QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: On January 2, 2001, a registered practitioner filed a patent application with the USPTO for inventor Bloc. The application includes a specification and a single claim to the invention which reads as follows: 1. Compound Y. In the specification, Bloc explains that compound Y is an intermediate in the chemical manufacture of synthetic Z. With respect to synthetic Z, the specification discloses its structural formula and further states that synthetic Z is modeled on the natural form of Z to give it the same therapeutic ability to alleviate pain. The specification goes on to state that synthetic Z is also a cure for cancer. On June 2, 2001, the practitioner received an Office action from the primary examiner rejecting the claim. The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being inoperative; that is, the synthetic Z does not operate to produce a cure for cancer (i.e., incredible utility). Bloc believes he is entitled to a patent to his compound Y. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, how best should the practitioner reply to the rejection of the claim?
A. Advise Bloc that he should give up because a cure for cancer is indeed incredible and is unproven.
B. File a reply arguing that a cure for cancer is not incredible and he can prove it if given the chance.
C. File a reply arguing that whether or not a cure for cancer is incredible is superfluous since Bloc has disclosed another utility - alleviating pain, which is not incredible.
D. File a reply arguing that the claim is directed to compound Y, not synthetic Z.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: 35 USC 102(d) establishes four conditions which, if all are present, establish a bar against the granting of a patent in this country. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following is not one of the four conditions established by 35 USC 102(d)?
A. The foreign application must be filed more than 12 months before the effective U.S. filing date.
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 be actually granted and published before the U.S. filing date.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Smith's first invention is a new method of fabricating a semiconductor capacitor in a dynamic random access memory (DRAM) cell. Smith filed a first patent application on December 13, 2001 disclosing and claiming the first invention. Smith's later, second invention, is an improved semiconductor capacitor in a DRAM cell and a method of making it. Smith filed a second application on December 16, 2002, claiming the benefit of the filing date of the copending first application. The second application contains claims 1-20, and a specification that provides support for the claimed subject matter in compliance with 35 USC 112, first paragraph. In the second application, claims 1-10 are drawn to Smith's first invention, and claims 11-20 are drawn to Smith's second invention. The primary examiner found a non-patent printed publication authored by Jones published on February 4, 2002. The article discloses the both of Smith's inventions. Which of the following courses of action by the examiner would be in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
A. The examiner can reject claims 1-20 in the second application using the article because the publication date of the article is earlier than the filing date of the second application.
B. The examiner cannot reject any of the claims in the second application using the article because the second application claims the benefit of the filing date of the first application.
C. The examiner can reject claims 1-20 in the second application using the article because the second application is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application since the second application was filed more than one year from the filing date of the first application.
D. The examiner can reject claims 1-10, but cannot reject claims 11-20 in the second application because the first application did not disclose the improved capacitor set forth in claims 11-20.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, definiteness of claim language under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but in light of:
A. The content of the particular application disclosure.
B. The teachings of the prior art.
C. The claim interpretation that would be given by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art at the time the invention was made.
D. The claim interpretation that would be given by one possessing expert skill in the pertinent art at the time the invention was made
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Application A was filed after November 29, 2000. Reference X and application A were commonly owned at the time the invention of application A was made. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP the prior art exclusion of 35 USC 103(c) can be properly invoked to obviate which of the following rejections?
A. A rejection under 35 USC 102(e) based on reference X, if reference X is prior art only under 35 USC 102(e).
B. A double patenting rejection based on reference X, if reference X is available as prior art only under 35 USC 102(e).
C. A rejection under 35 USC 103(a) based on reference X, if references X is available as prior art only under 35 USC 102(e).
D. (B) and (C).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Inventors B and C are employed by Corporation D, which authorized registered practitioner E to prepare and file a patent application claiming subject matter invented by B and C. Inventor B signed the oath, an assignment to Corporation D, and a power of attorney authorizing practitioner E to prosecute the application. Inventor C refused to sign the oath and any assignment documents for the application. The employment contract between inventor C and Corporation D contains no language obligating C to assign any invention to Corporation D. A patent application was properly filed in the USPTO under 37 CFR 1.47 naming B and C as inventors, but without inventor C signing the oath. C has now started his own company competing with Corporation D producing a product with the invention in the application. Inventor B is a friend of inventor C and wants C to have continued access to the application. Which of the following statements is in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
A. Inventor C, who has not signed the oath or declaration, may revoke the power of attorney to practitioner E and appoint practitioner F to prosecute the application.
B. Inventor C cannot be excluded from access to the application because inventor B has not agreed to exclude inventor C. In order to exclude a co-inventor from access to an application, all the remaining inventors must agree to exclude that coinventor.
C. Inasmuch as one of the named joint inventors has not assigned his or her rights to Corporation D, the corporation is not an assignee of the entire right and interest, and therefore cannot exclude inventor C from access to the application.
D. An inventor who did not sign the oath or declaration filed in an application can always be excluded from access to an application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following fees may not be reduced by 50 percent for "small entities"?
A. The basic filing fee for a design patent application.
B. The fee for a disclaimer.
C. The fee for a petition for an extension of time.
D. The fee for recording a document affecting title.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: The specification of a patent application contains limited disclosure of using antisense technology in regulating three particular genes in E. coli cells. The specification contains three examples, each applying antisense technology to regulating one of the three particular genes in E. coli cells. Despite the limited disclosure, the specification states that the "the practices of this invention are generally applicable with respect to any organism containing genetic material capable of being expressed such as bacteria, yeast, and other cellular organisms." All of the original claims in the application are broadly directed to the application of antisense technology to any cell. No claim is directed to applying antisense technology to regulating any of the three particular genes in E. coli cells. The claims are rejected under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, for lack of enablement. In support of the rejection, a publication is cited that correctly notes antisense technology is highly unpredictable, requiring experimentation to ascertain whether the technology works in each type of cell. The publication cites the inventor's own articles (published after the application was filed) that include examples of the inventor's own failures to control the expressions of other genes in E. coli and other types of cells. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, the rejection is:
A. appropriate because the claims are not commensurate in scope with the breadth of enablement inasmuch as the working examples in the application are narrow compared to the wide breadth of the claims, the unpredictability of the technology, the high quantity of experimentation needed to practice the technology in cells other than E. coli.
B. appropriate because the claims are not commensurate in scope with the breadth of the enablement inasmuch as no information is provided proving the technology is safe when applied to animal consumption.
C. inappropriate because the claims are commensurate in scope with the breadth of enablement inasmuch as the specification discloses that the "the practices of this invention are generally applicable with respect to any organism containing genetic material capable of being expressed."
D. inappropriate because the claims are commensurate in scope with the breadth of enablement inasmuch as the claims are original, and therefore are self-supporting.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A utility application filed in May 2001 has been prosecuted through a second action final rejection. In the final rejection some claims were allowed and other claims were finally rejected. Which of the following accords with the patent laws, rules and the procedures as related in the MPEP for a proper reply to a second action final rejection in the utility application?
A. An amendment canceling all rejected claims and complying with 37 CFR 1.116.
B. Only a Notice of Appeal.
C. The appropriate fee for a request for continued examination (RCE).
D. A continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Tribel files a patent application for her aroma therapy kit on November 29, 1999, which issues as a patent on August 7, 2001. She tries to market her kit but all of her prospects are concerned that her patent claims are not sufficiently broad. On September 5, 2001, Tribell asks a registered practitioner for advice on what to do to improve her ability to market her aroma therapy kit. At the consultation the practitioner learns that in the original patent application, Tribell had a number of claims which were subjected to a restriction requirement, but were nonelected and withdrawn from further consideration. The practitioner also determines that the claims in the patent obtained by Tribell were narrower than the broader invention disclosed in the specification, and the cited references may not preclude patentability of the broader invention. Which of the following is the best course of action to pursue in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
A. Tribel should file a reissue application under 35 USC 251 within two years of the issuance of the patent, broadening the scope of the claims of the issued patent.
B. Tribel should file a reissue application under 35 USC 251any time during the period of enforceability of the patent to broaden the scope of the claims of the issued patent, and then file a divisional reissue application of the first reissue application on the nonelected claims that were subjected to a restriction requirement in the nonprovisional application which issued as a patent.
C. Tribel should simultaneously file two separate reissue applications under 35 USC 251, one including an amendment of broadening the claims in the original patent, and the other including the nonelected claims that were subjected to a restriction requirement in the nonprovisional application which issued as a patent.
D. Tribel should immediately file a divisional application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) including the nonelected claims that were subjected to a restriction requirement in the original application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Inventor files an application containing the following original Claim 1: 1. A widget comprising element A, and element B. In a first Office action on the merits, a primary examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over reference X. Reference X explicitly discloses a widget having element A, but it does not disclose element B. The examiner, however, takes official notice of the fact that element B is commonly associated with element A in the art and on that basis concludes that it would have been obvious to provide element B in the reference X widget. In reply to the Office action, the registered practitioner representing the applicant makes no amendments, but instead requests reconsideration of the rejection by demanding that examiner show proof that element B is commonly associated with element A in the art. Which of the following actions, if taken by the examiner in the next Office action would be in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP? 
I: Vacate the rejection and allow the claim. 
II: Cite a reference that teaches element B is commonly associated with element A in the art and make the rejection final. 
III: Deny entry of applicant's request for reconsideration on the ground that it is not responsive to the rejection and allow applicant time to submit a responsive amendment.
A. I and II only.
B. II only.
C. II and III only.
D. I, II, and III.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following statements regarding operability or enablement of a prior art reference is the most correct?
A. The level of disclosure required for a reference to be enabling prior art is no less if the reference is a United States patent than if it is a foreign patent.
B. A reference is not presumed to be operable merely because it expressly anticipates or makes obvious all limitations of an applicant's claimed apparatus.
C. A non-enabling reference may not qualify as prior art for the purpose of determining anticipation or obviousness of the claimed invention.
D. A reference does not provide an enabling disclosure merely by showing that the public was in possession of the claimed invention before the date of the applicant's invention.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On January 3, 2003, a registered practitioner filed a continuation application that includes a benefit claim to a prior-filed application. The practitioner simultaneously filed in the prior-filed application an express abandonment in favor of a continuing application. The prior application contained five drawing figures described in the specification. However, the continuation application contains only four of the five drawing figures. The specification of the continuation application did not include a complete description of the missing drawing figure. A postcard from the USPTO, listing the contents of the continuation application, contains a note that only four drawing figures were received. The practitioner inadvertently omitted one of the drawing figures mentioned in the specification when he filed the continuation application. The missing drawing figure shows a claimed feature of the invention. On February 10, 2003, the practitioner received a Notice of Omitted Item(s) properly according a filing date of January 3, 2003 for the continuation application without the missing drawing figure and notifying the applicant that the drawing is missing. Which of the following procedures for filing the missing drawing would comply with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP for according the continuation application a January 3, 2003 filing date with the five drawing figures that were present in the application?
A. The practitioner files the missing drawing figure in response to the Notice of Omitted Item(s) within the time period set forth in the notice.
B. The practitioner files the missing drawing figure and an amendment to the specification to add a complete description of the missing drawing figure in response to the Notice of Omitted Item(s) within the time period set forth in the notice.
C. The practitioner files an amendment to cancel the description of the missing drawing figure from the specification of the continuation application.
D. If the continuation application as originally filed includes an incorporation by reference of the prior-filed application to which the benefit is claimed, the practitioner can file the missing drawing figure any time prior to the first Office action.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Patent application A was filed on January 12, 1995, containing claims 1-10. A primary examiner rejects the claims under 35 USC 102(b) as being anticipated by a U.S. patent issued on June 2, 1992. The rejection also relies on a technical paper published March 12, 1993 to show that a characteristic is inherent in the patent, although not expressed in its disclosure. According to the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following actions is most likely to overcome the rejection?
A. Filing a declaration and exhibits under 37 CFR 1.131 to antedate the reference U.S. patent.
B. Filing evidence under 37 CFR 1.132 tending to show commercial success of the invention.
C. Filing evidence under 37 CFR 1.132 tending to show unexpected results of the invention.
D. Amending the specification of application A to claim priority under 35 USC 120 by a specific reference to a prior copending application B that was filed before June 2, 1992 by the same inventor and discloses the invention claimed in at least one claim of application A in the manner provided by the first paragraph of 35 USC 112.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Application Number A was published as U.S. Patent Application Publication Number B. A member of the public reviewed the listing of the file contents of the application on the Patent Application Information Retrieval system and determined that the application was still pending, that a final Office action was mailed, and that the application file is in the Technology Center where it is being examined. The member of the public does not have a power to inspect, but would like a copy of the final Office action as well as the other papers in the patent application. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, can a copy of these papers be obtained by the member of the public, and if so, how can the copy be obtained?
A. No, a copy cannot be obtained because patent applications are maintained in confidence pursuant to 35 USC 122(a).
B. No, a copy cannot be obtained because the patent application is still pending.
C. Yes, a member of the public can go to the Technology Center and ask for the file for copying at a public photocopier.
D. Yes, the member of the public can complete a "Request for Access to an Application Under 37 CFR 1.14(e)" and, without payment of a fee, order the file from the File Information Unit. Upon the Unit's receipt of the application, the member of the public can use a public photocopier to make a copy.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant files a claim which includes the following limitation: "a step for crossing the road." The specification recites the following acts: "(1) go to the curb, (2) look both ways, (3) if the road appears safe, walk across the road, (4) step up onto the far curb, (5) continue walking." The primary examiner properly construes the step limitation to cover the foregoing acts. A prior art reference, published two years before the application was filed, expressly describes acts (1)-(4), but not (5). This same reference also discloses the remaining limitations recited in applicant's claim, i.e., those other than the step plus function limitation. The examiner rejects the claim under 35 USC 102(b) as being anticipated by the prior art reference. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following is the most complete reply to overcome the rejection under these circumstances?
A. An argument explaining that since act (5) is not disclosed in the reference, it does not anticipate the claim.
B. An amendment to the specification deleting act (5) ...?continue walking.
C. An argument showing that neither the equivalent of act (5) nor act (5) is disclosed in the reference, which therefore does not anticipate the claim.
D. An amendment to the claim by adding a negative limitation to expressly exclude act (5) from crossing the road.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A registered practitioner filed an application for an applicant claiming a "a means for pulling the door open." The specification describes a handle and a knob as being used together as a corresponding structure for pulling the door open. A prior art patent discloses a door opened by pulling on an attached bar. The primary examiner issued an Office action rejecting the claim under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated. In the action, the examiner properly identified the corresponding structure described in applicant's specification as the means for pulling the door open, and properly explained why the prior art attached bar is the equivalent of the structure described in applicant's specification. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following is the most correct reply to overcome the rejection under these circumstances?
A. An amendment to the claim changing the pulling means to expressly include an attached bar.
B. Only argue that the claimed pulling means is not found in the prior art relied-upon reference and therefore the claim is patentable.
C. An amendment to the specification that adds an attached bar to correspond to the prior art.
D. An amendment to the claim substituting for the term "means for pulling the door open" the structure of a handle and a knob.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)