QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: Jones' patent application was filed in the PTO in January 1999, claiming an invention Jones conceived and reduced to practice in the United States. Claim 1 in the application was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being unpatentable over a U.S. patent to Smith. Smith did not derive anything from Jones, or visa versa. Smith and Jones were never obligated to assign their inventions to the same employer. In which of the following situations should a declaration by Jones under 37 CFR § 1.131 overcome the rejection in accordance with proper PTO practice and procedure?
A. The rejected claim is drawn to a genus. The Smith patent issued in March 1998, on an application filed in June 1994. The patent discloses, but does not claim, a single species of the genus claimed by Jones. The declaration shows completion in April 1994, of the same species disclosed by Smith.
B. The rejected claim is drawn to a species. The Smith patent issued in March 1998 on an application filed in June 1994. The patent discloses, but does not claim, the species claimed by Jones. The declaration shows completion in April 1994, of a different species.
C. The rejected claim is drawn to a genus. The Smith patent issued in March 1998, on an application filed in June 1994. The patent discloses, but does not claim, several species within the genus claimed by Jones. The declaration shows completion in April 1994, of a species different from the reference's species and the species within the scope of the claimed genus.
D. The rejected claim is drawn to a genus. The Smith patent issued in March 1997, on an application filed in June 1994. The patent discloses, but does not claim, several species within the genus claimed by Jones. The declaration shows completion in April 1994, of one or more of the species disclosed in the patent.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A personal interview with an examiner to discuss the merits of the claims may not be properly conducted by:
A. the inventor, even though the attorney of record is present at the interview.
B. a registered practitioner who does not have power of attorney in the application, but who is known to the examiner to be the local representative of the attorney of record in the case.
C. an unregistered attorney who is the applicant in the application.
D. an unregistered attorney who has been given the associate power of attorney in the particular application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A final rejection, with a mailing date of Thursday, February 4, 1999, was received Saturday, February 6, 1999. The examiner set a three month shortened statutory period for reply. Which of the following will be considered as being timely filed?
A. A reply, mailed using the U.S. Postal Service, first class mail, on Friday, August 6, 1999, and received by the PTO on Monday, August 9, 1999 accompanied by a petition and appropriate fee for a three-month extension of time, and a certificate of mailing stating, "I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to: Assistant Commissioner for Patents, Washington, D.C. 20231, on August 6, 1999." The certificate of mailing was signed by and contained the printed name of one who reasonably expected the response to be mailed in the normal course of business by another no later than August 6, 1999.
B. A reply, mailed using the U.S. Postal Service, on Tuesday, May 4, 1999 and received by the PTO on Thursday, May 6, 1999 accompanied by a copy of a U.S. Postal Service certificate of mailing, which states "One piece of ordinary mail addressed to: Assistant Commissioner for Patents, Washington, D.C. 20231." The certificate of mailing contained an official U.S. Postal Service date stamp of May 4, 1999, and the printed name of one who reasonably expected the response to be mailed in the normal course of business no later than May 4, 1999.
C. A reply, mailed using the U.S. Postal Service, first class mail, on Wednesday, August 4, 1999, and received by the PTO on Monday, August 9, 1999, accompanied by a petition and the appropriate fee for a three-month extension of time, and a certificate of mailing stating, "I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to: Assistant Commissioner for Patents, Washington, D.C. 20231, on August 6, 1999." The certificate of mailing was signed by and contained the printed name of one who reasonably expected the response to be mailed in the normal course of business by another no later than August 4, 1999.
D. (A) and (C)
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements is true concerning terms of degree (relative terms, e.g., such as, "hotter") used in claim language?
A. Definiteness of claim language using terms of degree should not be analyzed using a claim interpretation that would be given by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the art, and only the specification should be used to interpret the claim.
B. A claim may be rendered indefinite even if the specification uses the same term of degree as the claim language, if the term of degree is not understandable by one of ordinary skill in the art when the term of degree is read in light of the specification.
C. If the specification includes guidelines which would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the scope of a claim having a term of degree, then the language of the guidelines must be included in the claim in order to render the claim definite.
D. If the original disclosure does not include guidelines which would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the scope of a claim having a term of degree, then as long as the term of degree in the claim was part of the original disclosure, the claim will be properly rendered definite by amending the specification to provide guidelines concerning the term of degree which would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the scope of the claim.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You are a registered patent agent prosecuting a patent application filed on behalf of Harry. You received an Office action having a mailing date of August 13, 1999, in which the examiner set a three month shortened statutory period for reply and rejected all of the claims in the application under 35 U.S.C § 112 for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. After receiving the Office action, you discovered a recently issued U.S. patent that you believe discloses and claims your client's invention. On September 28, 1999, you filed an amendment copying some of the claims from the patent for the purpose of provoking an interference and notify the examiner that you have copied specific claims from the patent. In a second Office action dated October 13, 1999, the examiner rejected the copied claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being based on a non-enabling disclosure and set a three month shortened statutory period for reply. If no requests for an extension of time are filed, the last day(s) for filing replies to the first and second Office actions, is(are):
A. Monday, November 15, 1999.
B. Monday, November 15, 1999, and Thursday, January 13, 2000, respectively.
C. Monday, November 29, 1999, and Wednesday, January 12, 2000 respectively.
D. Tuesday, December 28, 1999.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Claim 1 in a patent application states the following: A modular telephone plug crimping tool comprising: (i) a pair of body parts comprising first and second body parts, each having a fixed length; (ii) a flexible member connecting an end of the first body part to an end of the second body part; (iii) a hand lever; (iv) a pivot pin connecting the hand lever to the first body part; (v) an interchangeable crimping punch removably seated in the first body part and guided relative to an interchangeable crimping anvil removably seated in the second body part; (vi) a roller mounted on the pivot pin for engaging the crimping punch; and (vii) a guide pin being fixed in said second body part and extending in aligned bores in said pair of body parts. Which, if any, of the following claims, if presented in the application, is a proper dependent claim in accordance with PTO rules and procedure.
A. 2. The modular telephone according to claim 1, wherein said crimping punch comprises integral contact and strain relief punch portions.
B. 2. The modular telephone plug crimping tool according to claim 1, wherein said second body part has an adjustable length.
C. 2. A process for using the modular telephone plug crimping tool of claim 1 to connect a telephone to a telephone line.
D. 2. The modular telephone plug crimping tool according to claim 1, further comprising: a free end on each of said first and second body parts; first and second stripping blades adjustably and detachably provided at said free ends of said first and second body parts, respectively; and at least one severing blade held in cooperating relationship with a severing anvil, said severing blade and severing anvil being provided on said first and second body parts, respectively.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You are prosecuting an application for inventor Smith that receives a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on a U.S. patent to Jones that discloses and claims the same invention. Which of the following, if any, will overcome the rejection?
A. An affidavit or declaration showing that Jones is not the true inventor.
B. An affidavit or declaration showing commercial success of the Smith invention.
C. An affidavit or declaration containing an argument that the invention claimed in the Smith application provides synergistic results.
D. An affidavit or declaration swearing back of the Jones patent.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent application contains a single independent claim: A process for manufacturing water soluble crayons which comprises (i) preparing one or more water soluble alkoxylation products by contacting an organic compound selected from the group consisting of alcohols and carboxylic acids, with an alkylene oxide in the presence of an effective amount of a catalyst under alkoxylation conditions; (ii) preparing a water soluble crayon composition by adding a coloring agent to the one or more water soluble alkoxylation products; (iii) pouring said water soluble crayon composition into a mold; and (iv) solidifying said water soluble crayon composition by cooling. The coloring agents disclosed in the specification include pigments selected from the group consisting of titanium dioxide, red iron oxide and carbon black. These pigments are used in an amount of about 1 to 30 weight percent or greater, preferably about 4 to about 25 weight percent, of the total weight of the crayon composition. As disclosed in the specification, preferred organic compounds useful in the process of this invention also include alcohols, carboxylic acids, and amines. The specification also discloses that the water soluble crayon compositions harden readily upon cooling, i.e. when exposed to a temperature of from about 10潞C. to 15潞C. Which of the following choices would be a proper dependent claim which could be added to the application by amendment and be supported by the specification?
A. 2. A process according to Claim 1 wherein said water soluble crayon composition is exposed to a temperature of at least 10潞C.
B. 2. A process as set forth in Claim 1 wherein said coloring agent is titanium dioxide.
C. 2. A process for manufacturing water soluble crayons as set forth in Claim 1 wherein said coloring agent is 1 to 30 weight percent of the total weight of the crayon composition.
D. 2. A process as set forth in Claim 1 wherein said organic compound further comprises amines.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent application contains a single independent claim: A process for manufacturing water soluble crayons which comprises (i) preparing one or more water soluble alkoxylation products by contacting an organic compound selected from the group consisting of alcohols and carboxylic acids, with an alkylene oxide in the presence of an effective amount of a catalyst under alkoxylation conditions; (ii) preparing a water soluble crayon composition by adding a coloring agent to the one or more water soluble alkoxylation products; (iii) pouring said water soluble crayon composition into a mold; and (iv) solidifying said water soluble crayon composition by cooling. The coloring agents disclosed in the specification include pigments selected from the group consisting of titanium dioxide, red iron oxide and carbon black. These pigments are used in an amount of about 1 to 30 weight percent or greater, preferably about 4 to about 25 weight percent, of the total weight of the crayon composition. As disclosed in the specification, preferred organic compounds useful in the process of this invention also include alcohols, carboxylic acids, and amines. The specification also discloses that the water soluble crayon compositions harden readily upon cooling, i.e. when exposed to a temperature of from about 10潞C. to 15潞C.Which of the following amendments to Claim 1 are in accordance with PTO policy and procedure and are supported by specification?
A. In Claim 1, line 3, before "alcohols" delete "monohydric".
B. In Claim 1, line 4, after "alcohols" insert "amines".
C. In Claim 1, line 6, delete "a coloring agent" and insert "titanium dioxide".
D. In Claim 1, line 7, after "cooling" insert "to a temperature of 13潞C."
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Bill wishes to amend the sole, original Claim 1 of the patent granted to him and obtain the following amended Claim 1. The amended Claim 1 set forth below is fully supported by the original disclosure in the application: 1. A computer processor comprising: a. a plurality of registers divided into a global port subset and a local pool subset; b. means for distinguishing a successful [unconditional] interruptable jump operation; c. means for receiving interrupts or exceptions; and d. an interrupt or exception handler for handling the interrupts or exceptions in response to distinguishing the [unconditional] interruptable jump operation [from the local pool subset]. In the absence of questions of recapture, novelty, obviousness, and utility, which of the following statements, if any, is true?
A. A claim so amended is properly presented during a reexamination proceeding where a request for reexamination was filed on September 9, 1999, and a certificate of reexamination may be issued where reexamination is sought of a patent granted on July 15, 1997.
B. A claim so amended is properly presented in a reissue application filed on September 9, 1999, and a reissue patent is grantable where reissuance is sought of a patent granted on July 15, 1997.
C. A claim so amended is properly presented in a reissue application filed on September 9, 1999, and a reissue patent is grantable where reissuance is sought of a patent granted on November 18, 1997.
D. A claim so amended is properly presented in a request for reexamination filed on September 9, 1999, and a certificate of reexamination may be issuedwhere reexamination is sought of a patent granted on November 18, 1997.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 does not apply to design patent claims?
A. The written description requirement of the first paragraph.
B. The best mode requirement of the first paragraph.
C. The requirement in the second paragraph to distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
D. The requirement in the third paragraph for an independent claim.
(category: patent (design)，Chinese translation: 专利（设计）)
Question: Inventors Moe and Jeff originally gave attorney Curly a power of attorney to prosecute their application before the PTO. At this time, inventor Jeff has decided that he no longer wants attorney Curly to represent him. Instead, inventor Jeff wants you to represent him. Thus, Jeff wants the power of attorney to Curly revoked. Moe does not agree and wants Curly to continue. How, if at all, should the revocation and appointment of a new power of attorney be properly handled?
A. Papers revoking Curly's power of attorney with regard to Jeff, and giving you a new power of attorney need to be signed by Jeff and must include a statement from Moe indicating that Moe wishes to retain Curly.
B. Papers revoking Curly's power of attorney with regard to Jeff, and giving you a new power of attorney cannot be accepted without concurrence by Curly.
C. Papers revoking Curly's power of attorney with regard to Jeff, and giving you a new power of attorney signed only by you should be accompanied by a petition giving good and sufficient reasons as to why such papers should be accepted upon being filed together with an appropriate fee.
D. Papers revoking Curly's power of attorney with regard to Jeff, and giving you a new power of attorney signed only by Jeff should be accompanied by a petition giving good and sufficient reasons for acceptance should be filed together with an appropriate fee.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You are preparing a patent application for filing in the PTO. The application describes a microcomputer having several components. You have drafted the following independent claim: 1. A micro-computer comprising: (i) a central processing unit for processing information; (ii) a memory unit for storing information; (iii) an input device for entering information characterized by a keyboard; (iv) an output device for viewing information consisting of a video monitor; and (v) a bus for interconnecting the central processing unit to the memory unit, the input device and the output device. In the absence of issues of supporting disclosure, and following proper PTO practices and procedures, which of the following dependent claim(s) is (are) an improper dependent claim? Claim 2: The micro-computer of Claim 1, wherein the memory unit contains random access memory. Claim 3: The micro-computer of Claim 1 or 2, wherein the input device includes a light pen. Claim 4: The micro-computer in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the output device is a printer or a video monitor. Claim 5: The micro-computer of Claim 4, wherein the memory unit contains read-only memory.
A. Claim 2. The micro-computer of Claim 1, wherein the memory unit contains random access memory.
B. Claim 2 and Claim 3.
C. Claim 3.
D. Claim 5.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: To avoid a proper rejection of a claim for being indefinite, which of the following expressions in the claims must be supported by a specification disclosing a standard for ascertaining what the inventor means to cover?
A. "relatively shallow."
B. "of the order of."
C. "similar" in the following claim preamble: "A nozzle for high-pressure cleaning units or similar apparatus."
D. "essentially" in the following phrase following the claim preamble: "a silicon dioxide source that is essentially free of alkali metal."
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Claims 1 through 5 in a patent application read as follows: 1. A computer comprising: (i) a microprocessor having a maximum clock rate of 350 megahertz; (ii) a random access memory chip coupled to said microprocessor; (iii) a read only memory chip coupled to said microprocessor; and (iv) a case enclosing said microprocessor, said random access memory chip, and said read only memory chip. 2. The computer of claim 1, wherein said case has an outer surface comprised of plastic. 3. The computer of claims 1 or 2, further comprising a peripheral controller chip coupled to said microprocessor. 4. The computer of claim 1, wherein said memory chip has eight million storage locations. 5. The computer of claim 2, wherein said microprocessor has a maximum clock rate of 400 megahertz. Which of the following is/are proper dependent claims(s) in accordance with 37 CFR §1.75?
A. Claims 2 and 3.
B. Claim 4 only.
C. Claims 2 and 5.
D. Claim 2 only.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Gonnagetrich Corporation asked you to represent, before the PTO, some of its employees who have invented an apparatus. On Tuesday, August 17, 1999, you deposited a nonprovisional patent application containing a specification with ten claims drawn to the apparatus via hand delivery to the PTO. At that time, you neither supplied the names of any of the actual inventors with the application, nor did you file with the application drawings necessary to understand the invention. The specification refers to the drawings. You sent the drawings by first class mail to the PTO on Wednesday, September 13, 1999, and the PTO received them on Wednesday, September 15, 1999. On Wednesday, September 29, 1999, using the "Express Mail Post Office to Addressee" service of the U.S. Postal Service, and so certifying in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.10, you deposited with the U.S. Postal Service a declaration pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.63 signed by all the actual inventors. On Friday, October 1, 1999, the PTO received the signed declaration. What will be the earliest filing date given to the application by the PTO?
A. August 17, 1999.
B. September 13, 1999.
C. September 15, 1999.
D. September 29, 1999.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: X invented a laminate which is most broadly disclosed in a patent application as containing a transparent protective layer and a light-sensitive layer, without an intermediate layer. The prior art included a laminate containing a transparent protective layer and a lightsensitive layer held together by an intermediate adhesive layer. Which of the following claims would overcome a 35 USC § 102 rejection based on the prior art?
A. 1. A laminate comprising a transparent protective layer and a light-sensitive layer.
B. 1. A laminate comprising a transparent protective layer and a light-sensitive layer which is in continuous and direct contact with the transparent protective layer.
C. 1. A laminate comprising a transparent protective layer and a light-sensitive layer, but not including an adhesive layer.
D. (A) and (B)
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On April 21, 1998, a patent was issued to Belinda on a novel switching circuit. Shortly after receiving the patent grant, Belinda assigned 50% of her right, title and interest in her patent to Ace and 25% of the right, title and interest to Duce. After the assignments were recorded in the PTO, Belinda discovered that her claim coverage is too narrow because her patent attorney did not appreciate the full scope of her invention. Today, November 3, 1999, Belinda consults you about filing a reissue application. The reissue oath must be signed and sworn to by:
A. Belinda, Ace and Duce.
B. Belinda only.
C. Belinda and either Ace or Duce.
D. Ace and Duce only.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent specification can be altered by interlineation before it is filed in the PTO. Such alterations are permitted if each interlineation is initialed and dated by the:
A. registered practitioner who prepared the specification, even if the applicant is available to sign the oath or declaration.
B. applicant, before the oath or declaration is signed by the registered practitioner.
C. applicant, at any time after the oath or declaration is signed.
D. applicant, before the oath or declaration is signed by the applicant.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)