QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: Bill was working toward a Ph.D. in physics from a university in Japan. As part of his  doctoral program, Bill prepared (in Japanese) a thesis directed to his work in the semiconductor  field. Following approval of the thesis by his faculty advisor on December 21, 2000, the sole  copy of Bill's thesis was placed on the shelves of the university library on January 29, 2001,  where it was accessible to the faculty and students of the university as well as to the general  public. At that time, the thesis was indexed in a general user's catalog maintained locally at the  university library by author, title and subject. On March 4, 2001, the general user's catalog was  made freely available on an Internet web page maintained by the university. Which of the  following statements is most correct?
A. Bill's thesis may be used under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as a prior art printed publication against a United States application for patent filed January 4, 2002.
B. Bill's thesis may be used under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as a prior art printed publication against a United States application for patent filed February 19, 2002.
C. Bill's thesis may be used under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as a prior art printed publication against a United States application for patent filed March 6, 2002.
D. Each of statements (B) and (C) is correct.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Harriet filed a nonprovisional patent application in the USPTO containing a written  assertion of small entity status. Based upon proper USPTO practice and procedure, which of the  following statements is correct?
A. If Harriet files a related, continuing application wherein small entity status is  appropriate and desired, it will not be necessary to specifically establish assertion  of such status in the continuing application.
B. If Harriet files a related, reissue application wherein small entity status is appropriate and desired, it will be necessary to specifically establish assertion of  such status in the reissue application.
C. If Harriet files a related, divisional application under 37 CFR 1.53, wherein small  entity status is appropriate and desired, it will not be necessary to specifically establish assertion of such status in the divisional application.
D. If Harriet refiles her application as a continued prosecution application under 37  CFR 1.53(d), wherein small entity status is appropriate and desired, it will not be  necessary to specifically establish assertion of such status in the continued prosecution application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent application filed in the USPTO contains the following three original 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 USPTO practices and procedures, which of the following replies best overcomes the examiner's objection and provides the client with the broadest range of patent protection?
A. Cancel Claim 3. Add Claim 4, which reads: "An Ethernet cable made by a process comprising the steps of A, B and C." Add Claim 5, which reads: "An Ethernet cable made by a process comprising the steps of A, B, C and D."
B. Amend Claim 3 to read: "The Ethernet cable as made by the process set forth in claims 1-2."
C. Cancel Claim 3.
D. Cancel Claim 3 and add Claim 4, which reads: "An Ethernet cable made by a process comprising the steps of A, B and C."
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Mike and Mary jointly invented a cornhusk peeler. Mary invented a wrap around handle for the peeler that keeps the hand protected. Mike invented the portion that engages the cornhusk and removes the cornhusk without damaging the kernels. An application is filed and eighteen months later the patent issues listing Mike and Mary as joint inventors with claims to a cornhusk peeler having the portions invented by both Mike and Mary. Mike and Mary have an argument and never speak or communicate in any way with each other again. Subsequently, Mary sells all of her ownership in the patent to Bird's Beak, who then records the assignment in the USPTO. Mike comes to you for advice as to what he can do. Which of the following is true?
A. Mike should file a reissue application in which he names only himself as inventor and claims only the cornhusk-removing portion. Mike can then sue Bird's Beak to prevent them from manufacturing a device with the cornhusk-removing portion.
B. Since Mary invented only the handle portion, she can assign only the rights in the invention concerning the handle. Consequently, Bird's Beak received only the right to manufacture the handles but not the cornhusk-removing portion.
C. Mike should attempt to void the assignment by Mary since the patent was jointly owned. It takes the consent of both parties to assign the rights in the invention.
D. Mike can file a reissue application, but only with the consent of Bird's Beak, because it takes both the remaining inventor (Mary) and the assignee (Bird's Beak) to consent to the filing of a reissue application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements about the disclosure of the utility of an invention is true in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. A claimed utility invention that is disclosed to be neither a machine, an article of manufacture, a composition, nor a process is patentable in accordance with the patent law.
B. In a patent application claiming a compound, a disclosure by the applicant that the compound may be useful in treating unspecified disorders would be sufficient to define a specific utility for the compound.
C. In a patent application claiming a compound, a disclosure by the applicant that the compound has "useful biological" properties, would be sufficient to define a specific utility for the compound.
D. In a patent application claiming a compound, a disclosure by the applicant that the compound has a specific biological activity and reasonably correlates that activity to a disease condition would be sufficient to define a specific utility for the compound.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Thomas filed a nonprovisional utility patent application in the USPTO on February 8, 2001. The  application as filed included a specification and claims in compliance with 35 U.S.C. §112,  three sheets of publication quality drawings, an abstract of the disclosure, and an application data  sheet listing the name and address of the inventor. The application was initially filed without an executed inventor's oath or declaration and without the required filing fee. The Office issued a "Notice to File Missing Parts ...?Filing Date Granted" on April 2, 2001. The Notice informed Thomas that he must submit an executed oath or declaration by the inventor, pay the required filing fee, and pay a surcharge for late submission of these items within two (2) months of the date of the Notice. Thomas received the Notice on April 9, 2001. Thomas was occupied with other matters and did not file a reply in full compliance with the Notice until September 3, 2001. A Petition for a three-month extension of time and all required fees accompanied the reply. A first substantive Office action on the merits of the application issued January 21, 2002 and set a three-month shortened statutory time period for reply. All pending claims were rejected on the basis of prior art. Thomas filed a fully responsive Amendment on April 15, 2002, and a final Office action issued September 12, 2002 with a three-month shortened statutory period for reply.  The final Office Action allowed certain claims and rejected other claims on substantially the same grounds set forth in the first Office action. Thomas filed a Notice of Appeal on October 21, 2002 and an Appeal Brief on April 18, 2003. A Petition for extension of time and proper authorization to charge a deposit account for any required fees accompanied the Appeal Brief. An Examiner's Answer issued on May 2, 2003, and Thomas filed a Reply Brief on May 15, 2003. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed the Examiner's rejections on September 17, 2003. With regard to the allowed claims, a Notice of Allowance and Issue Fee Due was mailed October 3, 2003. Thomas paid the Issue Fee on October 20, 2003 and the patent issued March 23, 2004. In the facts set forth in connection with the preceding question, what, if any, extension of time was required by Thomas for filing an Appeal Brief on April 18, 2003?
A. A two-month extension of time was required.
B. A three-month extension of time was required.
C. A four-month extension of time was required.
D. No extension of time was available and the Appeal Brief should have been rejected because it was filed more than six months after the final Office action issued.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Claims 1 and 2 in a patent application state the following: Claim 1. An apparatus for sitting comprising: (i) a square shaped base member; (ii) four elongated members mounted to the bottom of the base member; and (iii) a circular back member mounted to the base member. Claim 2. An apparatus as in claim 1, further comprising a spring connected to the back member and to the base member. Which, if any, of the following claims fully supported by the specification and presented in the application, is in accordance with USPTO rules and procedure?
A. Claim 3. An apparatus as in claim 1, wherein the base member is rectangularly shaped.
B. Claim 3. An apparatus as in claim 2, wherein the wheels connected to each of the elongated members are plastic.
C. Claim 3. An apparatus as in any of the preceding claims, in which the circular back member is wooden.
D. Claim 3. An apparatus as in the preceding claims, further comprising a pressuresensing device connected to the base member.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure, which of the following statements is true?
A. Where sole patent applicant Able claims his invention in a Jepson-type claim, and the specification discloses that the subject matter of the preamble was invented by Baker before applicant's invention, the preamble is properly treated as prior art.
B. Where the sole patent applicant Able claims his invention in a Jepson-type claim, and the specification makes it clear that the claimed invention is an improvement on Able's own prior invention, which Able discovered less than one year before the filing date of the application, the preamble in the claim is properly treated as prior art.
C. Where the sole patent applicant Able claims his invention in a Jepson-type claim, and the specification makes it clear that the claimed invention is an improvement on an invention that Able discovered and publicly used and commercially sold by Able in Texas for several years before the filing date of the application, the preamble in the claim cannot properly be treated as prior art.
D. Where the sole applicant, Baker, states that something is prior art, the statement can be taken as being admitted prior art only if corroborated by objective evidence proffered by Baker, or found by the examiner.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is true?
A. In rejecting claims the examiner may rely upon facts within his own personal knowledge, unless the examiner qualifies as an expert within the art, in which case he is precluded from doing so, since only evidence of one of ordinary skill in the art is permitted.
B. If an applicant desires to claim subject matter in a reissue which was the same subject matter waived in the statutory invention registration of another, the applicant is precluded by the waiver from doing so, even though the applicant was not named in the statutory invention registration.
C. If an applicant, knowing that the subject matter claimed in his patent application was on sale in Michigan and sales activity is a statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) to the claims in his application, nevertheless withholds the information from the patent examiner examining the application, and obtains a patent including the claims in question, the applicant may remove any issue of inequitable conduct by filing a request for reexamination based on the sales activity.
D. An applicant for a patent may overcome a statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) based on a patent claiming the same invention by acquiring the rights to the patent pursuant to an assignment and then asserting the assignee's right to determine priority of invention pursuant to 37 CFR 1.602.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An application, filed September 20, 2001, has not yet been examined. All claims in the application are drawn to a single invention. Which of the following, submitted (independently of each other) by a registered practitioner of record with an otherwise proper petition to make the application special, properly results in the application being advanced out of turn for examination?
A. A statement under 37 CFR 1.102 explaining how the invention contributes to the restoration of the basic life-sustaining elements to enhance the quality of the environment, without the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h).
B. A search made by a foreign patent office, one copy each of the references deemed most closely related to the subject matter encompassed by the claims, a detailed discussion of the references that points out with the particularity required by 37 CFR 1.111(b) and (c) how the claimed subject matter is patentable over the references, and the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h).
C. A doctor's certificate demonstrating that the applicant's health is such that he might not be available to assist in the prosecution of the application if it were to run its normal course, without the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h).
D. A birth certificate showing that applicant is 65 years of age, without the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: To satisfy the written description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, an applicant must show possession of the invention. An applicant's lack of possession of the invention may be evidenced by:
A. Original claims which recite an essential feature where the feature is not described in the specification or the claims, and is not conventional in the art or known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
B. A specification of a patent application that describes 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. A specification of a patent application that describes an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention.
D. An amendment to a claim seeking to add a limitation that is supported in the specification through implicit or inherent disclosure.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Greene is a registered patent agent employed by an intellectual property law firm located in Arlington, Virginia. Greene is awakened at 5:30 AM one morning by a frantic call from Whyte, a senior partner at the law firm. Whyte informs Greene that Whyte has an examiner interview scheduled for 3:00 PM that day in connection with an important patent application Whyte is handling. However, a family emergency arose during the night and Whyte will not be able to attend the interview. It is also the last day of the statutory six-month period for reply, so the interview cannot be rescheduled. Whyte requests that Greene conduct the examiner interview for Whyte and, based on the outcome of the interview, file appropriate papers with the Patent Office. Whyte tells Greene exactly where Greene can locate the file in Whyte's office. Greene has not been given a power of attorney in the application, but has been given a power to inspect the Patent Office file for the application. Assuming Greene has adequate time to prepare for the interview and will competently represent the applicant, which of the following statements is true?
A. Greene must obtain either a written power of attorney from the applicant or a written associate power of attorney from Whyte before Greene can participate in the examiner interview.
B. Greene can participate in the interview if Greene brings along a copy of the application file and states to the examiner that Greene is authorized to represent the applicant.
C. Greene cannot participate in the examiner interview because Greene does not have an express power of attorney and has not previously made an appearance in the application.
D. A mere power to inspect is sufficient authority for an examiner to grant an interview involving the merits of an application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Pete wants to file a protest against a patent application filed by a coworker. In the locker room at his place of employment, Pete overheard Sol talking about an application for a golf ball retriever. Pete feels that the invention strongly resembles a golf ball retriever device published in a 1995 edition of Popular Golf magazine. Pete comes to you to file a protest. Pete wants to know if it will be considered by the examiner, and if the applicant (Sol) is required to respond. Pete believes he heard Sol say the application was filed in May 2001, and wonders whether he should include evidence of fraud since Pete believes that his (Pete's) wife may have shown Sol the Popular Golf article. Which of the following is not accurate with respect to proper USPTO procedure in relation to applications filed on or after January 1, 2001?
A. Pete's protest against Sol's pending application will be referred to the examiner having charge of the subject matter involved provided Pete can adequately identify the application. Protests that do not adequately identify a pending patent application will be returned to the protestor and will not be further considered by the Office.
B. Pete's protest, provided it adequately identifies Sol's application, will be entered in the application file if: (1) the protest is submitted prior to the date the application was published or the mailing of a notice of allowance under § 1.311, whichever occurs first; and (2) the protest is either served upon Sol in accordance with § 1.248, or filed with the Office in duplicate in the event service is not possible.
C. If Pete submits evidence that his wife gave Sol a copy of the Popular Golf article and contends that Sol fraudulently copied the device from that disclosed in the article, the examiner will generally not comment on the issues related to fraud.
D. Pete's protest, provided it adequately identifies Sol's application and is submitted prior to the date the application was published or the mailing of a notice of allowance under § 1.311, and which is either served upon Sol in accordance with § 1.248, or filed with the Office in duplicate in the event service is not possible, will be considered by the Office if the application is still pending when the protest and application file are brought before the examiner, and the protest includes: (1) a listing of the patents, publications, or other information relied upon; (2) a concise explanation of the relevance of each listed item; (3) a copy of each listed patent or publication or other item of information in written form or at least the pertinent portions thereof; and (4) an English language translation of all the necessary and pertinent parts of any non-English language patent, publication, or other item of information in written form relied upon.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with USPTO rules and procedure, in which of the following situations may an applicant file a request on or after August 16, 2000 for continued examination of a nonprovisional utility patent application with an earliest effective filing date of March 15, 1999?
A. The last Office action is a notice of allowance, the issue fee has been paid, and no petition to withdraw the application from issue has been granted.
B. The last Office action is a final action and the application is abandoned.
C. The last Office action is a non-final Office action containing a rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and the applicant has filed no reply.
D. The last Office action is a notice of allowance, and after four months from the date of the notice of allowance, the issue fee has not been paid.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In a non-provisional utility patent application filed January 12, 1999, the examiner sends Applicant a final Office action dated February 14, 2001, rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), and objecting as to the form of claims 2 through 10. The examiner sets a three-month shortened statutory period for reply. According to USPTO rules and procedure, which of the following by Applicant ensures that the application does not go abandoned on Wednesday, August 15, 2001?
A. Mailing to the USPTO, using a certificate of mailing under 37 CFR 1.8, dated August 14, 2001, a petition and fee for an extension of three months, a request for a continued prosecution application, and the fee for a request for a continued prosecution application. The foregoing is received by the USPTO on August 17, 2001.
B. Mailing to the USPTO, using a certificate of mailing under 37 CFR 1.8, dated August 14, 2001, a petition and fee for an extension of three months, a request for continued examination with a submission that meets the reply requirements of 37 CFR 1.111, and the fee for a request for continued examination. The foregoing is received by the USPTO on August 17, 2001.
C. Mailing to the USPTO, using a certificate of mailing under 37 CFR 1.8, dated August 14, 2001, a petition and fee for an extension of three months. The foregoing is received by the USPTO on August 17, 2001. Also, telephoning the examiner on August 14, 2001 to discuss the rejections of claims in the final Office action, but without reaching an agreement with the examiner.
D. Mailing to the USPTO a petition and fee for an extension of three months, a request for continued examination with a reply that states, \"Applicant requests that objections as to form be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated, at which time Applicant will reply to the rejection of claim 1,\" and the fee for a request for continued examination. The foregoing is received by the USPTO on August 14, 2001.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)