QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: On March 20, 1997, inventor B filed a patent application in the PTO claiming invention X. Inventor B did not claim priority based on a foreign application filed by inventor B on June 3, 1996, in the Patent Office of Germany. In the foreign application, inventor B disclosed and claimed invention X, which inventor B had conceived on October 10, 1995, and reduced to practice on January 5, 1996, all in Germany. The patent examiner issued an Office action where all the claims in the patent application were properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e) as being anticipated by a U.S. patent granted to inventor Z on November 5, 1996, on a patent application filed in the PTO on February 6, 1995. There is no common assignee between Z and B, and they are not obligated to assign their inventions to a common assignee. Moreover, inventor Z, independently of inventor B, invented invention X, and did not derive anything from inventor B. The U.S. patent discloses, but does not claim, invention X. Which of the following is/are appropriate response(s) which could overcome the rejections under § 102(a) and (e) when timely filed?
A. Amend the claims to require particular limitations disclosed in inventor B's application, but not disclosed or suggested in inventor Z's patent, and argue that the limitations patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
B. File an antedating affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR § 1.131 showing conception on October 10, 1995, and reduction to practice on January 5, 1996, all in Germany.
C. File a claim for the right and benefit of foreign priority wherein the German application is correctly identified, file a certified copy of the original German patent application, and argue that as a result of the benefit of foreign priority the U.S. patent is no longer available as a prior art reference against the claims.
D. (A), (B) and (C).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following scenarios is most likely to bar X and Y from being joint inventors in an application?
A. X and Y worked on the invention during the same time frame but in different physical locations.
B. X's contribution was solely to claim 1, whereas inventor Y's contribution was solely to claim 2.
C. X discovered that the source of the trouble with the operation of his paper press was its slow speed and concluded that a slight change in wire slope might improve the speed. When informed of this, inventor Y, who was very skeptical at first, made the change in the slope of the wire and found to his surprise that a significant improvement in speed did in fact occur.
D. X and Y worked on the invention while in the employ of different employers.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Inventors Apple and Cherry are employed by Fruit Company, each with knowledge of the other's work, and with an obligation to assign inventions to Fruit Company. Apple invented A in September 1996. On October 30, 1996, Cherry modified A to AB, an obvious improvement of A. Apple filed a patent application in the PTO on November 6, 1996, claiming invention A. Cherry filed a patent application in the PTO on February 11, 1997, claiming AB. In an Office action in Cherry's application, the claims to AB are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(e)/103 over Apple's application, and provisionally rejected for double patenting over Apple's application. These are the only remaining rejections. In order to properly overcome the rejections and ensure that Fruit Company can sue an alleged infringer of claims to AB, Cherry should:
A. File a terminal disclaimer and appropriate fee.
B. File an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR § 1.131 showing a date of invention for AB prior to the invention of A.
C. File an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR § 1.131 showing October 30, 1996, to be the date of invention of AB, a petition under 37 CFR § 1.183 to waive the prohibition of the use of 37 CFR  1.131 affidavits or declarations where the same patentable invention is being claimed, and a terminal disclaimer and appropriate fee.
D. File an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR § 1.131 showing the date of invention of AB to be prior to the filing date of Apple's application, a petition under 37 CFR § 1.183 to waive the prohibition of the use of 37 CFR § 1.132 affidavits or declarations where substantially the same patentable invention is being claimed, and a disclaimer of any patent which may issue and the appropriate fee.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Independently of each other, M and Z invented the same tennis racket in the United States. A U.S. patent was granted to M on February 18, 1997, on an application filed on April 12, 1995 claiming the same tennis racket. On March 10, 1997, Z filed a patent application in the PTO claiming the same tennis racket. There is no common assignee between M and Z, and they are not obligated to assign their inventions to a common assignee. M and Z filed their respective patent applications diligently shortly after each conceived the tennis racket invention. Under which of the following provisions of 35 U.S.C § 102 is the U.S. patent to M prior art with regard to the tennis racket claimed by Z?
A. 35 U.S.C § 102(a)
B. 35 U.S.C § 102(e)
C. 35 U.S.C § 102(g)
D. (A) and (B) only.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: X invented a glass cutter. On June 20, 1994, X filed a first patent application in the PTO wherein X disclosed and claimed the glass cutter. On September 20, 1995, X filed a second patent application in the PTO, again disclosing and claiming the glass cutter. The disclosure in the second application is identical to the disclosure in the first application, but the second application did not refer to the first application, or otherwise indicate that the second application was a continuation of the first application. The first application was expressly abandoned on September 21, 1995. On January 15, 1997, X filed a third application in the PTO, disclosing and claiming the glass cutter. In the first sentence of the specification of the third application, X stated that the third application was a continuation application of the second application. The second application was expressly abandoned on January 16, 1997. X later amended the first sentence of the third application to state that the second application was "now abandoned." In an Office action dated May 5, 1997, the claims in the third application were rejected as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by a foreign patent published on August 1, 1994. There is no difference between the glass cutter described in the foreign patent and the glass cutter which is claimed. The foreign patent provides an enabling disclosure to make the claimed glass cutter. At the time it is made, the rejection is
A. improper because the third application has the benefit of the filing date of the second application which, in turn, has the benefit of the first application which, in turn, antedates the reference.
B. improper because the third application has the benefit of the filing dates of the first and second applications, and the foreign patent is antedated by the filing date of the first application.
C. improper because the foreign patent is effective as a publication after the filing date of the first application.
D. proper because the third application has the benefit of the filing date of the second application, but not the first application, and the foreign patent was published more than one year before the filing date of the second application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: X invented a chemical composition. On June 20, 1994, X filed a first patent application in the PTO wherein X disclosed and claimed the same composition, and claimed benefit of priority of a British application. The patent examiner twice rejected the claims in the first application under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of an enabling disclosure. The examiner maintained the rejection in a final rejection. On appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, the rejection was affirmed in a decision dated February 4, 1997. On March 31, 1997, X filed a second application disclosing and claiming the same chemical composition, and containing an enabling disclosure of how to make the composition. The first sentence of the specification of the second application contains a specific reference to the first application. On April 1, 1997, X expressly abandoned the first application, and amended the first sentence of the second application to state that the first application was "now abandoned." X did not seek judicial review of the Board's decision. In an Office action dated May 5, 1997, all the claims in the second application were rejected as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over an article in Composition Magazine which was published and on newsstands in the United States and Great Britain in June 1995. The article provides a full and enabling description of the claimed chemical composition, and provides readers with addresses in the United States and Great Britain where the composition may be purchased. The rejection is
A. improper because the claims of the second application have the benefit of the filing date of the first application which, in turn, antedates the reference.
B. proper because the claim of the second application have no benefit of the filing date of the first application, and the article was published and the invention was offered for sale in the United States more than one year before the filing date of the second application.
C. improper because the article constitutes an offer for sale of the chemical composition in Great Britain as well as in the United States.
D. improper because the article is effective as a publication only after the filing date of the first application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: To comply with the statutory requirements for a specification in a U.S. patent application, the specification must include all of the following except:
A. The best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his or her invention.
B. A written description of an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention.
C. A written description of the invention.
D. The manner and process of making the invention.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: X invented a compound Y useful for treating HIV patients. X attended a conference on AIDS in Chicago, Illinois on December 2, 1995, and gave an oral presentation specifically identifying compound Y and its method of use for treating HIV patients. An article was published in the Chicago Tribune newspaper on December 3, 1995, identically disclosing compound Y and its method of use for treating HIV, including teaching each and every element of compound Y. Neither X's paper nor the newspaper article disclosed how to make compound Y. X filed a patent application in the PTO on January 6, 1997, claiming compound Y. The examiner rejected the claim as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over the newspaper article in view of two U.S. patents issued in 1994. The patents teach methods of making compounds of the same general class of compounds as compound Y, and describe several methods by which compound Y can be made. The patents disclosed using the compounds disclosed therein to digest food. The rejection is
A. improper because it is never proper to use more than one reference in a 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection.
B. improper in the absence of motivation to combine the references.
C. improper because the compounds in the patents and compound Y have different uses.
D. proper because the article describes compound Y, and the patents are evidence of what was in the public's possession before X's invention regarding how to make compound Y.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On January 7, 1997, practitioner P filed in the PTO a patent application wherein invention X is claimed. On January 8, 1997, practitioner S filed in the PTO a patent application wherein XY is the claimed invention. XY is disclosed in the later filed application to be an obvious improvement upon X. In which of the following situations would it be inappropriate for a provisional rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)/103 to be made in the later filed patent application over the copending, earlier filed but issued patent application?
A. Neither of the copending applications contain a showing whether the applications have a common assignee, A is named as the inventor in the earlier filed application, and B is named as the inventor in the later filed application.
B. Neither of the copending applications contain a showing whether the applications have a common assignee, A is named as the inventor in the earlier filed application, and A and B are named as the inventors in the later filed application.
C. A is named as the inventor in the earlier filed application, A and B are named as the inventors in the later filed application, and the later filed application contains a showing that C is the common assignee of the two applications.
D. A is named as the inventor in the earlier filed application, B is named as the inventor in the later filed application, and the later filed application contains a showing that C is the common assignee of the two applications.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is false regarding interviews?
A. Patent examiners are forbidden to hold interviews with an unregistered or disbared attorney regarding a patent application, unless the attorney is the applicant.
B. A request for an interview on the merits prior to the filing of a first filed original patent application normally is permitted.
C. A request for an interview on the merits prior to a first action in a continuation or substitute application is ordinarily granted.
D. A complete written statement as to the substance of a face-to-face or telephone interview with regard to the merits of an application must be made of record in the application, whether or not agreement with the examiner has been reached.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On April 4, 1997, practitioner P filed a patent application for inventor S claiming a laminate of several layers. The examiner rejected the claims in the application as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and 102(e) over a U.S. patent granted on February 11, 1997, to Jones which describes the laminate in the specification, and how to make the laminate. Jones did not claim the laminate, or derive the laminate from S. The patent was granted to Jones on an application filed on November 2, 1994. The claims in the Jones patent are directed to a substrate having a single layer. S first conceived his invention on July 4, 1995. Which of the following would be (an) appropriate response(s) to overcome the rejection?
A. Amending the claim by adding limitations which are supported by the specification in S's application, and are not disclosed or suggested by the Jones patent, request reconsideration, and clearly point out the patentable novelty of the amended claim presented over Jones.
B. Produce evidence of secondary considerations such as unexpected results or commercial success.
C. Argue that the claimed invention in the Jones patent is non-analogous art or teaches away from the invention.
D. Argue that the Jones patent is not evidence that the invention was known "by others," as required by 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) since Jones is a single person, whereas "others" requires plural persons.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Inventor Jones retained registered practitioner P to prepare and file a patent application claiming Jones' invention. P prepared and filed the application together with a declaration wherein Jones appointed P to represent him and conduct all business before the PTO. While P was away on a vacation, Jones filed a preliminary amendment in the application amending the claims, and no Office action on the merits was issued by the PTO examiner. The amendment was signed by Jones, but not P. When P returned from vacation, Jones provided P with a copy of the amendment. Upon review of the amendment, P realized that the scope of the claims had been broadened, that the broadened claims are supported by the original disclosure, and that the claims now read upon prior art which Jones disclosed to P, but which was not disclosed in the specification. The prior art reference is not material to the patentability of the original claims in the application. Which of the following actions of P accords with proper PTO practice and procedure and is the most likely to place the application in condition for allowance?
A. File a supplemental amendment arguing that the Jones amendment should not be entered on the ground that 37 CFR § 1.33 provides that "Double correspondence with an applicant and his attorney or agent . . . will not be undertaken."
B. File a supplemental amendment canceling all amendatory changes effected by the Jones amendment.
C. File a supplemental amendment which (1) cancels all the claims in the patent application, (2) adds the original claims, and (3) argues that the newly added claims are supported by the disclosure.
D. File a supplemental amendment which (1) adds the original claims, (2) cites to the examiner the prior art reference disclosed by Jones to P with an explanation of how the newly added claims patentably distinguish over such prior art reference, and (3) argues that the added claims are supported by the disclosure.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant filed a patent application claiming a widget which included a "sluiced cotter pin" as a means for holding a wheel to a shaft. The specification contained no details of the sluiced cotter pin and such a pin was not commonly know in the art. However, the specification noted details of such a pin could be found in an article published in a particular issue of a popular magazine. The examiner objected to the specification on the ground that it improperly incorporated the material of the publication by reference. Which of the following actions would accord with proper PTO practice and procedure in overcoming the objection?
A. File an amendment enclosing a copy of the magazine article.
B. File an affidavit attesting to the fact that you have personally read the article and that the details of the pin are clearly set forth therein.
C. Amend the specification to include the material incorporated by reference.
D. File a declaration executed by a registered practitioner stating that the amendatory material consists of the same material incorporated by reference.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Inventor Jones invented Y in the United States on November 5, 1995, and hired practitioner P to prepare and file a provisional application. On February 9, 1996, P filed a provisional patent application in the PTO. P received a Notice to File Missing Parts dated March 6, 1996, because the appropriate filing fee was not filed. The Notice set a period for response which was one month from the date of the Notice or two months from the filing date, whichever was later. The filing fee and required surcharge were not filed in the PTO. The provisional application became abandoned. A Notice of Abandonment, dated September 9, 1996, was duly received by P's secretary in P's office, and P's secretary placed the notice in Jones' file. On February 3, 1997, Jones furnished P with a copy of a publication by Gezer, dated February 2, 1996, fully describing Y, and its method of manufacture. On February 4, 1997, P reviewed the Jones file and found the two notices. To properly protect Jones' patent rights, the most appropriate course of action for P to take is to
A. on or before Friday, February 7, 1997, file in the PTO a nonprovisional application claiming Y, and file a copy of the Gezer publication, and an explanation of the relevance of the Gezer publication.
B. on Monday, February 10, 1997, file in the PTO a nonprovisional application claiming Y, and file a copy of the Gezer publication, and an explanation of the relevance of the Gezer publication.
C. on or before Friday, February 7, 1997, file a nonprovisional application claiming Y and claiming benefit of the filing date of the provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), and file the filing fee and surcharge for the provisional application along with the appropriate petition and fee to revive the provisional application, a statement by P that the abandonment of the provisional application was unintentional, a copy of the Gezer publication, and an explanation of the relevance of the Gezer publication.
D. on Monday, February 10, 1997, file a nonprovisional application claiming Y and claiming benefit of the filing date of the provisional application under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e), and file the filing fee and surcharge for the provisional application along with the appropriate petition and fee to revive the provisional application, a statement by P that the abandonment of the provisional application was unintentional, a copy of the Gezer publication, and an explanation of the relevance of the Gezer publication.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Your client informs you that he has filed an international application in the United States and he wishes you to file the U.S. national stage prior to the 30 month deadline for filing the national stage in the U.S. which ends September 2, 1997, next Tuesday. Which of the following actions should you take on that date prior to midnight to obtain the benefit of the international filing date?
A. File a copy of the application in PTO with a cover letter indicating that this is a new application and requesting a filing date.
B. File a paper with the PTO identifying the international application and asking that the PTO send you a bill for the U.S. national filing fee.
C. File the oath or declaration only since that is all that is required for entry into the U.S. national stage.
D. File a request to enter the national stage with the PTO identifying the international application and asking that the U.S. national filing fee be deducted from your deposit account.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: C, a registered patent agent, has just received a final rejection of all of the claims in an application directed to an article of manufacture. C files a Notice of Appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Nevertheless, he would like to tie up some loose ends by amendment before filing his appeal brief. Which of the following responses may he file without triggering the requirements of 37 CFR § 1.116(b)?
A. A response that presents his argument in a more defensible light and adds additional claims.
B. A response amending the claims into process claims.
C. A response complying with a formal requirement of the examiner.
D. A response amending all of the independent claims, accompanied by a declaration from the inventor.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In a drawing for a design patent application, broken lines may be properly used to show:
A. A less important aspect of the claimed design.
B. Hidden planes and surfaces which cannot be seen through opaque materials.
C. Indicia, lettering, or other ornamentation which is part of the claimed design embodied in the article of manufacture.
D. Structure that is not part of the claimed design, but is considered necessary to show the environment in which the article of manufacture is used.
(category: design patent, Chinese translation: 设计专利)
Question: Which of the following constitutes a proper method of service to an unrepresented applicant of papers in a protest of an application?
A. Transmission by first class mail to the applicant.
B. Personally delivering a copy to the applicant.
C. Leaving a copy at the usual place of business of the applicant with someone in the applicant's employment.
D. When there is no usual place of business by leaving a copy at the applicant's home with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there.
(category: trademark，Chinese translation: 商标)