QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: Kat Forrest has been a famous golf prodigy since childhood and currently enjoys phenomenal success on the professional golf tour, having won four straight major titles. Kat conceived, constructed and successfully tested a golfer's aid to help less-skilled players. Briefly, the aid includes a distance-finder that determines the precise distance from the golfer's ball to a target such as a fairway landing area or the hole. The aid obtains data concerning playing conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, soil moisture, etc.) from a series of sensors distributed throughout a golf course. A global positioning system provides accurate positional coordinates for the ball location and the target location. A user interface allows manual input of situational data (e.g., ball in divot) and permits the user to override system settings and sensor data. The golfer's aid also includes computer memory that stores performance data calibrated to a specific golfer. In use, a digital processor determines a suggested play based on playing conditions and golfer skill level, and automatically displays information concerning the suggested play (e.g., recommended golf club and preferred line of flight for the ball). Other information can be displayed in reply to user requests. Kat comes to you in September 2001 and asks you to prepare and file a patent application on her behalf. She informs you that she has shown the golfer's aid only to her caddie and only under terms of strict confidentiality, and that she finalized the design on June 5, 2001. Her golfer's aid has not been sold or offered for sale. She also informs you that she derived the general idea for the golfer's aid, in part, from (1) an article appearing in the July 2000 edition of a golf magazine concerning a commercial distance finder and (2) a customized personal digital assistant (PDA) she saw on a store shelf while traveling in Thailand in April 2001. The distance finder has been available for sale in the United States since August 2000. The customized PDA was first offered for sale in the United States on June 8, 2001, but has not been disclosed in any publication or patent document. You prepare a patent application with claims that you believe are likely to be found patentably distinct over the commercially available distance finder and the golf magazine article, either alone or in combination. The application is filed with the USPTO on September 17, 2001. 29.  Which of the following is most likely to be considered in a proper obviousness determination?
A. Evidence demonstrating the manner in which the invention was made.
B. Evidence that a combination of prior art teachings, although technically compatible, would not be made by businessmen for economic reasons.
C. Evidence demonstrating the level of ordinary skill in the art.
D. Evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art, after reading Kat's application, would readily be able to make and use Kat's invention without undue experimentation.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Igor, a refugee from the civil turmoil that recently befell his native country, filed a design patent application in the USPTO on January 24, 2000, which issued as a design patent on January 23, 2001. Igor's design patent covered a design of a cell phone holder for motor vehicles and became immediately popular with cell phone owners, resulting in numerous inquiries for licenses from various manufacturers. Igor would like to financially exploit his patent by licensing for five years. However, in appreciation for the benefits bestowed upon him since immigrating to the U.S., Igor has decided to dedicate five years of his patent term to the public. Which of the following is in accord with proper USPTO practice and procedure, while best allowing Igor to pursue his intentions?
A. Record in the USPTO an assignment of all right, title, and interest in the patent to the public, conditioned on the receipt by Igor of all royalties from licensing the patent after the first five years of the patent term.
B. File a disclaimer in the USPTO dedicating to the public the first five years of the patent term.
C. File a disclaimer in the USPTO dedicating to the public that portion of the term of the patent from January 24, 2015 to January 24, 2020.
D. File a disclaimer in the USPTO dedicating to the public half of all royalties received from licensing the patent for the terminal part of the term of the patent.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent application filed in the USPTO contains the following dependent claim: Claim 2. The method of Claim 1, further consisting of the step of cooling the mixture to a temperature of 32掳 F. Following proper USPTO practices and procedures, from which of the following claims does Claim 2 not properly depend?
A. Claim 1. A method of making liquid compound A comprising the steps of mixing equal quantities of material C and material D in a beaker and heating the mixture to a temperature of 212掳 F.
B. Claim 1. A method of making liquid compound A characterized by the steps of mixing equal quantities of material C and material D in a beaker and heating the mixture to a temperature of 212掳 F.
C. Claim 1. A method of making liquid compound A including the steps of mixing equal quantities of material C and material D in a beaker and heating the mixture to a temperature of 212掳 F.
D. Claim 1. A method of making liquid compound A consisting of the steps of mixing equal quantities of material C and material D in a beaker and heating the mixture to a temperature of 212掳 F.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: During their period of courtship, Amy and Pierre invented and actually reduced to practice an improved frying pan, wherein the sides and integral handle are formed from a metal having a low coefficient of conductivity, and a base providing the cooking surface formed from a metal having a high coefficient of conductivity. While the basic concept was old in the art, Amy's concept was to sandwich a layer of aluminum between layers of copper, while Pierre's concept was to sandwich a layer of copper between layers of aluminum. Accordingly, acting as pro se joint inventors, they filed a nonprovisional patent application in the USPTO on January 10, 2001, along with a proper nonpublication request. The application disclosed both Amy's and Pierre's concepts in the specification, and contained three independent claims: claim 1 was generic to the two concepts; claim 2 was directed to Amy's concept, and claim 3 was directed to Pierre's concept. Thereafter, Amy and Pierre had a "falling out" and Pierre returned to his home in France where he filed a corresponding patent application in the French Patent Office on January 31, 2001. Pierre was completely unaware of any obligation to inform the USPTO of the French application. Amy first learned of Pierre's application in the French Patent Office on October 10, 2001. Once Amy learns of the French application, which of the following actions should she take which accords with proper USPTO practice and procedure and which is in her best interest?
A. Immediately notify the USPTO of the filing of the corresponding application in the French Patent Office.
B. Promptly submit a request to the USPTO under Amy's signature to rescind the nonpublication request.
C. File an amendment under Amy's signature deleting claim 3 and requesting that Pierre's name be deleted as an inventor on the ground that he is not an inventor of the invention claimed.
D. Promptly file a document, jointly signed with Pierre, giving notice to the USPTO of the filing of the corresponding application in the French Patent Office and showing that any delay in giving the notice was unintentional.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: The claims of a pending patent application were rejected in an Office action mailed Thursday, November 23, 2000. The Examiner set a three-month shortened statutory period for reply. The applicant petitioned for a one-month extension of time on Friday, February 23, 2001 and paid the appropriate one-month extension fee. No further papers or fees were submitted and the application became abandoned. What was the date of abandonment?
A. Friday, February 23, 2001.
B. Friday, March 23, 2001.
C. Saturday, March 24, 2001.
D. Monday, March 26, 2001.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An application includes independent claims 1 and 2. Which of the following, in a reply to a non-final Office action, provides the proper basis for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph?
A. Applicant amends claim 2 of the originally filed application by adding a limitation which was previously written only in claim 1 of the originally filed application, and one of ordinary skill in the art is enabled by the original disclosure to make and use the invention as claimed in amended claim 2.
B. Applicant amends claim 1 of the originally filed application by adding a limitation that was written in the original disclosure of the application, but the original disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make or use the invention as claimed in amended claim 1.
C. Applicant amends and broadens claim 2 by removing a limitation which was written in the original disclosure of the application, and one of ordinary skill in the art is enabled by the original disclosure to make and use the invention as claimed in amended claim 2.
D. Applicant adds new matter to the disclosure, but does not amend the claims of the originally filed application, and one of ordinary skill in the art is enabled by the original disclosure to make and use the invention as described in each of the claims.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Registered practitioner Roni files a utility patent application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) in the USPTO having one claim on May 6, 1998. A proper final rejection of claim 1 was mailed on June 28, 2000. Roni 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, Roni learns about a publication (the "Columbus reference") which she knows to be material to patentability of claim 1, but which was not considered by the examiner during prosecution of the application. Roni prepares an information disclosure statement that complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98, listing the Columbus reference. The finality of the action on June 28, 2000, is withdrawn in an Office action on November 20, 2000, which is after the filing of the request for continued examination. Which of the following actions, if taken by Roni, 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 37 CFR 1.17(p).
B. Filing the information disclosure statement on December 11, 2000, without any further statement and without the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p).
C. Filing the information disclosure statement on December 13, 2000, without any further statement and without the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p).
D. (A) or (B) above.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A non-final Office action in a pending patent application was mailed on Friday, March 16, 2001. The patent examiner set a three month shortened statutory period for reply. The applicant petitioned for a one-month extension of time on Monday, June 18, 2001 and paid the appropriate one-month extension fee. An Amendment responsive to the Office action was filed Tuesday, July 17, 2001. In the Remarks portion of the Amendment, the applicant stated: "It is believed that no fees are required by the present Amendment. However, if any fees are necessary, including fees for any required extension of time, the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office is hereby authorized to charge any such fees to applicant's deposit account number nn-nnnn. A duplicate copy of this paper is enclosed." No fees were submitted with the Amendment. Assuming nn-nnnn is a valid deposit account with sufficient funds deposited, which of the following statements is true?
A. The Amendment should not be entered because it is untimely.
B. The Amendment should be entered with no fees charged to applicant's deposit account.
C. The Amendment should be entered, but the fee for a second month extension of time should be charged to applicant's deposit account.
D. The request to charge any required fees, including fees for any necessary extension of time, is ineffective because it was not made in a separate paper.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Mike and Alice, who are not related, are shipwrecked on a heretofore uninhabited and undiscovered island in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. In order to signal for help, Mike invents a signaling device using bamboo shoots. Alice witnesses but does not assist in any way in the development of the invention. The signaling device works and a helicopter comes and rescues Alice. However, Mike remains on the island due to overcrowding on the helicopter. Unfavorable weather conditions have prevented Mike's rescue to date. Alice comes to you, a registered patent practitioner, to file an application for a patent and offers to pay you in advance. Which of the following is true?
A. Since Mike invented the invention, Alice cannot properly file an application for a patent in her name even though Mike is unavailable.
B. Since Mike is unavailable, you may properly file an application for a patent without his consent. You can accept the money from Alice as payment for the application.
C. Since Mike is not available and cannot be reached, Alice may properly sign the declaration on his behalf since she has witnessed the invention and knows how to make and use it.
D. Alice should file an application in her name since she has witnessed the invention and knows how to make and use it. Subsequently, when Mike becomes available, the inventorship may be changed to the correct inventorship.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: For purposes of determining whether a request for continued examination is in accordance with proper USPTO rules and procedure, in which of the following situations will prosecution be considered closed?
A. The last Office action is a final rejection.
B. The last Office action is an Office action under Ex parte Quayle.
C. A notice of allowance has issued following a reply to a first Office action.
D. The application is under appeal.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An application as originally filed contains the following Claim 1: Claim 1. A doughnut making machine comprising: (i) an input conveyor that receives dough to be used in making said doughnuts; (ii) means for portioning dough from said input conveyor into a plurality of dough balls, each of said plurality of balls containing dough sufficient to create a single doughnut; (iii) means for forming each of said dough balls into a ring of dough; (iv) a deep fat fryer which receives rings of dough from said forming means and cooks said rings of dough; (v) means for selectively applying a flavored coating on cooked rings of dough to produce doughnuts; and (vi) means for placing a plurality of said doughnuts on a flat sheet. The specification adequately describes the claimed subject matter. Two different "means for selectively applying" are described in the specification: a sprayer and a brush. Which of the following original claims is an improper dependent claim?
A. Claim 2. The doughnut making machine of Claim 1, wherein said placing means is a conveyor that extends from said applying means to said flat sheet.
B. Claim 3. The doughnut making machine of Claim 1, wherein said forming means includes a cutter that removes a center portion of each of said dough balls to form a ring of dough.
C. Claim 4. The doughnut making machine of Claim 1, wherein said applying means includes a sprayer which receives a sugar based flavored coating, wherein said sugar based flavored coating is sprayed on said cooked rings of dough.
D. Claim 5. The doughnut making machine of Claim 1, wherein said applying means is a sprayer.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following establishes a statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102 to patentability of Applicant's claimed invention?
A. To further develop the invention, Applicant's invention was tested and experimented with in the United States more than one year prior to applicant's effective U.S. filing date, but the invention at the time was not fit for its intended purpose and important modifications concerning the claimed features resulted from the experimentation. The first actual reduction to practice occurred after the effective U.S. filing date.
B. Applicant's invention was sold in a WTO member country outside the United States more than one year prior to applicant's effective U.S. filing date, and the sale was merely market testing of the invention to determine product acceptance.
C. Applicant's invention is rendered obvious by the combination of two U.S. patents, both of which were patented more than one year prior to applicant's effective filing date.
D. Applicant's invention was sold outside the United States in a non-WTO member country, more than one year prior to applicant's effective U.S. filing date, but the sale was merely an attempt at market penetration.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Registered practitioner Joe duly files a non-provisional utility patent application on May 6, 1999. The USPTO sends Joe a notice of allowance dated November 13, 2000. On November 23, 2000, Joe learns about a publication ("Smith reference") which he knows to be material to patentability of the claims presented in the application, but which was not considered by the examiner during prosecution of the application. Joe prepares an information disclosure statement that complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98, listing the Smith reference. In accordance with USPTO rules and procedure which of the following actions, if taken by Joe, will result in the examiner considering the Smith reference during prosecution of the application?
A. Prior to Wednesday, February 14, 2001, filing a request for continued examination of the application, the information disclosure statement, and the fee for a request for continued examination, but not paying the issue fee.
B. Timely paying the issue fee, and thereafter filing a request for continued examination of the application together with the information disclosure statement, and the fee for a request for continued examination, but not submitting a petition under 37 CFR 1.313.
C. After Tuesday, February 13, 2001, filing a request for continued examination of the application together with the information disclosure statement, and the fee for a request for continued examination, but not paying the issue fee.
D. Timely paying the issue fee, and after the patent issues filing a request for continued examination of the application, the information disclosure statement, the fee for a request for continued examination, and a petition under 37 CFR 1.313.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements accords with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. A request for publication of a provisional application on a certain date will be treated as a request for publication as soon as possible.
B. If an applicant filed an application in a foreign country and the description of the invention in the foreign application is less extensive than the description of the invention in the application filed in the USPTO, the applicant may submit a redacted copy, eliminating the description not contained in the foreign application, for publication within 12 months after the filing date for which a benefit is sought under 35 U.S.C.
C. Early publication of a reissue application may be honored only if accompanied by a copy of the application in compliance with the Office electronic filing system requirements.
D. If an applicant filed an application in a foreign country and the description of the invention in the foreign application is more extensive than the description of the invention in the application filed in the USPTO, the applicant may submit a redacted copy, eliminating the description not contained in the foreign application, for publication within 14 months after the filing date for which a benefit is sought under 35 U.S.C.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In early 1999, at the request of MC Motors, Eve demonstrated her automobile heating system at a testing facility in Germany. MC Motors signs a confidentiality agreement and agrees not to disclose the invention to anyone. The test is conducted in a secluded area and the persons involved are sworn to secrecy. Unbeknownst to Eve, MC Motors installs the heating system on its MC cars and begins selling its cars with the heating system in the United States in September 1999. In August 2000, MC files a patent application in the United States for the automobile heating system. In December 2000, Eve files a patent application claiming the automobile heating system. The examiner rejects all the claims in Eve's application based upon an MC Motors brochure advertising its cars in September 1999. Which of the following is true?
A. MC Motors is entitled to a patent even though it misappropriated the idea for the invention from Eve since the misappropriation was beyond the jurisdiction of the USPTO.
B. Since the MC Motors misappropriated the invention and since Eve did not authorize the sale, the rejection may be overcome by showing that the sales by MC Motors were not authorized by Eve.
C. Eve is not entitled to a patent since the invention was on sale in this country more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.
D. (A) and (C).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Registered practitioner Rick drafted a patent application for inventor Sam. The application was filed in the USPTO on May 15, 2000, with a power of attorney appointing Rick. On March 15, 2001, Sam filed a revocation of the power of attorney to Rick, and a new power of attorney appointing registered practitioner Dave. In a non-final Office action dated September 12, 2001, the examiner included a requirement for information, requiring Dave to submit a copy of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent that was used to draft the application. Which of the following, if timely submitted by Dave in reply to the requirement for information, will be accepted as a complete reply to the requirement for information?
A. A statement by Dave that the information required to be submitted is unknown and is not readily available to Dave.
B. A statement by Dave that the requirement for information is improper because it was included in a non-final Office action.
C. A statement by Dave that the requirement for information is improper because Dave is not an individual identified under 37 CFR 1.56(c).
D. A statement by Dave that the requirement for information is improper because information used to draft a patent application may not be required unless the examiner identifies the existence of a relevant database known by Sam that could be searched for a particular aspect of the invention.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)