QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: Registered practitioner Rick files a utility patent application under 37 CFR § 1.53(b) in the USPTO having one claim on May 6, 1998. Following a proper final rejection dated June 28, 2000, of claim 1 Rick files a request for continued examination with the appropriate fee on September 12, 2000, and submits an amendment to claim 1 with the request. On October 7, 2000, Rick learns about a publication (the "Columbus reference") which he knows to be material to patentability of claim 1, but which was not considered by the examiner during prosecution of the application. Rick prepares an information disclosure statement that complies with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.98, listing the Columbus reference. The finality of the action dated June 28, 2000, is withdrawn in an Office action, dated November 20, 2000, which is after the filing of the request for continued examination. Which of the following actions, if taken by Rick, will properly result in the Columbus reference being considered by the Office during the pendency of the application?
A. Filing the information disclosure statement on November 15, 2000, without any further statement and without the fee set forth in § 1.17(p).
B. Filing the information disclosure statement on December 11, 2000, without any further statement and without the fee set forth in § 1.17(p).
C. Filing the information disclosure statement on December 13, 2000, without any further statement and without the fee set forth in § 1.17(p).
D. Choices (A) or (B) above.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: As a new member of a law firm, you are assigned to continue the prosecution of a patent application that was prosecuted by Stewart, who recently joined another law firm. After reviewing the file, you note that Stewart's reply to a first Office included two amendments: Amendment #1 introduced a change to the specification which did not affect the claims; Amendment #2 introduced a change to the specification, which change was also introduced to all of the claims currently in the application. You also note that the examiner in a current Office action has taken the position that both amendments constituted new matter, required cancellation of the new matter, and rejected all the claims on the ground that they recited elements without support in the original disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. For the purpose of reviewing the examiner's requirement, which of the following statements accords with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. Both Amendment #1 and Amendment #2 give rise to appealable questions.
B. Review of the examiner's requirement for cancelation of both Amendment #1 and Amendment #2 is by way of petition.
C. Review of the examiner's requirement for cancelation of Amendment #1 is by way of petition, and review of the examiner's requirement for cancelation of Amendment #2 is by way of appeal.
D. Review of the examiner's requirement for cancelation of Amendment #1 is by way of appeal, and review of the examiner's requirement for cancelation of Amendment #2 is by way of petition.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In regard to patent application drawings, which of the following is in accord with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. Views in a drawing may be connected by projection lines, and views may contain center lines in patent applications filed in April 2001.
B. Photographs must be developed on paper that is DIN size A4 or 8陆 by 11 inches, and meet margin requirements set by regulation in applications filed in April 2001.
C. Color drawings are permitted by regulation, and without further authorization, in an application submitted under the Office electronic filing system in April 2001.
D. The Office will accept black and white photographs in utility or design applications filed in April 2001 only if three copies of black and white photographs, and a petition and fee are filed to have such photographs accepted.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Regarding a power of attorney or authorization of agent in a patent application, which of the following is in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. Powers of attorney to firms submitted in applications filed in the year 2001 are recognized by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
B. The associate attorney may appoint another attorney.
C. The filing and recording of an assignment will operate as a revocation of a power or authorization previously given.
D. Revocation of the power of the principal attorney or agent does not revoke powers granted by him or her to other attorneys or agents.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An examiner has properly established a prima facie showing of no specific and substantial credible utility for the claimed invention in a patent application filed in February 2001. An applicant can sustain the burden of rebutting and overcoming the showing by:
A. Providing reasoning or arguments rebutting the basis or logic of the prima facie showing.
B. Amending the claims.
C. Providing evidence in the form of a declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 rebutting the basis or logic of the prima facie showing.
D. Providing evidence in the form of a printed publication rebutting the basis or logic of the prima facie showing.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Your Canadian client, UpNorth Incorporated, came to you on February 11, 2001 with a valuable invention for pulping timber. UpNorth informed you it had been successfully using the invention commercially for the past fourteen months deep in the Canadian forests. The invention has not been used anywhere else by UpNorth, and the pulped timber from the UpNorth operations has not left Canada. At least one competitor, another Canadian company, lawfully observed the invention in operation during its first month of use with no restriction as to confidentiality or disclosure. UpNorth filed a Canadian patent application in December 1, 1999, prior to commercial use of the invention, but (in an effort to hold down expenses) chose not file a corresponding application in the United States. The Canadian patent application remains pending. UpNorth learned that two months ago, in December 2000, that its competitor began using the invention commercially in the United States. The invention was never disclosed or used in the United States prior to two months ago. UpNorth would like for you seek a United States patent on the invention to block the competitor from continued use of the invention. Which of the following would be reasonable advice from you to UpNorth?
A. Since Canada is a NAFTA country, UpNorth is precluded from getting a United States patent because the Canadian application was filed more than twelve months ago and the invention was in public use more than one year prior to any possible United States filing date for an UpNorth patent application.
B. UpNorth should promptly file an application in the United States claiming the benefit of the filing date of the Canadian application and should fully disclose the Canadian commercial activities, the observation of the invention in Canada by UpNorth's competitor, and the competitor's commercial activities in the United States.
C. UpNorth should abandon the pending Canadian application to avoid the possibility the Canadian application could be used as prior art against a United States patent application, and then file a patent application in the United States.
D. UpNorth should promptly file an application in the United States without claiming the benefit of the filing date of the Canadian application and should fully disclose the Canadian commercial activities, the observation of the invention in Canada by UpNorth's competitor, and the competitor's commercial activities in the United States.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In regard to disclosure of a utility in a nonprovisional utility patent application filed in the Office in April 2001, which of the following is not in accord with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. For each claimed invention an applicant need only provide one credible assertion of specific and substantial utility to satisfy the utility requirement.
B. A patent examiner can properly support a rejection based on lack of utility by providing documentary evidence regardless of the publication date to show a factual basis for the prima facie showing of no specific and substantial credible utility.
C. Using a complex claimed invention as landfill is an example of a specific and substantial utility for the claimed invention.
D. An invention has a well-established utility if a person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately appreciate why the invention is useful based on the characteristics of the invention, and the utility is specific, substantial, and credible.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An article in a popular scientific journal, dated January 13, 2000, fully discloses and teaches how to make a "Smart Shoe" wireless telecommunications device. The article discloses a shoe having a dialer in a rubber sole of the shoe. The article does not teach a metallic shoelace or suggest using the same as an antenna or for any other purpose. Which of the following claims in an application filed January 22, 2001 is/are anticipated by the journal article, and is/are not likely to be properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as indefinite? 
Claim 1. A telecommunication device comprising: a shoe having a rubber sole; a dialer in the rubber sole; and a metallic shoelace. 
Claim 2. A telecommunications device comprising: a shoe having a rubber sole; a dialer in the rubber sole; and optionally a metallic shoelace. 
Claim 3. A telecommunication device comprising: a shoe having a rubber sole; a dialer in the rubber sole; and optionally a random access memory for storing telephone numbers.
A. Claim 1.
B. Claim 2.
C. Claim 3.
D. Claims 2 and 3.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Office policy has consistently been to follow Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), in the consideration and determination of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Each of the following are the four factual inquires enunciated therein as a background for determining obviousness except:
A. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
B. Resolving any issue of indefiniteness in favor of clarity.
C. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims in issue.
D. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You are a registered practitioner. Earl, your new associate, has been assigned the task of filing information disclosure statements for patents and publications submitted by a client Tony, who is the named inventor on several patent applications, all of which were filed on or after January 1, 2001. Earl wants to know what information must be included on the information disclosure statements. Which of the following is not accurate with respect to proper USPTO procedure?
A. If a non-English reference is submitted in an information disclosure statement, the applicant shall include a copy of the translation if a written English-language translation of a non-English-language document, or portion thereof, if it is within the possession, custody, or control of, or is readily available to any individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c).
B. Each U.S. patent listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by inventor, application number, and issue date.
C. Each publication listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date, and place of publication.
D. When the disclosures of two or more patents or publications listed in an information disclosure statement are substantively cumulative, a copy of one of the patents or publications may be submitted without copies of the other patents or publications, provided that it is stated that these other patents or publications are cumulative.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure regarding patent applications filed in October 2001?
A. If a U.S. patent application publication or patent incorporates by reference, or includes a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) or 120, to a pending or abandoned application, a copy of that application-as-filed may be provided to any person upon written request including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.19(b)(1).
B. If the claim for priority or the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, it must be accompanied by the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(i), but the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. § 255 and 37 CFR 1.323.
C. In an application that entered the national stage from an international application after compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 371, the claim for priority must be made during the pendency of the application and within the time limit set forth in the PCT and the Regulations under the PCT.
D. The claim for priority and the certified copy of the foreign application specified in 35 U.S.C. § 119(b) or PCT Rule 17 must, in any event, be filed before the examiner allows the claims.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Assuming a PCT international application has been filed by a resident of France designating the U.S., a written request for a copy of _____________ will be honored upon a showing that the international application was published in accordance with PCT Article 21(2) and the appropriate fee was paid.Fill in the blank with the answer that accords with proper USPTO practice and procedure.
A. the home copy, where the international application was filed with the U.S. Receiving Office
B. the search copy, where the U.S. acted as the International Searching Authority
C. the examination copy, preliminary to issuance of the International Preliminary Examination Report, where the U.S. acted as the International Preliminary Examination Authority, and the U.S. was elected
D. the English language translation of the home copy, where the international application was filed with the U.S. Receiving Office
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You have agreed to represent an independent inventor in connection with a patent application that was filed in the USPTO by the inventor on a pro se basis. As filed, the application included a detailed written description that, when viewed together with four accompanying color photographs, enabled one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to make and use the invention. The application was filed with an inventor's declaration in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63, a small entity statement (independent inventor) under 37 CFR 1.27, and all necessary small entity filing fees. MEGACORP, a very large multi-national corporation, licensed rights in the invention after the application was filed. You have been asked to suggest steps to remove any formal objections that can be expected from the patent examiner, without incurring unnecessary government fees. You determine that the first color photograph is the only practical medium by which to disclose certain aspects of the claimed invention, but that the substance of the remaining photographs could readily be illustrated through ordinary ink drawings. You correctly recall that the Office announced in the Official Gazette in May 2001 (1246 OG 106) that it is sua sponte waiving 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2)(iii), and is no longer requiring a black and white photocopy of any color drawing or color photograph. Which of the following represents the most reasonable advice to the independent inventor?
A. Submit a request for approval of drawing changes wherein the first photograph is labeled "Figure 1" and the remaining photographs are cancelled in favor of corresponding ink drawings labeled Figures 2 through 4; and immediately withdraw the claim for small entity status because of the license to MEGACORP.
B. Submit a request for approval of drawing changes wherein the first photograph is labeled "Figure 1" and the remaining photographs are cancelled in favor of corresponding ink drawings labeled Figures 2 through 4; and submit a petition for acceptance of Figure 1 in the form of a color photograph along with three sets of the color photograph, a proposed amendment to insert language concerning the color photograph as the first paragraph of the specification and the required petition fee. The photographs must be sufficient quality that all details in the photographs are reproducible in a printed patent.
C. Submit a request for approval of drawing changes wherein the first photograph is labeled "Figure 1" and the remaining photographs are cancelled in favor of corresponding ink drawings labeled Figures 2 through 4.
D. Immediately withdraw the claim for small entity status because of the license to MEGACORP and submit to the USPTO the difference between the small entity filing fee and the large entity filing fee.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In connection with the utility of an invention described in a patent application, which of the following conforms to proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. A deficiency under 35 U.S.C. § 101 also creates a deficiency under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
B. To overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be shown that the claimed device is capable of achieving a useful result on all occasions and under all conditions.
C. A claimed invention is properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as lacking utility if the particular embodiment disclosed in the patent lacks perfection or performs crudely.
D. To overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it is essential to show that the claimed invention accomplishes all its intended functions.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Sue has discovered a plant variety that has been asexually reproduced for which she desires patent protection. She comes to you for advice as to how she may file for a plant patent. Which of the following is not accurate with respect to proper USPTO procedure in relation to plant patent applications filed on or after January 1, 2001?
A. The specification must be drafted so as to contain as full and complete a disclosure as possible of the plant and the characteristics thereof that distinguish the same over related known varieties, and its antecedents, and must particularly point out where and in what manner the variety of plant has been asexually reproduced. For a newly found plant, the specification must particularly point out the location and character of the area where the plant was discovered.
B. View numbers and reference characters must be used for the plant patent drawings unless excused by the examiner.
C. The elements of her plant application should be organized in the following order: (1) plant patent application transmittal form, (2) fee transmittal form, (3) application data sheet, (4) specification, (5) drawings (in duplicate), and (6) executed oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.162.
D. The specification should include the following sections in order: (1) title of the invention, which may include an introductory portion stating the name, citizenship, and residence of the applicant, (2) cross-reference to related applications (unless included in the application data sheet), (3) statement regarding federally sponsored research or development, (4) latin name of the genus and species of the plant claimed, (5) variety denomination, (6) background of the invention, (7) brief summary of the invention, (8) brief description of the drawing, (9) detailed botanical description, (10) a single claim, and (11) abstract of the disclosure.
(category: new plant variety, Chinese translation: 新植物品种)
Question: Joan comes to you wanting to know the status of the applications of her competitor Pete. During Joan's previous relationship with Pete she believes she may have been a coinventor on one of the applications filed by Pete. Pete owns Applications A, B, C and D. Application B is a continuation of application A and a redacted copy of application A has been published under 35 U.S.C. § 122(b). Joan is listed as a coinventor on Application C. Pete has an issued patent that claims priority to Application D. Assume only the last six digits of the numerical identifier are available for Application D and Application D is abandoned. Which of the following is not true?
A. Joan may obtain status information for Application B that is a continuation of an application A since application A has been published under 35 U.S.C. § 122(b).
B. Joan may be provided status information for Application D that includes the filing date if the eight-digit numerical identifier is not available and the last six digits of the numerical identifier are available.
C. Joan may obtain status information for Application D since a U.S. patent includes a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to Application D, an abandoned application. Joan may obtain a copy of that application-as-filed by submitting a written request including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.19(b)(1).
D. Joan may obtain status information as to Application C since a coinventor in a pending application may gain access to the application if his or her name appears as an inventor in the application, even if she did not sign the § 1.63 oath or declaration.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: John, unaware of the existence of Jane's U.S. patent, which issued on Tuesday, July 11, 2000, files a patent application on Friday, January 11, 2001. John's application and Jane's patent are not commonly owned. On Thursday, July 11, 2001, in reply to an Office action rejecting all of his claims, John files an amendment canceling all of his claims and adding claims setting forth, for the first time, "substantially the same subject matter" as is claimed in Jane's patent. The examiner rejects John's claims on the basis of 35 U.S.C. § 135(b). Which of the following statements accords with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. The rejection is improper because 35 U.S.C. § 135(b) relates to interferences.
B. The rejection is proper because 35 U.S.C. § 135(b) is not limited to inter partes proceedings, but may be used as a basis for ex parte rejections.
C. Since John's claims would interfere with Jane's unexpired patent, the proper procedure is for the examiner to declare an interference rather than to reject John's claims.
D. The rejection is proper merely by reason of the fact that John's claims are broad enough to cover the patent claims.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: After filing a Notice of Appeal, an appeal brief is due. In accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure:
A. The brief is due within two months of the date of appeal, the date indicated on any Certificate of Mailing under 37 CFR 1.8 attached to the Notice of Appeal is the date from which this two month period is measured.
B. The brief is due within two months of the date of appeal. The Office date of receipt of the Notice of Appeal is the date from which this two month period is measured.
C. Failure to file the appeal brief within the permissible time will result in dismissal of the appeal and abandonment of the application, including any allowed claims.
D. Failure to file the appeal brief within the permissible time will result in dismissal of the appeal and abandonment of the application containing no allowed claims, and an appeal brief will be due within two months after the date a petition is granted to revive the application and reinstate the appeal.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)