QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: You are a sole patent practitioner. You have just finished reading the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., wherein the Federal Circuit held that patent claims directed to "a data processing system for managing a financial services configuration of a portfolio ,. ." were directed to statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Convinced that your demand as a result of the State Street Bank decision, you decide to place an advertisement in PC Magazine. Your advertisement reads as follows: INVENTOR NEWSFLASH!!! The highest patent court in the land has just ruled that computer programs can be patented. Don't miss this opportunity to make millions on your invention. To obtain a patent at a reasonable cost, call 1-888-DO IT NOW! Free initial consultation. Would your advertisement violate the PTO Code of Professional Responsibility?
A. Yes. Free consultations are not permitted.
B. No. You have not given anything of value to PC Magazine for recommending your services.
C. No. The PTO Code of Professional Responsibility permits advertising in magazines.
D. Yes. The advertisement does not indicate that you are a registered patent agent.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Inventors Beavis and Barbara mailed their complete provisional patent application to the PTO via first class mail on Tuesday, January 13, 1998, with a certificate of mailing. The application was received in the PTO on Friday, January 16, 1998. In late December 1998, Beavis and Barbara acquired financing for their invention. Encouraged by their good fortune, Beavis and Barbara hire a patent attorney to file a patent application for them. It is Monday, January 4, 1999, and you are the patent attorney hired by Beavis and Barbara. What is the latest date that a nonprovisional patent application can be filed claiming the benefit of Beavis and Barbara's earlier filed provisional patent application?
A. Saturday, January 16, 1999, via "Express Mail" date stamped as such in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.10.
B. Tuesday, January 13, 1999, via "Express Mail" date stamped as such in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.10.
C. Tuesday, January 13, 1999, via hand delivery to the PTO.
D. Friday, January 15, 1999, via facsimile transmission.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements, if any, are true regarding representations to the Patent and Trademark Office under 37 CFR § 10.18 and 37 CFR § 1.4(d)(2)?(I). Practitioners are required to advise clients regarding the sanctions which apply for knowingly and willfully concealing a material fact in papers submitted to the PTO. (II). Every paper filed by a practitioner must be personally signed by the practitioner, except those required to be signed by the applicant or party. (III) Applicant has a duty to conduct a prior art search as a prerequisite to filing an application for patent.
A. I and II
B. I only.
C. II only.
D. I, II, and III.
(category: trademark, Chinese translation: 商标)
Question: A parent application A was filed on September 9, 1988, and became abandoned on October 19, 1993. Application B was filed on October 21, 1993, and referred to application A as well as claimed the benefit of the filing date of application A. Application B issued as a patent on June 17, 1997. Application C was filed on October 29, 1993, and referred to application B as well as claimed the benefit of the filing date of application B. Application D was filed on December 20, 1996. Application D referred to application B and claimed the benefit of the filing date of application B. Both applications C and D were abandoned on July 22, 1998. Application E was filed on July 22, 1998 and is drawn to the same invention as claimed in applications C and D. Application E claims the benefit of the filing dates of applications A, B, C, and D, and makes reference to all preceding applications. The earliest effective filing date of application E with respect to any common subject matter in the prior applications is:
A. 751161600000
B. 851040000000
C. 751852800000
D. 589766400000
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Mike, an avid cyclist, has developed an invention relating to a bicycle having a "shaped handlebar" which provides improved aerodynamic properties for the bicycle. The invention is described in Mike's pending U.S. patent application. The "shaped handlebar" is disclosed as being "y" shaped. The application as filed, however, contained only a single claim (Claim 1) to the bicycle having a "shaped handlebar". Claim 1 was properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by a U.S. patent to Lois which discloses a "y" shaped handlebar on a bicycle. Claim 1 was amended to add a bicycle wheel structure not disclosed or suggested by the Lois patent. Dependent Claims 2 and 3 were added to add further limitations to the invention. Claim 2 is dependent from Claim 1 and further defined the handlebar as being "y" shaped. Claim 3 is also dependent from Claim 1 and further defined the handlebar as being "U" shaped. Which of the following statements is true?
A. Claim 3 would be unpatentable under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being indefinite.
B. Claim 2 would be unpatentable under the fourth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 because it does not further limit the subject matter of independent Claim 1.
C. Claim 3 would be unpatentable under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 since the description requirement is not satisfied.
D. Claim 2 would be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 132 as being drawn to new matter.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following does not have to be included as part of a request for reexamination of a patent filed by the patent owner?
A. The entire specification, claims, and drawings of the patent for which reexamination is requested in cut-up form.
B. Proposed amendments to the patent claims for which reexamination is requested.
C. A copy of every patent or printed publication relied upon as raising a substantial new question of patentability.
D. A statement pointing out each substantial new question of patentability based on prior patents and printed publications.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Grish, Dersh, and you are registered practitioners and partners in a law firm. You prepared and filed in the PTO a patent application for Inahurry, your client. Inahurry has successfully marketed the claimed invention. Financial success of the invention is a real possibility. The application was filed with a combined Declaration and Power of Attorney signed by Inahurry appointing you, Grish, and Dersh as Inahurry's attorneys to prosecute the application. All of the claims in the application were rejected in the first Office action. After you filed a timely reply to the first Office action, the examiner issued a second Office action dated January 13, 1999, in which he made a final rejection of the claims, and set a three month shortened statutory period for reply. Promptly after receipt of the second Office action, you notified Inahurry of the action and possible replies. Inahurry, who is not well versed in patent practice and procedure, but who is dissatisfied with the course of prosecution with the application, sends you a letter dated April 5, 1999, discharging you, Grish, and Dersh. What are your ethical obligations as a result of Inahurry's letter?
A. You must file with the Commissioner by July 13. 1999. a request to withdraw signed by you on behalf of yourself, Grish, and Dersh; and take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to Inahurry's rights, including giving due notice to Inahurry of the request, the period for reply, the availability of extensions of time to reply and fees for the same, and delivery to Inahurry of all papers and property to which Inahurry is entitled, and refund any unearned fees.
B. You must obtain from the Commissioner approval to withdraw at least thirty days before the expiration of the statutory period for reply, give due notice to Inahurry of the request, and deliver to Inahurry all papers and property to which Inahurry is entitled, and refund any unearned fees.
C. You must continue to prosecute the application until Inahurry files a revocation of the power of attorney in the PTO and it is approved by the Commissioner.
D. You have an ethical obligation to talk to Inahurry and find out why he is dissatisfied with your firm and to persuade him to let your firm continue to represent him before the PTO.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: The first three claims in a pending patent application read as follows: 1. A widget comprising A, B, and C. 2. A widget as claimed in Claim 1, further comprising D. 3. A widget as claimed in Claims 1 or 2, further comprising E. The application further discloses element G which can be combined with any combination of elements A, B, C, D, and E to form the widget. Which of the following claims would be a correct form for Claim 4?
A. A widget as claimed in Claims 1, 2, and 3, further comprising G.
B. A widget as claimed in Claim 2, further comprising D.
C. A widget as claimed in Claim 3, further comprising D.
D. A widget as claimed in Claims 1 or 2, further comprising G.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Bert and Frnie are joint inventors of a widget that automatically adjusts television volume levels during commercial breaks. A nonprovisional patent application was filed on October 15, 1998, and a first Office action on the merits was mailed on January 11, 1999. A reply was filed on January 28, 1999, and a Notice of Allowance was mailed on February 26, 1999. The Issue Fee has not been paid. What is the last day that Bert and Ernie can file a properly drafted Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) without having to pay a fee and to ensure that the information submitted in the IDS would be considered by the examiner?
A. Friday, January 15, 1999, via facsimile with a Certificate of Transmission
B. Sunday, January 10, 1999, via facsimile with a Certificate of Transmission
C. Thursday, January 28, 1999, via first class mail with no Certificate of Transmission
D. Friday, January 15, 1999, via 'Express Mail Post Office to Post Office' with a Certificate of Express Mailing
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A double patenting issue can be raised? I.between two or more pending applications. II.in a reexamination proceeding. III. between a pending international application which has not yet entered the national stage in the United States and a patent. IV. between three pending applications and a patent.
A. I, II, III, and IV
B. I, III, and IV
C. I, II, and III
D. I, II, and IV
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On April 3, 1997, Priscilla discovered a process for making a new composition by heating an aqueous mixture of a resin and a metal salt. Priscilla filed a patent application on July 28, 1997, which issued as a patent on January 19, 1999. The patent claims were directed only to the process for making the composition. Priscilla's patent discloses, but does not claim, the composition. On September 19, 1998, Bruce discovered that Priscilla's composition could be made by a different process comprising the steps of reacting a resin, a metal oxide, and an acid in a nitrogen atmosphere. On January 11, 1999, Bruce filed an application in the PTO which claims the composition and his method of making the composition. All work by Priscilla and Bruce was done in this country. Bruce's work is independent of and not derived from Priscilla. Bruce and Priscilla have never been employed by the same employer. The examiner rejected Bruce's composition claims over Priscilla's patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The rejection is:
A. improper because Priscilla discloses a process which is different from the process used by Bruce to make the composition.
B. proper because Priscilla's composition was known by others in this country before the invention thereof by Bruce.
C. improper because Bruce filed his application before Priscilla's patent issued.
D. proper because Priscilla discloses, but does not claim the composition, and has an earlier filing date than Bruce.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Inventor Dan invented Y in the United States on February 5, 1998, and hired practitioner P to prepare and file a provisional application. On March 6, 1998, P filed a provisional patent application in the PTO. P received a Notice to File Missing Parts dated June 5, 1998, because the appropriate filing fee was not filed. The Notice set a period for reply which was two months from the date of the Notice. The filing fee and required surcharge were not filed in the PTO. The provisional patent application became abandoned. A Notice of Abandonment, dated August 10, 1998, was duly received by P's secretary in P's office, and P's secretary placed the notice in Dan's file. On March 3, 19, Dan furnished P with a copy of a publication by Smith dated March 1, 1998, fully describing Y, and its method of manufacture. On March 4, 1999, P reviewed Dan's file and found the two notices. To properly protect Dan's patent rights, the most appropriate course of action for P to take is to
A. file in the PTO on Friday, March 5, 1999, a nonprovisional application claiming Y, and file a copy of the Smith publication, and an explanation of the relevance of the Smith publication.
B. deposit with the U.S. Postal Service as 'Express Mail' in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.10, on Saturday, March 6, 1999, a nonprovisional application which claims Y, a copy of the Smith publication, and an explanation of the relevance of the Smith publication.
C. file in the PTO on Friday, March 5, 1999, another provisional application claiming the benefit of the filing date of the March 6, 1998, provisional application. For the March 6, 1998, provisional application, file the filing fee and surcharge, the appropriate petition and fee to revive the provisional application, a statement by P that the abandonment of the provisional application was unintentional, a copy of the Smith publication, and an explanation of the relevance of the Smith publication.
D. deposit in the U.S. Postal Service as 'Express Mail' in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.10 on Saturday, March 6, 1999, a nonprovisional application claiming Y, and claiming the benefit of the filing date of the provisional application under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) along with a copy of the Smith publication, and an explanation of the relevance of the Smith publication. Also, in the provisional application, file the filing fee and surcharge for the provisional application along with the appropriate petition and fee to revive the provisional application as unintentionally abandoned, and a statement by P that the abandonment of the provisional application was unintentional.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On April 1, 1999, Inventor Dave filed a patent application claiming a pancake flipper. To fully describe the pancake flipper, Dave refers to a February 1999 issue of a cooking magazine. The examiner objected to the specification on the ground that it improperly incorporated the material of the publication by reference. Which of the following actions would accord with proper PTO practice and procedure in overcoming the objection?
A. Amend the specification to include the material incorporated by reference.
B. File a declaration executed by Dave containing the essential material and stating that the material consists of the same material incorporated by reference.
C. Abandon the application and file a new application incorporating by reference Dave's prior application.
D. File an amendment which amends the specification to include the material incorporated by reference and file a petition to the Commissioner stating that the incorporation by reference was inadvertent with the proper fee.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: XYZ Corporation has hired you to draft and file a patent application relating to a steel alloy, You diligently prepare the application and file it in the PTO on June 23, 1998, naming Baker as the inventor. On February 5, 1999, you receive a first Office action rejecting all the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)/103 over a patent assigned to XYZ Corporation. Able is the inventor named in the patent. The Able patent was granted on an application filed on June 25, 1996, and issued on January 13, 1998. You can overcome this rejection by
A. filing an affidavit signed by an officer of the XYZ Corporation averring that both Able and Baker were subject to an obligation of assignment on the date the later invention was made, and stating facts which explain the officer's belief of ownership.
B. filing an affidavit by Baker avering common ownership on the date of filing the Able patent application with the necessary fee.
C. filing a terminal disclaimer so as not to extend the term of the Baker application beyond that of the Able patent if the Baker application matures into a patent.
D. filing a request to suspend the prosecution of the Baker patent application, and petition the Commissioner for a corrected filing receipt dated January 13, 1998, because of common ownership.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Inventor Cal files a provisional application in the PTO on June 5, 1997. On June 2, 1998, Cal asks you to prepare and file a nonprovisional utility patent application. On June 3, 1998, you file the nonprovisional utility application with a specific reference to Cal's June 5, 1997, provisional application. A Notice of Allowance is sent on February 3, 1999, and the Issue fee is timely paid on April 1, 1999. The patent will issue on June 1, 1999. When will Cal's patent term begin and end?
A. The term will begin on June 1, 1999, and end on June 5, 2017.
B. The term will begin on February 3, 1999, and will end on June 5, 2017.
C. The term will begin on April 1, 1999, and will end on May 1, 2018.
D. The term will begin on June 1, 1999, and will end on June 3, 2018.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent application is filed with the following original Claim 1: A steam cooking device comprising: a steam generating chamber having a steam generator; a cooking chamber adjacent to said steam generating chamber for receiving steam from said steam; and a heat exchanger secured within said steam generator, said heat exchanger including at least one heating zone comprised of an inner having raised surface projections thereon, an outer panel having raised surface projections thereon, and a path between said raised surface projections whereby fluid gases may pass for heating the walls of the heat exchanger. Which of the following is in accord with proper Pro amendment practice and procedure?
A. In Claim l, line 4, after "steam" insert --generator--.
B. In Claim l, line 7, after "inner" insert --panel--.
C. In Claim l, line 6, delete [one], insert --two--, and amend "zone" to read --zones--.
D. In Claim l, lines 3-4, after "chamber" (second occurrence) delete [for receiving] and insert --to produce sufficient quantities of gas and ..
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A Notice of Allowance is dated and mailed on September 25, 1998, to the applicant. In which of the following situations would the issue fee not be considered as timely paid?
A. The issue fee is filed in the PTO on Monday, December 28, 1998.
B. The issue fee is filed in the PTO on Wednesday, November 25, 1998.
C. The issue fee is filed in the PTO on Thursday, March 25, 1999, and is accompanied by a petition to the Commissioner for a three month extension of time, as well as the late payment fee.
D. The issue fee is received in the PTO on December 29, 1998, and is accompanied with a certificate of mailing dated Monday, December 28, 1998.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Whenever a claim of a patent is held invalid: 
A. the claim must be disclaimed by the patent owner to avoid invalidity of the remaining claims in the patent.
B. a portion of the claim can be disclaimed provided the remaining portion of the claim adequately defines the invention.
C. any disclaimer of the claim shall be in writing, but need not be recorded in the PTO.
D. and the invalid claim is to a composition of matter, the claims to a biotechnological process which result in that composition of matter will also be held invalid.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements, if any, regarding amendments to clauses in a reexamination proceeding are true? 
A. If copies of the printed patent are used to amend the claims, additions to the claims are indicated by carets.
B. Brackets may not be used in amending claims if more than 5 words are being inserted into the claim.
C. Additions to amended claims are indicated by underlining, and new claims may be added, if and only if, an equal number of existing claims are canceled.
D. A patent claim should be canceled by a statement canceling the patent claim and renumbering any new claim to have the number of the canceled claim.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You are a registered patent agent representing a corporate client. An appeal is taken from the examiner's final rejection of Claims 1-8 of your client's nonprovisional patent application. Independent Claim 1 and its dependent Claims 2-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on a U.S. patent to X. Independent Claim 5, independent Claim 6 and its dependent Claims 7-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on a U.S. patent to Y in view of a U.S. patent to Z. None of the dependent claims are multiple dependent claims. The subject matter of Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 is very important to your client and you consider each of these claims to be separately patentable over the art applied by the examiner in rejecting these claims. In your Appeal Brief, which of the following courses of action, if any, would be the most appropriate to follow on behalf of your client?
A. Specify that dependent Claims 2-4 and 7-8 stand or fall together with their respective independent Claims 1 and 6, and present reasons as to why independent Claims 1, 5, and 6 are considered separately patentable.
B. Point out the errors in the examiner's rejection of Claims 1-3 and how the specific limitations of Claims 1-3 are not shown in X's patent. Point out the errors in the examiner's rejection of Claims 5, 6, and 8 and how Y and Z, taken as a whole, do not suggest the claimed subject matter of Claims 5, 6, and 8.
C. Point out that dependent Claims 4 and 7 stand or fall with their respective independent Claims 1 and 6, and present arguments as to the separate patentability of each of Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8.
D. Argue the importance of each claim to your client, emphasizing the differences in what independent Claims 1, 5, and 6 cover, and state how the examiner erred in relying on X, Y, and Z's patents.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You are prosecuting a patent application in which there are two named inventors. You received a notice of allowance in the patent application. However, before the Issue fee became due, one of the named inventors died. Which of the following statements is true with respect to the application as a consequence of the death of the inventor?
A. A new power of attorney must be submitted so that you can continue to represent the remaining inventor.
B. The application is automatically abandoned upon the death of the inventor.
C. A new application must be filed naming the heirs of the deceased inventor and the remaining inventor.
D. The executor or administrator of the deceased inventor must intervene to prevent the application from being withdrawn from issue.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)