QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: Which one of the following statements regarding establishment of a prima facie case of obviousness is not correct?
A. There must be some suggestion or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings.
B. There must be a reasonable expectation of success.
C. The prior art reference (or references when combined) must teach or would have suggested all the limitations in the claim.
D. The teaching or suggestion to make the claimed combination that is found in the applicant's disclosure may be used by the examiner.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In which of the following situations may an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR § 1.131 be properly used?
A. Where the reference publication date is more than one year before applicant's or patent owner's effective filing date.
B. Where the reference, a U.S. Patent, with a patent date less than one year prior to applicant's effective filing date, shows but does not claim the same patentable invention.
C. Where the subject matter relied upon is evidence under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f)
D. Where the reference is a prior U.S. patent to the same inventive entity claiming the same invention.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Claim 1 in a patent application is directed to a method for whitening teeth. Claims 1 through 5 read as follows: 1. A method for whitening teeth comprising isolating the teeth to be treated; preparing a bleaching composition comprising an oxygen-radical generating agent; applying said composition to said isolated teeth; and exposing each of said isolated teeth to laser light from an argon laser for a selected time to accelerate whitening. 2. The method of Claim 1, wherein said bleaching composition further comprises a booster selected from the group consisting of ammonium persulfate and sodium persulfate, and a buffer selected from the group consisting of sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate. 3. The oxygen radical-generating agent of Claim 1, where said generator is selected from the group consisting of hydrogen peroxide and sodium carbonate peroxide. 4. The buffer agent according to Claim 2, wherein said buffering agent is any other buffering agent which maintains a pH of said composition between 7 and 10. 5. A method according to Claim 4, wherein said argon laser has a wavelength range in the visible spectrum between 410 and 522 nanometers. Which of the following is (are) proper dependent claim(s) in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.75?
A. Claim 2.
B. Claim 3.
C. Claim 4.
D. Claim 5.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Patent practitioner Smith filed a patent application for adhesive compositions having a paste-like consistency and comprising filler admixed with liquid monomer, the filler being water-insoluble solid filler which forms a paste with the liquid monomer, and is essentially inert with respect to the monomer and is insoluble in the monomer. The specification states, "The compositions of this invention must contain, as essential ingredients, at least one monomer of a class of alpha-cyanoacrylic acid esters and at least one filler." The compositions are characterized as being capable of being applied to a substrate submerged in water. Which of the following claims properly sets forth the composition?
A. An adhesive composition comprising a filler admixed with a liquid monomer of a class known as alpha-cyanoacrylic acid esters, the filler being water-insoluble solid filler which forms a paste with the liquid monomer, and is essentially inert with respect to the monomer and is insoluble in the monomer.
B. An adhesive composition comprising means to admix a filler with a liquid monomer of a class known as alpha-cyanoacrylic acid esters, the filler being water-insoluble solid filler which forms a paste with the liquid monomer, and is essentially inert with respect to the monomer and is insoluble in the monomer.
C. An adhesive composition comprising a filler for admixture with a liquid monomer of a class known as alpha-cyanoacrylic acid esters, the filler being water-insoluble solid filler which forms a paste with the liquid monomer, and is essentially inert with respect to the monomer and is insoluble in the monomer.
D. An adhesive composition having a filler adapted to be admixed with a liquid monomer of a class known as alpha-cyanoacrylic acid esters, the filler being water-insoluble solid filler which forms a paste with the liquid monomer, and is essentially inert with respect to the monomer and is insoluble in the monomer.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Summer discovered that by adhering cotton swabs on opposing ends of a cylindrical rod, he could use the device to clean hair and dust particles caught in screens at the rear end of a hair dryer by causing a swab to contact a surface of the screen and rotating the swab to collect the hair and dust. Summer provides patent practitioner Smith with reliable test data establishing art, and found that cotton swabs adhering to opposing ends of a cylindrical rod, and the method of preparing such devices were disclosed in patents issued more than one year ago. Smith also found patents published five or more years ago disclosing hair dryers having a screen at an end of the hair dryer to catch hair and dust, and prevent the same from reaching the heating element in the hair dryer. Notwithstanding, Summer wants to file a patent application on his invention. In the absence of issues of supporting disclosure, which of the following is the best claim for Summer's invention?
A. A method of preparing a cotton swab device, said device being characterized by being useful for removing hair and dust from hair dryers.
B. A cotton swab device consisting of a cylindrical rod having first and second opposing ends, a first cotton swab adhering to said first opposing end, and a second cotton swab adhering to said second opposing end.
C. A method of removing hair and dust particles from a screen in an end of a hair dryer comprising bringing a cotton swab of a cotton swab device into contact with a surface of a screen of a hair dryer, and rotating the swab to collect the hair and dust.
D. A process for using a cotton swab device to remove materials selected from the group consisting of hair and dust particles from an end of a hair dryer.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Presented below are five separate portions of five different claims. Assuming that there are no issues of support or lack of antecedent basis, which portion does not contain a means-or-step-plus function which invokes the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112?
A. 1. In a pressure responsive instrument having a pressure responsive chamber including a wall portion movable in reply to change in fluid pressure thereon, the improvement comprising a plate means and a leaf spring; wing means on said plate means ....
B. 1. A process for recovering molybdenum values in usable form from ferruginous, molybdenum-bearing slags comprising ... raising the pH of the resulting pulp to about 5.0 to precipitate dissolved molybdenum trihydroxide ....
C. 1. A boring device for deep boring an object rotating about an axis, comprising ... force generating means adapted to provide a force acting on the cutting head to cause radial displacement of said cutting head ....
D. 1. In an aircraft having a bladed rotor adapted under at least one translational flight condition to provide both lift and propulsive thrust, a jet driving device so constructed and located on the rotor as to drive the rotor ....
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which one of the following choices outlines the best course of action taken by Will and Able so that both Will and Able's documents received a Friday, February 12, 1999, filing date?
A. Will files his CPA via facsimile at 8:40 p.m. Pacific time with all the necessary papers including a Certificate of Transmission. The CPA is received in the PTO exactly ten minutes later. Able files his amendment via facsimile at 8:50 p.m. Pacific time with all the necessary papers including a Certificate of Transmission which states the date of transmission. Able's amendment is received in the PTO exactly fifteen minutes after he sent it.
B. Able files his amendment via facsimile at 8:40 p.m, Pacific time with all the necessary papers including a Certificate of Transmission. The amendment is received in the PTO exactly fifteen minutes later. Will files his CPA via facsimile at 8:55 p.m. Pacific time with all the necessary papers including a Certificate of Transmission which states the date of transmission. Will's CPA is received in the PTO exactly ten minutes after he sent it.
C. Will files his CPA via facsimile at 8:40 p.m. Pacific time with all the necessary papers including a Certificate of Transmission. The CPA is received in the PTO exactly ten minutes later. After a quick conference call with his client about the amendment, Able files the amendment via facsimile at 9:10 p.m. Pacific time with all the necessary papers but fails to include a Certificate of Transmission. Able's CPA is received in the PTO exactly fifteen minutes after he sent it.
D. (A) and (B)
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: At 8:45 p.m. Pacific time that same day, Fleet rushes to the nearest United States Post Office (USPS) down the street to send his nonprovisional patent application with all Friday, February 12, 1999, filing date?
A. Send the application with a Certificate of Mailing via first class mail no later than 11:59 p.m. Pacific time on Friday.
B. Deposit the application directly with an employee of the U.S. Postal Service by "Express Mail Post Office to Post Office" at 8:59 p.m. Pacific time.
C. Deposit the application directly with an employee of the U.S. Postal Service by "Express Mail Post Office to Addressee" no later than 11:59 p.m. Pacific time.
D. Send the application via "Federal Express" before 11:59 p.m. Pacific time.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In early 1997, Goforgold, a company based in Australia, developed a widget with increased reflective properties. Goforgold filed a patent application in the Australian Patent Office on January 8, 1997, and filed a corresponding application in the USPTO on January 5, 1998. All research activities for the inventions disclosed and claimed in the U.S. and Australian applications took place in Australia. The U.S. patent application contains five claims: 1. A widget comprising elements A and B. 2. A widget according to Claim 1 wherein the widget further includes element D. 3. A widget comprising elements A and C. 4. A widget according to Claim 3 wherein the widget further includes element E. 5. A widget comprising elements A, B, and C. The Australian application only supports claims 1, 2, and 5 of the U.S. application. During the course of prosecution of the U.S. application, the examiner properly rejected all of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by a U.S. patent assigned to Gotthesilver. The Gotthesilver patent was granted on October 6, 1998, on a U.S. application filed on June 15, 1997. The Gotthesilver patent specifically describes, but does not claim, the widget in claims 1-5 of the U.S. application filed by Goforgold. The subject matter of the Gotthesilver patent was reduced to practice in Flushing, New York as of February 12, 1997. Which of the following proposed arguments or actions would properly overcome the examiner's § 102(e) rejection with respect to all the claims?
A. File an affidavit under 37 CFR § 1.132 swearing behind the claims of the Gotthesilver patent by relying on the 1997 research activities of Goforgold in Australia.
B. File a claim for a right of priority based on the application filed in Australia along with a certified copy of the Australian patent application and canceling Claims 3 and 4.
C. File a claim for a right of priority based on the application filed in Australia along with a certified copy of the Australian patent application.
D. File an affidavit under 37 CFR § 1.132 swearing behind the February 12, 1997, reduction to practice date of the Gotthesilver patent.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In which of the following situations would a petition to make special not be granted?
A. The applicant files a petition with the petition fee requesting special status and stating that small entity status has been established; that the subject of the biotechnology patent application is a major asset of the small entity, and that the development of the technology will be significantly impaired if examination of the application is delayed, including an explanation of the basis for making the statement.
B. Applicant's invention materially enhances the quality of the environment. Applicant files a petition that the application be accorded special status and includes a statement explaining how the invention contributes to the restoration of a basic life-sustaining element. No fee is included.
C. Applicants have filed a request that their application which is directed to an invention for a superconductive material be accorded special status. Applicants' request is accompanied by a statement that the invention involves superconductivity. No fee is included.
D. Applicant's invention is directed to a system for detecting explosives. Applicant files a petition for special status which is accompanied by a statement explaining how the invention contributes to countering terrorism. No fee is included.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following fees are reduced for small entities? I. Patent application filing fees II. Petition for an extension of time fees III. Petition to suspend the rules fees IV. Patent Issue fees V. Certificate of Correction fees
A. I, II, III. IV. and V.
B. I, IV, and V.
C. I, II, and V.
D.  I and IV.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You are a registered patent agent with an office in Buffalo, New York. On January 13.1998, Murphy, a resident of Canada, came to your office for purpose of obtaining a U.S.patent on her invention. She tells you that she first conceived her invention at her homein Ontario on December 18, 1996, and that she reduced it to practice on January 10, 1997at her home. On January 13,1998, Murphy provided you with a detailed writtendescription fully disclosing her invention, You diligently proceeded to prepare theapplication. You filed the application in the PTO on February 12, 1998. Consider eachof the situations presented in the questions below in light of the facts presented above anddetermine which paragraph of 35 U.S.C.§ 102, if any, would prevent Murphy fromobtaining a U.S. patent.Murphy's invention is described and claimed in a U.S. patent to O'Malley granted on February 9, 1999, on a national stage application filed in the United States on February 17, 1998, based on a PCT international application filed in France on November 13, 1997. O'Malley satisfied the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 371(c)(1), (2), and (4) on February 17, 1998. Which paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 102, if any, would prevent Murphy from obtaining a U.S. patent?
A. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
B. 35 U.S.C. § 102(c)
C. 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
D. 35 U.S.C. § 102(f)
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You are a registered patent agent with an office in Buffalo, New York. On January 13.1998, Murphy, a resident of Canada, came to your office for purpose of obtaining a U.S.patent on her invention. She tells you that she first conceived her invention at her homein Ontario on December 18, 1996, and that she reduced it to practice on January 10, 1997at her home. On January 13,1998, Murphy provided you with a detailed writtendescription fully disclosing her invention, You diligently proceeded to prepare theapplication. You filed the application in the PTO on February 12, 1998. Consider eachof the situations presented in the questions below in light of the facts presented above anddetermine which paragraph of 35 U.S.C.§ 102, if any, would prevent Murphy fromobtaining a U.S. patent.Murphy patented her invention in Canada on December 30, 1997 on a Canadian patent application filed on February 10, 1997. Which paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 102, if any, would prevent Murphy from obtaining a U.S. patent?
A. 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
B. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
C. 35 U.S.C. § 102(d)
D. 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You are a registered patent agent with an office in Buffalo, New York. On January 13.1998, Murphy, a resident of Canada, came to your office for purpose of obtaining a U.S.patent on her invention. She tells you that she first conceived her invention at her homein Ontario on December 18, 1996, and that she reduced it to practice on January 10, 1997at her home. On January 13,1998, Murphy provided you with a detailed writtendescription fully disclosing her invention, You diligently proceeded to prepare theapplication. You filed the application in the PTO on February 12, 1998. Consider eachof the situations presented in the questions below in light of the facts presented above anddetermine which paragraph of 35 U.S.C.§ 102, if any, would prevent Murphy fromobtaining a U.S. patent.In January of 1997, Murphy sold prototypes of her invention in Canada. Which paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 102, if any, would prevent Murphy from obtaining a U.S. patent?
A. 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
B. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
C. 35 U.S.C. § 102(f)
D. 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You are a registered patent agent with an office in Buffalo, New York. On January 13.1998, Murphy, a resident of Canada, came to your office for purpose of obtaining a U.S.patent on her invention. She tells you that she first conceived her invention at her homein Ontario on December 18, 1996, and that she reduced it to practice on January 10, 1997at her home. On January 13,1998, Murphy provided you with a detailed writtendescription fully disclosing her invention, You diligently proceeded to prepare theapplication. You filed the application in the PTO on February 12, 1998. Consider eachof the situations presented in the questions below in light of the facts presented above anddetermine which paragraph of 35 U.S.C.§ 102, if any, would prevent Murphy fromobtaining a U.S. patent.After the application was filed in the U.S., Murphy admitted that in order to make the claimed invention operative, the mechanic who built the prototype of Murphy's invention added a novel feature without consulting Murphy which is included in all the claims of the application. Which paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 102, if any, would prevent Murphy from obtaining a U.S. patent?
A. 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
B. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
C. 35 U.S.C. § 102(f)
D. 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You are a registered patent agent with an office in Buffalo, New York. On January 13.1998, Murphy, a resident of Canada, came to your office for purpose of obtaining a U.S.patent on her invention. She tells you that she first conceived her invention at her homein Ontario on December 18, 1996, and that she reduced it to practice on January 10, 1997at her home. On January 13,1998, Murphy provided you with a detailed writtendescription fully disclosing her invention, You diligently proceeded to prepare theapplication. You filed the application in the PTO on February 12, 1998. Consider eachof the situations presented in the questions below in light of the facts presented above anddetermine which paragraph of 35 U.S.C.§ 102, if any, would prevent Murphy fromobtaining a U.S. patent.Murphy's invention is described and claimed in a German Gebrauchsmuster petty patent granted on February 11, 1998, based on an application filed by Murphy on February 2, 1997. The German Gebrauchsmuster patent was published on February 14, 1998. Which paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 102, if any, would prevent Murphy from obtaining a U.S. patent?
A. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
B. 35 U.S.C. § 102(c)
C. 35 U.S.C. § 102(d)
D. 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements, if any, regarding Secrecy Orders are false?
A. A Secrecy Order remains in effect for a period of one year from its date of issuance.
B. If the Secrecy Order is applied to an international application, the application will not be forwarded to the International Bureau as long as the Secrecy Order remains in effect.
C. If, prior to or after the issuance of the Secrecy Order, any significant part of the subject matter or material information relevant to the application has been or is revealed to any person in a foreign country, the principals must promptly inform such person of the Secrecy Order and the penalties for improper disclosure.
D. Use of facsimile transmissions to file correspondence in a Secrecy Order case is permitted so long as it is transmitted to the Office in a manner that would preclude disclosure to unauthorized individuals and is properly addressed.
(category: trade secret, Chinese translation: 商业秘密)
Question: On January 19, 1999, inventor B filed a patent application in the PTO claiming invention X. Inventor B did not claim priority based on a foreign application filed by inventor B on April 3, 1998, in the Patent Office in Japan. In the foreign application, inventor B disclosed and claimed invention X, which inventor B had conceived on August 11, 1997, and reduced to practice on November 5, 1997, all in Japan. The U.S. patent examiner issued an Office action where all the claims in the patent application were properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e) as being anticipated by a U.S. patent granted to inventor Z on September 1, 1998, on a patent application filed in the PTO on December 5, 1997. There is no common assignee between Z and B, and they are not obligated to assign their invention to a common assignee. Moreover, inventors Z and B, independently of each other, invented invention X, and did not derive anything from the other. The U.S. patent to Z discloses, but does not claim, invention X. Which of the following is/are appropriate reply(replies) which could overcome the rejections under §§ 102(a) and (e) when timely filed?
A. File an antedating affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR § 1.131 showing conception on August 11, 1997, and actual reduction to practice on November 5, 1997, all in Japan.
B. File a claim for the right and benefit of foreign priority wherein the Japanese application is correctly identified, file a certified copy of the original Japanese patent application, and argue that as a result of the benefit of foreign priority, the U.S patent is no longer available as a prior art reference against the claims.
C. Amend the claims to require particular limitations disclosed in inventor B's application, but not disclosed or suggested in inventor Z's patent, and argue that the limitations patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
D. (A) and (C).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A Certificate of Correction cannot be used to correct
A. the failure to make reference to a prior copending application.
B. an incorrect reference to a prior copending application.
C. the omission of an inventor's name from an issued patent through error and without deceptive intent.
D. the omission of a preferred embodiment in the original disclosure overlooked by the inventor which would materially affect the scope of the patent.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)