QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: A complete continuation application by the same inventors as those named in the prior application may be filed under 35 USC 111(a) using the procedures of 37 CFR 1.53(b) by providing, in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP:
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: Inventors B and C are employed by Corporation D, which authorized registered practitioner E to prepare and file a patent application claiming subject matter invented by B and C. Inventor B signed the oath, an assignment to Corporation D, and a power of attorney authorizing practitioner E to prosecute the application. Inventor C refused to sign the oath and any assignment documents for the application. The employment contract between inventor C and Corporation D contains no language obligating C to assign any invention to Corporation D. A patent application was properly filed in the USPTO under 37 CFR 1.47 naming B and C as inventors, but without inventor C signing the oath. C has now started his own company competing with Corporation D producing a product with the invention in the application. Inventor B is a friend of inventor C and wants C to have continued access to the application. Which of the following statements is in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?
A. Inventor C, who has not signed the oath or declaration, may revoke the power of attorney to practitioner E and appoint practitioner F to prosecute the application.
B. Inventor C cannot be excluded from access to the application because inventor B has not agreed to exclude inventor C. In order to exclude a co-inventor from access to an application, all the remaining inventors must agree to exclude that coinventor.
C. Inasmuch as one of the named joint inventors has not assigned his or her rights to Corporation D, the corporation is not an assignee of the entire right and interest, and therefore cannot exclude inventor C from access to the application.
D. An inventor who did not sign the oath or declaration filed in an application can always be excluded from access to an application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following is true?
A. There is no practical difference between an objection and rejection of a claim.
B. If the form of the claim (as distinguished from its substance) is improper, an objection is made.
C. An objection, if maintained by an examiner, is subject to review by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
D. An example of a proper objection is where the claims are refused because they fail to comply with the second paragraph of 35 USC 112.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A registered practitioner properly recorded an assignment document for application A identifying XYZ Company as the assignee. The document assigns to XYZ Company the "subject matter claimed in Application A." A proper restriction requirement was made by a primary examiner in application A between two distinct inventions, and the practitioner elected to prosecute one of the inventions. Application A was prosecuted, and later became abandoned. Before the abandonment date of application A, the practitioner filed a complete application B as a proper divisional application of application A. Application B claimed the nonelected invention of Application A, and was published as a U.S. application publication. XYZ Company remains the assignee of application A. What must the practitioner do in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP to ensure that XYZ Company is listed as the assignee on the face of any patent issuing from application B?
A. File a proper assignment document in application B identifying XYZ Company as the assignee.
B. File a proper assignment document in application B identifying XYZ Company as the assignee, and confirm that USPTO's bibliographic data for application B identifies XYZ Company as the assignee by checking the filing receipt for application B, the U.S. application publication of application B, or the USPTO's Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system data for application B, depending on when the practitioner filed the assignment document in application B.
C. Confirm that XYZ Company is identified as the assignee on the U.S. application publication of application B.
D. File a proper assignment document in application B identifying XYZ Company as the assignee, and confirm that XYZ Company is identified as the assignee on the U.S. application publication of application B.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following is true?
A. Interferences will generally be declared even when the applications involved are owned by the same assignee since only one patent may issue for any given invention.
B. A senior party in an interference is necessarily the party who obtains the earliest actual filing date in the USPTO.
C. Reexamination proceedings may not be merged with reissue applications since third parties are not permitted in reissue applications.
D. After a reexamination proceeding is terminated and the certificate has issued, any member of the public may obtain a copy of the certificate by ordering a copy of the patent.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Prior to filing a patent application for a client, a registered practitioner determined that the client was entitled to claim small entity status under 37 CFR 1.27. The practitioner filed a patent application for the client on November 1, 2002 together with a claim for small entity status under 37 CFR 1.27. On December 2, 2002, a Notice to File Missing Parts was mailed setting a two month period for reply and requiring the basic filing fee and the surcharge under 37 CFR 1.16(e). The practitioner timely submitted the small entity fees for the basic filing fee and the surcharge as required in the Notice. Shortly thereafter, the practitioner discovered that on October 31, 2002, the day before the application was filed, the client, without advising the practitioner, had assigned all rights in the invention that is the subject of the application to an entity that would not qualify for small entity status under 37 CFR 1.27. In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following actions would be the best action for the practitioner to take?
A. File a continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) with the large entity filing fee and then file a letter of express abandonment under 37 CFR 1.138 in the original application after the continuing application has been accorded a filing date.
B. Promptly file a notification of loss of small entity status under 37 CFR 1.27(g) and, thereafter, pay large entity fees whenever any subsequent fees are required.
C. Wait until a Notice of Allowance is received and then timely submit the large entity issue fee along with a notification of loss of small entity status under 37 CFR 1.27(g).
D. File a paper under 37 CFR 1.28(c) requesting that the good faith error in claiming small entity status be excused and complying with the separate submission and itemization requirements of 37 CFR 1.28(c) and including payment of the deficiency owed.
(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 the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?
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: Able conceived the invention claimed in a patent application. In conceiving the invention, Able used and adopted ideas and materials known in the art and invented by others. Ben, Able's employee, reduced the invention to practice at Able's request and totally pursuant to Able's suggestions. Being unable to afford a patent practitioner's fees to prepare and prosecute the application, Able convinced John to pay for the practitioner's services in return for an interest in the invention. John did nothing more than provide the funds for the practitioner. Which of the following is in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?
A. Able need not be the one to reduce the invention to practice so long as the reduction to practice occurred on his or her behalf. Able can be properly named as inventor in the application.
B. To be named an inventor, it is not necessary for John to have contributed to the conception of the invention. Ben, not Able, can be named as inventor in the application.
C. In conceiving the invention, Able may not consider and adopt ideas and materials derived from any sources, such as ideas of previous inventors. Able cannot be properly named as inventor in the application.
D. John and Able may be properly named as joint inventors of the invention in the application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Claim 1 of an application recites "[a]n article comprising: (a) a copper substrate; and (b) a electrically insulating layer on said substrate." The specification defines the term "copper" as being elemental copper or copper alloys. In accordance with USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP, for purposes of searching and examining the claim, the examiner should interpret the term "copper" in the claim as reading on:
A. Elemental copper only, based on the plain meaning of "copper."
B. Copper alloys only, based on the special definition in the specification.
C. Elemental copper and copper alloys, based on the special definition in the specification.
D. Any material that contains copper, including copper compounds.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Rolland files a U.S. patent application fourteen months after he perfects an invention in Europe. In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following would establish a statutory bar against the granting of a U.S. patent to Rolland?
A. A foreign patent issued to Rolland 11 months prior to the filing date of Rolland's U.S. patent application. The foreign patent was granted on an application that was filed 23 months prior to the effective filing date of Rolland's U.S. patent application. The foreign patent application and the U.S. patent application claim the same invention.
B. The invention was described in a printed publication in the United States, 11 months prior to the filing date of the U.S. patent application.
C. The invention was in public use in the United States, less than one year prior to the filing date of the U.S. patent application.
D. The invention was on sale in a foreign (NAFTA member) country, more than one year prior to the filing date of the U.S. patent application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, in which of the following cases is the date of actual receipt by the USPTO not accorded as the application filing date?
A. Provisional application filed without claims.
B. Non-provisional application filed containing an error in inventorship.
C. Non-provisional application filed which fails to identify the inventor(s).
D. Non-provisional application with executed oath filed without any claim(s).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In connection with the utility of an invention described in a patent application, which of the following conforms to the USPTO rules and the procedure set forth in the MPEP?
A. A deficiency under 35 USC 101 also creates a deficiency under 35 USC 112, first paragraph.
B. To overcome a rejection under 35 USC 101, it must be shown that the claimed device is capable of achieving a useful result on all occasions and under all conditions.
C. A claimed invention is properly rejected under 35 USC 101 as lacking utility if the particular embodiment disclosed in the patent lacks perfection or performs crudely.
D. To overcome a rejection under 35 USC 101, it is essential to show that the claimed invention accomplishes all its intended functions.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Inventor Joe is anxious to get a patent with the broadest claim coverage possible for the invention. Joe retained a registered practitioner, Jane, to obtain the advantage of legal counsel in obtaining broad protection. Jane filed a patent application for the invention. The inventor heard that, although patent prosecution is conducted in writing, it is possible to get interviews with examiners. Joe believes an interview might hasten the grant of a patent by providing the examiner a better understanding of the true novelty of the invention. Which of the following are consistent with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP regarding usage of interviews?
A. Prior to the first Office action being mailed the inventor calls the examiner to whom the application is docketed to offer help in understanding the specification.
B. After receiving the first Office action Jane calls the examiner for an interview for the purpose of clarifying the structure and operation of the invention as claimed and disclosed, because the examiner's analysis regarding patentability in the rejection is novel and suggests that the examiner is interpreting the claimed invention in a manner very different from the inventor's intent.
C. Jane has Larry, a registered practitioner in the Washington D.C. area, who is more familiar with interview practice to call the examiner. Jane gives Larry a copy of the first Office action, which suggests that the primary examiner's analysis is incorrect, and offers to explain why. Jane instructs Larry that because Larry is unfamiliar with the inventor, Larry should not agree to possible ways in which the claims could be modified, or at least indicate to the examiner that Jane would have to approve of any such agreement.
D. Jane calls the primary examiner after receiving the final rejection, demanding that the examiner withdraw the finality of the final action. When the examiner states that the final rejection is proper, Jane demands an interview as a matter of right to explain the arguments.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, a petition to make a patent application special may be filed without fee in which of the following cases?
A. The petition is supported by applicant's birth certificate showing applicant's age is 62.
B. The petition is supported by applicant's unverified statement that applicant's age is 65.
C. The petition is supported by applicant's statement that there is an infringing device actually on the market, that a rigid comparison of the alleged infringing device with the claims of the application has been made, and that applicant has made a careful and thorough search of the prior art.
D. The petition is accompanied by a statement under 37 CFR 1.102 by applicant explaining the relationship of the invention to safety of research in the field of recombinant DNA research.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: The Potter patent application was filed on June 6, 2002, claiming subject matter invented by Potter. The Potter application properly claims priority to a German application filed on June 6, 2001. In a first Office action all the claims of the Potter application are rejected under 35 USC 102(e) based on a U.S. patent application publication to Smith et al ("Smith"). A registered practitioner prosecuting the Potter application ascertains that the relevant subject matter in Smith's published application and Potter's claimed invention were, at the time Potter's invention was made, owned by ABC Company or subject to an obligation of assignment to ABC Company. The practitioner ascertains that the Smith application was filed on April 10, 2001 and that the Smith application was published on December 5, 2002. Smith and Potter do not claim the same patentable invention. To overcome the rejection without amending the claims which of the following replies would not comply with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP to be an effective reply for overcoming the rejection?
A. A reply that only contains arguments that Smith fails to teach all the elements in the only independent claim, and which specifically points out the claimed element that Smith lacks.
B. A reply that consists of an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 properly proving invention of the claimed subject matter of the Potter application prior to April 10, 2001.
C. A reply that consists of an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 properly showing that Smith's invention is not by "another."
D. A reply that properly states that the invention of the Potter application and the Smith application were commonly owned by ABC Company at the time of the invention of the Potter application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: The claims in a patent application having been twice or finally rejected, the applicant files a timely Notice of Appeal on January 2, 2003. In accordance with USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following situations should the USPTO not notify the applicant that the Appeal Brief is defective and allow him an opportunity to correct the deficiency?
A. The Appeal Brief is filed on July 10, 2003, without a request for extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136.
B. The Appeal Brief is submitted unsigned.
C. The Appeal Brief states that the claims do not stand or fall together, and presents argument as to why the claims are separately patentable, but the primary examiner does not agree with the applicant's argument.
D. The Appeal Brief does not state whether the claims stand or fall together, but presents arguments why the claims subject to the same rejection are separately patentable.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: The specification in a patent application has been objected to for lack of enablement. To overcome this objection in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, a registered practitioner may do any of the following except:
A. Traverse the objection and specifically argue how the specification is enabling.
B. Traverse the objection and submit an additional drawing to make the specification enabling.
C. File a continuation-in-part application that has an enabling specification.
D. Traverse the objection and file an amendment without adding new matter in an attempt to show enablement.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Co-inventors Smith and Jones filed an application for a patent on a cell phone, on May 15, 2002. They received a first Office action from a primary examiner rejecting the claims under 35 USC 102(a) over a publication by Bell and Watson, published on April 5, 2002, describing a cell phone having all the same features as is claimed in the patent application. In reply, the co-inventors each submitted a declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 stating that they had actually reduced the invention to practice no later than March 13, 2002. However, the declarations failed to include two claimed features. Neither the particular antenna needed to enable the cell phone could receive transmissions from the local cellular transmitting tower, nor a detachable carrying strap was included in the declarations. Neither the particular antenna needed to enable the cell phone could receive transmissions from the local cellular transmitting tower, nor a detachable carrying strap was included in the declarations. As evidence of their prior reduction to practice, Smith and Jones submitted their co-authored journal article. The journal article contained a figure of the cell phone as described in the declarations. That is, the cell phone shown in the figure of the article lacked an antenna and a detachable strap. The article was received by the journal on March 13, 2002, and was published on April 30, 2002. The cell phones shown in the figure in the Bell and Watson publication, and in the Smith and Jones patent application have the particular antenna and a detachable strap. Which of the following actions, if taken by the examiner, would be the most proper in accordance with USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?
A. The examiner should maintain the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102(a) and make the rejection final.
B. The examiner should withdraw the rejection and look for references which have a publication date prior to May 15, 2001.
C. The examiner should withdraw the rejection and notify Smith and Jones that their application is in condition for allowance.
D. The examiner should maintain the rejection, but indicate that the claims would be allowable if Smith and Jones provided an original copy of the figure published in their journal article as factual support for their declarations.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)