.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On Monday, May 13, 2002, John's secretary deposited in an \"Express Mail\" drop box prior to the last scheduled pick-up for that day, an envelope properly addressed to the USPTO for delivery to the USPTO by the \"Express Mail Post Office to Addressee\" service. The envelope was received by the USPTO on Wednesday, May 15, 2002, containing a reply to an Office action which set a shortened statutory period (\"SSP\") for reply ending on Tuesday, May 14, 2002. The reply was marked by the Office as being received on May 15, 2002. The number of the \"Express Mail\" mailing label had not been placed on the response papers, and upon receipt of the \"Express Mail\" mailing label John learned that the \"date in\" was not clearly marked. John promptly filed a petition requesting the filing date to be the date of deposit. The petition included a showing that the date of deposit accompanied by evidence of USPS corroboration of the deposit. Accordingly,
A. The reply will be regarded as timely filed in the USPTO on May 15, 2002.
B. The reply will be regarded as timely filed in the USPTO on May 14, 2002.
C. The reply will be regarded as timely filed in the USPTO on May 13, 2002.
D. The reply will be regarded as timely filed in the USPTO if a petition with proper fee for a one month extension of time is filed in the USPTO on or before June 14, 2002.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accordance with the provisions of the MPEP?
A. If there is a discrepancy between the information submitted in an application data sheet and the information submitted elsewhere in the application, the application data sheet will control except for the naming of the inventors and the citizenship of the inventors, which is governed by the oath or declaration.
B. A patent examiner should object to text of a patent application if it contains an embedded hyperlink and /or other form of browser-executable code.
C. All patent applicants should use the English units of measurement followed by the equivalent metric units when describing their inventions in the specifications of patent applications.
D. The paper used for patent applications must have a surface such that amendments may be written thereon in ink; so-called "Easily Erasable" paper having a special coating so that erasures can be made more easily may not provide a permanent copy as is required.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: The USPTO notifies John, a registered patent agent who is representing applicant A, that after a reasonable search, the USPTO has been unable to locate applicant A's patent application. By which of the following procedures may John avoid abandonment of applicant A's application within the time period set by the USPTO?
A. Provide the USPTO with a copy of his record of all the correspondence between his office and the USPTO, assuming the existence of such record.
B. Provide the USPTO with a list of all the correspondence between his office and the USPTO, assuming the existence of such list, and a statement that the list is complete and accurate.
C. Provide the USPTO with a statement that he does not possess any record of the correspondence between his office and the USPTO because his files were destroyed.
D. Provide the USPTO with a record of all the correspondence between his office and the USPTO, and a statement that the papers produced are his complete record of all the correspondence between his office and the USPTO, assuming the existence of such record.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accordance with the recommended characteristics set forth in the MPEP for the detailed description of the invention?
A. The detailed description of the invention must include a description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71.
B. The detailed description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately.
C. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail.
D. The detailed description of the invention may include reference characters to the parts of the invention that do not appear in the drawings.
(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 USC 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 USC 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 USC 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: Which of the following is not in accordance with the recommended characteristics set forth in the provisions of the MPEP for the summary of the invention?
A. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the disclosure as a whole, rather than just the invention.
B. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention).
C. In chemical cases the summary should point out in general terms the utility of the invention.
D. If possible, the summary should set forth the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following does not represent prior art?
A. The preamble of a Jepson claim.
B. A technical journal as of its date of publication which is accessible to the public as of the date of its publication.
C. A disclosure publicly posted on the INTERNET, but containing no publication or retrieval date.
D. A doctoral thesis indexed, cataloged and shelved in a university library.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In 1995 Patent Agent filed a U.S. patent application containing five claims (Application 1). All five claims are fully supported under 35 USC 112 by the disclosure of Application 1. In 2000, Patent Agent filed a U.S. patent application (Application 2) that was a continuation-in-part of Application 1. Application 2 adds new subject matter to the disclosure of Application 1, and ten additional claims. Of the fifteen claims in Application 2, claims 1-5 are exactly the same as Application 1, claims 6-10 are fully supported under 35 USC 112 by the disclosure of Application 1, and claims 11-15 are fully supported under 35 USC 112 only by the newly added subject matter of Application 2. The effective filing date for claims in Application 2 is:
A. 1-15 is 2000.
B. 1-15 is 1995.
C. 1-10 is 1995.
D. 11-15 is 2000.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: The procedures in the MPEP do not require an applicant claiming foreign priority in a nonprovisional utility application to:
A. submit the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i) if the claim for priority or submission of the certified copy of the priority document is made after payment of the issue fee and before the patent is granted.
B. identify the foreign application for which priority is being claimed as well as any foreign application for the same subject matter having a filing date before that of the application for which priority is being claimed.
C. file the claim in the application.
D. have the same inventive entity listed in the foreign application as in the U.S. application in which the priority claim has been filed.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with Chapter 100 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure and 35 USC 122, which of the following statements is not true?
A. All requests for reexamination and related patent files are available to the public subject to the availability of the reexamination file.
B. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences handles all petitions for access to applications involved in an interference.
C. An abandoned application referenced in a U.S. patent application publication, U.S. patent or a U.S. application that is open to public inspection may be ordered for inspection by any member of the public.
D. The assignee of record of a part interest in an application may always intervene in the prosecution of the application, appointing a registered attorney or agent of his or her own choice, without participation by any or all other assignees.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements does not accord with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. A protest may be filed by an attorney or other representative on behalf of an unnamed principal.
B. Information which may be relied on in a protest includes information indicating violation of the duty of disclosure under 37 CFR 1.56.
C. While a protest must be complete and contain a copy of every document relied on by the protestor, a protest without copies of prior art documents will not necessarily be ignored.
D. A protest must be submitted prior to the date the application was published or the mailing of a notice of allowance, whichever occurs later, provided the application is pending.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A registered practitioner's client, Apex Mfg. Corporation, bought the entire assets of Pinnacle Mfg. Corporation. Pinnacle gave Apex a list of its patent applications but did not maintain records of the patent assignments. Apex wishes to know which of the assignment documents, if any, of the pending patent applications in Pinnacle's patent portfolio were never recorded. In accordance with the MPEP, which of the following actions could the practitioner rely upon to most expeditiously answer this question?
A. Request certified copies of the patent applications as filed.
B. Request certified copies of the assignment documents of record of the patent applications.
C. Request certified copies of the patent applications as filed accompanied by the fees set forth in 37 CFR 1.19(b)(1)(i).
D. Request certified copies of the patent applications as filed accompanied by the fees set forth in 37 CFR 1.19(b)(1)(ii).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the MPEP and USPTO rules and procedure, a registered attorney or agent may be appointed to prosecute a patent application for an applicant. In which of the following situations will the USPTO not recognize the appointment of an attorney or agent to prosecute a patent application for an applicant?
A. The principal agent of record appoints a registered associate attorney to prosecute the application.
B. The applicant executes a power of attorney naming only a law firm to prosecute the application.
C. The applicant executes a power of attorney appointing more than one registered individual to prosecute the application.
D. The principal attorney of record appoints an associate registered agent to prosecute the application.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An applicant's claim stands rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over Larry in view of Morris. Larry and Morris are references published more than one year before applicant's effective filing. Although the examiner cites no suggestion or motivation for combining the references, they are, in fact, combinable. Which of the following arguments could properly show that the claim is not obvious?
A. The inventions disclosed by Larry and Morris cannot be physically combined.
B. Neither Larry nor Morris provides an express suggestion to combine the references.
C. As recognized by businessmen, the high cost of Larry's device teaches away from combining it with the simpler device of Morris.
D. Absent a suggestion or motivation, the examiner has not shown that combining Larry's with Morris's device would have been within the level of ordinary skill of the art.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Harriet filed a nonprovisional patent application in the USPTO containing a written assertion of small entity status. Based upon the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following statements is correct?
A. If Harriet files a related, continuing application wherein small entity status is appropriate and desired, it will not be necessary to specifically establish assertion of such status in the continuing application.
B. If Harriet files a related, reissue application wherein small entity status is appropriate and desired, it will be necessary to specifically establish assertion of such status in the reissue application.
C. If Harriet files a related, divisional application under 37 CFR 1.53, wherein small entity status is appropriate and desired, it will not be necessary to specifically establish assertion of such status in the divisional application.
D. If Harriet refiles her application as a continued prosecution application under 37 CFR 1.53(d), wherein small entity status is appropriate and desired, it will not be necessary to specifically establish assertion of such status in the continued prosecution application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A U.S. patent application discloses a first embodiment of an invention, a composition made of known materials in equal amounts by weight of A, B, and C. The application discloses a second embodiment of the invention comprising equal amounts by weight of A, B, and C, and an effective amount of D, a known material, to reduce excess moisture from the composition. The application also discloses a third embodiment of the invention comprising equal amounts by weight of A, B, and C, and an effective amount of D to reduce the acidity of the composition. The application fully discloses guidelines for determining an effective amount of D to reduce excess moisture from the composition, and determining an effective amount of D to reduce the acidity of the composition. The application discloses that the amount of D needed to reduce excess moisture from the composition differs from the amount of D needed to reduce the acidity of the composition. Which of the following claims, if included in the application, provides a proper basis for a rejection under 35 USC 112, second paragraph in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?
A. Claim 1. A composition comprising: equal amounts by weight of A, B, and C, and an effective amount of D to reduce the acidity of the composition.
B. Claim 1. A composition comprising: equal amounts by weight of A, B, and C, and an effective amount of D.
C. Claim 1. A composition comprising: equal amounts by weight of A, B, and C, and an effective amount of D to reduce excess moisture from the composition.
D. Claim 1. A composition comprising: equal amounts by weight of A, B, and C.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures in the MPEP, in which of the following instances is the reference properly available as prior art under 35 USC 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 USC 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: The Office mailed an Office action containing a proper final rejection dated July 8, 2002. The Office action did not set a period for reply. On January 7, 2003, in reply to the final rejection, a registered practitioner filed a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, a request for a suspension of action under 37 CFR 1.103(c) to suspend action for three months, and proper payment all required fees. No submission in reply to the outstanding Office action accompanied the request for continued examination. No other paper was submitted and no communication with the Office was held until after Midnight, January 8, 2003. Which of the following statements accords with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?
A. If an appropriate reply is submitted within the three month period of suspension permitted under 37 CFR 1.103(c), the application will not be held abandoned.
B. The application will not be held abandoned if an appropriate reply is submitted within the three month period of suspension and it is accompanied by a showing that the reply could not have been submitted within the period set in the final rejection. For example, the reply includes a showing based on an experiment that required 8 months to conduct.
C. No reply will prevent the application from being held abandoned.
D. If, on January 10, 2003, the primary examiner and applicant agree to an examiner's amendment that places the application in condition for allowance and a notice of allowance is mailed within the three month period of suspension, application X will not be held abandoned.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following practices or procedures may be properly employed in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP to overcome a rejection properly based on 35 USC 102(a)?
A. Perfecting a claim to priority under 35 USC 119(a)-(d) based on a foreign application having a foreign priority filing date that antedates the reference.
B. Filing a declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 showing that the cited prior art antedates the invention.
C. Filing a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 showing that the reference invention is by "others."
D. Perfecting priority under 35 USC 119(e) or 120 by, in part, amending the declaration of the application to contain a specific reference to a prior application having a filing date prior to the reference.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures of the MPEP, which of the following is true?
A. If after the filing of a reissue application no errors in the original patent are found, a reissue patent will be granted on the reissue application noting no change, and the original patent will be returned to the applicant.
B. In order to add matter not previously found in the patent, a continuation-in-part reissue application must be filed.
C. In a reissue application, additions and deletions to the original patent should be made by underlining and bracketing, respectively, except for changes made in prior Certificates of Correction and disclaimer(s) of claims under 37 CFR 1.321(a).
D. A dependent claim may be broadened in a reissue application only in the first two years of the enforceable life of the patent.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, for a nonprovisional application to receive a filing date in the USPTO under 37 CFR 1.53(b), all of the following must be filed except:
A. An oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.51(b)(2).
B. A specification as prescribed by the first paragraph of 35 USC 112.
C. A description pursuant to 37 CFR 1.71.
D. At least one claim pursuant to 37 CFR 1.75.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)