QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: An applicant's claim stands rejected as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lance in view of Barry. Lance and Barry are patents that issued and were published more than one year before applicant's effective filing date. Which of the following arguments could properly overcome the rejection?
A. Barry's device is too large to combine with Lance's device.
B. The Barry reference is nonanalogous art, because, although pertinent to the particular problem with which Lance was concerned, it relates to a different field of endeavor that the applicant's invention.
C. The combination of Lance and Barry would have precluded Lance's device from performing as Lance intended.
D. The Barry reference does not show all of the claimed elements arranged in the same manner as the elements are set forth in the claim.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is or are a factor that will be considered in disapproving a preliminary amendment in an application filed November 10, 2000?
A. The nature of any changes to the claims or specification that would result from entry of the preliminary amendment.
B. The state of preparation of a first Office action as of the date of receipt of the preliminary amendment by the Office.
C. The state of preparation of a first Office action as of the certificate of mailing date under 37 CFR 1.8, of the preliminary amendment.
D. All of the above.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On November 7, 2000, registered practitioner Toby files in the USPTO a utility patent application having only one claim. The USPTO sends Toby a non-final Office action dated May 11, 2001 setting a three month shortened statutory period for reply, and properly rejecting the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). On June 1, 2001, Toby learns about a publication ("the Jones reference"). Toby determines that the Jones reference is material to patentability of the claim, but the publication has not been considered by the examiner during prosecution of the application. Toby prepares a complete reply ("complete reply") to the Office action dated May 11, 2001, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.111 traversing the rejection. Toby also prepares an information disclosure statement ("IDS") that complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98, listing the Jones reference. In accordance with USPTO rules and procedure, which of the following actions, if taken by Toby, will result in the examiner considering the Jones reference during prosecution of the application?
A. On July 2, 2001, submitting to the USPTO a request for continued examination ("RCE") and fee for an RCE, with the complete reply and the IDS, but with neither the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) nor the statement required by 37 CFR 1.97(e).
B. On October 12, 2001, submitting to the USPTO a request for continued examination ("RCE") and fee for an RCE, with the complete reply and the IDS, but with neither the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) nor the statement required by 37 CFR 1.97(e).
C. On October 12, 2001, submitting to the USPTO the complete reply and the IDS, but with neither the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) nor the statement required by 37 CFR 1.97(e).
D. On July 2, 2001, submitting to the USPTO the complete reply and the IDS, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p), but without the statement required by 37 CFR 1.97(e).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant files a preliminary amendment on Friday, March 2, 2001, in an application filed on November 6, 2000. In the preliminary amendment, applicant provides instructions to amend paragraph one of the specification to include a claim for priority to a previously filed U.S. patent application as required by 35 U.S.C. § 120. Applicant provides instructions to insert the priority claim in line one of paragraph one on page one of the specification. Applicant also directs that page 20 of the specification be replaced with a new page 20 supplied therewith and that claims 9 and 10 be cancelled. Upon receipt and review of the preliminary amendment in the Technology Center, wherein the application has been assigned, the designated USPTO Legal Instruments Examiner (LIE) mails applicant a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment. Select from the following an answer that completes the following statement, such that the completed statement accords with proper USPTO practice and procedure: "Applicant has received the Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment ___________________"
A. in error because applicant's preliminary amendment was filed in an application filed on November 6, 2000, which precedes the effective date, November 7, 2000, of the Patent Business Goals rules.
B. due to applicant's failure to amend the specification at page one (1) and page 20 by providing a clean version of the paragraph(s), with no underlining or bracketing, with an instruction to substitute it for the pending paragraph(s), and an accompanying marked-up version of the paragraph(s) with all changes, relative to the prior paragraph(s), being shown by any conventional comparison system as required by 37 CFR 1.121(b).
C. due to applicant's failure to provide a marked-up version of claims 9 and 10.
D. due only to applicant's failure to amend the specification at page 20 by providing a clean version of the paragraph(s), with no underlining or bracketing, with an instruction to substitute it for the pending paragraph, and an accompanying marked-up version of the paragraph(s) with all changes, relative to the prior paragraph(s), being shown by any conventional comparison system as required by 37 CFR 1.121(b).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent application filed in the USPTO contains the following three original claims, including product by process Claim 3: Claim 1. A method for making an Ethernet cable comprising the steps of A, B and C. Claim 2. The method of claim 1, further characterized by the step of D. Claim 3. The Ethernet cable as in any one of the preceding claims. In the first Office action, the examiner objects to Claim 3 as being an improper dependent claim and requires cancellation of the claim. Following proper USPTO practices and procedures, which of the following replies best overcomes the examiner's objection and provides the client with the broadest patent protection?
A. Amend Claim 3 to read: "The Ethernet cable as made by the process set forth in claims 1-2."
B. Cancel Claim 3. Add Claim 4, which reads: "An Ethernet cable made by a process comprising the steps of A, B and C." Add Claim 5, which reads: "An Ethernet cable made by a process comprising the steps of A, B, C and D."
C. Cancel Claim 3 and add Claim 4, which reads: "An Ethernet cable made by a process comprising the steps of A, B and C."
D. Cancel Claim 3 and add Claim 4, which reads: "An Ethernet cable made by a process comprising the steps of A, B, C and D."
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: It is a late spring day in 2001. Mr. Gordon bursts into your office. "I want you to get rid of my competitor's patents," shouts Mr. Gordon "They're no good. Look at these references! But I've got to tell the USPTO what's really going on." The first patent, P1, issued on March 6, 2001, based on an application filed on November 29, 1999. The second patent, R2, is a reissue, filed on January 3, 2000, of a patent issued in 1995. The third patent, P3, issued on March 6, 2001, based on an application filed in 1994. Mr. Gordon wants to participate as much as possible in the proceedings at the USPTO. Which of the following options should be followed to accomplish Mr. Gordon's objective?
A. File requests for inter partes reexaminations of P1, R2, and P3.
B. File requests for ex parte reexaminations of P1 and P3, and a request for inter partes reexamination of R2.
C. File requests for ex parte reexaminations of R2 and P3, and a request for inter partes reexamination of P1.
D. File requests for ex parte reexamination of P1, R2, and P3.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Roger Rocket is a designer of paper cups at Paper America. During his free time, he likes to attend baseball games at Yankee Stadium. One day, while seated in the stands, he caught a fly ball. He took the baseball home and played catch with his friends Andy Cannon, Orlando Torpedo, and Mariano Missle. Unfortunately for Rocket, Cannon has a problem with accuracy. Cannon threw the ball over Rocket's head and straight through a neighbor's front window. The shattered glass ripped the lining off of the baseball. Instantly, Rocket conceived a more durable baseball with an exterior similar to that of a golf ball. Rocket worked for months on his invention in Missle's garage. His new baseball was comprised of a titanium core, and a plastic shell having circular dimples and V-shaped laces. Torpedo realized and told Rocket that Y-shaped laces would enable baseball players to throw the ball faster. Cannon, an engineer in a radar gun laboratory, tested the velocity of the baseball with both V and Y-shaped laces. To Cannon's surprise, the baseball traveled 10 M.P.H. faster with the Y-shaped laces. Rocket wanted patent protection for a baseball having a titanium core, and a plastic shell having circular dimples and Y-shaped laces, so he approached Yogi Practitioner for assistance. Rocket has no obligation, contractual or otherwise, to assign his inventions to Paper America. In accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure, who should execute the oath?
A. Rocket
B. Rocket and Torpedo
C. Rocket and Cannon
D. Rocket, Torpedo, and Cannon
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Roger Rocket is a designer of paper cups at Paper America. During his free time, he likes to attend baseball games at Yankee Stadium. One day, while seated in the stands, he caught a fly ball. He took the baseball home and played catch with his friends Andy Cannon, Orlando Torpedo, and Mariano Missle. Unfortunately for Rocket, Cannon has a problem with accuracy. Cannon threw the ball over Rocket's head and straight through a neighbor's front window. The shattered glass ripped the lining off of the baseball. Instantly, Rocket conceived a more durable baseball with an exterior similar to that of a golf ball. Rocket worked for months on his invention in Missle's garage. His new baseball was comprised of a titanium core, and a plastic shell having circular dimples and V-shaped laces. Torpedo realized and told Rocket that Y-shaped laces would enable baseball players to throw the ball faster. Cannon, an engineer in a radar gun laboratory, tested the velocity of the baseball with both V and Y-shaped laces. To Cannon's surprise, the baseball traveled 10 M.P.H. faster with the Y-shaped laces. Rocket wanted patent protection for a baseball having a titanium core, and a plastic shell having circular dimples and Y-shaped laces, so he approached Yogi Practitioner for assistance. Rocket has no obligation, contractual or otherwise, to assign his inventions to Paper America.  Before executing the oath, Rocket wanted to ask Practitioner a question. On his way to Practitioner's office, Rocket was instantly killed when a drunk driver hit his car. The officers or employees of Paper America are not related to Rocket. Who can execute an oath on Rocket's behalf?
A. The President of Paper America
B. The CEO of Paper America
C. Rocket's manager at Paper America
D. Rocket's legal representative
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Roger Rocket is a designer of paper cups at Paper America. During his free time, he likes to attend baseball games at Yankee Stadium. One day, while seated in the stands, he caught a fly ball. He took the baseball home and played catch with his friends Andy Cannon, Orlando Torpedo, and Mariano Missle. Unfortunately for Rocket, Cannon has a problem with accuracy. Cannon threw the ball over Rocket's head and straight through a neighbor's front window. The shattered glass ripped the lining off of the baseball. Instantly, Rocket conceived a more durable baseball with an exterior similar to that of a golf ball. Rocket worked for months on his invention in Missle's garage. His new baseball was comprised of a titanium core, and a plastic shell having circular dimples and V-shaped laces. Torpedo realized and told Rocket that Y-shaped laces would enable baseball players to throw the ball faster. Cannon, an engineer in a radar gun laboratory, tested the velocity of the baseball with both V and Y-shaped laces. To Cannon's surprise, the baseball traveled 10 M.P.H. faster with the Y-shaped laces. Rocket wanted patent protection for a baseball having a titanium core, and a plastic shell having circular dimples and Y-shaped laces, so he approached Yogi Practitioner for assistance. Rocket has no obligation, contractual or otherwise, to assign his inventions to Paper America.  On October 12, 2001, Practitioner received all of the proper papers required to receive a filing date. However, due to an unexpected emergency, he had to fly out of the country that evening to conduct discovery in another matter. Practitioner knew that he would be out of the office for at least 4 weeks, so before leaving, he left a note instructing his assistant to file the Rocket application on October 13, 2001, using an Express Mailing label. His assistant did not see the note until 8:00 P.M. on Friday, October 19, 2001. On Monday, October 22, 2001, Rocket's assistant deposited the Rocket application in the United States Postal Service with a proper Express Mailing label. The Postal Service properly completed a legible label showing an October 22, 2001 date in. The correspondence was received in the USPTO on October 27, 2001. What is the filing date of the Rocket application absent any Postal Service Emergency?
A. 1002844800000
B. 1002931200000
C. 1003449600000
D. 1003708800000
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: As a new member of a law firm, you are assigned to continue the prosecution of a patent application that was prosecuted by Stewart, who recently joined another law firm. After reviewing the file, you note that Stewart's reply to a first Office included two amendments: Amendment #1 introduced a change to the specification which did not affect the claims; Amendment #2 introduced a change to the specification, which change was also introduced to all of the claims currently in the application. You also note that the examiner in a current Office action has taken the position that both amendments constituted new matter, required cancellation of the new matter, and rejected all the claims on the ground that they recited elements without support in the original disclosure under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. For the purpose of reviewing the examiner's requirement, which of the following statements accords with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. Both Amendment #1 and Amendment #2 give rise to appealable questions.
B. Review of the examiner's requirement for cancellation of both Amendment #1 and Amendment #2 is by way of petition.
C. Review of the examiner's requirement for cancellation of Amendment #1 is by way of petition, and review of the examiner's requirement for cancellation of Amendment #2 is by way of appeal.
D. Review of the examiner's requirement for cancellation of Amendment #1 is by way of appeal, and review of the examiner's requirement for cancellation of Amendment #2 is by way of petition.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Patentee, Iam Smarter, filed and prosecuted his own nonprovisional patent application on November 29, 1999, and received a patent for his novel cellular phone on June 5, 2001. He was very eager to market his invention and spent the summer meeting with potential licensees of his cellular phone patent. Throughout the summer of 2001, all of the potential licensees expressed concern that the claim coverage that Smarter obtained in his cellular phone patent was not broad enough to corner the market on this technology, and therefore indicated to him that they feel it was not lucrative enough to meet their financial aspirations. By the end of the summer, Smarter is discouraged. On September 5, 2001, Smarter consults with you to find out if there is anything he can do at this point to improve his ability to market his invention. At your consultation with Smarter, you learn the foregoing, and that in his original patent application, Smarter had a number of claims that were subjected to a restriction requirement, but were nonelected and withdrawn from further consideration. You also learn that Smarter has no currently pending application, that the specification discloses Smart's invention more broadly than he ever claimed, and that the claims, in fact, are narrower than the supporting disclosure in the specification. Which of the following will be the best recommendation in accordance with proper USTPO practice and procedure?
A. Smarter 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 nonprovisional application that issued as the patent.
B. Smarter should file a reissue application under 35 U.S.C. § 251, including the nonelected claims that were subjected to the restriction requirement in the nonprovisional application that issued as the patent.
C. Smarter should file a reissue application under 35 U.S.C. § 251, broadening the scope of the claims of the issued patent, and then file a divisional reissue application presenting only the nonelected claims that were subjected to a restriction requirement in the nonprovisional application which issued as the patent.
D. Smarter should simultaneously file two separate reissue applications under 35 U.S.C. § 251, one including broadening amendments of the claims in the original patent, and one including the nonelected claims that were subjected to a restriction requirement in the nonprovisional application which issued as the patent.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On September 12, 2001, Jill and Jack invent a new electrically charged brush that removes lint from black wool sweaters and coats. Jill and Jack draft a nonprovisional application and send it to the USPTO and the mailing envelope is postmarked September 13, 2001. They fail to use Express Mail and their application becomes delayed in the mail for over a month. The USPTO finally receives the Jill and Jack application on December 3, 2001. On September 14, 2001, Mike and Millie invent a new electrically charged brush that removes lint from black wool sweaters and coats. Mike and Millie had no knowledge of Jill and Jack and/or their invention on September 14, 2001. Mike and Millie draft a nonprovisional application and send it to the USPTO on September 15, 2001, using U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and include the Express Mail label number on the cover sheet of their application. The mailing envelope received by the U.S. Postal Service and the date-in is clearly marked on the Express Mail label as September 15, 2001. The application of Mike and Millie becomes delayed in the mail for two months. The USPTO receives the Mike and Millie application on December 5, 2001. Assume the inventions of Jill and Jack, and of Mike and Millie are the same. Also assume that no Postal Service Emergency was involved in the delivery of the mail. Which of the following is true?
A. The nonprovisional application of Mike and Millie will be accorded a filing date of September 15, 2001 upon receipt in the USPTO, and their filing date will be prior to that of Jill and Jack's application.
B. Since the time the application was lost in the mail was unforeseeable, Jill and Jack will be entitled upon petition the USPTO to the benefit of a filing date as of the time they mailed their application on September 13, 2001.
C. Since Jill and Jack were the first inventors, unless Jill and Jack draft their claims so as to read directly on or substantially for the same invention as Mike and Millie claim, both applications would issue as patents since the United States has a first to invent patent system.
D. The application for the invention of Jill and Jack will be accorded a September 13, 2001 filing date in the USPTO, since the postmark or date placed on the envelope by the U.S. Postal Service is the determinative date for the purposes of according a filing date.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In 1995 Patent Agent filed a U.S. patent application containing five claims (Application 1). All five claims are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. § 112 by the disclosure of Application 1. In 2000, Patent Agent filed a U.S. patent application (Application 2) that was a continuation-in-part of Application 1. Application 2 adds new subject matter to the disclosure of Application 1, and ten additional claims. Of the fifteen claims in Application 2, claims 1-5 are exactly the same as Application 1, claims 6-10 are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. § 112 by the disclosure of Application 1, and claims 11-15 are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. § 112 only by the newly added subject matter of Application 2. The effective filing date for claims in Application 2 is:
A. 1-15 is 2000.
B. 1-15 is 1995.
C. 1-10 is 1995.
D. 11-15 is 2000.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Jack Flash filed an application for patent on December 16, 1998, disclosing and claiming self-extinguishing safety candles, methods of making them, and a special reflective housing for holding the burning candles. Following a three-way restriction, Mr. Flash prosecuted the claims for the candle, and was granted a patent ("P1"), which issued on April 6, 1999. Mr. Flash filed a divisional application containing claims for the method of making the candles and for the reflective housing on April 5, 1999. The examiner did not restrict the claims, but before the first action on the merits was mailed, Mr. Flash suffered business reversals and canceled the claims to the reflective housing to reduce the cost of obtaining his patent. A patent on the method of making the candles ("P2"), issued on November 30, 1999. Although you reviewed and signed all of the papers in the prosecution of the applications, your assistant, Annie, did all the work under your supervision. On April 1, 2001, Mr. Flash jumps into your office. He has just won a million dollars on some television game show you've never heard of, and he wants to "revive his patents." He is also concerned about an article he tore out of the February 1986 issue of the trade publication Wicks and Sticks, that shows a drawing of a dissimilar candle that would nevertheless raise a question of patentability, with the caption "It's just a dream: it can't be made we've tried a thousand times, don't bother." He also has a video tape first sold by a local hobbyist at his store in October 1999, showing a process of candle making that may be within the scope of his process claims. "But it's such a stupid way to do things - it's expensive and it doesn't work very well-it doesn't even make a safety candle," Jack shouts, jumping on your desk. He is so excited he can barely get the words out. Annie volunteers to work with him to figure out what he can do. On the next day, Friday, April 2, just as you are getting ready to close up and head for the LeTort Creek with your cane rod Annie drops five proposals on your desk. After reviewing Annie's proposals, but before you leave, you must instruct her to take the action that will best protect Mr. Flash's patent rights. Which of the following acts would be in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure, and Annie should be authorized to follow?
A. File a broadening reissue application on P1, alleging error in failing to claim sufficiently broadly by not filing claims for the reflective housing.
B. File a request for reexamination of P1 based on the Wicks and Sticks article.
C. File a new, nonprovisional patent application claiming benefit of the filing date of parent application that issued as patent P2.
D. File a request for reexamination of P2 in view of the video tape, intending to narrow the process claims to avoid the video tape if the USPTO finds a significant new question of patentability, and seeking to add claims to the reflective housing.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)