QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: A registered practitioner filed a utility patent application on May 15, 2000 pursuant to 35 USC 111(a) claiming a detergent composition. On May 15, 2002 the Office mailed a non-final Office action setting a 3-month period for reply. A proper reply was mailed on August 15, 2002 by first-class mail with sufficient postage to the USPTO. The reply was received by the USPTO on September 15, 2002. On September 30, 2002, the Office mailed a final Office action. On October 15, 2002, the Office received a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) meeting all of the requirements of 37 CFR 1.114. On October 30, 2002, the USPTO mailed a Notice of Allowance in view of the RCE and amendment. The utility application issued on February 11, 2003. Which of the following statements is in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP concerning the amount of additional term applicant X would receive because of Patent Term Adjustment (PTA)?
A. The patentee would earn PTA because the Office failed to mail at least one notification under 35 USC 132 or notice of allowance under 35 USC 151 no later than fourteen months after the date the application was filed under 35 USC 111(a) but would lose some earned PTA because applicant did not file a response to the non-final rejection within three months.
B. The patentee would earn PTA because the Office failed to mail at least one notification under 35 USC 132 or notice of allowance under 35 USC 151 no later than fourteen months after the date the application was filed under 35 USC 111(a) and would not lose any earned PTA because applicant filed a response to the nonfinal rejection within three months.
C. The patentee would not earn any additional time under the provisions of PTA because the application is utility application, not a design application.
D. The patentee would not earn any additional time because the application was filed prior to May 29, 2000 and the filing of the RCE would not make the application eligible for PTA.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: When, in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, is a supplemental oath or declaration treated as an amendment under 37 CFR 1.312?
A. When filed in a nonprovisional application after the Notice of Allowance has been mailed.
B. When filed in a reissue application at any point during the prosecution.
C. When filed in a nonprovisional application after the payment of the Issue Fee.
D. When filed in a reissue application after the Notice of Allowance has been mailed.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following is patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101?
A. A novel and unobvious abstract idea.
B. A previously undiscovered law of nature.
C. A billing process containing mathematical algorithms producing a written invoice.
D. A novel and unobvious discovery of a physical phenomenon.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A registered practitioner files a patent application with the following claim: 1. A plastic insert for the bottom of a shopping cart comprising circular receptacles to receive wine bottles and to maintain them in an upright and stable position even while the shopping cart is moved about a store so that they do not fall and break. Patent A discloses a plastic insert for the bottom of a shopping cart comprising rectangular receptacles to receive cereal boxes and to maintain them in an upright and stable position even while the shopping cart is moved about a store in order to keep them organized in the cart. Patent A also discloses that the receptacles could be any circular diameter to receive complementary shaped bottles or jars such as to securely hold 2-liter soft drink bottles or mayonnaise jars. A primary examiner rejected the claim as being obvious under 35 USC 103 over Patent A reasoning that Patent A suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art an insert for a shopping cart with circular receptacles for the purpose of stably maintaining any bottle, including wine bottles, while pushing the cart about a store so that the cart remains organized. Assume the examiner has made a sufficient prima facie case of obviousness. Following receipt of the rejection, the practitioner filed a timely reply. The practitioner argued that Patent A does not render obvious the claimed subject matter because there is no suggestion of a plastic insert to keep a wine bottle from falling and breaking in a shopping cart. Which of the following best explains why, in accordance with the patent laws, rules and the procedures as related in the MPEP, the examiner should or should not be persuaded by the practitioner's argument?
A. No, because Patent A suggests circular receptacles for any complementary bottle, albeit for a different purpose.
B. Yes, because there is no suggestion in Patent A that the plastic insert can hold a wine bottle.
C. Yes, because the claim uses the insert to keep the bottles from falling and breaking while Patent A uses the insert to keep the cart organized.
D. Yes, because Patent A is more interested in organizing boxes than holding bottles.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following statements regarding publications as references is incorrect?
A. A doctoral thesis indexed and shelved in a library can be sufficiently accessible to the public to constitute prior art as a printed publication.
B. Evidence showing routine business practices is never sufficient to establish the date on which a publication became accessible to the public.
C. A paper which is orally presented in a forum open to all interested persons can constitute a "printed publication" if written copies are disseminated without restriction.
D. Documents distributed only internally within an organization, which has an existing policy of confidentiality or agreement to remain confidential are not "printed publications" even if many copies are distributed.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A registered practitioner receives an Office action for Application X, a patent application filed after November 29, 1999. The action contains a rejection of all the claims as being obvious under 35 USC 103(a) over Patent A in view of Patent B. Patent A is only available as prior art under 35 USC 102(e). Patent B is available under 35 USC 102(b). The practitioner seeks to disqualify Patent A as prior art under 35 USC 103(c). Which of the following would be sufficient evidence to disqualify Patent A as prior art in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
A. A declaration signed by an employee of Corporation K, who is not empowered to act on behalf of Corporation K, stating that at the time the invention claimed in Application X was made, the claimed invention and Patent A were commonly owned by Corporation K.
B. A declaration signed by the inventor of Patent A stating that at the time the invention claimed in Application X was made, the invention claimed in Application X and the invention claimed in Patent A were both subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
C. A statement by the inventor Jones, the sole inventor of Application X, saying that at the present time, Application X and Patent A are commonly owned.
D. A statement by the practitioner stating that Application X and Patent A were, at the time the invention claimed in Application X was made, commonly owned by the same person.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Reexamination has been ordered following receipt of a request for reexamination of U.S. Patent X, filed by the patentee. Patent X contains independent claims 1 through 4, each directed to a hydrocyclone separator apparatus. They are the only claims that were ever presented during prosecution of the application that matured into Patent X. In the first Office action during reexamination, claims 1 through 4 are rejected as being obvious under 35 USC 103 over U.S. Patent Z. The apparatus is used for separating material, including fibers suspended in a liquid suspension, into a light fraction containing the fibers, and a heavy fraction containing rejects. Assume there are no issues under 35 USC 102, 103, or 112, and that any dependent claim is properly dependent. Recommend which of the following claims, if any, would be subject to rejection under 35 USC 305 for improperly enlarging the scope of the original claim in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP.
A. Claim 5. A hydrocyclone separator apparatus according to claim 4, wherein said blades are configured in the form of generally plane surfaces curved in one plane only.
B. Claim 5. A hydrocyclone separator apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the outlet duct is in the form of two frustro-conical portions joined at their narrow ends.
C. Claim 5. A method of separating material including fibers suspended in a liquid suspension comprising the steps of separating the material into a light fraction containing the fibers and a heavy fraction containing rejects, and converting the light fraction into a pulp and paper stock suspension.
D. Claim 5. A hydrocyclone separator apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the separator chamber is conical in shape having at the narrow end an outlet for the heavy fraction and at its wide end an outlet for the light fraction.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: With respect to the examiner's burden in making an enablement rejection under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, which of the following statements is or are in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP? 
1: The examiner may properly make an enablement rejection before construing the claims. 2: The examiner has the initial burden to establish a reasonable basis to question the enablement provided for the claimed invention. 3: The examiner need not give reasons for the uncertainty of the enablement when there is no evidence of operability beyond the disclosed embodiments.
A. Statement (1) only
B. Statement (2) only
C. Statement (3) only
D. Statements (1) and (2)
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following phrases taken from an independent claim has an antecedent basis problem according to the patent laws, rules and the procedures as related in the MPEP?
A. "the center of the circle having ...," where the claim does not previously recite that the circle has a "center."
B. "the major diameter of the ellipse being ...," where the claim does not previously recite that the ellipse has a "major diameter."
C. "the outer surface of the sphere being ...," where the claim does not previously recite that the sphere has an "outer surface."
D. "the lever of the machine being located ...," where the claim does not previously recite a "lever."
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A registered practitioner filed a utility application on February 11, 2002. On April 4, 2002, the practitioner filed an information disclosure statement (IDS) in the application. The practitioner received a notice of allowance dated January 3, 2003 soon after it was mailed. When discussing the application with the practitioner on January 21, 2003, and before paying the issue fee, the client notices for the first time that a reference, which is one of many patents obtained by the client's competitor, was inadvertently omitted from the IDS. The client has been aware of this reference since before the application was filed. The client is anxious to have this reference appear on the face of the patent as having been considered by the USPTO. Which of the following actions, if taken by the practitioner, would not be in accord with the patent law, rules and procedures as related by the MPEP?
A. Before paying the issue fee, timely file an IDS citing the reference, along with the certification specified in 37 CFR 1.97(e), and any necessary fees.
B. Within three months of the mail date of the notice of allowance, without paying the issue fee, timely file a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, accompanied by the fee for filing an RCE, and an IDS citing the reference.
C. Within three months of the mail date of the notice of allowance, without paying the issue fee, timely file a continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53(b), an IDS citing the reference, and any necessary fees.
D. After paying the issue fee, timely file a petition to withdraw the application from issue to permit the express abandonment of the application in favor of a continuing application, a continuation application under 37 CFR 1.53(b), an IDS citing the reference, and any necessary fees.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A registered practitioner files an amendment to the client's claim which inserts language into the claim. The primary examiner improperly rejects the claim under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, description requirement. The examiner's rejection states that the amendment inserted new matter which does not have descriptive support in the original specification. The examiner correctly points out that there is no literal support for the amendatory claim language in the original specification, but erroneously concludes that it constitutes new matter. Assume that there is support for the amendment in the original disclosure. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, a proper reply would include which of the following argument(s) to show the examiner is in error?
A. The original specification would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention as now claimed.
B. Literal support for new claim language is not required.
C. The original specification reasonably conveys to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had the claimed invention in his/her possession as of the filing date of the application.
D. The new claim language is described in a related application filed by the inventor that is now a U.S. patent.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A registered practitioner filed a patent application in the Office in 1999. Following examination and a final rejection, the practitioner timely filed a proper notice of appeal and a proper appeal brief in the application wherein claims 1-3 stand rejected, claims 4 and 5, which depend from claim 1, stand objected to as depending from a rejected claim but are otherwise allowable, and claims 6-10 stand allowed. The appeal involves claims 1-3. After the brief was filed but prior to a decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, the practitioner filed a request for continued examination (RCE) with a submission in accordance with 37 CFR 1.114 without paying the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e). In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, what effect does the filing of the RCE without the fee set forth in Rule 1.17(e) have on the application under appeal?
A. The application is abandoned.
B. The application is still pending and under appeal awaiting a decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, because the RCE was improper.
C. The application is still pending; the appeal is considered withdrawn and the application will be passed to issue with claims 1-3 canceled and claims 4-10 allowed.
D. The application is still pending; the appeal is considered withdrawn and the application will be passed to issue with claims 1-5 canceled and claims 6-10 allowed.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant filed an application containing a claim directed to a polishing wheel coated with diamond grit particles. The application discloses, but does not claim, a diamond grit particle size of 5-7 microns. The examiner rejected the claim under 35 USC 102(b) as being anticipated by a U.S. patent which disclosed as its invention a polishing wheel in accordance with the claim of the application but coated with glass grit particles instead of diamond grit particles. The applied patent, which issued more than 1 year prior to the effective filing date of the application, also disclosed that diamond grit particles were known for coating on polishing wheels but were inferior to glass grit particles because they were more expensive and did not adhere as well to the polishing wheel. The applied patent disclosed a grit particle size of 50-100 microns. Which of the following timely taken courses of action would comply with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP for overcoming the rejection?
A. Argue that the patent teaches away from the use of a diamond grit particle coating on a polishing wheel and thus does not teach the claimed invention.
B. File a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 showing unexpected results using diamond grit rather than glass grit.
C. Antedate the applied patent by filing a declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 showing that applicant invented the claimed subject matter prior to the effective date of the applied patent.
D. Argue the applied patent is nonanalogous art.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Prosecution before the primary examiner results in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 2 was objected to as being allowable except for its dependency from claim 1. Independent claim 3 has been allowed. The rejection of claim 1 is properly appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The Board properly affirms the rejection of claim 1. Appellant has filed no response to the decision of the Board, the appellant has taken no action, and the time for filing an appeal to the court or a civil action has expired. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following actions is the most appropriate response by the examiner?
A. The examiner should hold the application abandoned.
B. The examiner should cancel claim 1, convert dependent claim 2 into independent form by examiner's amendment, and allow the application.
C. The examiner should set a 1-month time limit in which appellant may rewrite the dependent claim in independent form.
D. The examiner should cancel claims 1 and 2 and allow the application with claim 3 only.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On May 1, 2001, a complete patent application was filed with the USPTO naming H as the sole inventor. A primary examiner rejected all the claims in the application under 35 USC 102(e) as being anticipated by a U.S. Patent granted to inventors H and S. The patent was granted on September 25, 2001 on an application filed on December 7, 2000. The claims of the patent application and U.S. patent define the same patentable invention as defined in 37 CFR 1.601(n). The U.S. patent and the application have common ownership. Which of the following, if properly submitted by applicant, would overcome the rejection in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
A. File a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321(c).
B. File a declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 to establish the inventor invented the subject matter of the rejected claim prior to the effective date of the reference X.
C. File a declaration stating that the application and patent are currently owned by the same party, and that the inventor named in the application is the prior inventor under 35 USC 104.
D. (A) and (C).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Assume that each claim 5 is in a different patent application. Recommend which, if any, of the following wording is in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP for a multiple dependent claim.
A. Claim 5. A gadget according to claims 1-3, in which …
B. Claim 5. A gadget as in claims 1, 2, 3, and\/or 4, in which …
C. Claim 5. A gadget as in claim 1 or 2, made by the process of claim 3 or 4, in which …
D. Claim 5. A gadget as in either claim 6 or claim 8, in which …
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A registered practitioner filed a first patent application wherein claims 1-10 claims are directed to a widget and claims 11-20 are directed to a method of making a widget. Following a proper restriction requirement, claims 1-10 were elected for prosecution. The primary examiner rejected claims 1-10. The practitioner filed a reply that only consisted of argument. The examiner was unpersuaded by the argument, and entered a final rejection of claims 1-10. In reply, the practitioner filed a continuing application containing claims 1-10 directed to a widget, and claims 11-20 directed to a method of using a widget. In the continuing application, the examiner enters a new written restriction requirement requiring a provisional election between claims 1-10 and claims 11-20. The practitioner believes the new restriction requirement is improper and would like the rejection in the parent application reviewed as well. The new restriction requirement has not been made final. Which of the following best describes whether and why, in accordance with the patent laws, rules, and procedures as related by the MPEP, the reply to the restriction requirement may be by appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences?
A. Yes. An immediate appeal to the Board can be filed to review the restriction requirement if any claims have been twice rejected.
B. No. An immediate appeal cannot be filed to the Board because the new claims directed to a method of using a widget have not been twice rejected.
C. Yes. An immediate appeal can be filed for any claims that have been twice rejected because the Board can also review any second restriction requirement made against the same claims.
D. No. An immediate appeal to the Board cannot be lodged because a provisional election has not been made of either the claims to a widget or claims to a method of use of the widget.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, where the independent claim in an application is to an article of manufacture, then a dependent claim to the article of manufacture does not comply with 35 USC 112, fourth paragraph, if:
A. the further limitation changes the scope of the dependent claim from that of the claim from which it depends.
B. the further limitation of the dependent claim is not significant.
C. it does not refer back to and further limit the claim from which it depends.
D. it relates to a separate invention.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)