QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: An international application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), which designated the United States, was filed on January 3, 1995. The application claimed priority of a prior French national application filed on February 7, 1994. A copy of the international application was communicated to the United States as a designated office on August 19, 1995. A demand for international preliminary examination, in which the United States was elected, was filed on September 5, 1995. Accordingly, the thirty month period of PCT Article 39(1)(a) expired at midnight on August 7, 1996. The applicant submitted the basic national fee to enter the United States national stage on August 2, 1996. On October 2, 1996, the applicant timely submitted a translation of the international application and a declaration of the inventors in compliance with PCT regulations in response to a Notice of Missing Requirements. Also, on October 8, 1996, the applicant timely submitted a translation of amendments under Article 19 of the PCT in response to the Notice of Missing Requirements. On October 30, 1996, a Notice of Acceptance was mailed to the applicant. The national stage application issued as a U.S. patent on December 6, 1997. What is the effective date of the U.S. patent as a reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)?
A. 789091200000
B. 839376000000
C. 844214400000
D. 844732800000
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not a requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 102(d) to bar the granting of a patent in this country?
A. The foreign application must have been filed more than 12 months before the effective filing of the application in the United States.
B. The foreign application must have been filed by the same applicant as in the United States or by his or her legal representatives or assigns.
C. The foreign patent or inventor's certificate must be actually granted before the U.S. filing date.
D. The foreign patent or inventor's certificate must have been published prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: P, a registered patent practitioner, filed a reply to a first Office action which rejected all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) based on an earlier patent granted to Z. The Office Action was dated September 15, 1998 and set a three month shortened statutory period for reply. P's unsigned reply, filed February 3, 1999, did not include a petition for an extension of time and contained only the following paragraph: Applicant respectfully spits on the ludicrous position taken by the Examiner in rejecting all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) based on an invalid patent granted to Z. Applicant may be willing to overlook the Examiner's stupidity in making this rejection since it is possible that the Examiner was unaware that Z is a bum and a thief who stole Applicant's invention. Applicant has renumbered the claims and has attached a copy of Z's patent with notations made thereon. Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner "WAKE Up" and take another look at Applicant's claims in light of these remarks. Please charge my deposit account number 99-1234 to cover the cost of any required fees. P should not be surprised when the amendment is not entered because:
A. The reply was not signed.
B. An amendatory paper determined to contain objectionable remarks will be returned to the sender.
C. P did not file a petition for an extension of time.
D. (A) and (B) are correct.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On August 20, 1998, you filed in the PTO a patent application which claims a new pharmaceutical compound and a method of using the pharmaceutical compound to treat obesity. On January 29, 1999, you received a restriction requirement from the examiner requiring election between the following groups of claims: group (I), directed to the product; and group (II), directed to the method of use, Which of the following statements, if any, is not a proper reply to the restriction requirement?
A. You file a written reply provisionally electing the claims of group I, with traverse, and set forth the reasons why you believe the restriction requirement is improper.
B. You file a written reply electing the claims of group I for prosecution on the merits, and an amendment canceling the method claims of group II.
C. You file a written reply traversing the restriction requirement, and setting forth specific reasons why you believe the restriction requirement is improper.
D. You file a written reply electing the claims of group I for prosecution on the merits, without traverse of the restriction requirement.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements regarding design patents are not true?
A. A design patent and a trademark may be obtained on the same subject matter.
B. A design patent claim for type fonts will be rejected for failure to comply with the "article of manufacture" requirement.
C. A computer-generated icon must be embodied in a computer screen, monitor, or other display panel to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 171.
D. The claimed design is shown by solid lines in the drawing. It is not permissible to show any portion of the claimed design in broken lines.
(category: design patent, Chinese translation: 设计专利)
Question: During a reexamination proceeding, the patent owner seeks to amend Claim 1 as follows: 1.(amended) A [knife] cutting means having a handle portion and a serrated blade. All changes in the claim are fully supported by the original patent disclosure. Should the claim, as amended, be rejected?
A. Yes, because the amendment broadens the scope of the claim of the patent.
B. No, because the claim is fully supported by the original patent disclosure.
C. No, because the amendment does not add new matter into the claim.
D. No, because the amendment narrows the scope of the patent
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On February 13, 1998, practitioner Wally filed a complete nonprovisional application for patent, filing fee, and an executed oath under 37 CFR  1.63 in the PTO identifying inventors A and B by their full names, and providing their residence, post office addresses, and citizenship. A and B have assigned their application to XYZ Corporation who Wally represents. Two weeks after the filing of the patent application, XYZ sends Wally a letter informing him that due to an oversight, a third inventor, C, should be added to the joint inventorship. Which of the following is the most proper procedure for correcting the inventorship of the patent application?
A. File a new oath signed by C, and file an amendment adding C as an inventor along with a statement of facts by C noting that the omission of him as an inventor was without deceptive intent and establishing when the error was discovered and how it occurred.
B. File a new oath signed by A, B, and C, and file an amendment adding C as an inventor along with a verified statement of facts by C noting that the omission of him as an inventor was without deceptive intent and establishing when the error was discovered and how it occurred.
C. File a new oath signed by A and B, and file an amendment adding C as an inventor along with the written consent of the assignee and a statement of facts verified by A and B noting that the omission of C as an inventor was without deceptive intent and establishing when the error was discovered and how it occurred along with payment of the petition fee.
D. File a new oath signed by A and B, and file an amendment adding C as an inventor along with the written consent of the assignee and a petition with the appropriate fee giving a verified statement of facts by A and B noting that the omission of C as an inventor was without deceptive intent and establishing when the error was discovered and whether they had reviewed and understood the contents of the specification including the claims as amended by any amendment specifically referred to in the oath or declaration and whether they had reviewed the oath or declaration prior to its execution and if so, how the error had occurred in view of such reviews.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On January 7, 1998, your client published an article containing a complete and enabling disclosure of a new pharmaceutical compound she developed. On February 6, 1998, you prepared and filed in the PTO a provisional application for the client containing an enabling disclosure of the pharmaceutical compound disclosed in the publication. The provisional patent application was filed by depositing it directly with the United States Postal Service via "Express Mail Post Office to Addressee." On Saturday, February 6, 1999, you deposit a complete, nonprovisional U.S. patent application directly with the U.S. Postal Service via "Express Mail Post Office to Addressee." The nonprovisional application claims the new pharmaceutical compound and claims priority to the filing date of the provisional application under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e). The nonprovisional application is received in the PTO mailroom on Tuesday, February 9, 1999. The claims to the pharmaceutical compound are:
A. Patentable over your client's article. The effective filing date of the complete nonprovisional application is February 6, 1998.
B. Unpatentable. The effective filing date of the complete nonprovisional application is February 9, 1999, and thus the claims to the compound are barred by the publication of your client's article more than one year before the complete nonprovisional application's effective filing date.
C. Unpatentable over your client's article because the article is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
D. Patentable over your client's article. The effective filing date of the complete nonprovisional application is Monday, February 8, 1999. However, because the article was written by the inventor, the inventor can swear behind the article's publication date.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent application claims a chemical composition and discloses in the application that the composition has a cleansing property in addition to being able to remove ink stains. The examiner rejected the claims in the application under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being obvious over Parker in view of Cross. Each reference discloses chemical compositions which can be used to remove ink stains. The proposed combination of references includes all the limitations of the composition claimed in the application. However, neither reference shows nor suggests the cleansing property newly discovered by applicant. Does the combination of Parker and Cross support a prima facie case of obviousness?
A. Yes, even though neither reference shows or suggests the newly discovered property of the claimed composition.
B. Yes, because after reading applicant's specification, it would be obvious that both references can be combined to achieve the cleansing property claimed by applicant.
C. No, unless in addition to structural similarity between the claimed and prior art compositions, the references contain a suggestion that the compositions will have the newly discovered cleansing property.
D. No, because the discovery of a new property of a previously known composition imparts patentability to the known composition.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An original application was prosecuted through final rejection. All of the claims in this original application were properly rejected by the examiner as being obvious over two patent references. The applicant allows the application to go abandoned without replying to the final rejection. Two years after the abandonment, the applicant files a substitute application in which all of the claims are identical to those in the original application. The examiner _ make a final rejection in the substitute application in the first Office action on the merits
A. can ... provided any assignment in the original application has been applied to the substitute application
B. can ... because the claims would have been properly finally rejected in the next Office action on the grounds of rejection and the same art of record in the original patent application
C. can ... because the substitute application is entitled to the filing date of the original application
D. cannot .. because applicant is entitled to a new search and further consideration of the claims presented in the substitute application
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In a first Office action dated March 18, 1999, the examiner rejected Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.  103 and objected to Claim 2 as being dependent upon a rejected claim. The examiner stated that Claim 2 would be allowable if the subject matter of Claim 2 was rewritten in independent form to include all the limitations of Claim 1. On April 6, 1999, after consulting with your client, you filed an amendment canceling Claim 2 and incorporating the subject matter of Claim 2 into Claim 1. Two weeks later, your client has changed his mind and now desires to traverse the rejection of Claim 1 without incorporating the subject matter of Claim 2 into Claim 1. Which of the following would be the most appropriate procedure to take under the circumstances?
A. Advise your client that there is nothing you can do until a reply is due for the next Office action.
B. Immediately file a supplemental amendment traversing the rejection of Claim 1 and requesting that Claim 2 be reinstated.
C. Immediately file a supplemental amendment adding a claim identical to canceled Claim 2. The new claim should be underlined in its entirety with the parenthetical expression (amended) following the original claim number 2.
D. Immediately file a supplemental amendment adding a new Claim 3 which is identical to original Claim 2, amend Claim 1 to delete the subject matter added by the April 6, 1999, amendment, and traverse the rejection of Claim 1.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Your client informs you that he has filed an international application in the United States Receiving Office and timely elected and designated the United States. Your client now wishes you to file the necessary documents to enter the U.S. national stage prior to April 27, 1999, the 30 month deadline for entering the national stage. Which of the following actions should you take to obtain the benefit of the international filing date prior to April 27, 1999?
A. File only the oath or declaration since that is all that is required for entry into the U.S. national stage.
B. File a copy of the international application in the PTO if a copy has not been provided by the International Bureau, and a cover letter instructing that the U.S. national filing fee be deducted from your deposit account.
C. File a request to enter the national stage with the PTO identifying the international application.
D. File a paper with the PTO identifying the international application, and asking that the PTO send you a bill for the U.S. national filing fee.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Newly registered patent practitioner, Andy, is working at a large patent law firm. Supervising patent attorney, Pat, asks Andy to prepare a short memo which addresses the manner in which an issued patent may be corrected and/or amended. To fully respond to Pat's request, which of the subjects set forth below should Andy include in the following sentence: "An issued patent may be corrected by (1) filing for reissue (I) filing a disclaimer (III) filing a Continued Prosecution Application (IV) filing a request for reexamination (V) filing a certificate of correction"
A. (I), (II), (III), (IV), and (V)
B. (I), (I), (III), and (V)
C. (I) and (IV)
D. (V) only
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Inventor X, a citizen of Germany, invented a new stapler in Germany on July 25, 1997. On January 22, 1998, X filed a patent application for the stapler in the German Patent Office. On January 22, 1999, you filed a complete U.S. patent application in the PTO claiming a stapler on behalf of X. The U.S. application was filed with a declaration under 37 CFR  1.63 signed by X claiming foreign priority of the German patent application. In an Office action dated April 16, 1999, and setting a three month shortened statutory period for reply, the primary patent examiner properly rejected all the claims in the U.S. patent application as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) by the disclosure in magazine articles describing how to make and use an identical stapler. The articles were published in the United States in February 1998, and in Great Britain in March 1998. Which of the following actions are in accord with proper PTO practice and procedure, and represent the most appropriate actions for overcoming the rejection?
A. File a petition to have the Commissioner exercise his supervisory authority and withdraw the rejection stating that the references cannot be properly used inasmuch as the declaration under 37 CFR  1.63 makes clear that the application inventor X filed in the German Patent Office antedates the articles.
B. File a reply on or before July 16, 1999, which argues that the references cannot be used because the application inventor X filed in the German Patent Office antedates the articles.
C. On or before July 16, 1999, file a certified copy of the German application, an English translation of the German application, and point out that the references are no longer available as prior art.
D. File an affidavit under 37 CFR § 1.132 signed by you stating that the references cannot be used because the application which inventor X filed in the German Patent Office antedates the articles.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Smith discovered that a tungsten carbide insert for a metal cutting tool may be bonded (with a far superior bond strength over other known methods of attachment) to a steel tool holder. Smith filed a patent application on his invention which contained the following two claims: (1) A method of bonding a carbide insert to a steel tool holder comprising the steps of providing a layer of polystyrene at the interface of the holder and insert, heating the holder, insert, and polystyrene to a temperature of 250掳F. and thereafter cooling the holder, insert, and polystyrene at a rate of between 12 and 13掳F. per hour until a temperature of 120掳F. is reached. (2) A carbide insert bonded to a steel holder by the method of Claim 1. The examiner rejected Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over a U.S. patent to Y in view of a British patent to Z. The examiner rejected Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the patent to Y. The patent to Y teaches that a tungsten carbide insert is bonded to a steel tool holder by utilizing a layer of polystyrene at the interface of the insert and holder, but makes no mention of any particular temperatures. The patent to Z teaches that in a grinding tool, diamond chips may be 'securely fastened' to a ceramic holder by applying a layer of polystyrene at the interface of the diamonds and holder, heating the holder, chips, and polystyrene to a temperature of 150掳F. and thereafter 'slowly' cooling the holder. Which of the following, if any, if submitted with the reply to the Office action, would most likely overcome the examiner's rejection of Claim 1?
A. Evidence that a gear cutting machine which includes a carbide insert bonded to a steel tool holder by the method set forth in Claim 1 is outselling all other such machines by a two-to-one margin.
B. An affidavit by Smith that, in his opinion, the patent to Y is inoperative.
C. Evidence that heavy advertising resulted in increased sales of Smith's invention.
D. An affidavit by Smith showing that the claimed method of bonding a carbide insert to a steel tool holder results in a bond which is 50 times greater than that of the invention disclosed in the patent to Y.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Smith discovered that a tungsten carbide insert for a metal cutting tool may be bonded (with a far superior bond strength over other known methods of attachment) to a steel tool holder. Smith filed a patent application on his invention which contained the following two claims: (1) A method of bonding a carbide insert to a steel tool holder comprising the steps of providing a layer of polystyrene at the interface of the holder and insert, heating the holder, insert, and polystyrene to a temperature of 250掳F. and thereafter cooling the holder, insert, and polystyrene at a rate of between 12 and 13掳F. per hour until a temperature of 120掳F. is reached. (2) A carbide insert bonded to a steel holder by the method of Claim 1. The examiner rejected Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over a U.S. patent to Y in view of a British patent to Z. The examiner rejected Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the patent to Y. The patent to Y teaches that a tungsten carbide insert is bonded to a steel tool holder by utilizing a layer of polystyrene at the interface of the insert and holder, but makes no mention of any particular temperatures. The patent to Z teaches that in a grinding tool, diamond chips may be 'securely fastened' to a ceramic holder by applying a layer of polystyrene at the interface of the diamonds and holder, heating the holder, chips, and polystyrene to a temperature of 150掳F. and thereafter 'slowly' cooling the holder. Which of the following, if any, if submitted with a reply to the Office action, would be most persuasive and most likely overcome the examiner's rejection of Claim 2?
A. Evidence that a gear cutting machine which includes a carbide insert bonded to a steel tool holder as set forth in Claim I is outselling all other such machines by a two-to-one margin.
B. An affidavit by Smith that, in his opinion, the patent to Z is inoperative.
C. Evidence that heavy advertising resulted in increased sales of Smith's invention.
D. An affidavit by Smith showing that there is a long felt need in the industry for Smith's carbide insert to a steel tool holder.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Pete the patent practitioner is preparing a patent application for his client, Perry. The invention is disclosed in the specification as a pickle machine comprising A, B, and means C for performing a function. The specification discloses two specific embodiments for performing the function defined by means C, namely C' and C". The specification also discloses that components D or E may be combined with A, B, and means C to form A, B, means C, and D, or to form A, B, means C and E. The specification further discloses that component G may be used with only means C', and then only if components D and E are not present. The first three claims in the application are as follows: 1. A pickle machine comprising A, B and means C for performing a function. 2. A pickle machine as claimed in Claim 1, wherein means C is C'. 3. A pickle machine as claimed in Claim 1 or 2 further comprising D. Which of the following would be a proper claim 4 and be supported by the specification?
A. A pickle machine consisting essentially of A, B, means C' for performing a function, D, and G.
B. A pickle machine as claimed in Claim 2, further comprising E.
C. A pickle machine as claimed in Claim 1, further comprising D.
D. A pickle machine as claimed in Claim 2 or 3, wherein means C is C", and further comprising G.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)