QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: You file a patent application on behalf your client, a small company, claiming a cleaning solution wherein uric acid is the primary ingredient. You received an Office action dated August 19, 1997, wherein all the claims were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112. You provided your client with a copy of the Office action. Today, August 27, 1997, the President of the client called and informed you that the company wants to keep the composition of the uric acid-containing cleaning solution a trade secret. The President informed you that the company has developed another cleaning solution composition wherein sulfuric acid is the primary ingredient, and uric acid is not present. The President also informed you that the sulfuric acid-containing cleaning solution is better able to clean than the uric acid-containing cleaning solution. The use of sulfuric acid was not disclosed in the pending application. Which of the following is in accord with PTO practice and procedure to obtain patent protection for the sulfuric acid-containing cleaning solution and maintain the confidentiality of the uric acid-containing cleaning solution?
A. Abandon the pending application, and file a new patent application disclosing and claiming only the sulfuric acid-containing cleaning solution wherein sulfuric acid is the primary ingredient. The new application should not refer back to the previous, pending application
B. File a continuation-in-part application disclosing and claiming the sulfuric acid-containing cleaning solution wherein sulfuric acid is the primary ingredient. The first sentence of the specification of the continuation-in-part application should refer to the previously filed, copending application
C. File an amendment in the pending application adding claims to the sulfuric acid-containing cleaning solution wherein sulfuric acid is the primary ingredient
D. File a reissue application on the pending application and broaden the claims in the reissue application to be inclusive of the sulfuric acid-containing cleaning solution wherein sulfuric acid is the primary ingredient
(category: trade secret，Chinese translation: 商业秘密)
Question: What would be permitted to be incorporated by reference in your client's U.S. utility patent application?
A. Essential material from a commonly assigned, previously filed patent application, pending in a foreign country on the filing date of your client's domestic utility patent application
B. Essential material from a pending U.S. application
C. Non-essential material from an unpublished foreign patent
D. Essential material from a non-patent publication, published in the U.S., which was published prior to the filing date of your client's domestic utility patent application
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In response to a final rejection dated February 4, 1997, with a three month shortened statutory period for response, you call the examiner in charge of the patent application to schedule a first interview on July 3, 1997, to discuss further narrowing the scope of claim limitations. Your request for an interview should be
A. denied because your request is after the expiration of the shortened statutory period for response
B. granted only if applicant pays the extension fee for the expired time
C. granted
D. denied because interviews are not permitted after the final Office action
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: As patent counsel for the National Pharmaceutical Company (NPC), you prepared and filed in the PTO a patent application for an improved medication for treating osteomyelitis, an infectious inflammatory bone disease. The application listed John Jones, an NPC research biochemist who is obligated by an employment contract to assign all inventions to NPC, as the sole inventor. The specification referenced a prior art medication containing an effective amount of an organic compound having a cyclopentadiene ring structure containing a metal ion held by coordination bonds used in the treatment of osteomyelitis, and noted that its use was often accompanied by nausea and muscle cramps. Comparative test data set forth in the specification revealed that the negative side effects of the use of the prior art medication could be essentially avoided by limiting the metal ion to a metal ion selected from the group consisting of osmium (atomic number 76), iridium (atomic number 77), platinum (atomic number 78), and gold (atomic number 79). Following several years of prosecution, the application issued as a patent on February 24, 1998, with the following single claim: A medication for treating osteomyelitis containing an effective amount of an organic compound having a cyclopentadiene ring structure containing a metal ion held by coordination bonds, said metal ion being selected from the group consisting of osmium, iridium, platinum, and gold. On February 10, 1998, Jones submitted an invention disclosure to you containing test data demonstrating that when iridium, platinum, or gold, as contrasted with osmium, is selected for the metal ion of the aforementioned organic compound, half as much organic compound is required to be effective in the medication for treating osteomyelitis. You then prepared and filed on February 23, 1998, a continuation-in-part application in the PTO on this discovery. In the first Office Action the primary examiner rejected the following claim on the ground of "statutory type" double patenting over the Jones patent based on 35 U.S.C. § 101: A medication for treating osteomyelitis containing an effective amount of an organic compound having a cyclopentadiene ring structure containing a metal ion held by coordination bonds, said metal ion being selected from the group consisting of iridium, platinum, and gold.Which of the following actions should overcome the examiner's rejection in accordance with proper PTO practice and procedure?
A. File a reply traversing the rejection and arguing that the same invention is not being claimed because the patent claim is broader than the rejected claim. Therefore, the patent claim can be infringed without infringing the rejected claim.
B. File an amendment rewriting the claim in accordance with 37 CFR  1.121, and adding the corresponding atomic number immediately following the recitation of each metal ion
C. File a terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR § 1.321.
D. File a declaration of prior invention under 37 CFR § 1.131.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Your client, Mr. Jones, asked you to prepare a patent application for his new pasta maker. The key features of the invention are the different types of dough which can be used and the shapes of the pasta which can be made. The completed application was filed on Monday, May 18, 1998. After filing the application, you conducted a prior art search and found a published article by another which was published on May 16, 1997. The published article discusses a pasta maker very similar to your client's pasta maker. In the course of your search, you also found a few patents, but none as pertinent as the article. You file all of the prior art in an Information Disclosure Statement on June 8, 1998. In your opinion, the article is the best available prior art. Assuming that this is true, under which of the following sections of Title 35 U.S.C., if any, would Mr. Jones not be entitled to a U.S. patent?
A. 102(a)
B. 102(b)
C. 102(d)
D. 102(e)
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In which of the following situations, if any, can you assist John in obtaining a patent under the Plant Patent Act?
A. While weeding his garden, John noticed a number of unusual plants growing in his vegetable garden. In autumn, John dug up the strange plants and discovered tubers which appeared to be a distinct and new variety of Jerusalem artichoke. The next spring, John planted the tubers and succeeded in starting a new crop.
B. While touring the rain forest in South America, John discovered a distinct and new variety of orchid growing in an uncultivated state on the banks of the Amazon river.
C. While experimenting with a number of different plants in his flower garden, John was able to sexually reproduce a distinct and new variety of a plant. Unable to think of a suitable name, he decided to call it "A Rose by Any Other Name."
D. While experimenting with different techniques for extruding plastic, John succeeded in making a new, original and ornamental design for a bouquet utilizing an extrusion technique common in the plastics industry.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Reginald, a registered patent agent, filed a nonprovisional patent application in the PTO on December 4, 1997, naming Able, Baker, and Charlie as joint inventors. The application properly identified all the inventors, a specification and one independent claim and four dependent claims. No drawings, declaration, or filing fees were filed with the application. Subsequently, the PTO correctly informed Reginald that drawings, specifically three figures, were necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented. At the same time, the PTO informed Reginald that the declaration and filing fee were missing. On February 13, 1998, Reginald filed in the PTO drawings of the three figures. On February 17,1998, the Official Draftsman required new drawings on the ground that the submitted drawings were not in compliance with the standards of 37 CFR § 1.84, although he regarded them as suitable for reproduction and admitted them for examination purposes. On February 19, 1998, Reginald filed in the PTO a declaration signed by all the inventors. On February 20, 1998, Reginald filed in the PTO a written authorization to charge the filing fee of the application and all surcharges to his established deposit account which contained sufficient funds. On March 6, 1998, Reginald filed in the PTO a set of new drawings in compliance with the standards of37 CFR § 1.84. In accordance with proper PTO practice and procedure, what filing date should the PTO assign to Reginald's patent application?
A. 881193600000
B. 887328000000
C. 887846400000
D. 887932800000
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements regarding a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is not correct?
A. The request for a CPA can be filed by facsimile and processed entirely in the examining group.
B. The CPA will use the same file jacket as the prior application.
C. The application number of the CPA remains the same as the prior application.
D. No continuation-in-part CPA is permitted.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Able, a researcher with the Royal Fruit Co. (hereinafter "Royal"), discovered a distinct and new variety of peach tree which he successfully succeeded in asexually reproducing. Royal then obtained an assignment from Able, and filed a plant patent application with the PTO claiming the asexually reproduced peach tree. Subsequently, Baker, a researcher with the Georgia Peach Co. (hereinafter "Georgia"), unaware of Able's discovery, discovered a similar though independent and patentably distinct variety of peach tree. Baker succeeded in asexually reproducing his discovery. Georgia then obtained an assignment from Baker and filed a utility patent application with the PTO claiming the fruit and propagating material of the Baker peach tree. Subsequently, Georgia merged with Royal, which acquired title to all of Georgia's assets, including the Baker utility patent application. In the course of prosecution of the Baker patent application, the primary examiner "provisionally" rejected all of the claims in the Baker application on the ground of obviousness-type double patenting with the claims in Able's application. On the basis of the present factual scenario and proper PTO practice and procedure, which of the following statements is true?
A. The rejection is improper because while there is a common relationship of ownership, a common relationship of inventorship is lacking.
B. The rejection is improper because the Able and Baker inventions are independent and patentably distinct from each other.
C. The rejection is improper because there was no common relationship of ownership at the time of Baker's invention.
D. The rejection is proper because the issue of double patenting can be addressed without violating the confidential status of the applications as required by 35 U.S.C. § 122.
(category: new plant variety，Chinese translation: 新植物品种)
Question: Sam Smart, a cabinet maker employed by Star Furniture Company, designed a unique armoire blending the ascetic style of Shakerism with the flamboyant style of Victorianism. Star officials were so impressed that they asked Patent Counsel to take immediate steps to obtain patent protection on the armoire. Patent Counsel filed a provisional utility application in the PTO on September 16, 1997, naming Sam Smart as the sole inventor. On March 20, 1998, Patent Counsel filed nonprovisional utility and design applications in the PTO, each application claiming priority from the provisional utility application under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e)(1). In the first Office action in the design application, the examiner rejected the sole claim as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over a photograph of a gun cabinet appearing in a department store catalog published in October 1997: Which of the following actions accords with proper practice and procedure and is most likely to overcome the rejection?
A. Traverse the rejection on the ground that the photograph is not available as a reference because the inventors named in the provisional and nonprovisional applications are the same, the nonprovisional application was filed within 12 months of the provisional application, the nonprovisional application refers to the copending provisional application, and the provisional application antedates the publication date of the reference catalog.
B. Traverse the rejection on the ground that the photograph is not available as a reference because while the photograph depicts a gun cabinet of substantially the same appearance as the claimed design, the gun cabinet and the armoire are not from analogous arts.
C. Traverse the rejection on the ground that the design of the armoire is not obvious from the reference because an armoire functions essentially to hold clothes, whereas a gun cabinet functions essentially to hold rifles.
D. Traverse the rejection on the ground that the ornamentation of the armoire is not obvious from the reference since the ornamentation of the armoire is embossed on the armoire surface, whereas the ornamentation of the gun cabinet is impressed in the gun cabinet surface.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Jack developed a unique safety valve for use in combination with a standard boiler. The safety valve comprises a piezoelectric element which functions to adjust the opening of the valve in response to pressure build-up. His patent agent prepared and filed a proper patent application in the PTO with the following sole original claim: The combination of a standard boiler with a safety valve, said safety valve comprising a piezoelectric element which functions to adjust the opening of the valve in reply to pressure build-up. In the first Office action, the primary examiner properly rejected the claim over a combination of references as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Thereafter, the patent agent responded by filing an amendment which substituted a new claim for the sole original claim. The new claim is also drawn to the combination of a standard boiler with a safety valve. The examiner finally rejected the new claim on same grounds as the original claim was rejected, and stating that the new claim was a substantial duplicate of all the essential features of the canceled claim. Which of the following accords with PTO practice and procedure for responding to the rejection?
A. File a response having an amendment which adds a single claim limited to the safety valve, accompanied by argument clearly demonstrating that the claim to the safety valve has limitations not shown in the prior art references.
B. File a response clearly and correctly pointing out that the new claim has limitations to particular structure not disclosed or suggested by the prior art references whether considered individually or in combination.
C. File a response accompanied by an affidavit under 37 CFR  1.132 setting forth test data demonstrating the technical superiority of Jack's safety valve over the safety valves in the prior art when used in conjunction pneumatic tire inflation devices
D. File a petition to the Commissioner under 37 CFR § 1.81 and the proper petition fee requesting that the examiner be directed to withdraw the finality of the rejection as being premature because the new claim presented limitations not disclosed or suggested by the prior art references, and the examiner did not address those limitations in the rejection.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: When an application filed under 37 CFR § 1.47(a) has been accepted at the PTO, is in pending or abandoned status, and has not been referred to by application number and date in a United States or foreign patent or published application, which of the following may not, as a matter of right, receive information regarding the status of whether the application is pending or abandoned?
A. The applicant(s).
B. The assignee of record in the Patent and Trademark Office.
C. The attorney or agent of record in the application
D. A non-signing inventor.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Jenkins is principal attorney of record in a patent application assigned to the Titan Pharmaceutical Co. in Sacramento, California. The application is directed to one of Titan's most important discoveries, i.e., an improved method of synthesizing quinoline consisting of the steps (a), (b), (c), and (d). After receiving a first Office action objecting to all the claims because of improper form, Jenkins filed an associate power of attorney in the PTO on January 21, 1998, naming Harris as an associate with full power. On February 10, 1998, Harris filed an amendment canceling all the claims and adding new claims 11 and 12, accompanied by appropriate argument. The new claims related to the synthesis of quinoline and consisted of the steps, (a), (b), and (c). On April 6, 1998, the examiner considered the Harris amendment in light of the argument and rejected the two claims as clearly anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as unpatentable over a 1953 publication by Skraup. Harris forwarded the Office action rejecting the claims along with a copy of the Skraup publication to Jenkins for his review. Jenkins determined that Harris had inadvertently omitted (d), the fourth step of the process. This step was neither disclosed by nor obvious in light of Skraup's teaching. Assuming Jenkins is correct in his determination, which of the following is the best action designed to (1) accord with proper PTO practice and procedure, (2) to overcome the rejection, and (3) be conducive to expeditious prosecution?
A. Jenkins should file an amendment adding step (d) to Claims Il and 12, and offering appropriate argument.
B. Jenkins should file an amendment adding Claim 13, which depends from Claim 12. Claim 13 is directed to only step (d), and is accompanied by appropriate argument for patentability.
C. The assignee should file a revocation of Jenkins' power of attorney, and concurrently, Harris should file an amendment adding step (d) to the claims and offering appropriate argument.
D. The assignee should file a revocation of Jenkins' power of attorney, and after acceptance of the revocation by the PTO, Harris should file an amendment adding step (d) to the claims and offering appropriate argument.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You are the only attorney of record in a patent application that you have filed for your client, Jones. The primary examiner set a three month shortened statutory period for reply which requires that an amendment/reply be filed on September 8, 1998. You are away on vacation and will not be back until the end of September. You were planning on filing the reply when you returned. However, while you were away, the client calls your office and informs your secretary that he does not want to pay the additional fees required for an extension of time and wants the reply filed on or before September 8, 1998. Your secretary relays this information to you today, August 26, 1998. Since you were not planning to file the reply until you returned, you do not have Jones' file with you. With Jones' consent, you previously disclosed his invention to your brother, Mike, who is also your partner and a registered practitioner. You call Mike, and ask him to prepare and file a reply. Mike is familiar with the application, and calls Jones to tell him that he will prepare, and file the amendment before the expiration of the three month period to avoid the imposition of an extension fee. Can Mike properly prepare and file the reply at the PTO without a power of attorney from Jones?
A. Yes, because you and Mike are brothers in the same firm.
B. No, because you have not authorized Mike to act on your behalf.
C. No, because Mike is not listed as one of the attorneys of record.
D. Yes, because Mike is a registered practitioner and his signature and registration number on the reply constitutes a representation that he is authorized to represent Jones.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You have filed a patent application on behalf of your client, Smith, on October 7, 1997. On 15, 1998, the examiner sent a second Office action containing a final rejection. You mailed a reply to the PTO on July 10, 1998. Yesterday, you received an Ex parte Quayle action. Today, August 26, 1998, Smith brought to your attention prior art that he discovered last week. After reviewing the prior art, you determine that the prior art should be submitted to the PTO for consideration by the examiner. What will need to be filed with an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) in order for the IDS to be considered by the examiner?
A. No additional papers are required to be filed with the IDS.
B. A petition requesting consideration of the DS, and the appropriate fee.
C. A certificate of mailing; and the appropriate fee.
D. A certification that no information contained in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) was cited in a communication from a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application or, to the knowledge of the person signing the certification after making reasonable inquiry, was known to any individual designated in $ 1.56(c) more than three months prior to the filing of the statement, a petition requesting consideration of the IDS and the appropriate fee.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An application you filed for your client, Sam, received a final rejection dated January 12, 1998. The primary examiner set a three month shortened statutory period for reply. As you have been working closely with Sam, you were ready with an immediate reply and filed it with a certificate of mailing dated February 10, 1998. Unfortunately, the primary examiner was not persuaded by your reply, and mailed you an advisory action dated March 2, 1998. After discussing the matter with your client, you have decided that the best route to go is to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. On March 6, 1998, you prepare a Notice of Appeal, and a certificate of mailing dated March 6, 1998. Inadvertently, the Notice of Appeal was not deposited with the U.S. Postal Service. The Notice of Appeal and Certificate of Mailing are hand carried by your intern and delivered to the mail room in the PTO on March 9, 1998. What would be the very last date on which an appeal brief could be filed if a proper petition and fee for the maximum extension of time is filed with the brief?
A. 894672000000
B. 897609600000
C. 905299200000
D. 907632000000
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)