QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: On January 2, 2001, a registered practitioner filed a patent application with the USPTO for inventor Bock. The application includes a specification and a single claim to the invention, which reads as follows: 1. A new string consisting only of material Z that has the ability to stretch to beyond its initial unstretched length. On June 2, 2001, the practitioner received an Office action from the primary examiner rejecting the claim. The claim is solely rejected under 35 USC 102 in view of Patent A, which discloses a string consisting only of material Z. The Office action states, "Patent A discloses a string consisting only of material Z. Patent A does not expressly teach the stretchability property of the string. Nevertheless, the recited stretchability is inherent in the string of patent A. Accordingly, patent A anticipates the claimed string." Mr. Bock believes he is entitled to a patent to his new string and authorizes the practitioner to reply to the Office action by arguing that his string stretches to ten times its initial unstretched length, something that patent A does not teach. Since this is not expressly taught in Patent A, the practitioner argues, Patent A cannot anticipate the claimed string. In accordance with USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP, is the practitioner's reply persuasive as to error in the rejection?
A. Yes.
B. Yes, but the claim should now be rejected again, this time under 35 USC 103 as obvious over Patent A.
C. Yes, because the stretchability property is expressly taught by Patent A.
D. Yes, examiner nowhere addresses the claimed limitation of stretching the string beyond its initial unstretched length.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Ben hires a registered practitioner to prosecute his patent application. The practitioner drafted an application having fifteen claims. Claim 1 is independent, and each of claims 2-15 are singularly dependent upon claim 1. A proper non-final Office action is mailed to the practitioner. Following consultation with Ben, the practitioner timely prepared, signed, and filed a reply to the Office action containing an amendment that does not add new matter, but does add claims 16-27. Each of claims 16-27 is directed to the same invention sought to be patented through claims 1-15. The dependency of each of claims 16-27 reads "any of claims 5-15." For purposes of fee calculation in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, how many total claims are contained in the application after the amendment is entered?
A. One hundred thirty-six.
B. One hundred thirty-five.
C. Twenty-seven.
D. One hundred forty-seven.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following statements regarding operability or enablement of a prior art reference is the most correct?
A. The level of disclosure required for a reference to be enabling prior art is no less if the reference is a United States patent than if it is a foreign patent.
B. A reference is not presumed to be operable merely because it expressly anticipates or makes obvious all limitations of an applicant's claimed apparatus.
C. A non-enabling reference may not qualify as prior art for the purpose of determining anticipation or obviousness of the claimed invention.
D. A reference does not provide an enabling disclosure merely by showing that the public was in possession of the claimed invention before the date of the applicant's invention.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Joan goes to a registered practitioner 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 USC 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, in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, 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 USC 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 USC 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: In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following is true?
A. When the subject matter of an appeal is particularly difficult to understand, a patentability report is prepared by an examiner in order to present the technical background of the case to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
B. In those appeals in which an oral hearing has been confirmed and either the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences or the primary examiner has indicated a desire for the examiner to participate in the oral argument, oral argument may be presented by the examiner whether or not the appellant appears.
C. If a patent applicant files a notice of appeal which is unsigned, it will be returned for signature, but the applicant will still receive the filing date of the unsigned notice of appeal.
D. Statements made in information disclosure statements are not binding on an applicant once the patent has issued since the sole purpose of the statement is to satisfy the duty of disclosure before the Office.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On January 2, 2001, a registered practitioner filed a patent application with the USPTO for inventor Bloc. The application includes a specification and a single claim to the invention which reads as follows: 1. Compound Y. In the specification, Bloc explains that compound Y is an intermediate in the chemical manufacture of synthetic Z. With respect to synthetic Z, the specification discloses its structural formula and further states that synthetic Z is modeled on the natural form of Z to give it the same therapeutic ability to alleviate pain. The specification goes on to state that synthetic Z is also a cure for cancer. On June 2, 2001, the practitioner received an Office action from the primary examiner rejecting the claim. The claim is rejected under 35 USC 101 as being inoperative; that is, the synthetic Z does not operate to produce a cure for cancer (i.e., incredible utility). Bloc believes he is entitled to a patent to his compound Y. In accordance with USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP, how best should the practitioner reply to the rejection of the claim?
A. Advise Bloc that he should give up because a cure for cancer is indeed incredible and is unproven.
B. File a reply arguing that a cure for cancer is not incredible and he can prove it if given the chance.
C. File a reply arguing that whether or not a cure for cancer is incredible is superfluous since Bloc has disclosed another utility ...?alleviating pain, which is not incredible.
D. File a reply arguing that the claim is directed to compound Y, not synthetic Z.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Application No. A was published as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. B. A member of the public reviewed the listing of the file contents of the application on the Patent Application Information Retrieval system and determined that the application was still pending, that a final Office action was mailed, and that the application file is in the Technology Center where it is being examined. The member of the public does not have a power to inspect, but would like a copy of the final Office action as well as the other papers in the patent application. In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, can a copy of these papers be obtained by the member of the public, and if so, how can the copy be obtained?
A. No, a copy cannot be obtained because patent applications are maintained in confidence pursuant to 35 USC 122(a).
B. No, a copy cannot be obtained because the patent application is still pending.
C. Yes, a member of the public can go to the Technology Center and ask for the file for copying at a public photocopier.
D. Yes, the member of the public can complete a "Request for Access to an Application Under 37 CFR 1.14(e)" and, without payment of a fee, order the file from the File Information Unit. Upon the Unit's receipt of the application, the member of the public can use a public photocopier to make a copy.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A first Office action on the merits rejecting Claim 1 under 35 USC 103 as being obvious in view of reference A set a three month shortened statutory period for reply. A registered practitioner files a timely response (without an extension of time) to the first Office action amending Claim 1 to include a limitation not found in reference A or any other prior art of record. However, the limitation also lacks support in applicant's original disclosure, i.e., it is new matter. Which of the following courses of action, if taken by the primary examiner, would be in accord with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?
A. Hold the application abandoned after expiration of the three month shortened statutory period for reply because an amendment adding new matter to the claims is not a bona fide response.
B. Consider the new matter and reject Claim 1 under 35 USC 101 because a claim that recites new matter lacks utility.
C. Consider the new matter and treat Claim 1, determining whether the invention as claimed with the new matter, would have been obvious in view of reference A, and reject Claim 1 under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, for lack of support in the original disclosure for new matter.
D. Ignore the new matter and reject Claim 1 again under § 103 in view of reference A.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is a proper basis for establishing a substantial new question of patentability to obtain reexamination in accordance with proper USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?
A. An admission per se by the patent owner of record that the claimed invention was on sale, or in public use more than one year before any patent application was filed in the USPTO.
B. A prior art patent that is solely used as evidence of an alleged prior public use.
C. A prior art patent that is solely used as evidence of an alleged insufficiency of disclosure.
D. A printed publication that is solely used as evidence of an alleged prior offer for sale.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not a policy underlying the public use bar of 35 USC 102(b)?
A. Discouraging the removal, from the public domain, of inventions that the public reasonably has come to believe are freely available.
B. Favoring the prompt and widespread disclosure of inventions.
C. Allowing the inventor(s) a reasonable amount of time following sales activity to determine the potential economic value of a patent.
D. Increasing the economic value of a patent by extending the effective term of the patent up to one year.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, a grant of small entity status entitles an applicant to which of the following?
A. Applicant will receive an accelerated examination by having the application advanced out of order.
B. Applicant can use a certificate of mailing under 37 CFR 1.8 to obtain a U.S. filing date that is earlier than the actual USPTO receipt date of the application.
C. Applicant will obtain a refund of all fees paid to the USPTO where applicant demonstrates: (i) a changed purpose for which the fees were paid, (ii) the fees were not paid by mistake, and (iii) the fees were not paid in excess of the amount required.
D. Applicant can pay a fee to file a request for continued examination pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 that is less than the fee paid by other than a small entity.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, an amendment filed with or after a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 1.191(a), but before jurisdiction has passed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, should be entered by the primary examiner where the amendment:
A. requests unofficial consideration by the examiner.
B. is less than six pages long.
C. removes issues from appeal.
D. presents more specific claims, because it is believed that they may have a better chance of being allowable even though the claims do not adopt the examiner's suggestions.
(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 in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP 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 CFR 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: Which of the following is not a proper incorporation by reference in an application prior to allowance according to the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?
A. Incorporating material necessary to describe the best mode of the claimed invention by reference to a commonly owned, abandoned U.S. application that is less than 20 years old.
B. Incorporating non-essential material by reference to a prior filed, commonly owned pending U.S. application.
C. Incorporating material that is necessary to provide an enabling disclosure of the claimed invention by reference to a U.S. patent.
D. Incorporating non-essential material by reference to a hyperlink.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Evidence that a claim may not comply with the second paragraph of 35 USC 112 occurs in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedure set forth in the MPEP where:
A. Remarks filed by applicant in a reply or brief regarding the scope of the invention differ and do not correspond in scope with the claim.
B. There is a lack of agreement between the language in the claims and the language set forth in the specification.
C. The scope of the claimed subject matter is narrowed during pendency of the application by deleting the originally much broader claims, and presenting claims to only the preferred embodiment within the originally much broader claims.
D. Claims in a continuation application are directed to originally disclosed subject matter (in the parent and continuation applications) which applicants did not regard as part of their invention when the parent application was filed.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Paprika is a known product. A patent application discloses a composition which is made by subjecting paprika to processing steps X, Y and Z. The composition is disclosed to be useful in treating cancer. The application was filed June 1, 2002. A reference published May 1, 2001 discloses a food product made by subjecting paprika to processing steps X, Y and Z. The reference does not disclose that the resulting composition has any properties that would make it useful for treating cancer. In accordance with USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following claims is not anticipated by the reference?
A. A composition made by the process of subjecting paprika to processing steps X, Y and Z, wherein the composition is effective for treating cancer.
B. A composition for treating cancer, made by the process of subjecting paprika to processing steps X, Y and Z.
C. A method of making a cancer-treating composition, comprising subjecting paprika to processing steps X, Y and Z.
D. A method of treating cancer, comprising administering an effective amount of a composition made by subjecting paprika to processing steps X, Y and Z.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following definitions does not accord with proper USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP relating to drawings in patent applications?
A. Original drawings are drawings submitted with the application when filed, and may be either formal or informal.
B. Formal drawings are stamped "approved" by the Draftsperson.
C. Drawings may be informal for reasons such as the size of reference elements.
D. A substitute drawing is usually submitted to replace an original formal drawing.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following, if any, is true?
A. The loser in an interference in the PTO is estopped from later claiming he or she was the first to invent in a Federal District Court since the loser must win in the USPTO or he/she will lose the right to contest priority.
B. A person being sued for infringement may file a request for reexamination without first obtaining the permission of the Court in which the litigation is taking place.
C. A practitioner may not represent spouses, family members or relatives before the USPTO since such representation inherently creates a conflict of interest and a practitioner is likely to engage in favoritism over his/her other clients.
D. Employees of the USPTO may not apply for a patent during the period of their employment and for two years thereafter.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Al files an application for a patent. After the Notice of Allowance is mailed and the issue fee has been paid Al discovers a prior art reference which is material to patentability. What should Al do in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?
A. Al should file a prior art statement under 37 CFR 1.501 that will be placed in the patent file upon issuance of the application as a patent.
B. Since the issue fee has been paid, Al no longer has a duty to disclose to the Office material prior art. He is under no obligation to submit the prior art reference to the Office.
C. Since the issue fee has been paid, it is too late to have the examiner consider the reference in this application. Al should file a continuation application to have the reference considered and allow the original patent application to issue as a patent.
D. Al should file a petition to have the application withdrawn from issuance, citing the finding of additional material prior art as the reason for withdrawal. A continuation application should also be filed with an information disclosure statement containing the reference in order to have the reference considered.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following is not a "printed publication" under 35 USC 102(b), with respect to a patent application filed June 1, 2002?
A. A paper that was orally presented at a meeting held May 1, 2001, where the meeting was open to all interested persons and the paper was distributed in written form to six people without restriction.
B. A doctoral thesis that was indexed, cataloged, and shelved May 1, 2001, in a single, university library.
C. A research report distributed May 1, 2001, in numerous copies but only internally within an organization and intended to remain confidential.
D. A reference available only in electronic form on the Internet, which states that it was publicly posted May 1, 2001.
(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 USC 135(b). Which of the following statements accords with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?
A. The rejection is improper because 35 USC 135(b) relates to interferences.
B. The rejection is proper because 35 USC 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: In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following statements regarding a proper prior art reference is true?
A. Canceled matter in the application file of a U.S. patent is a prior art reference as of the filing date under 35 USC 102(e).
B. Where a patent refers to and relies on the disclosure of a copending subsequently abandoned application, such disclosure is not available as a reference.
C. Where the reference patent claims the benefit of an earlier filed, copending but subsequently abandoned application which discloses subject matter in common with the patent, and the abandoned application has an enabling disclosure for the common subject matter and the claimed matter in the reference patent, the effective date of the reference patent as to the common subject matter is the filing date of the reference patent.
D. Matter canceled from the application file wrapper of a U.S. patent may be used as prior art as of the patent date.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following statements regarding claim interpretation during patent prosecution is incorrect?
A. A claim is to be given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure in the specification.
B. Because a claim is read in light of the specification, the claim may properly be narrowed by interpreting it as including elements or steps disclosed in the specification but not recited in the claim.
C. If an applicant does not define a claim term in the specification, that term is given its ordinary meaning in the art.
D. When an explicit definition of a claim term is provided in an applicant's specification, that definition controls the interpretation of the term as it is used in the claims.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)