QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, for a nonprovisional application to receive a filing date in the USPTO under 37 CFR 1.53(b), all of the following must be filed except:
A. The basic filing fee required by 37 CFR 1.16(a).
B. A specification as prescribed by the first paragraph of 35 USC 112.
C. A description pursuant to 37 CFR 1.71.
D. At least one claim pursuant to 37 CFR 1.75.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following is true?
A. A claim to a process omitting a step in a disclosed process, where the step is disclosed in the specification to be essential to the invention, may not be properly rejected under 35 USC 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 USC 112, first paragraph.
C. A claim failing to interrelate essential elements of the invention, as defined by the applicant in the specification, where the interrelation is critical to the invention may be properly rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, for failure to properly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
D. Where 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: In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following statements is true?
A. Where sole patent applicant Able claims his invention in a Jepson-type claim, and the specification discloses that the subject matter of the preamble was invented by Baker before applicant's invention, the preamble is properly treated as prior art.
B. Where the sole patent applicant Able claims his invention in a Jepson-type claim, and the specification makes it clear that the claimed invention is an improvement on Able's own prior invention, which Able discovered less than one year before the filing date of the application, the preamble in the claim is properly treated as prior art.
C. Where the sole patent applicant Able claims his invention in a Jepson-type claim, and the specification makes it clear that the claimed invention is an improvement on an invention that Able discovered and publicly used and commercially sold by Able in Texas for several years before the filing date of the application, the preamble in the claim cannot properly be treated as prior art.
D. Where the sole applicant, Baker, states that something is prior art, the statement can be taken as being admitted prior art only if corroborated by objective evidence proffered by Baker, or found by the examiner.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following requests by the registered practitioner of record for an interview with an examiner concerning an application will be granted in accordance with proper USPTO rules and procedure?
A. A request for an interview in a substitute application prior to the first Office action, for the examiner and attorney of record to meet in the practitioner's office without the authority of the Commissioner.
B. A request for an interview in a continued prosecution application prior to the first Office action, to be held in the examiner's office.
C. A request for an interview in a non-continuing and non-substitute application, prior to the first Office action to be held in the examiner's office.
D. All of the above.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: During his summer vacation to the mountains, Eric discovered and isolated a microorganism which secretes a novel compound. Eric purified and tested the compound in tumor-containing control mice and found that the tumors disappeared after one week; whereas tumor-containing mice which did not receive the compound died. Eric was very excited about his results and so he did a few additional experiments to characterize the microorganism and the compound which it was secreting. Eric determined that the microorganism was an S. spectaculus, and that the secreted compound was so unlike any other compounds that Eric named it spectaculysem. Eric told his friend Sam about his discovery, who urged him to apply for a U.S. patent on the microorganism and the secreted product. Eric did so, but to his amazement, a primary examiner rejected all the claims to his inventions. Which of the following, if made by the examiner, would be a proper rejection in accordance with USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP?
A. The examiner's rejection of the claims to the microorganism under 35 USC 101 as being unpatentable because microorganisms are living matter and living matter is non-statutory subject matter.
B. The examiner's rejection of the claims to the compound under 35 USC 101 as having no credible utility because Eric has only tested the compound in mice and curing mice of cancer has no "real world" value. The examiner also states that Eric must demonstrate that the compound works in humans in order to show that it has a patentable utility.
C. The examiner's rejection of the claims to the compound under 35 USC 103, stating that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to test the by product of a newly-discovered microorganism for therapeutic uses.
D. The examiner's rejection of the claims to the microorganism under 35 USC 102/103 over a reference which teaches an S. spectaculus microorganism stating that Eric's claimed microorganism is the same as, or substantially the same as, the microorganism described in the prior art.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Assuming that any rejection has been properly made final, which of the following statements is not in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?
A. An objection and requirement to delete new matter from the specification is subject to supervisory review by petition under 37 CFR 1.181.
B. A rejection of claims for lack of support by the specification (new matter) is reviewable by appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
C. If both the claims and the specification contain the same new matter, and there has been both a rejection and objection by the primary examiner, the new matter issue should be decided by petition, and is not appealable.
D. If both the claims and the specification contain the same new matter, and there has been both a rejection and objection by the examiner, the new matter issue is appealable, and should not be decided by petition.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On January 2, 2001, a registered practitioner filed a patent application with the USPTO for inventor Beck. The application includes a specification and a single claim to the invention which reads as follows: 1. Mixture Y made by the process Q1. In the specification, Mr. Beck discloses that mixture Y has a melting point of 150掳 F. On June 2, 2001, the practitioner received an Office action from the primary examiner rejecting the claim. The claim is rejected under 35 USC 102/103 as being clearly anticipated by or obvious over Patent A. The examiner states "Patent A teaches mixture Y but made by a different process Q2." Beck believes he is entitled to a patent to mixture Y. In accordance with USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following would be the best reply to the rejection of his claim?
A. An argument that the claimed product has an unexpectedly low melting point of 150掳 F, supported by an affidavit showing that the mixture Y made by process Q2 exhibits a melting point of 300掳 F.
B. An argument that the processes used by applicant and patent A are different, supported by a third-party declaration stating only that the processes are different.
C. An argument that the claimed product has an unexpectedly low melting point of 150掳 F, supported by a third-party declaration stating only that the products are different.
D. An argument that the processes used by applicant and patent A are different, supported by an affidavit showing that the mixture Y made by process Q2 exhibits a melting point of 300掳 F.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not prohibited conduct for a practitioner under the USPTO Code of Professional Responsibility?
A. Entering into an agreement with the client to limit the amount of any damages which the client may collect for any mistakes the practitioner may make during prosecution of the client's patent application in exchange for prosecuting the application at a reduced fee.
B. Encouraging the client to meet with an opposing party for settlement discussions.
C. Failing to disclose controlling legal authority which is adverse to the practitioner's client's interest when arguing the patentability of claims in a patent application.
D. In reply to an Office action, stating honestly and truthfully in the remarks accompanying an amendment that the practitioner has personally used the device and found it to be very efficient and better than the prior art.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Sam is a sole proprietor of Sam's Labs, which has no other employees. Sam invented a new drug while doing research under a Government contract. Sam desires to file a patent application for his invention and assign it to Sam's Labs. Sam has licensed Rick, also a sole proprietor with no employees, to make and use his invention. Sam wants to claim small entity status when filing a patent application for his invention and assign it to Sam's Labs. Sam also wants to grant the Government a license, but will not do so if he will be denied small entity status. Sam has limited resources and wants to know whether, how, and to what extent he may claim small entity status. Which of the following is not in accord with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP in relation to applications filed on or after January 1, 2001?
A. Sam's Labs is a small business concern for the purposes of claiming small entity status for fee reduction purposes.
B. If Sam grants a license to the Government resulting from a rights determination under Executive Order 10096, it will not constitute a license so as to prohibit claiming small entity status.
C. The establishment of small entity status permits the recipient to pay reduced fees for all patent application processing fees charged by the USPTO.
D. Sam may establish small entity status by a written assertion of entitlement to small entity status. A written assertion must: (i) be clearly identifiable; (ii) be signed; and (iii) convey the concept of entitlement to small entity status, such as by stating that applicant is a small entity, or that small entity status is entitled to be asserted for the application or patent.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following is not a proper basis on which the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences may remand a case to the examiner?
A. Remand for a fuller description of the claimed invention.
B. Remand for a clearer explanation of the pertinence of the references.
C. Remand for a selection by the primary examiner of a preferred or best ground of rejection when multiple rejections of a cumulative nature have been made by the examiner.
D. Remand to the primary examiner with instructions to consider an affidavit not entered by the examiner which was filed after the final rejection but before the appeal.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A registered practitioner filed a utility application on February 11, 2002. On April 4, 2002, the practitioner filed an information disclosure statement (IDS) in the application. The practitioner received a notice of allowance dated January 3, 2003 soon after it was mailed. When discussing the application with the practitioner on January 21, 2003, and before paying the issue fee, the client notices for the first time that a reference, which is one of many patents obtained by the client's competitor, was inadvertently omitted from the IDS. The client has been aware of this reference since before the application was filed. The client is anxious to have this reference appear on the face of the patent as having been considered by the USPTO. Which of the following actions, if taken by the practitioner, would not be in accord with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?
A. Before paying the issue fee, timely file an IDS citing the reference, along with the certification specified in 37 CFR 1.97(e), and any necessary fees.
B. Within three months of the mail date of the notice of allowance, without paying the issue fee, timely file a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, accompanied by the fee for filing an RCE, and an IDS citing the reference.
C. Within three months of the mail date of the notice of allowance, without paying the issue fee, timely file a continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53(b), an IDS citing the reference, and any necessary fees.
D. After paying the issue fee, timely file a petition to withdraw the application from issue to permit the express abandonment of the application in favor of a continuing application, a continuation application under 37 CFR 1.53(b), an IDS citing the reference, and any necessary fees.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Assume that conception of applicant's complex invention occurred prior to the date of the reference, but reduction to practice occurred after the date of the reference. Which of the following is sufficient to overcome the reference in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?
A. In a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit or declaration, it is sufficient to allege that applicant or patent owner has been diligent.
B. In a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit or declaration, it is sufficient to clearly establish conception of the invention prior to the effective date of the reference, and diligence from just prior to the effective date of the reference to actual reduction to practice. The presence of a lapse of time between the reduction to practice of an invention and the filing of an application thereon is not relevant.
C. In a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit or declaration, it is sufficient to clearly establish conception of the invention prior to the effective date of the reference. Diligence need not be considered.
D. In a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit or declaration, it is sufficient to show conception and reduction to practice in any country.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A non-final Office action dated Friday, November 8, 2000 set a three month shortened statutory period for reply. The practitioner petitioned for a one-month extension of time on Monday, February 10, 2003 and paid the appropriate one-month extension fee. An amendment responsive to the Office action was filed on Tuesday, March 11, 2003. Each independent claim in the application was revised and two dependent claims were cancelled. No claim was added by the amendment. In the Remarks portion of the amendment, the practitioner express his belief that no fees are required by the amendment, but nevertheless authorized charging any necessary fees to the practitioner's deposit account, including fees for any required extension of time. A duplicate copy of the amendment was filed. No fees were submitted with the amendment. Assuming a valid deposit account, which of the following statements is in accord with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?
A. The amendment should be entered with no fees charged to practitioner's deposit account.
B. The amendment should be entered, but the fee for a second month extension of time should be charged to the practitioner's deposit account.
C. The amendment should not be entered because it is untimely.
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: In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following papers is precluded from receiving the benefit of a certificate of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8?
A. An amendment, replying to an Office action setting a period for reply, transmitted by mail with a certificate of mailing to the USPTO from a foreign country.
B. An amendment, replying to an Office action setting a period for reply, transmitted by facsimile with a certificate of transmission to the USPTO from a foreign country.
C. An information disclosure statement (IDS) under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 transmitted after the first Office action.
D. A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent application includes the following Claim 1: Claim 1. A method of making an electrical device comprising the steps of: (i) heating a base made of carbon to a first temperature in the range of 1875掳C to 1925掳C; (ii) passing a first gas over said heated base, said first gas comprising a mixture of hydrogen, SiCl4, phosphorus, and methane, whereby said first gas decomposes over said heated base and thereby forms a first deposited layer of silicon, phosphorus and carbon on said heated base; (iii) heating said base having said deposited layer to a second temperature of approximately 1620掳C; and (iv) passing a second gas over said base heated to said second temperature, said second gas consisting of a mixture of hydrogen, SiCl4, AlCl3, and methane, whereby said second gas decomposes over said heated base to form a second deposit layer adjacent said first layer, said second layer comprising silicon, aluminum and carbon. Assuming proper support in the specification, which of the following claims, if presented in the same application, is a proper claim in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?
A. Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein said first temperature is in the range of 1800掳C to 2000掳C.
B. Claim 3. The method of claim 1, wherein said first gas further comprises an inert gas.
C. Claim 4. The method of claim 1, wherein said second gas further comprises Argon.
D. Claim 5. The method of claim 1, wherein said first gas is an inert gas such as Argon.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Lucy, new associate of a registered practitioner, wants to know whether she must file an application data sheet with a provisional patent application of an applicant and what information she should include on the application data sheet. Lucy has previously submitted an application data sheet with a previously filed application for another applicant, but has discovered a discrepancy with the information contained in the declaration and application data sheet. Lucy wonders if she needs to correct the error if the correct information is contained in the declaration. She also asks how errors may be corrected. With respect to the filing of an application data sheet, which of the following is not in accord with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP for applications filed on or after January 1, 2001?
A. An application data sheet is a sheet or sheets that may be voluntarily submitted in either provisional or nonprovisional applications, which contains bibliographic data, arranged in a format specified by the Office. If an application data sheet is provided, the application data sheet is part of the provisional or nonprovisional application for which it has been submitted.
B. Bibliographic data on an application data sheet includes: (1) applicant information, (2) correspondence information, (3) application information, (4) representative information, (5) domestic priority information, (6) foreign priority information, and (7) assignee information.
C. Once captured by the Office, bibliographic information derived from an application data sheet containing errors may not be corrected and recaptured by a request therefore accompanied by the submission of a supplemental application data sheet, an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 or 1.67; nor will a letter pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b) be acceptable.
D. In general, supplemental application data sheets may be subsequently supplied prior to payment of the issue fee either to correct or update information in a previously submitted application data sheet.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A claim in a pending patent application for an electric toothbrush is rejected under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by a U.S. Patent, which was issued to Lancer, the sole name inventor, for a similar electric toothbrush. The Lancer patent was issued one day before the filing date of the application in question. The claim in the pending application contains a limitation specifying the location of an on/off switch. In accordance with USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following arguments, if true, would overcome the rejection?
A. The Lancer patent discloses and claims an electric toothbrush, but does not mention whether its toothbrush includes a power supply.
B. Evidence is submitted to show the electric toothbrush claimed in the application is commercially successful.
C. The Lancer patent teaches away from the bristles of the claimed toothbrush.
D. Lancer is one of the three named inventors of the claimed toothbrush in the pending 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 USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP? I. Vacate the rejection and allow the claim. II. Cite a reference that teaches element B 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)