QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: Stan, through a registered practitioner, files an application for a patent. During the prosecution of Stan's patent, in an amendment, the practitioner admitted in his discussion as to "all the claims" of Stan's application, that "the most pertinent available prior art known to the Applicants and their representatives is the Acme Patent, cited by the examiner." Within one year after the patent issues, Stan comes to you and wants to file a reissue to broaden his claims, based on the fact that the Acme patent is not prior art. He has ample evidence to show that he conceived and reduced his invention to practice before the filing date of the Acme patent. Which of the following is true?
A. Stan should file a reissue application accompanied by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.131 to swear behind the date of the Acme reference. The statement by the registered practitioner, who formerly represented Stan, that the Acme patent was prior art constituted error without deceptive intent and may be corrected by reissue.
B. The explicit admission by the registered practitioner, who formerly represented Stan, that the Acme patent constituted prior art is binding on Stan in any later proceeding involving the patent.
C. Stan should file a request for reexamination and submit the Acme patent along with evidence in the form of affidavits or declarations showing that the Acme patent is not prior art.
D. Since the Acme patent was cited by the examiner and not by the registered practitioner, who formerly represented Stan, Stan can not be held accountable for the error. Moreover, the statement by the registered practitioner was directed to the pertinence of the prior art and not to the issue of whether the date of the Acme patent could be sworn behind. Accordingly, the statement has no binding effect.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements involving an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance in a Notice of Allowance dated February 8, 2001, is in accordance with USPTO rules and procedure?
A. Failure by applicant or patent owner to file a statement commenting on the reasons for allowance cannot give rise to any implication that the applicant or patent owner agrees with or acquiesces in the reasoning of the examiner.
B. If applicant files a statement commenting on the reasons for allowance, failure by the examiner to respond to applicant's statement gives rise to the implication that the examiner agrees with applicant's statement.
C. If applicant files a statement commenting on the reasons for allowance, failure by the examiner to respond to applicant's statement does not give rise to any implication.
D. (A) and (C)
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Registered practitioner Joe files a design patent application under 37 CFR § 1.53(b) having one claim on May 6, 1999. The USPTO sends Joe a notice of allowance dated November 10, 2000. Joe pays the issue fee on November 15, 2000. On November 23, 2000, Joe learns about a publication (the "Smith Reference") which he knows to be material to patentability of the claim, but which was not considered by the examiner during prosecution of the application. Joe prepares an information disclosure statement that complies with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.98, listing the Smith reference. Which of the following actions, if taken by Joe on November 24, 2000, will result in a request for continued examination of the application being granted in accordance with USPTO rules and procedure?
A. Filing a request for continued examination of the application with the information disclosure statement listing the Smith Reference, without the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e).
B. Filing a request for continued examination of the application with the information disclosure statement listing the Smith Reference, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e).
C. Filing a request for continued examination of the application with the information disclosure statement listing the Smith Reference, the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e), and a petition under 37 CFR § 1.313 with the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(h).
D. (B) or (C) above.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In early 1999, at the request of MC Motors, Eve demonstrated her reverse automobile heating system at a testing facility in Germany. MC Motors signs a confidentiality agreement and agrees not to disclose the invention to anyone. The test is conducted in a secluded area and the persons involved are sworn to secrecy. Unbeknownst to Eve, MC Motors installs the reverse heating system on its MC cars and begins selling its cars with the reverse heating system in the United States in September 1999. In August 2000, MC files a patent application in the United States for the reverse automobile heating system. In December 2000, Eve files a patent application claiming the automobile heating system. The examiner rejects all the claims in Eve's application based upon an MC Motors brochure advertising its cars in September 1999. Which of the following is true?
A. Eve is not entitled to a patent since the invention was on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.
B. Since the MC Motors misappropriated the invention and since Eve did not authorize the sale, the rejection may be overcome by showing that the sales by MC Motors were not authorized by Eve.
C. MC Motors is entitled to a patent since although it misappropriated the idea for the invention from Eve, the misappropriation was beyond the jurisdiction of the USPTO.
D. (A) and (C).
(category: trade secret, Chinese translation: 商业秘密)
Question: Which of the following is true?
A. For a nonprovisional utility patent application filed in the USPTO on January 10, 2001, formal drawings are required to overcome an objection issued during initial review that drawings in the application do not comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(g) and (u)(1).
B. If the primary examiner requires formal drawings at the time a patent application is allowed and sets a three month period of time from the mail date of a notice of allowability within which to file the drawings to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84, the applicant may obtain an extension of time to file the formal drawings by filing a petition for an extension of time under 37 CFR § 1.136(a) or (b) and the appropriate fee.
C. For a nonprovisional application filed on November 2, 2000, to claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) of the filing date of a provisional application filed on November 6, 1999, the nonprovisional application must be copending with the provisional application.
D. In those instances in which an applicant seeks to add new matter to the disclosure of an application, a request for continued examination is not a proper procedure for adding the new matter.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Where the reference relied upon in a 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection qualifies as prior art only under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f), or (g), which of the following represents the most comprehensive answer in accord with proper USPTO practice and procedure as to the action an applicant should take to overcome the rejection?
A. Present proof that the subject matter relied upon and the claimed invention are currently commonly owned.
B. Present proof that the subject matter relied upon and the claimed invention were commonly owned at the time the later invention was made.
C. Present proof that the subject matter relied upon and the claimed invention were subject to an obligation to assign to the same person at the time the later invention was made.
D. (A) and (B).
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Mitch and Mac are named inventors on an international application that is filed in the USPTO Receiving Office, and designates the United States of America. Mac now indicates that he will not sign the Request for the international application. Mitch wishes to proceed with the Request and seeks the advice of their patent agent. Which of the following answers accords with the provisions of the Patent Cooperation Treaty?
A. Mitch's agent should sign the Request and accompany it with a statement indicating why it is believed that Mac refuses to proceed with the Request.
B. Mitch should sign the request for himself and also sign on behalf of Mac.
C. Mitch should sign the request and seek a court order to obtain Mac's signature.
D. Mitch should sign the Request and Mitch's agent should sign on behalf of Mac, since he continues to represent Mac.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An amendment filed January 8, 2001, in an unassigned nonprovisional application seeks to cancel claims so that fewer than all of the currently named inventors are the actual inventors of the invention being claimed. The amendment includes a request to delete the names of the persons who are not inventors. In accordance with proper USPTO rules and procedure, the request may be signed by which of the following?
A. A registered practitioner not of record who acts in a representative capacity under 37 CFR § 1.34(a).
B. All of the applicants (37 CFR § 1.41(b)) for patent.
C. A registered practitioner of record appointed pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.34(b).
D. (B) and (C).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. Conversion of a provisional application to a nonprovisional application will result in the term of any patent to issue from the application being measured from at least the filing date of the provisional application.
B. Conversion of a provisional application to a nonprovisional application cannot adversely impact on the term of any patent to issue from the application.
C. An applicant having filed a provisional application can avoid any adverse patent term impact resulting from converting the provisional application to a nonprovisional application by instead filing a nonprovisional application claiming the benefit of the provisional application under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e).
D. An applicant filing a nonprovisional application claiming the benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.78 of an earlier provisional application, and not requesting conversion of the provisional to a nonprovisional application can avoid the fee required to convert a provisional application to a nonprovisional application, as well as an adverse patent term effect that would result from a conversion.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accord with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. If a practitioner, "by mistake," files an application and basic filing fee, the submission of the filing fee with the application is treated by the Office as not a fee paid by mistake, and the fee will not be refunded.
B. If, in April 2001, a practitioner files an application, properly establishes the applicant's small entity status, and "by mistake" pays the filing fee by submitting a check drawn in the amount that is twice the amount of the small entity filing fee, a refund of the excess fee may be obtained upon request filed any time during pendency of the application and life of any patent granted on the application.
C. The paragraphs of the specification of an original utility patent application filed in January 2001 may, but are not required to be numbered at the time the application is filed.
D. If a provisional application is filed in a language other than English, an English language translation of the non-English language provisional application will not be required in the provisional application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Regarding the specification of a nonprovisional patent application, which of the following practices is in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. The specification may include graphical illustrations or flowcharts.
B. The specification must begin with one or more claims.
C. The specification may include hyperlinks or other forms of browser-executable code embedded in the text.
D. The specification may include tables and chemical formulas.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Practitioner Smith filed a utility patent application on January 5, 2001, with informal drawings. Upon review of the drawings, the USPTO concluded that the drawings were not in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(a)(1) and (k), and were not suitable for reproduction. In an Office communication, Smith was notified of the objection and given two months to correct the drawings in order to place the application in the files of a Technology Center for examination. Which of the following complies with USPTO practices and procedures for a complete bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action?
A. Smith timely files a response requesting that the objections to the drawings be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.
B. Smith timely files a response requesting that the objections to the drawings be held in abeyance since the requirement increases up-front costs for the patent applicant, and the costs can be avoided if patentable subject matter is not found.
C. Smith timely files a response requesting that the objections to the drawings be held in abeyance until fourteen months from the earliest claimed priority date.
D. Smith timely files a response correcting the drawings to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(a)(1) and (k), and making them suitable for reproduction.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following do not represent prior art?
A. The preamble of a Jepson claim.
B. A technical journal as of its date of publication which is accessible to the public as of the date of its publication.
C. A disclosure publicly posted on the INTERNET, but containing no publication or retrieval date.
D. A doctoral thesis indexed, cataloged and shelved in a university library.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is in accord with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. A utility application was filed in October 1999. Following a restriction requirement, the applicant elected claims 1-5, and the examiner withdrew nonelected claims 6-10. After a final rejection of claims 1-5 in January 2001, the applicant may submit an amendment canceling previously examined claims and present claims to the previously non-elected invention of claims 6-10 when filing a request for continued examination under 37 CFR § 1.114.
B. Claims in an allowed application may be amended as a matter of right after payment of the issue fee inasmuch as the Office may not rule on amendment filed after a notice of allowance until after the period for payment of the issue fee has expired.
C. If, at the time an application is allowed in January 2001, a corrected drawing is required or formal drawing is needed, the applicant is given a three month period in the notice of allowability to file the same, and is permitted to file corrected or formal drawings after payment of the issue fee upon filing a request of an extension of time and payment of the requisite fee.
D. Where, after a final rejection, a request for continued examination complying with 37 CFR § 1.114, is filed in April 2001 accompanied by a request to suspend action by the Office for a period not exceeding three months to provide time to submit an information disclosure statement, and the requisite fees, the Office may grant the requested suspension.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements is correct regarding an antedating declaration or affidavit being used in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. Where the reference publication date is more than one year before applicant's effective filing date.
B. Where the reference is a prior U.S. patent to the same entity, claiming the same invention.
C. Where the subject matter relied on in the reference is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g).
D. Where the reference, a U.S. Patent, with a patent issue date less than one year prior to applicant's effective filing date, shows but does not claim the same patentable invention.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. After issuance of a notice of allowance in November 2000, a petition to withdraw an application from issue and requisite fee are required if a request for continued examination, submission, and requisite fee are filed prior to the issuance of the patent.
B. After issuance of a notice of allowance in April 2001 for an application, an amendment of the claims in the application may be filed before, with, or after payment of the issue fee.
C. The Office ensures that any petition to withdraw an application from issue, filed after payment of the issue fee, will be acted upon prior to the scheduled date of patent grant.
D. If a request for continued examination under 37 CFR § 1.114, accompanied by the requisite fee, but not a submission, are filed in March 2001, after an application was allowed in January 2001, the Office will notify the applicant and set a time period within which the deficiency must be corrected.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In which of the following instances is the filing of a request for continued examination (RCE) of an application, together with a submission and payment of the appropriate fee, in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. The RCE, including an amendment to the written description, is filed on April 17, 2001, in a nonprovisional utility application having a filing date in July 1998. A Notice of Appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences had been filed in November 2000, and as of April 17th the appeal is awaiting a decision.
B. The RCE, including an amendment to the written description, is filed on April 17, 2001, in a nonprovisional utility application having a filing date in July 1996. A Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was properly filed in January 2001, and the appeal has not terminated as of April 17th.
C. The RCE, including an amendment to the written description, is filed on April 17, 2001, in a nonprovisional utility application having a filing date in July 1999. The issue fee was filed in the Office on Friday, January 19, 2001, but a petition and fee to withdraw the application has not been filed.
D. The RCE, including an amendment to the written description, is filed on April 17, 2001, for a nonprovisional utility application having a filing date in July 1996. On Monday, April 2, 2001, Applicant withdrew a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. There were no allowed claims in the application, and the Court's dismissal of the appeal did not indicate any further action to be taken by the Office.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A registered practitioner filed a nonprovisional U.S. patent application in the USPTO on Monday, October 9, 2000. The full basic fee for other than a small entity accompanied the application. The practitioner later realized that a mistake had occurred because only the basic fee for a small entity should have been paid. On Thursday, November 9, 2000, the practitioner completed proper establishment of the applicant's small entity status by filing an assertion under 37 C.F.R. § 1.27(c) with the USPTO. On Monday, December 11, 2000, the practitioner filed a petition under 37 CFR 1.136, and the fee required by 37 CFR 1.17(a) for a one month extension of time to file a request for a refund of the excess amount paid based on establishment of small entity status. Absent any other action, which of the following is the latest date that the practitioner can properly file a request for refund and obtain the same in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. Thursday, November 9, 2000.
B. Friday, December 8, 2000.
C. Monday, December 11, 2000.
D. Tuesday, January 9, 2001.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is/are required to be included in a request for reexamination submitted by a person other than the patent owner on January 12, 2001?
A. A statement pointing out each substantial question of patentability based on the arguments stated by the examiner in the first Office action.
B. A statement that, in the opinion of the requester, the application to which the request is directed meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112.
C. A copy of the entire patent including the front face, drawings, and specification/claims, in double column format on single-sided sheets, for which reexamination is requested, and a copy of any disclaimer, certificate of correction, or reexamination certificate issued in the patent.
D. A certification that a copy of the request has been served in its entirety on "the patent owner at the address as provided for in § 1.33(c)," without indicating the name and address of the party served.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In June 1998, Jack and Jill, a married couple, are vacationing in Vietnam (not a WTO country) when they encounter a man selling bamboo knives for cleaning fish. The particular curvature of the bamboo both lends support to the knife to prevent it from bending and breaking and facilitates cleaning inside the fish. Jill takes a picture of Jack with the knife cleaning the fish. Subsequently, in November 1998, when Jack returns to the United States he begins to make and sell an identical knife to the one seen in Vietnam. In July 1999, he files a patent application claiming the nearly identical knife. Jack discloses no prior art during the prosecution of his application and fails to mention the knife he saw in Vietnam. The examiner finds no prior art similar to the claimed knife, and Jack is awarded a patent in December 2000. Meanwhile, Jill divorces Jack, and associates with Sam. Unfortunately, Sam is penniless. To raise cash, Sam and Jill begin selling a knife identical to the one Jack produces, only Sam and Jill make their knife out of plastic. The knives of Sam and Jill sell like hotcakes. Jack sues for infringement. Jill and Sam come to you for advice. Which of the following is not true?
A. Jack is entitled to patent protection since Vietnam is not a WTO country and evidence of the Vietnamese knife cannot be used against him to reject his patent claims.
B. Jack had a duty under 37 C.F.R. §1.56 to disclose his discovery of the bamboo knife in Vietnam to the examiner during the original patent prosecution.
C. Since the use in Vietnam was not in this country, it does not constitute a public use bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
D. If Jill's attorney files a request for reexamination, it will be denied because the picture is not a patent or printed publication.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure regarding design patent applications filed in March 2001?
A. The expedited treatment available for design applications under 37 CFR § 1.155 expedites design application processing by, among other things, decreasing clerical processing time as well as the time spent routing the application between processing steps.
B. The "petition to make special" procedure is also available for designs and the petition fee is less than the fee for expedited examination.
C. To qualify for expedited examination: (1) the application must include drawings in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.84; (2) the applicant must have conducted a preexamination search; and (3) the applicant must file a request for expedited examination including: (i) The appropriate fee; and (ii) a statement that a preexamination search was conducted. The statement must also indicate the field of search and include an information disclosure statement in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.98.
D. If the design application is not effectively expedited by the Office, the fee for expediting the application will be refunded.
(category: design patent, Chinese translation: 设计专利)