QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: In which of the following final Office action rejections is the finality of the Office action rejection proper?
A. The final Office action rejection is in a second Office action and uses newly cited art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) to reject unamended claims that were objected to but not rejected in a first Office action.
B. The final Office action rejection is in a first Office action in a continuation-in-part application where at least one claim includes subject matter not present in the parent application.
C. The final Office action rejection is in a first Office action in a continuing application, all claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the parent application, and the claims would have been properly finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the parent application.
D. The final Office action rejection is in a first Office action in a substitute application that contains material that was presented after final rejection in an earlier application but was denied entry because the issue of new matter was raised.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You are a registered practitioner. Lucy, your new associate, wants to know whether she must file an application data sheet with a provisional patent application of a client and what information she should include on the application data sheet. Lucy has previously submitted an application data sheet with a previously filed application for another client, but has discovered a discrepancy with the information contained in the declaration and application data sheet. Lucy wonders if she needs to correct the error if the correct information is contained in the declaration. She also asks how errors may be corrected. With respect to the filing of an application data sheet, which of the following is not accurate under proper USPTO procedure for applications filed on or after January 1, 2001?
A. An application data sheet is a sheet or sheets that may be voluntarily submitted in either provisional or nonprovisional applications, which contains bibliographic data, arranged in a format specified by the Office. If an application data sheet is provided, the application data sheet is part of the provisional or nonprovisional application for which it has been submitted.
B. Bibliographic data on an application data sheet includes: (1) applicant information, (2) correspondence information, (3) application information, (4) representative information, (5) domestic priority information, (6) foreign priority information, and (7) assignee information.
C. Once captured by the Office, bibliographic information derived from an application data sheet containing errors may not be corrected and recaptured by a request therefor accompanied by the submission of a supplemental application data sheet, an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 or § 1.67; nor will a letter pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b) be acceptable.
D. In general, supplemental application data sheets may be subsequently supplied prior to payment of the issue fee either to correct or update information in a previously submitted application data sheet.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accord with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. A written description as filed in a nonprovisional patent application is presumed adequate under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in the absence of evidence or reasoning to the contrary.
B. An examiner may show that a written description as filed in a nonprovisional patent application is not adequate by presenting a preponderance of evidence why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize in the applicant's disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.
C. A general allegation of \"unpredictability in the art\" is sufficient to support a rejection of a claim for lack of an adequate written description.
D. When filing an amendment, a practitioner should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Sam is a sole proprietor of Sam's Labs, which has no other employees. Sam invented a new drug while doing research under a Government contract. Sam desires to file a patent application for his invention and assign it to Sam's Labs. Sam has licensed Rick, also a sole proprietor with no employees, to make and use his invention. Sam wants to claim small entity status when filing a patent application for his invention. Sam also wants to grant the Government a license, but will not do so if he will be denied small entity status. Sam has limited resources and wants to know whether, how, and to what extent he may claim small entity status. Which of the following is not accurate with respect to proper USPTO procedure in relation to applications filed on or after January 1, 2001?
A. Sam's Labs is a small business concern for the purposes of claiming small entity status for fee reduction purposes.
B. If Sam grants a license to the Government resulting from a rights determination under Executive Order 10096, it will not constitute a license so as to prohibit claiming small entity status.
C. The establishment of small entity status permits the recipient to pay reduced fees for all patent application processing fees charged by the USPTO.
D. Sam may establish small entity status by a written assertion of entitlement to small entity status. A written assertion must: (i) be clearly identifiable; (ii) be signed; and (iii) convey the concept of entitlement to small entity status, such as by stating that applicant is a small entity, or that small entity status is entitled to be asserted for the application or patent.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Claims 1 and 2, fully disclosed and supported in the specification of a patent application having an effective filing date of March 15, 2000, for sole inventor Ted, state the following: Claim 1. An apparatus intended to be used for aerating water in a fish tank, comprising: (i) an oxygen source connected to a tube, and (ii) a valve connected to the tube. Claim 2. An apparatus as in claim 1, further comprising an oxygen sensor connected to the valve. 16. Which of the following claims, if fully disclosed and supported in the specification, and included in the application, provides a proper basis for an objection under 37 CFR 1.75(c)?
A. Claim 3. An apparatus as in any one of the preceding claims, in which the tube is plastic.
B. Claim 3. An apparatus according to claims 1 or 2, further comprising a temperature sensor connected to the valve.
C. Claim 3. An apparatus as in the preceding claims, in which the tube is plastic.
D. Claim 3. An apparatus as in any preceding claim, in which the tube is plastic.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Claims 1 and 2, fully disclosed and supported in the specification of a patent application having an effective filing date of March 15, 2000, for sole inventor Ted, state the following: Claim 1. An apparatus intended to be used for aerating water in a fish tank, comprising: (i) an oxygen source connected to a tube, and (ii) a valve connected to the tube. Claim 2. An apparatus as in claim 1, further comprising an oxygen sensor connected to the valve. 16. Which of the following, if relied on by an examiner in a rejection of claim 2, can be a statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of claim 2?
A. A U.S. patent to John, issued February 2, 1999, that discloses and claims an apparatus intended to be used for aerating ice cream, having an oxygen source connected to a tube, a valve connected to the tube, and a battery coupled to the oxygen source.
B. A U.S. patent to John, issued April 6, 1999, that discloses and claims an apparatus intended to be used for aerating water in a fish tank, having an oxygen source connected to a tube, a valve connected to the tube, and an oxygen sensor connected to the tube.
C. A U.S. patent to Ned, issued February 9, 1999, that discloses, but does not claim, an apparatus intended to be used for aerating ice cream, having an oxygen source connected to a tube, a valve connected to the tube, an oxygen sensor connected to the valve, and a battery coupled to the oxygen source.
D. A foreign patent to Ted issued April 12, 2000, on an application filed on March 12, 1997. The foreign patent discloses and claims an apparatus intended to be used for aerating water in a fish tank, having an oxygen source connected to a tube, a valve connected to the tube, and an oxygen sensor connected to the tube.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is in accord with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. Satisfaction of the enablement requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 by the disclosure in a specification also satisfies the written description requirement of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112
B. A claim to a process consisting solely of mathematical operations, i.e., converting one set of numbers into another set of numbers, does not manipulate appropriate subject matter and thus cannot constitute a process eligible for patent protection.
C. A claim for a machine can encompass only one machine, such as a single computer, for performing the underlying process.
D. A claim that recites nothing but the physical characteristics of a form of energy, such as a frequency, voltage, or the strength of a magnetic field, define energy or magnetism, per se, and as such are statutory natural phenomena.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Mr. Adams was touring the central Mexican highland desert when he came across a small tequila production facility. While touring the facility, Adams saw a unique machine for squeezing the sap from the blue agave plant and preparing the sap for fermentation. The machine, which had been in operation for more than three years, was highly efficient and helped produce excellent tequila from a minimal number of agave plants. The owner of the production facility had sold a number of identical machines to other local tequila producers over the past two years. All of the machines remained local and none of the producers sold their tequila outside the local area. Aware that the blue agave plant was becoming increasingly rare, Adams immediately recognized the commercial possibilities of such an efficient machine. Adams returned to the facility under cover of night and took numerous photographs of the machine. Upon Adams' return to the United States, he worked from the photographs to make detailed technical drawings of the machine. He then promptly filed a patent application directed to the machine. Which of the following statements is correct?
A. Adams may not obtain a patent on the machine because it was known by others in a NAFTA country before Mr. Adams made technical drawings of the machine.
B. Adams may not obtain a patent on the machine because the machine had been sold more than a year before Adams' application filing date.
C. Adams is entitled to a patent because all sales of the machine and the tequila produced by the machine were in Mexico; a goal of the patent system is public disclosure of technical advances; and the machine likely would not have been disclosed to the United States public without Adams.
D. Adams may not obtain a patent on the machine because the machine was in public use more than a year before Adams' application filing date.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is true?
A. The statement, "Whether claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable," complies with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.192(c)(6) for a concise statement in the appeal brief of the issues presented for review.
B. A reissue application may be filed in order to broaden claims back to their original form where the claims were mistakenly narrowed during the original prosecution to avoid the prior art provided that the narrowing of the claims was made without deceptive intent on the part of the applicant.
C. Following a new ground of rejection raised by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, the applicant may request a rehearing, or submit an appropriate amendment of the rejected claims or a showing of facts relating to the rejected claims.
D. If the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decides to require an appellant to address a particular matter, and the appellant cannot respond within the time period set, he may obtain an extension of time by paying the requisite fee.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An inventor, working with prior art subject matter, changes the subject matter, and thereafter files a patent application only claiming the changed subject matter. Which of the following changes might render the claimed subject matter patentable?
A. Where the only difference between the prior art device and the claim device was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and the claimed device would not perform differently than the prior art device.
B. Where the only difference between the prior art device and the claimed device is the configuration of the claimed device, and the configuration is a matter of choice without significance regarding the use of the device.
C. Where the difference between the prior art, an impure material, and the claimed subject matter, the purified form of the impure material, is the purity of the material and the utility of the purified material, which differs from the impure material.
D. Where the only difference between the prior art device and the claimed device is a reversal of the parts that move relative to each other, and without any unexpected results.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Roberto files a U.S. patent application fourteen months after he perfects an invention in Europe. Which of the following would establish a statutory bar against the granting of a U.S. patent to Roberto?
A. A foreign patent issued to Roberto 11 months prior to the filing date of Roberto'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 Roberto'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: Able and Baker conceived an improved gas grille for cookouts. Using elements A, B, C, D, E and F found in their backyards, as well as elements G, H, I, J, K, L, M and N purchased at a local hardware store, they successfully constructed and used a gas grille conforming to their concept. The grille includes subcombination of elements K, L and M conceived by Able, and subcombination C, D, F, G and M conceived by Baker. Able and Baker conceived their respective subcombinations separately and at different times. Able and Baker retain you to prepare and file a patent application for them. You are considering whether and what can be claimed in one patent application. Which of the following is true?
A. For Able and Baker to properly execute an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 in a patent application claiming not only the grille, but also the two subcombinations, Able and Baker must be joint inventors of the grille, and each of the two subcombinations.
B. A characteristic of U.S. patent law that is generally shared by other countries is that the applicant for a patent must be the inventor.
C. If Able and Baker execute an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 as joint inventors and file an application claiming the grille (a combination of elements A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M and N), the existence of the claim to the grille is evidence of their joint inventorship of the individual elements.
D. Able and Baker may properly execute an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 as joint inventors and file an application containing claims to the grille (a combination of elements A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M and N), claims to the subcombination conceived by Able, and claims to the subcombination conceived by Baker.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Ada invented a computer memory retrieval system in the United States. In June 1999, at the request of MC Computer Corp. and with the benefit of an export license, Ada demonstrates her invention at a testing facility in England. MC Computer Corp. signs a confidentiality agreement and agrees not to disclose the invention to anyone. The test is conducted in a secluded area and the persons involved are sworn to secrecy. Unbeknownst to Ada, MC Computer Corp. installs the computer memory retrieval system on its MC computers and begins selling its computers in England in September 1, 1999, with Ada's memory retrieval system. The first sale in the United States of MC Computer Corp's computers with Ada's memory retrieval system occurs on October 1, 1999. On August 1, 2000, MC Computer Corp. publishes an advertisement in the United States, and files a U.S. patent application that discloses but does not claim the memory retrieval system invented by Ada. The MC Computer Corp.'s patent issues on October 1, 2001. On September 12, 2000, Ada files a patent application. On October 15, 2001, the examiner rejects all the claims in Ada's application based upon MC Computer Corp.'s advertisement published on August 1, 2000. Which of the following is true?
A. Since the MC Computer Corp. misappropriated the invention and since Ada did not authorize the sales in England on September 1, 1999, or the advertisement on August 1, 2000 in the United States, the rejection may be overcome by showing that the idea was misappropriated by MC Computer and the sales were not authorized by Ada.
B. Ada is not entitled to a patent since the invention was on sale more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.
C. Ada may file a declaration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.131 to antedate MC Computer Corp.'s published advertisement.
D. Ada may file a request for reexamination of the MC Computer Corp.'s patent on the grounds that her idea was misappropriated.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Where a reference relied upon in a 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection qualifies as prior art only under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f), or (g), which of the following represents the most comprehensive answer in accord with proper USPTO practice and procedure as to the action an applicant should take to overcome the rejection?
A. Present proof that the subject matter relied upon and the claimed invention are currently commonly owned.
B. Present proof that the subject matter relied upon and the claimed invention were commonly owned at the time the later invention was made.
C. Present proof that the subject matter relied upon and the claimed invention were subject to an obligation to assign to the same person at the time the later invention was made.
D. (A) and (B).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A U.S. patent application for inventor William Tull discloses a target-shooting gun for improved accuracy, and a bullet impregnated with a new chemical composition. The new chemical composition minimizes damage to a target struck by the bullet. In a non-final Office action, an examiner includes a restriction requirement between a group of claims drawn to the target-shooting gun (Group 1), and a group of claims drawn to the bullet (Group 2). Which of the following, included in a timely reply to the non-final Office action, preserves Tull's right to petition for review of the restriction requirement, if the requirement is made final?
A. A reply that distinctly points out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, and also states, "The restriction requirement is traversed, and no election is made, thereby preserving Applicant's right to petition for review of the restriction requirement."
B. A reply that states, "Applicant elects Group 2 and traverses the restriction requirement because the requirement for restriction between Group 1 and Group 2 is in error."
C. A reply that distinctly and specifically points out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, and states, "Applicant traverses the restriction requirement and elects Group 2."
D. A reply that states, "The restriction requirement between Group 1 and Group 2 is traversed because it is in error, and no election is made, thereby preserving Applicant's right to petition for review of the restriction requirement."
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is true?
A. When an applicant successfully petitions to make his case special, the special status ends if applicant appeals the case to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
B. A reissue application may be filed in order to broaden claims back to their original form where the claims were mistakenly narrowed during the original prosecution to avoid the prior art provided that the narrowing of the claims was made without deceptive intent on the part of the applicant.
C. If the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decides to require an appellant to address a particular matter, and the appellant cannot respond within the time period set, he may obtain an extension of time by paying the requisite fee.
D. Following a new ground of rejection raised by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, the applicant may request a rehearing, or submit an appropriate amendment of the rejected claims or a showing of facts relating to the rejected claims.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)