QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: On February 12, 1999, you filed a patent application containing two independent claims, Claims 1 and 2, directed to methods of forming an integrated circuit device. The applicant conceived the methods in Jacksonville, Florida on June 10, 1997. Commencing on June 10, 1997, the applicant exercised due diligence until she reduced the methods to practice on February 27, 1998. In an Office action dated August 18, 1999, the examiner rejected Claim 1 as being anticipated by Doppler under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Doppler is a French patent that was filed on July 18, 1996, and issued on January 13, 1998. The Doppler patent claims the method of the applicant's Claim 1 for forming integrated circuit devices. Claim 2 was rejected as being anticipated by Spot under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Spot is a U.S. patent that was filed on January 7, 1998, and discloses, but does not claim, the method of applicant's Claim 2 for forming an integrated circuit device. The Spot patent issued on May 5, 1999. Which of the following would be the most proper course of action to take to respond to the rejections?
A. File an antedating affidavit to overcome the rejection of Claim 1 and cancel Claim 2.
B. File an antedating affidavit to overcome both the rejections and request that an interference be declared with the Doppler patent.
C. File an antedating affidavit to overcome the rejection of Claim 2 and cancel Claim 1.
D. File a reply arguing that the rejections are improper because the Spot patent issued after the filing date of your client's application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent application filed in the PTO contains the following original claim: Claim 1. A talbecloth for protecting the finish of a table comprising: a layer of cotton; a layer of vinyl affixed to the layer of cotton; and a backing of felt. Which of the following amendment(s) is/are not in accord with proper PTO amendment practices and procedures?
A. In claim 1, line 3, add -with an epoxy resin-.
B. In claim 1, line 2, after "cotton" add -woven to have 250 threads per inch-.
C. In claim 1, line 3, before "layer" add ...搕hin-.
D. In claim 1, line 1, correct the spelling of "talbecloth" please.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You draft a patent application disclosing and describing an electrical chronometer containing a resistor having a resistance of 20-90 ohms, preferably 40 ohms. You draft the following independent claim: 1. An electrical chronometer comprising a resistor with a resistance of 20-90 ohms. Which of the following would not be a proper dependent claim if presented as an original claim in the application when the application is filed in the PTO?
A. 2. The electrical chronometer of Claim 1 wherein the resistor has a resistance of 40 ohms.
B. 2. An electrical chronometer as in Claim 1 wherein the resistor has a resistance of 40-90 ohms.
C. 2. An electrical chronometer as in Claim 1 wherein the resistor has a resistance of about 20 - 90 ohms.
D. 2. The electrical chronometer of Claim 1 wherein the resistor has a resistance of between 50 and 90 ohms.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: When does jurisdiction over an application normally transfer from the examining group to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences?
A. After the examiner has notified the appellant by written communication that the reply brief has been entered and considered, and that the application will be forwarded to the Board.
B. After a supplemental examiner's answer, pursuant to a remand from the Board, has been mailed.
C. After 2 months from the examiner's answer, plus mail room time, if no reply brief has been timely filed.
D. (A), (B), or (C).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A request for reexamination of U.S. Patent X,XXX,XXX (the 'XXX patent) was filed by ABC Technology, Inc. (ABC) on the ground that a substantial new question of patentability exists. In the first Office Action during reexamination, all the claims, i.e., claims 1 through 4, were rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over U.S. Patent Z,ZZZ,ZZZ (the 'ZZZ patent). Claims 1 through 4 are all independent and original claims, and are the only claims that were presented during prosecution of the application that matured into 'XXX patent. All the claims are directed to a hydrocyclone separator apparatus. 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. Assuming no issues under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, or 112 are raised, which of the following claims, if any, would be properly subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 305?
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: A patent application filed in the PTO contains the following dependent claim: 2. The method of Claim 1, further consisting of the step of cooling the mixture to a temperature of 32掳 F. Following proper PTO practices and procedures, from which of the following claims does the dependent claim not properly depend?
A. 1. A method of making liquid compound A consisting of the steps of mixing equal quantities of material C and material D in a beaker and heating the mixture to a temperature of 212掳 F.
B. 1. A method of making liquid compound A comprising the steps of mixing equal quantities of material C and material D in a beaker and heating the mixture to a temperature of 212掳 F.
C. 1. A method of making liquid compound A including the steps of mixing equal quantities of material C and material D in a beaker and heating the mixture to a temperature of 212掳 F.
D. 1. A method of making liquid compound A characterized by the steps of mixing equal quantities of material C and material D in a beaker and heating the mixture to a temperature of 212掳 F.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: If a claim has been properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being rendered obvious over a combination of prior art references, then in accordance with proper PTO practice and procedure:
A. it is not necessary that the prior art suggests the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by the applicant, if the combination provides motivation to make the claimed invention.
B. the rationale to modify or combine the prior art must be found expressly set forth in the prior art.
C. in considering the disclosure of prior art it is proper to take into account the specific teachings of the reference. It is not proper to take into account the inferences that one skilled in the art could reasonably draw from the specific teachings.
D. it is improper for a patent examiner to take official notice of facts outside the record which are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being "well known."
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An application is directed to novel and unobvious scissors for cutting hair having a pair of cutter blades and a pointer loop. The application includes the following partial independent Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-5. Claim 1. An apparatus for cutting hair, said apparatus comprising: (i) a first cutting member having a first cutting edge at one end and the other end of said first cutting member terminating in a thumb loop; (ii) a second cutting member having a second cutting edge at one end and the other end terminating in a finger loop having an arcuate finger brace extending therefrom; (iii) _______________________________ (iv) said second cutting member additionally including a pointer loop between said finger loop and said mid-point, said finger loop having a finger loop center such that a plane through said finger loop center and said pointer loop center is generally parallel to said second cutting edge in order for the apparatus for cutting hair to be generally balanced when held by a user. Claim 2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said first cutting member includes a threaded aperture extending entirely therethrough between said thumb loop and said mid-point, and an adjusting screw that extends through said threaded aperture to engage a bearing surface below the pointer loop on said second cutting member. Claim 3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein said connector is a rivet. Without regard to prior art, and in view of partial Claim 1, which of the following best completes missing paragraph (iii) of Claim 1 while maintaining the broadest scope of protection and complying with proper PTO practice and procedure?
A. "said first cutting member having a mid-point between its ends and said second cutting member having a mid-point between its ends, and said first cutting member and said second cutting member are pivotally secured to each other at their respective mid-points by a connector; and"
B. "wherein said first cutting member and said second cutting member are formed entirely of metal and are pivotally secured to each other at respective mid-points; and"
C. "said first cutting member including a reservoir for dispensing disinfectant solution and having a mid-point between its ends; and"
D. "and said first cutting member and said second cutting member are pivotally secured to each other at their respective mid-points; and"
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following would be a proper rejection in a reexamination proceeding?
A. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) based on an affidavit that the invention was known or used by others before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.
B. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on an affidavit that the invention was in the public use in this country more than one year prior to the date of the application for a patent in the United States.
C. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) that the invention was described in a patent by another filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the patent applicant.
D. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) that the applicant did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Patentee P wishes to amend Claim 1 in the patent granted to P, and obtain the following amended Claim 1 either through reexamination or reissue: 1. A ball valve comprising: i) a housing; ii) a valve [member] ball rotatably joined in the housing; iii) a [flanged] seal engagable with surfaces of the [member] ball; and iv) a linear spring [means] interposed between the housing and the seal and biasing the seal into engagement with the [member] ball. The amended claim is supported by the original disclosure in the application, which matured into P's patent. In the absence of questions of recapture, novelty, obviousness, and utility which of the following statements is/are true?
A. A claim so amended is properly presented in a reissue application filed on October 14, 1999, and a reissue patent is grantable where reissuance is sought of a patent granted on September 9, 1997.
B. A claim so amended is properly presented in a reissue application filed on September 9, 1999, and a reissue patent is grantable where reissuance is sought of a patent granted on October 7, 1997.
C. A claim so amended is properly presented in a request for reexamination filed on October 14, 1999, and a certificate of reexamination is grantable where reexamination is sought of a patent granted on September 9, 1997.
D. A claim so amended is properly presented in a request for reexamination filed on September 9, 1999, and a certificate of reexamination is grantable where reexamination is sought of a patent granted on October 7, 1997.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Your client, Homer, invented a new system for laying underground pipes for in-ground sprinkler systems utilizing a tunneling tool he calls "the Mole." The Mole is placed in a small hole is dug in the ground at a starting location. A target is placed in the ground at the desired ending location. The Mole automatically tunnels through the ground to the target. The Mole has a clamp to pull flexible pipe behind it as it tunnels. A high-pressure air source is connected to the Mole to remove dirt as the Mole progresses toward the target. Homer informs you that he has continuously used this original system for three years in his commercial landscaping business, displayed the system to his numerous customers, and handsomely profited from his original system. In the original system, the Mole sensed and moved toward the target emitting electromagnetic signals. Recently, the Mole sometimes gets confused due to interference from ferromagnetic underground pipes and overhead power lines. Two months ago Homer modified the system to utilize ultrasonic signals emitted from the target. The ultrasonic signals are encoded with location information derived by the target from a Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite. The modified system decodes the location information and tunnels toward the specified location. The use of ultrasonic signals in the modified system is new and unobvious. Homer has reduced the modified system to actual practice, and kept it confidential. Homer prepared a draft patent application fully describing both the original system and the modified system. He wants you to review the draft application, make sure it meets all requirements, and revise it as necessary prior to filing. The draft application prepared by Homer includes the following draft claims: Claim 1. A system for laying underground flexible pipe in the ground, said system comprising: (i) a target placed in the ground at a target location and including a transmitter which emits target signals; (ii) a tunneling device including a clamp operable to connect one end of said flexible pipe to said tunneling device, said tunneling device further including a sensor which detects said target signals and steers said tunneling device to move toward said target; and (iii) a source of high pressure air connected with said tunneling device for removing dirt as said tunneling device moves toward said target. Claim 2. The system of claim 1, wherein said transmitter emits electromagnetic signals. Claim 3. The system of claim 1, wherein said transmitter emits ultrasonic signals. Claim 4. The system of claim 3, wherein said ultrasonic signals include encoded position information that is decoded by the decoder portion of said tunneling device sensor. Claim 5. The system of claim 1, wherein said transmitter emits signals having encoded position information.  Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable under which of the following statutory provisions?
A. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
B. 35 U.S.C. § 102(c)
C. 35 U.S.C. § 102(d)
D. 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not a PTO recommendation or requirement?
A. Claims should be arranged in order of scope so that the first claim presented is the least restrictive.
B. Product and process claims should be separately grouped.
C. Every application should contain no more than three dependent claims.
D. A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated from that dependent claim by any claim which does not also depend from the dependent claim.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent was granted to inventor Munch on August 3, 1999, on a patent application filed in the PTO on March 5, 1997. In which of the following circumstances in a reexamination proceeding of the Munch patent, considered independently of each other, will the cited prior art reference(s) properly support a determination that there is substantial new question of patentability?
A. In a reexamination proceeding, claims 7-15 in the Munch patent are rejected as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) by the disclosure in the Leal patent. The Leal patent was granted on January 21, 1997. It is the only rejection in the reexamination proceeding. During the original prosecution of the Munch application, the Leal patent was used by the examiner as prior art to reject original claims 1-5 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
B. In a reexamination proceeding, newly added claims 16-20 in the Munch patent are rejected as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by the disclosure in the Zellot patent. The Zellot patent was granted in 1987. It is the only rejection in the reexamination proceeding. During the original prosecution of the Munch application the examiner cited the Zellot patent against claims 1-7 in the patent application Munch filed on March 5, 1997.
C. In a reexamination proceeding, claims 1-15 in the Munch patent are rejected as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the Wills patent in view of the Note patent. The Wills patent was granted on December 3, 1996, and the Note patent was granted in 1994. It is the only rejection in the reexamination proceeding. During the original prosecution of the Munch application the examiner used the Wills patent as prior art to reject original claims 1 and 2 in the Munch application. The Note patent was never before the examiner during the original prosecution of the Munch application, is not cumulative with the prior art cited during the original prosecution, and is material to the question of obviousness.
D. In a reexamination proceeding, claims 1-15 in the Munch patent are rejected as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) by the disclosure in the Richards patent. The Richards patent was granted on January 14, 1997. It is the only rejection in the reexamination proceeding. During the original prosecution of the Munch application, the examiner used the Richards patent in combination with a patent to Smith, granted in 1923, to reject original claims 1-5 in the application as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements explains why Claim 1 below does recite subject matter eligible for protection under the Patent Statute? Claim 1. A top soil for retaining water comprising: about 10% of material X; about 60% of material Y; and balance of material Z.
A. The subject matter is eligible if the top soil occurs in nature, and M was the first to find the topsoil on a remote tropical island.
B. The subject matter is eligible if M developed the top soil through extensive research and experimentation with various materials, including materials X, Y, and Z.
C. The subject matter is eligible because all inanimate objects are subject matter eligible for protection under the patent statute.
D. The subject matter is eligible because the claim is sufficiently broadly written as not to exclude the inclusion of a living organism.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent application filed in the PTO contains the following three claims, including product by process Claim 3: Claim 1. A method for making an Ethernet cable comprising the steps of A, B and C. Claim 2. The method of claim 1, further characterized by the step of D. Claim 3. The Ethernet cable as in any one of the preceding claims. In the first Office action, the examiner objects to Claim 3 as being an improper dependent claim and requires cancellation of the claim. Following proper PTO practices and procedures, which of the following replies best overcomes the examiner's objection and provides the client with the broadest patent protection?
A. Amend Claim 3 to read: "The Ethernet cable as made by the process set forth in claims 1-2."
B. Cancel Claim 3.
C. Add Claim 4, which reads: "An Ethernet cable made by a process comprising the steps of A, B and C."
D. Add Claim 5, which reads: "An Ethernet cable made by a process comprising the steps of A, B, C and D."
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements is in accordance with proper PTO practice and procedure?
A. Unlike questions of public use, there is no requirement that "on sale" activity be "public."
B. Sales to toy stores throughout the United States of a claimed rocking horse by an independent third party more than one year before the filing date of applicant's patent application without the applicant's consent will not bar applicant from obtaining a patent for the rocking horse.
C. An offer for sale of a claimed invention, where the offer originates in the United States and is communicated to a potential buyer in Europe, more than one year before the filing date of applicant's patent application, cannot be sufficient activity to bar applicant from obtaining a patent for the invention.
D. Delay alone in filing a patent application is sufficient to infer any required intent by the inventor to abandon the invention.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On September 14, 1999, you filed a patent application in the PTO on behalf of a large corporation together with an authorization to charge the filing fee to your deposit account. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, measures were not taken to cover the $760.00 filing fee against the amount in your deposit account, which has a $10.00 balance. Consequently, you received a notice from the PTO dated September 28, 1999, that your deposit account has insufficient funds. Which of the following steps avoids abandonment of the recently filed application?
A. On September 29, 1999, replenish the deposit account with $800.00 in cash to encompass the filing fee, and the $10 fee required by 37 CFR § 1.21(b)(1).
B. On September 29, 1999, open a new deposit account with $800.00 in cash, and file in the PTO correspondence authorizing the fee for filing the application be charged against your new deposit account.
C. On September 29, 1999, file in the PTO a check for $760.00 for the filing fee, and file in the PTO correspondence authorizing the balance of the filing fee be paid from your deposit account.
D. On September 29, 1999, replenish the deposit account with $890.00 in cash to cover the filing fee, and a surcharge fee for late payment of the filing fee, and file in the PTO correspondence authorizing the fees for the application be charged to your deposit account.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: The following claims are included in a newly filed patent application: Claim No. 1. Independent 2. Dependent on claim 1 3. Dependent on claim 1 4. Dependent on claims 2 and 3 5. Independent 6. Dependent on claim 1, 2 or 5 7. Dependent on claim 6 8. Independent Which of the following represents the proper number of total claims for fee calculation purposes?
A. 10
B. 13
C. 11
D. 12
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)