QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: You filed a patent application for a client containing a claim to a composition consisting of X, water and plaster. In the claim X is defined as follows: "X is a member selected from the group consisting of elements A, B, and C." The claim is properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by a reference describing the composition made of A, water and plaster. The rejection may be properly overcome by:
A. Amending the claim by canceling elements B and C because the reference is concerned only with element A.
B. Amending the claim by canceling element A from the Markush group.
C. Arguing that the reference is not relevant because it lacks elements B and C.
D. Amending the claim by changing "consisting of" to "consisting essentially of."
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A nonprovisional patent application was filed on December 1, 2000, including a patent application declaration and an application data sheet. The application data sheet that includes the applicant's full name, residence, mailing address, and citizenship. The application data sheet does not include any foreign priority information. Which of the following must be identified in the declaration?
A. Applicant's mailing address.
B. Applicant's citizenship.
C. Any foreign application for patent for which a claim for priority is made by Applicant pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.55.
D. (B) and (C).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You prepare and file a patent application directed to an invention for improving the safety of research in the field of recombinant DNA. Your client, Inventor Joe, informs you he has licensed exclusive rights to his invention to a major pharmaceutical company. Inventor Joe also informs you that he is aware that another pharmaceutical company, Titan Pharmaceuticals, learned of the invention from a paper he presented at a technical conference, and is preparing to use the technology in its commercial research labs in the United States. Inventor Joe demonstrates that Titan is about to begin practicing the invention by showing you a rigid comparison of Titan's intended activities and the claims of the application. He also informs you that although he is currently in very good health, he is 67 years old and fears he will not be in good health when the invention reaches its peak commercial value. Accordingly, if possible he would like for you to expedite prosecution in the simplest, most inexpensive way. Given the circumstances, which of the following statements is most correct?
A. You should recommend filing a petition to make special on the basis of Inventor Joe's age.
B. Since the invention relates to improving the safety of research in the field of recombinant DNA, you should recommend filing a petition to make special on that basis.
C. Since Titan is actually practicing the invention set forth in the pending claims, you should recommend filing a petition to make special on that basis.
D. Statements (A), (B) and (C) are equally correct.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Claims 1 and 2 in a patent application state the following: 
Claim 1. An apparatus for sitting comprising: 
(i) a square shaped base member; 
(ii) four elongated members mounted to the bottom of the base member; and 
(iii) a circular back member mounted to the base member. 
Claim 2. An apparatus as in claim 1, further comprising a spring connected to the back member and to the base member. Which, if any, of the following claims fully supported by the specification and presented in the application, is in accordance with USPTO rules and procedure?
A. Claim 3. An apparatus as in claim 1, wherein the base member is rectangularly shaped.
B. Claim 3. An apparatus as in claim 2, wherein the wheels connected to each of the elongated members are plastic.
C. Claim 3. An apparatus as in any of the preceding claims, in which the circular back member is wooden.
D. Claim 3. An apparatus as in the preceding claims, further comprising a pressure-sensing device connected to the base member.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is true?
A. A claim to a process omitting a step in a process, where the step is disclosed in the specification to be essential to the invention, may not be properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of enablement where the specification provides an enabling disclosure only for the process which includes the essential step.
B. Failure to disclose the best mode must rise to the level of active concealment or grossly inequitable conduct in order to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
C. The best mode requirement is the same as the enablement requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112.
D. If the best mode contemplated by the inventor at the time of filing the application is not disclosed, a proposed amendment adding a specific mode of practicing the invention would not be new matter.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: The USPTO mails a final Office action dated November 8, 2000, in a utility patent application filed May 5, 1999, to registered practitioner Ted. The final Office action includes claim rejections and objections. Which of the following, with a request for continued examination along with the required fee filed by Ted on January 8, 2001, is a proper submission in accordance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.114?
A. A telephone call from Ted to the examiner on January 8, 2001, wherein Ted distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner's action, and wherein Ted presents arguments addressing each ground of objection and rejection in the Office action dated November 8, 2000.
B. A written reply to the Office action dated November 8, 2000, with no amendments or new claims, which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner's action, addresses each ground of objection and rejection in the Office action, and presents arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims patentable over the references applied by the examiner.
C. A written reply to the Office action dated November 8, 2000, which does not present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims patentable over the references applied by the examiner, and which requests that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.
D. All of the above.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. The fee an applicant must pay to request continued examination of an application is set in an amount equal to the basic filing fee the same applicant must pay for a utility patent application.
B. A Certificate of Mailing or Transmission under 37 C.F.R. § 1.8 is proper for filing a Continued Prosecution Application under 37 C.F.R. § 1.53(d) to obtain the date of the Certificate as the filing date for the application.
C. The Office does not charge a fee for processing a fee paid by a check that has been refused, i.e., dishonored and returned, by a financial institution.
D. To first request conversion of a provisional application containing a claim to a nonprovisional application after the provisional application has become abandoned, a petition to revive, accompanied by the appropriate fees, a showing of unavoidable delay, and a request for the conversion must be filed within one year of the date of abandonment.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant receives a rejection and objection in a non-final Office action dated December 12, 2000. Applicant timely files a reply dated February 12, 2001, that distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner's action. The reply addresses every ground of objection and rejection in the Office action dated December 12, 2000, by presenting arguments pointing out specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over the applied references. Applicant mails a second reply. Thereafter, Applicant mails a third reply to the USPTO, which would result in a change to the specification only, if entered. In accordance with proper USPTO rules and procedure, which of the following are factors that will be considered in deciding whether to disapprove Applicant's third reply?
A. Whether Applicant's reply dated February 12, 2001, includes a request that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.
B. The state of preparation of an Office action responsive to the Applicant's reply dated February 12, 2001, as of the date of receipt of Applicant's third reply.
C. The nature of any changes to the specification that would result from entry of Applicant's second reply.
D. (A), (B), and (C).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is in accord with proper USPTO practice and procedure for filing a reissue application in April 2001?
A. The specification, including the claims, of the patent for which reissue is requested must be furnished in the form of a copy of the printed patent, in double column format, each page on only one side of a single sheet of paper.
B. The specification, including the claims, of the patent for which reissue is requested must be furnished in the form of cut-up soft copies of the printed patent, with only a single column of the printed patent securely mounted on a separate sheet of paper.
C. The specification, including the claims, of the patent for which reissue is requested must be furnished in the form of a copy of the printed patent, in single column format, each page on only one side of a single sheet of paper.
D. The specification, including the claims, of the patent for which reissue is requested must be furnished in the form of a copy of the printed patent, in double column format, each page on both sides of a single sheet of paper.
(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 March 2001?
A. Status information is available for Application B, that is a continuation of an application A, when application A has been published under 35 U.S.C. § 122(b).
B. A person requesting status information may be provided the filing date if the eight-digit numerical identifier is not available and the last six digits of the numerical identifier is available.
C. 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).
D. A coinventor in a pending application may gain access to the application if his name appears as an inventor in the application, even if he did not sign the oath or declaration.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: If an application is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service in the manner recited in each of the following answers, and there is a dispute as the filing date of the application, which will result in the earliest filing date?
A. As "Express Mail Post Office to Post Office" without the Express Mail mailing label number being placed on the application and with the "date-in" entered by the USPS on Friday, March 9, 2001, and the application being received in the USPTO on Monday, March 12, 2001.
B. As "Express Mail Post Office to Addressee" without the Express Mail mailing label number being placed on the application and with the "date-in" entered by the USPS on Saturday, March 10, 2001, and the application being received in the USPTO on Tuesday, March 13, 2001.
C. As "Express Mail Post Office to Addressee" without the Express Mail mailing label number being placed on the application and with the "date-in" entered by the applicant on Thursday, March 8, 2001, and the application being received in the USPTO on Wednesday, March 14, 2001.
D. As "Express Mail Post Office to Addressee" with the Express Mail mailing label number being placed on the application and with the "date-in" entered by the applicant on Thursday, March 22, 2001, and the application being received in the USPTO on Monday, March 26, 2001.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A U.S. patent application discloses a first embodiment of an invention, a composition made of known materials in equal amounts by weight of A, B, and C. The application discloses a second embodiment of the invention comprising equal amounts by weight of A, B, and C, and an effective amount of D, a known material, to reduce excess moisture from the composition. The application also discloses a third embodiment of the invention comprising equal amounts by weight of A, B, and C, and an effective amount of D to reduce the acidity of the composition. The application fully discloses guidelines for determining an effective amount of D to reduce excess moisture from the composition, and determining an effective amount of D to reduce the acidity of the composition. The application discloses that the amount of D needed to reduce excess moisture from the composition differs from the amount of D needed to reduce the acidity of the composition. Which of the following claims, if included in the application, provides a proper basis for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph?
A. Claim 1. A composition comprising: equal amounts by weight of A, B, and C, and an effective amount of D to reduce the acidity of the composition.
B. Claim 1. A composition comprising: equal amounts by weight of A, B, and C, and an effective amount of D.
C. Claim 1. A composition comprising: equal amounts by weight of A, B, and C, and an effective amount of D to reduce excess moisture from the composition.
D. Claim 1. A composition comprising: equal amounts by weight of A, B, and C.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Able conceived the invention claimed in a patent application. In conceiving the invention, Able used and adopted ideas and materials known in the art and invented by others. Ben, Able's employee, reduced the invention to practice at Able's request and totally pursuant to Able's suggestions. Being unable to afford a patent practitioner's fees to prepare and prosecute the application, Able convinced John to pay for the practitioner's services in return for an interest in the invention. John did nothing more than provide the funds for the practitioner. Which of the following is in accordance with proper USPTO practice or procedure?
A. Able need not be the one to reduce the invention to practice so long as the reduction to practice occurred on his or her behalf. Able can be properly named as inventor in the application.
B. To be named an inventor, it is not necessary for John to have contributed to the conception of the invention. Ben, not Able, can be named as inventor in the application.
C. In conceiving the invention, Able may not consider and adopt ideas and materials derived from any sources, such as ideas of previous inventors. Able cannot be properly named as inventor in the application.
D. John and Able may be properly named as joint inventors of the invention in the application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Practitioner Smith filed a utility patent application on January 5, 2001, with informal drawings. Upon review of the drawings, the USPTO concluded that the drawings were not in compliance with the 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1) and (k), and were not suitable for reproduction. In an Office communication, Smith was notified of the objection and given two months to correct the drawings so that the application can be forwarded to a Technology Center for examination. Which of the following complies with USPTO practices and procedures for a complete bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action?
A. Smith timely files a response requesting that the objections to the drawings be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.
B. Smith timely files a response requesting that the objections to the drawings be held in abeyance since the requirement increases up-front costs for the patent applicant, and the costs can be avoided if patentable subject matter is not found.
C. Smith timely files a response requesting that the objections to the drawings be held in abeyance until fourteen months from the earliest claimed priority date.
D. Smith timely files a response correcting the drawings to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1) and (k), and making them suitable for reproduction.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In 1996, Sydney, while vacationing at the North Pole, invents a new method of ice fishing using a solar powered fishhook with a transmission device for indicating the presence of a fish. For 5 years, Sydney practiced his invention exclusively at the North Pole, outside of the United States, its possessions, or its territories or any WTO or NAFTA country. He showed his invention to only one person, his friend Charlie, while Charlie was visiting him at the North Pole in June 2001. Charlie spoke to no one in the United States about the idea and crafted a near duplicate and began to publicly use it upon his return to Wisconsin in September 2001. On October 18, 2001, Sydney telephones you and complains to you that Charlie, the only person who has ever seen Sydney's device, has begun using his device. In the October 18, 2001 phone conversation, Sydney asks you for advice as to the filing of a patent application. Which of the following is the best advice for Sydney?
A. The witnessing of the fishhook by Charlie in June 2001 constitutes knowledge of the invention, and claims directed to Sydney's invention could be properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a).
B. Use of the device in Wisconsin constitutes public use and since Sydney cannot establish prior invention through activities at the North Pole, he is precluded from antedating the date of the first public use in the United States.
C. Since Sydney invented the fishing device in 1996, he is the prior inventor and can overcome the first date of public use by Charlie by filing a 37 CFR1.131 affidavit or declaration.
D. Since Charlie first used the fishing device in the United States, Charlie may file a patent application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You are a registered patent agent with a busy patent practice in Arlington, Virginia. You are scheduled to leave for a long-awaited three-week trip to the Galapagos Islands on Friday, October 19, 2001. You recently completed a draft of a provisional patent application and forwarded it to the client for review and comment. On October 12 you left a message with the President of your client, a company, reminding her of your trip and inquiring about the status of her review. She returns your message on Wednesday, October 17 and informs you for the first time that the provisional patent application relates to an invention upon which the continued success of her business depends and that she first offered the invention for sale on October 21, 2000. She also informs you that the provisional application is ready for filing, but that she will be unable to forward to you a declaration signed by the inventors for at least four weeks. Understandably, you wish to make absolutely certain that the provisional application, having ten pages of specification, and three sheets of drawings, is properly filed with the USPTO and accorded a filing date before you leave for your trip, and that you are timely informed should anything be omitted. Which of the following scenarios provides the best evidence that the USPTO has received the provisional application with no missing parts, and the application is accorded a filing date?
A. You promptly hand-carry the provisional application, an application data sheet, and the appropriate filing fee to the USPTO Customer Service Window. You file these materials and have the attendant date stamp a card reciting that the deposited document is a new application and reciting the title of the invention and listing the names of the inventors.
B. You promptly mail the provisional application, an application data sheet, and the appropriate filing fee to the official USPTO address employing a proper Certificate of Mailing in accordance with 37 CFR 1.8.
C. You promptly mail the provisional application, an application data sheet and the appropriate filing fee to the official USPTO address employing Express Mail Post Office to Addressee service of the U.S. Postal Service in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10.
D. You promptly mail the provisional application to the official USPTO address accompanied by a Return Postcard identifying the type of deposited document as a new patent application and reciting the title of the invention and listing the names of the inventors.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Izzy decides one day that the hydrogen fuel cell research in which he is engaged shows great potential and retains the services of a patent law firm. A patent application is promptly prepared and filed in the USPTO disclosing and claiming a hydrogen fuel cell wherein the electrodes employed to catalyze the hydrogen gas into positive ions and negative ions consist of a platinum catalyst. The original claims are fully supported by the application as filed. Two preliminary amendments are submitted after the original filing, but prior to initial examination. In the first preliminary amendment, the specification, but not the claims, is amended to recite that the electrodes may consist of a niobium catalyst. In the second preliminary amendment, the specification and the claims are amended to recite that the electrodes may consist of an iridium catalyst. In the first Office action, the examiner determined that both amendments involve new matter and required their cancellation. In addition, the examiner rejected all the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph on the ground that they recited elements without support in the original disclosure. Ultimately, the examiner issued a Final Rejection on the same basis. Based upon proper USPTO practice and procedure, which of the following is correct?
A. Review of the determination that both the first preliminary amendment and the second preliminary amendment contain new matter is by appeal.
B. Review of the determination that both the first preliminary amendment and the second preliminary amendment contain new matter is by petition.
C. Review of the determination that the first preliminary amendment contains new matter is by appeal, and review of the determination that the second preliminary amendment contains new matter is by petition.
D. Review of the determination that the first preliminary amendment contains new matter is by petition, and review of the determination that the second preliminary amendment contains new matter is by appeal.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)