QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: Upon examination of your client's patent application, the patent examiner is considering whether and what rejections to apply to the claims. One or more of the limitations in the claims is indefinite or lacks supporting disclosure. The examiner may not properly take which of the following actions or inactions?
A. If the claim is subject to plural interpretations due to a limitation being indefinite, the examiner may disregard any possibility of multiple interpretations.
B. If a claim is subject to more than one interpretation due to a limitation being indefinite, at least one of which would render the claim unpatentable over the prior art, the examiner should reject the claim as indefinite under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, and should reject the claim over the prior art based on the interpretation of the claim that renders the prior art applicable.
C. If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain claim language, the examiner should reject the claim as indefinite under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, and not reject the claim as obvious.
D. When evaluating claims for obviousness under 35 USC 103, all the limitations of the claims, including new matter lacking supporting disclosure in the originally filed specification, must be considered and given weight.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Jack, a registered patent agent, received a final rejection of all of the claims in an application directed to an article of manufacture. Jack is about to file a timely Notice of Appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before filing his notice of appeal, Jack would like to tie up some loose ends by amendment. Which of the following reply (replies) may he file without triggering the requirements of 37 CFR 1.116(b)?
A. A reply that presents his argument in a more defensible light and adds additional claims.
B. A reply amending the claims into process claims.
C. A reply amending all of the independent claims, accompanied by a declaration from the inventor.
D. A reply complying with a requirement of form expressly set forth in the previous Office action.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: John filed a nonprovisional patent application in the USPTO claiming two distinct inventions, a combination and a subcombination. At the time of filing the nonprovisional application, he recorded an assignment of all right, title, and interest in the inventions claimed in the application to ABC Corporation. In the first Office action, the examiner required restriction, and John elected the combination. A year later, during the pendency of the nonprovisional application, John filed a divisional patent application claiming the subcombination. At the time of filing the divisional application, John assigned all right, title, and interest in the inventions claimed in the divisional application to XYZ Corporation, and the latter party recorded the assignment within three months of the assignment. Following recordation of the assignment to XYZ Corporation, which of the following statements is false?
A. The Office should treat John as having no ownership rights in the combination.
B. The Office should treat John as having no ownership rights in the subcombination.
C. ABC Corporation has no ownership rights in the subcombination.
D. XYZ Corporation has no ownership rights in the combination.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements relevant to a third party submission in a published patent application accords with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. A submission of patents by a member of the public must be made within 2 months of the date of publication of the application.
B. A submission of patents by a member of the public must be made prior to the mailing of a Notice of Allowance.
C. A submission of patents by a member of the public must be made within 2 months of the date of publication of the application or prior to the mailing of a Notice of Allowance, whichever is later.
D. A submission of patents by a member of the public must be made within 2 months of the date of publication of the application or prior to the mailing of a Notice of Allowance, whichever is earlier.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An examiner has advanced a reasonable basis for questioning the adequacy of the enabling disclosure in the specification of your client's patent application, and has properly rejected all the claims in the application. The claims in the application are drawn to a computer program system. In accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure, the rejection should be overcome by submitting _____________
A. factual evidence directed to the amount of time and effort and level of knowledge required for the practice of the invention from the disclosure alone.
B. arguments by you (counsel) alone, inasmuch as they can take the place of evidence in the record.
C. an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 by an affiant, who is more than a routineer in the art, submitting few facts to support his conclusions on the ultimate legal question of sufficiency, i.e., that the system "could be constructed."
D. opinion evidence directed to the ultimate legal issue of enablement.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: The MPEP and USPTO rules and procedure set out factual inquiries that are employed when making an obviousness-type double patenting analysis. Which of the following is not a factual inquiry that would be properly employed when making an obviousness-type double patenting determination with regard to a pending application vis-a-vis a claim in an issued patent?
A. Determine the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
B. Determine the scope and content of a patent claim and the prior art relative to a claim in the application at issue.
C. Evaluate any objective indicia of nonobviousness of the claim of the application at issue.
D. Determine the differences between the scope and content of: the patent claim and the prior art determined in choice (B) above and the claim in the application at issue.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the MPEP and USPTO rules and procedure, correspondence transmitted to the USPTO by facsimile is not permitted in certain situations. Which of the following facsimile transmissions to the USPTO will be accorded a date of receipt by the USPTO?
A. Facsimile transmission of a request for reexamination under 37 CFR 1.510 or 1.913.
B. Facsimile transmission of drawings submitted under 37 CFR 1.81, 1.83 through 1.85, 1.152, 1.165, 1.174, or 1.437.
C. Facsimile transmission of a response to a Notice of Incomplete Nonprovisional Application for the purpose of obtaining an application filing date.
D. Facsimile transmission of a correspondence to be filed in a patent application subject to a secrecy order under 37 CFR 5.1 through 5.5 and directly related to the secrecy order content of the application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: If a reissue application is filed within two years of the original patent grant, the applicant may subsequently broaden the claims during prosecution of the pending reissue prosecution beyond the two year limit, _________________________________.
A. if the applicant indicates in the oath accompanying the reissue application that the claims will be broadened.
B. if an intent to broaden is indicated in the reissue application at any time within three years from the patent grant.
C. if the reissue application is filed on the 2-year anniversary date from the patent grant, even though an intent to broaden the claims was not indicated in the application at that time.
D. if the reissue application is a continuing reissue application of a parent reissue application, and neither reissue application contained an indication of an intent to broaden the claims until 4 years after the patent grant..
(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 statements is most correct?
A. The same evidence sufficient to establish a constructive reduction to practice is necessarily also sufficient to establish actual reduction to practice.
B. Proof of constructive reduction to practice does not require sufficient disclosure to satisfy the "how to use" and "how to make" requirements of 35 USC 112, first paragraph.
C. A process is reduced to actual practice when it is successfully performed.
D. The diligence of 35 USC 102(g) requires an inventor to drop all other work and concentrate on the particular invention.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A registered practitioner filed in the USPTO a client's utility patent application on December 30, 2002. The application was filed with a request for nonpublication, certifying that the invention disclosed in the U.S. application has not and will not be the subject of an application in another country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires eighteen month publication. Subsequently, the client files an application in Japan on the invention and some recent improvements to the invention. The improvements are not disclosed or supported in the utility application. Japan is a country that requires eighteen month publication. Two months after filing the application in Japan, and before filing any other papers in the USPTO, the client remembers that a nonpublication request was filed and informs the practitioner about the application that was filed in Japan. Which of the following courses of action is in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?
A. The application is abandoned because the practitioner did not rescind the nonpublication request and provide notice of foreign filing within 45 days of having filed the application in Japan. The applicant must now file a petition and fee to revive under 37 CFR 1.137(b).
B. The application is abandoned because the applicant did not rescind the nonpublication request before filing the application in Japan. The applicant must now file a petition and fee to revive under 37 CFR 1.137(b).
C. The applicant should file an amendment to the specification of the U.S. application, adding the recent improvements to the disclosure in the specification.
D. The application is abandoned because the applicant did not rescind the nonpublication request by notifying the Office under 37 CFR 1.213(c) within the appropriate time. The applicant must now file a petition and fee to revive under 37 CFR 1.137(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 presents a Markush group in accordance with proper PTO practice and procedure?
A. R is selected from the group consisting of A, B, C, or D.
B. R is selected from the group consisting of A, B, C, and D.
C. R is selected from the group comprising A, B, C, and D.
D. R is selected from the group comprising A, B, C or D.
(category: trademark, Chinese translation: 商标)
Question: In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following may not be filed by facsimile transmission?
A. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 along with a submission.
B. A continued prosecution application under 37 CFR 1.53(d).
C. An amendment in reply to a non-final Office action.
D. The filing of a provisional patent application specification and drawing for the purpose of obtaining an application filing date.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: According to the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, in which of the following situations would the finality of an Office action rejection be improper? I. The final Office action rejection is in a first Office action in a substitute application that contains material which was presented in the earlier application after final rejection but was denied entry because the issue of new matter was raised. II. 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 earlier 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 earlier application. III. 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 earlier application.
A. I
B. II
C. III
D. I and III
(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. In rejecting claims the examiner may rely upon facts within his own personal knowledge, unless the examiner qualifies as an expert within the art, in which case he is precluded from doing so, since only evidence of one of ordinary skill in the art is permitted.
B. If an applicant desires to claim subject matter in a reissue which was the same subject matter waived in the statutory invention registration of another, the applicant is precluded by the waiver from doing so, even though the applicant was not named in the statutory invention registration.
C. If an applicant, knowing that the subject matter claimed in his patent application was on sale in Michigan and sales activity is a statutory bar under 35 USC 102(b) to the claims in his application, nevertheless withholds the information from the patent examiner examining the application, and obtains a patent including the claims in question, the applicant may remove any issue of inequitable conduct by filing a request for reexamination based on the sales activity.
D. An applicant for a patent may overcome a statutory bar under 35 USC 102(b) based on a patent claiming the same invention by acquiring the rights to the patent pursuant to an assignment and then asserting the assignee's right to determine priority of invention pursuant to 37 CFR 1.602.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Following a restriction requirement and election, a registered practitioner received a first Office action dated Friday, December 1, 2000. The primary examiner indicated that claims 1 to 10 were rejected and claims 11 to 20 were withdrawn from consideration. The first Office action set a 3 month shortened statutory period for reply. On February 28, 2001, the practitioner properly filed an express abandonment in the application and at the same time filed a request for continuing application. In a non-final Office action dated May 1, 2001 in the continuing application, the examiner indicated in that claims 1 to 20, all of the pending claims, are rejected. The practitioner filed a notice of appeal on Monday, July 2, 2001. In accordance with USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following most accurately describes the propriety of the practitioner's reply to the May 1st Office action?
A. The notice of appeal is not a proper response because the claims of the continuing application have not been finally rejected.
B. The notice of appeal is not a proper reply because all of the claims in the continuing application have not been twice rejected.
C. The filing of a notice of appeal is not a proper reply because not all the claims in the continuing application have been twice rejected.
D. A notice of appeal is never a proper response to a non-final rejection.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accordance with the provisions of the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?
A. Where joint inventors are named, the examiner should not inquire of the patent applicant concerning the inventors and the invention dates for the subject matter of the various claims until it becomes necessary to do so in order to properly examine the application.
B. Under 35 USC 119(a), the foreign priority benefit may be claimed to any foreign application that names a U.S. inventor as long as the U.S. named inventor was the inventor of the foreign application invention and 35 USC 119(a)-(d) requirements are met.
C. Where two or more foreign applications are combined in a single U.S. application, to take advantage of the changes to 35 USC 103 or 35 USC 116, the U.S. application may claim benefit under 35 USC 119(a) to each of the foreign applications provided all the requirements of 35 USC 119(a)-(d) are met.
D. One of the conditions for benefit under 35 USC 119(a) is that the foreign application must be for the same or a nonobvious improvement of the invention described in the United States application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A registered practitioner filed a patent application naming Sam as the sole inventor without an executed declaration under 37 CFR 1.63. The USPTO mailed a Notice to File Missing Parts dated January 3, 2000. The Notice to File Missing Parts set a two-month period for reply. Which of the following statements is in accordance with proper USPTO rules and the procedure set forth in the MPEP? I. Submit an appropriate reply to the Notice to File Missing Parts by filing, on August 3, 2000, a declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 executed by Sam, accompanied by a petition under 37 CFR 1.136(a) for an extension of five months, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(a). II. In no situation can any extension requested by the practitioner carry the date on which a reply is due to the Notice to File Missing Parts beyond Monday, July 3, 2000. III. An appropriate reply by the practitioner to the Notice to File Missing Parts is to file, on August 3, 2000 a declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 executed by Sam, accompanied by a petition under 37 CFR 1.136(b).
A. I
B. II
C. III
D. I and III
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP, a Certificate of Correction effectuates correction of an issued patent where:
A. Through error and without deceptive intent, there is a failure to make reference to a prior copending application according to 37 CFR 1.78, and the failure does not otherwise affect what is claimed, but the prior copending application is referenced in the record of the application, and a petition under 37 CFR 1.324 and appropriate fees were filed.
B. Through error and without deceptive intent, a preferred embodiment that materially affects the scope of the patent was omitted in the original disclosure in the filed application, and a petition under 37 CFR 1.324 and appropriate fees were filed.
C. Through error and without deceptive intent, a prior copending application is incorrectly referenced in the application, the incorrect reference does not otherwise affect the claimed subject matter, and the prior copending application is correctly identified elsewhere in the application file, and a petition under 37 CFR 1.324 and appropriate fees were filed.
D. Through error and without deceptive intent, an inventor's name is omitted from an issued patent, a petition under 37 CFR 1.324 and appropriate fees were filed, and the petition was granted.
(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. A first Office action contains a rejection of all the claims of the application under 35 USC 103(a) based on a U.S. patent application publication to Smith in view of a U.S. patent to Jones. 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 also observes that the Smith patent application was filed on April 10, 2001 and that the patent 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 timely replies would 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 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.
C. A reply that consists of an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 stating that the affiant has never seen the invention in the Potter application before.
D. A reply that consists of an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 properly proving invention of the claimed subject matter of Potter application only prior to June 6, 2001.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, impermissible recapture in an application exists ______________________
A. if the limitation now being added in the present reissue was originally presented/argued/stated in the original application to make the claims allowable over a rejection or objection made in the original application.
B. if the limitation now being omitted or broadened in the present continuation was originally presented/argued/stated in a parent application to make the claims allowable over a rejection or objection made in the parent application.
C. if the limitation now being omitted or broadened in the present reissue was originally presented/argued/stated in the original application to make the claims allowable over a rejection or objection made in the original application.
D. if the limitation now being omitted or broadened in the present reissue was being broadened for the first time more than two years after the issuance of the original patent.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: With the exception that under 37 CFR 1.53 an application for patent may be assigned a filing date without payment of the basic filing fee, USPTO fees and charges payable to the USPTO requesting any action by the Office for which a fee or charge is payable, are required to be paid, in accordance with the MPEP and USPTO rules and procedure:
A. in advance, that is, at the time of requesting any action.
B. upon written notice from the USPTO.
C. within 20 days of requesting any action.
D. by the end of the fiscal year.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In which of the following final Office action rejections is the finality of the Office action rejection in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?
A. The final Office action rejection is in a second Office action and uses newly cited art under 35 USC 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)