QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: A registered practitioner files a nonprovisional utility application in 2000. In 2002, the practitioner files a continuation-in-part application and claims benefit of the filing date of the 2000 application for the 2002 application. Thereafter, the practitioner amends the 2002 application to include claims that were not present in either the originally filed 2000 application or the originally filed 2002 application. The primary examiner properly concludes that the added claims are not supported by the original disclosure in either application. Which of the following is in accord with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?
A. The added claims are rejected for lack of written description under 35 USC 112, first paragraph.
B. The added claims are rejected as new matter under 35 USC 132.
C. The added claims are denied benefit of the filing date of the 2000 application.
D. (A) and (B).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, for a nonprovisional application to receive a filing date in the USPTO under 37 CFR 1.53(b), all of the following must be filed except:
A. The basic filing fee required by 37 CFR 1.16(a).
B. A specification as prescribed by the first paragraph of 35 USC 112.
C. A description pursuant to 37 CFR 1.71.
D. At least one claim pursuant to 37 CFR 1.75.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A U.S. patent was granted on May 8, 2001. The sole independent claim in the patent is directed to a combination of elements ABCD. A registered practitioner filed a reissue application on April 11, 2003 to narrow sole independent claim. In the reissue application, the independent claim is amended to a combination to elements ABCDE. The reissue application is accompanied by a transmittal letter stating that the application was filed to narrow a claim, that all inventors could not be located to sign the reissue oath or declaration at that time, and that a declaration would be submitted in due course. No other amendments to the claims were filed on April 11, 2003. On May 8, 2003, a declaration signed by all inventors is filed declaring that they had claimed less than they had a right to claim, and that the error arose without deceptive intent. The inventors also filed on May 8, 2003 a preliminary amendment deleting element A from the sole independent claim leaving elements BCDE. The amendment and declaration are filed using the provisions of 37 CFR 1.10. The practitioner included an authorization to charge the practitioner's deposit account for any necessary fees. Which of the following actions by the primary the examiner in the first Office action is in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
A. Reject all the claims based upon a broadening reissue outside the two year statutory period authorized by 35 USC 251 since applicant did not file a broadened reissue claim at the time of filing.
B. Reject all the claims based upon a broadening reissue outside the two year statutory period authorized by 35 USC 251 since applicant did not file a claim to a broadened reissue claim within the two year period set by 35 USC 251.
C. Reject all the claims based upon a broadening reissue outside the two year statutory period authorized by 35 USC 251 since applicant's indication in the transmittal letter indicated that the filing of the reissue application was a narrowing reissue and that the broadening amendment was not permissible even if filed within the two-years from the grant of the original patent.
D. Determine that the application is a proper broadening reissue and perform an examination and issue an Office action in due course.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An applicant submits a product-by-process claim to a shoe made by a series of specific process steps. The claim is rejected over a publication under 35 USC 102(b) and 103. Assume for this question that the publication reasonably appears to show the identical shoe, but describes a different method of making the shoe. What is the proper procedure to try to overcome the rejection in accordance with the patent laws, rules and the procedures as related in the MPEP?
A. Argue that all limitations in the claim must be given weight and that rejection must be withdrawn because the reference does not disclose the claimed method of making steps.
B. Argue that the examiner has not carried the burden of proving that the shoes are identical.
C. Present evidence why the steps of the claimed process produce a patentably different structure.
D. Submit a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 by the author of the publication describing in more detail how the shoe in the publication was made by a different method.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A registered practitioner files an international application submission that includes a description, claims and drawings in the United States Receiving Office (RO/US) on Wednesday, January 8, 2003. The submission did not include the required request, international and search fees, or the designation of a PCT contracting State. The RO/US mails an "Invitation to Correct the Purported International Application," dated January 10, 2003, to the practitioner indicating that the designation of at least one Contracting State, as required by PCT Article 11(1)(iii)(b), was not included. A one-month period for response is set in the Invitation. On Monday, February 10, 2003, the practitioner submits by facsimile a designation sheet of the Request Form designating every available Contracting State, and authorization to charge all required fees. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, will the application be accorded an international filing date?
A. Yes. The application will be accorded a filing date of January 8, 2003.
B. Yes. The application will be accorded an international filing date of February 10, 2003.
C. No. The application will not be accorded an international filing date because the failure to designate at least one contracting State cannot be cured by a facsimile transmission.
D. No. The application was given a one-month period for response. The practitioner would have had to have filed the response on Friday, February 7, 2003 in order to have been timely.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, satisfaction of the written description requirement may not be demonstrated by:
A. including in the specification a description of an actual reduction to practice.
B. describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention.
C. describing during prosecution of a new or amended claim an element or limitation (omitted from the original disclosure in the specification) as an essential or critical feature of the invention.
D. including in the specification a description of distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Inventor Tip, a scientist in a pencil research laboratory, theorized that, based on the abrasive properties of moon dust, a highly efficient erasure can be made by adding a trace amount of moon dust to a normal pencil erasure formulation. Point, in the Sales department, determined that this would be perfect for a high end product. A U.S. patent application has been filed claiming a pencil erasure formulation with a trace amount of moon dust. An example of how to make the formulation with specified percentages of moon dust is presented therein. Thereafter, Tip learns about the duty to disclose information and he recalls signing a declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 stating that he had reviewed and understood the contents of the specification including the claims. Tip becomes concerned that the use of moon dust was only a theory and that to obtain patent would mislead the public to conclude that moon dust was actually used and found to be effective. The application has been allowed, but the issue fee has not yet been paid. Which of the following is most in accord with patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
A. Point is under a duty to disclose material information to the USPTO.
B. Tip is under a duty to disclose his concern regarding the moon rock information to the USPTO.
C. Both Point and Tip are under a duty to disclose material information to the UPSTO.
D. There is no duty to disclose information regarding how the moon rock formulation was developed to the USPTO.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: The claimed invention in a patent application is directed to an explosive composition "comprising 60-90% solid ammonium nitrate, and 10-40% water-in-oil in which sufficient aeration is entrapped to enhance sensitivity to a substantial degree." The application discloses that the explosive requires both fuel (the ammonium nitrate), and oxygen to "sensitize the composition." A prior art reference, published more than two years before the effective filing date of the application, discloses explosive compositions containing water-in-oil emulsions having identical ingredients to those claimed, in ranges overlapping with the claimed composition. The only element of the claim not recited in the reference is "sufficient aeration entrapped to enhance sensitivity to a substantial degree." The reference does not recognize that sufficient aeration sensitizes the fuel to a substantial degree. In addition to the prior art reference, a printed publication contains test data demonstrating that "sufficient aeration" is necessarily an inherent element in the prior art blasting composition under the circumstances. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and the procedures as related in the MPEP, the prior art reference:
A. anticipates the claim because it discloses every limitation of the claim either explicitly or inherently.
B. does not anticipate the claim because the prior art reference does not recognize an inherent property.
C. does not anticipate the claim because the prior art reference does not recognize an inherent function of oxygen.
D. does not anticipate the claim because the prior art reference does not recognize an inherent ingredient, oxygen.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: With respect to establishing "reasonable diligence" for under 35 USC 102(g), which of the following statements is or are in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP? 
1: The inventor and his attorney must drop all other work and concentrate on the particular invention involved. 
2: The entire period during which diligence is required must be accounted for by either affirmative acts or acceptable excuses. 
3: Work relied upon to show reasonable diligence must be directly related to the reduction to practice.
A. Statement (1) only
B. Statement (2) only
C. Statement (3) only
D. Statements (1) and (3)
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which one of the following statements is in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP regarding double patenting rejections?
A. A rejection of application claims for obviousness-type double patenting over the claims of a patent which names a different inventive entity (where one inventor is in common with the inventive entity in the application) and was not commonly owned at the time applicant made his or her invention can be overcome with an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 showing that the applicant made the invention in the United States prior to the effective filing date of the patent.
B. A rejection for obviousness-type double patenting of application claims over patent claims can properly rely on an embodiment which is disclosed in the patent and provides support for the patent claims on which the rejection is based.
C. The filing of a terminal disclaimer to overcome an obviousness-type double patenting rejection constitutes a binding admission that the rejection is proper.
D. Application claims are properly rejected for obviousness-type double patenting over claims of a patent having an effective filing date earlier than the effective filing date of the application only if both of the following two conditions are satisfied: (a) the rejected application claims recite an obvious variation of the subject matter recited in the patent claims on which the rejection is based; and (b) the patent claims on which the rejection is based recite an obvious variation of the subject matter recited in the rejected application claims.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following can a third party submit in a pending published application within two months from the publication date where the submission identifies the application to which it is directed by application number and includes the appropriate fee?
A. A list referencing a videotape and copy of the tape showing that the process claimed in the application was in use more than one year before the filing date of the application.
B. A U.S. patent issued more than one year before the filing date of the application and a written explanation of the patent made by the third party on the patent.
C. A publication with a publication date more than one year before the filing date of the application and including underlining made by the third party on the publication.
D. A protest raising fraud and inequitable conduct issues.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A U.S. patent was granted on May 8, 2001 to five inventors. The five inventors assigned their entire patent rights to Q Company. Q Company needs to file a reissue application to broaden the claims of the patent. The registered practitioner preparing the application has been unable to locate any of the five inventors to sign the reissue oath or declaration. Today is May 8, 2003. Which of the following should the practitioner do to enable the applicant to broaden the patent claims in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
A. Wait to file the reissue application until the first day the signatures of all five inventors can be obtained. At that time, pay the filing fee and file a petition seeking May 8, 2003 as the filing date. File with the petition a showing of the unavailability of all inventors until the filing of the application.
B. Wait to file the reissue application until the signatures of at least three inventors can be obtained. At that time, file a petition seeking May 7, 2003 as the filing date accompanied by a showing of the unavailability of all inventors on May 8th. Payment of the filing fees may be postponed until receipt of a decision on the petition.
C. File the reissue application on May 8, 2003, presenting only the claims in the patent, and include a listing of inventors, but not pay the filing fee at the time of filing.
D. Wait to file the reissue application until the signature of one of the inventors has been obtained since at least one inventor is needed to show a lack of deceptive intent on the part of the applicants.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 in accordance with the patent laws, rules, and procedures as set forth in the MPEP?
A. A claim to a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild.
B. A claim to a method of using a computer to select a set of arbitrary measurement point values. (The selected values are not to be transformed outside of the computer into computer data).
C. A claim to a method of controlling a mechanical robot which relies upon storing data in a computer that represents various types of mechanical movements of the robot.
D. A claim to a method of updating alarm limits by changing the number value of a variable to represent the result of the calculation.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On January 2, 2001, a registered practitioner filed a patent application with the USPTO for inventor Beck. The application includes a specification and a single claim to the invention which reads as follows: 1. Mixture Y made by the process Q1. In the specification, Mr. Beck discloses that mixture Y has a melting point of 150掳 F. On June 2, 2001, the practitioner received an Office action from the primary examiner rejecting the claim. The claim is rejected under 35 USC 102/103 as being clearly anticipated by or obvious over Patent A. The examiner states "Patent A teaches mixture Y but made by a different process Q2." Beck believes he is entitled to a patent to mixture Y. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following would be the best reply to the rejection of his claim?
A. An argument that the claimed product has an unexpectedly low melting point of 150掳 F, supported by an affidavit showing that the mixture Y made by process Q2 exhibits a melting point of 300掳 F.
B. An argument that the processes used by applicant and patent A are different, supported by a third-party declaration stating only that the processes are different.
C. An argument that the claimed product has an unexpectedly low melting point of 150掳 F, supported by a third-party declaration stating only that the products are different.
D. An argument that the processes used by applicant and patent A are different, supported by an affidavit showing that the mixture Y made by process Q2 exhibits a melting point of 300掳 F.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Inventor Jones files an application under 35 USC 111(a) on March 27, 2002. The application is a continuation of an international application, which was filed on December 1, 2000. The international application claims priority to a U.S. provisional application filed December 2, 1999. The international application designated the United States, and was published in English under PCT Article 21(2). All applications contained the exact same disclosure. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, what, if any, is the earliest prior art date under 35 USC 102(e) for the publication of the 35 U.S.C. 111(a) application under 35 USC 122(b)?
A. None, the publication has no prior art date under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)
B. 1017187200000
C. 1008028800000
D. 975628800000
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant filed an international patent application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) designating the United States. A copy of the international application has not been submitted to the USPTO by the International Bureau. The deadline for entering the national stage under 35 USC 371(c) was August 15, 2002. Applicant submitted all of the national stage items required by 35 USC 371(c) by facsimile transmission on August 15, 2002. The facsimile transmission was successfully received by the USPTO on August 15, 2002. The submission included an authorization to charge any required fees to the valid deposit account of the registered practitioner representing applicant. The account contained sufficient funds. Assuming that applicant has made no other national stage submissions under 35 USC 371(c), which of the following statements is most correctly describes why the national stage submission in accordance with the patent laws, rules and the procedures as related in the MPEP is proper or improper?
A. The national stage submission was proper because facsimile transmission is a valid method of correspondence in the USPTO.
B. The national stage submission was proper because a copy of an originally executed oath or declaration is acceptable, but the original oath or declaration should be retained as evidence of authenticity.
C. The national stage submission was improper because a copy of the international application and the basic national fee necessary to enter the national stage as required by 35 USC 371(c) may not be submitted by facsimile transmission.
D. The national stage submission was improper because the USPTO does not accept fee payments via facsimile transmission.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements is or are in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP? 
1: In a 35 USC 103 obviousness analysis, the proper question is whether the differences between the prior art and the claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. 
2: In a 35 USC 103 obviousness analysis, an inventor's assertion the he has discovered the source or cause of an identified problem should never be considered. 
3: A 35 USC 103 obviousness analysis requires consideration not just of what is literally recited in the claims, but also of any properties inherent in the claimed subject matter that are disclosed in the specification.
A. Statement 1
B. Statement 2
C. Statement 3
D. Statements 1 & 2
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent application was filed on November 1, 2000 for the invention of J.J. Smithy. The application has no priority or benefit claims to any other application. Claims in the application are separately rejected under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by each of the following references. Which reference can be properly applied under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
A. A WIPO publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), which has an international filing date of October 3, 2000, was published in English and designated the United States.
B. A U.S. patent by J.J. Smithy that has a filing date of September 5, 2000.
C. A U.S. application publication under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) by inventor Jones that was filed on August 8, 2000.
D. A journal article by Marks published on October 11, 2000.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A registered practitioner filed a design patent application on December 30, 2003. The application was filed with an inventor-executed declaration naming Jon Jones as the sole inventor, who has not assigned the invention and is not under an obligation to assign his invention. The filing receipt was recently received, indicating that the application will be published on Thursday, July 1, 2004. In reviewing the filing receipt the practitioner realizes that the typed name of the inventor contained a typographical error (an "h" was missing) and that the correct spelling was John Jones. Which of the following would be the course of action at the least expense to correct the error in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
A. The practitioner should file a request under 37 CFR 1.48 to correct the inventorship of the application with a new declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 signed by John Jones (with the correct spelling of this name), a statement by Mr. Jones as to how the error occurred and that the error was without deceptive intention, and the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(q).
B. The practitioner should file a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 and the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), requesting correction of the spelling of the inventor's name.
C. The practitioner should file a request for a corrected filing receipt and a separate letter to the Office explaining that the declaration contains a typographical error, that the correct spelling of the inventor's name is John Jones, and requesting correction of the Office records.
D. The practitioner should expressly abandon the application, and file a continuation with a new declaration with the correct spelling.
(category: design patent, Chinese translation: 设计专利)