QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: The claims in an application are rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious over prior art reference A in view of prior art reference B. All of the following statements are in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP except:
A. Where the combination of prior art references provides motivation to make the claimed invention to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by the applicant, the references do not have to expressly suggest the combination of references.
B. The rationale to modify or combine the prior art references may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law.
C. In considering the disclosure of the prior art references, it is proper to take into account the specific teachings of the references, as well as the inferences that one skilled in the art could reasonably draw from the specific teachings.
D. An examiner may take official notice of facts outside the record that are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being "well known" prior art or common knowledge in the art.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Recommend which of the following rejections under 35 USC 102 in a reexamination proceeding is in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP.
A. A rejection under 35 USC 102(a) based on an affidavit that the invention was known or used by others before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.
B. A rejection under 35 USC 102(b) based on an affidavit that the invention was in the public use in this country more than one year prior to the date of the application for a patent in the United States.
C. A rejection under 35 USC 102(e) that the invention was described in a patent by another filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the patent applicant.
D. A rejection under 35 USC 102(f) based on an affidavit that the applicant did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following would comply with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP and would be a fully responsive reply to a non-final Office action on the merits rejecting all the claims in the application as being unpatentable under 35 USC 102 and/or 103 over prior art references?
A. A timely filed and properly signed written reply which does not include an amendment to the claims, but includes a request for the examiner's rejections to be reconsidered supported by arguments replying to every ground of rejection and distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in every rejection. and pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims patentable over any applied references.
B. A timely filed and properly signed written reply which includes an amendment canceling all the claims in the application and adding new claims, and a request for the examiner's rejections to be reconsidered in view of the newly presented claims.
C. A timely filed and properly signed written reply which does not include an amendment to the claims, but does generally alleges that the claims define a patentable invention.
D. A timely filed and properly signed written request for continued examination (RCE).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which, if any, of the following statements is in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
A. Where an inventor's residence is stated correctly in the 37 CFR 1.76 application data sheet and incorrectly in the inventor's 37 CFR 1.63 oath or declaration, the discrepancy must be corrected by filing a supplemental 37 CFR 1.67 oath or declaration giving the correct residence.
B. Where two inventors file separate 37 CFR 1.63 oaths or declarations which do not identify both inventors, the USPTO will presume they are joint inventors and will not require new oaths or declarations.
C. A dependent claim which merely repeats a limitation that appears in the claim on which it depends is properly rejected under the fourth paragraph of 35 USC 112.
D. In a statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e)(1) specifying that "each item of information contained in the information disclosure statement was first cited in any communication from a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application not more than three months prior to the filing of the statement," the three-month period begins on the date the communication was first received by either a foreign associate or a U.S. registered practitioner.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent application is filed having one claim (claim 1). The most relevant prior art uncovered by the primary examiner, after searching the claimed subject matter, is a published abstract summarizing the disclosure of a foreign patent document. The abstract is in English, the foreign document is in German. Both the published abstract and the foreign document are prior art under 35 USC 102(b). The published abstract provides an adequate basis for concluding that claim 1 is prima facie obvious under 35 USC 103. Which of the following actions is in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
A. Reject claim 1 under 35 USC 103, based on the abstract, because it is a publication in its own right and provides sufficient basis for a prima facie case of obviousness.
B. Reject claim 1 under 35 USC 103, based on the abstract, because disclosures that are not in English cannot form the basis of a prior art rejection.
C. Reject claim 1 under 35 USC 103, based on the German-language patent document, as evidenced by the abstract.
D. Do not reject claim 1 based on the abstract; instead, obtain a translation of the German-language document and determine whether its full disclosure supports a rejection under 35 USC 102(b) or 103.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant filed a provisional patent application in the USPTO under 35 USC 111(b) on Tuesday, November 30, 1999. On Tuesday, November 28, 2000, applicant filed a nonprovisional application in the USPTO under 35 USC 111(a) that properly claimed priority under 35 USC 119(e) to the filing date of the provisional application. On Wednesday, November 29, 2000, applicant filed an international application for patent in the USPTO under the Patent Cooperation Treaty that designated the United States and properly claimed priority to both the provisional and the nonprovisional applications. On Friday, July 28, 2001, applicant filed a national stage application in the USPTO under 35 USC 371, providing all of the requirements under 35 USC 371 and properly claiming benefit to the filing date of the provisional application under 35 USC 119(e) and the nonprovisional application under 35 USC 120. The national stage application was published on Tuesday, January 30, 2002 and issued as a patent on Tuesday, February 4, 2003. Assuming no patent term extension or adjustment, the patent term ends on the date that is 20 years from which of the following dates in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
A. Tuesday, November 30, 1999
B. Tuesday, November 28, 2000
C. Wednesday, November 29, 2000
D. Friday, July 28, 2001
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A registered practitioner files a nonprovisional utility application in 2000. In 2002, the practitioner files a continuation-in-part application and claims benefit of the filing date of the 2000 application for the 2002 application. Thereafter, the practitioner amends the 2002 application to include claims that were not present in either the originally filed 2000 application or the originally filed 2002 application. The primary examiner properly concludes that the added claims are not supported by the original disclosure in either application. Which of the following is in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
A. The added claims are rejected for lack of written description under 35 USC 112, first paragraph.
B. The added claims are rejected as new matter under 35 USC 132.
C. The added claims are denied benefit of the filing date of the 2000 application.
D. (A) and (B).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following best describes a situation for which a reply to the examiner's Office action including both an affidavit filed under 37 CFR 1.131 and an affidavit filed under 37 CFR 1.132 may be in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
A. In a timely reply to a non-final Office action, where the examiner's sole rejection of appellant's claims is based on an alleged violation of the enablement requirement of 35 USC 112.
B. In a timely reply to non-final Office action, where the examiner's sole rejection of appellant's claims is a rejection under 35 USC 103(a) employing a non-patent document that was published less than one year prior to the filing date of appellant's patent application.
C. In a timely reply to a non-final Office action, where the examiner's sole rejection of appellant's claims is a rejection under 35 USC 103(a) employing a noncommonly owned U.S. patent as prior art under 35 USC 102 (e) that claims the same invention as applicant.
D. In a timely reply to an examiner's answer presenting the affidavits for the first time, where in the examiner's first Office action and final rejection, the examiner maintains the same rejection under 35 USC 103(a) of all of appellant's claims based in part on a non-patent document that was published less than one year prior to the filing date of appellant's patent 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 is not within the scope of the term "on sale" as it is used in 35 USC 102(b)?
A. A sale conditioned on buyer satisfaction.
B. A sale that did not result in a profit.
C. A single sale of the claimed subject matter.
D. A commercial offer to sale the claimed subject matter.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent application is filed disclosing and claiming a system for detecting expired parking meters. The specification fully supports the original, sole claim. The application discloses that the \"electronics control unit\" contains a comparator and an alarm. The application includes several drawings. One of the drawings shows a block diagram of the system, illustrating the electronics control unit as a box, labeled \"electronics control unit.\" The sole claim of the application is as follows: The claim. A system for detecting expired parking meters, comprising: a timer mechanism; an infrared sensor for detecting the presence of a parked vehicle; and an electronics control unit, including a comparator and an alarm, coupled to the infrared sensor and the timer mechanism. A final Office action, dated February 3, 2004, indicates that the sole claim contains allowable subject matter, but includes an objection to the specification, on the grounds that the subject matter of the electronics control unit, though described in a sufficiently specific and detailed manner in the original specification, was required to be shown in the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83. The Office action did not set a period for reply. Determine which of the following actions, if any, comports with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP for overcoming the objection.
A. On April 1, 2004, a Notice of Appeal is filed together with appropriate fees, and a brief pointing out that a patent should issue since the subject matter of the electronics control unit was adequately described in the original specification.
B. On April 1, 2004, a drawing is filed in the USPTO illustrating only the comparator and alarm of the electronics control unit that was described in the original specification.
C. On April 1, 2004, a Notice of Appeal of appeal is filed together with appropriate fees, and a brief pointing out that the addition of a drawing showing the electronics control unit would not constitute addition of new matter since the electronics control unit was adequately described in the original specification.
D. On September 1, 2004, a petition is filed urging that no further drawing should be required because the subject matter of the electronics control unit, for purposes of the application, was adequately disclosed in the block diagram drawing.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On Thursday, February 6, 2003, applicant files an application for a design patent in Country X, which issues the patent on the filing date. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and the procedures as related in the MPEP, what is the last date applicant can file a U.S. design application to avoid any loss of patent rights?
A. Friday, February 6, 2004 (assume not a Federal holiday).
B. Thursday, February 5, 2004 (assume not a Federal holiday).
C. Wednesday, August 6, 2003.
D. Wednesday, May 6, 2003.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Co-inventors Smith and Jones filed an application for a patent on a cell phone, on May 15, 2002. They received a first Office action from a primary examiner rejecting the claims under 35 USC 102(a) over a publication by Bell and Watson, published on April 5, 2002, describing a cell phone having all the same features as is claimed in the patent application. In reply, the co-inventors each submitted a declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 stating that they had actually reduced the invention to practice no later than March 13, 2002. However, the declarations failed to include two claimed features. Neither the particular antenna needed to enable the cell phone could receive transmissions from the local cellular transmitting tower, nor a detachable carrying strap was included in the declarations. As evidence of their prior reduction to practice, Smith and Jones submitted their co-authored journal article. The journal article contained a figure of the cell phone as described in the declarations. That is, the cell phone shown in the figure of the article lacked an antenna and a detachable strap. The article was received by the journal on March 13, 2002, and was published on April 30, 2002. The cell phones shown in the figure in the Bell and Watson publication, and in the Smith and Jones patent application have the particular antenna and a detachable strap. Which of the following actions, if taken by the examiner, would be the most proper in accordance with the patent laws, rules and the procedures as related in the MPEP?
A. The examiner should maintain the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102(a) and make the rejection final.
B. The examiner should withdraw the rejection and look for references which have a publication date prior to May 15, 2001.
C. The examiner should withdraw the rejection and notify Smith and Jones that their application is in condition for allowance.
D. The examiner should maintain the rejection, but indicate that the claims would be allowable if Smith and Jones provided an original copy of the figure published in their journal article as factual support for their declarations.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related 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. An oath or declaration executed by applicant pursuant to 37 CFR 1.63.
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: A registered practitioner files an application on the client's discovery that adding silica to a known plastic composition containing the flame retardant, X, results in increased flame retardance. The application claims a composition comprising the known plastic composition containing X and also silica. The primary examiner rejects the claim on the basis that applicant admits that X was a known flame retardant and that there is no evidence of improved flame retardance. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, a proper reply could include which of the following argument(s) to rebut and overcome the rejection?
A. The examiner cannot rely on admitted prior art.
B. The examiner has not shown that the prior art appreciated applicant's discovery of silica to be a flame retardant.
C. The examiner has not made out a prima facie case of obviousness due to lack of motivation in the prior art or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art for adding silica to the known plastic composition.
D. The applicant does not have to show an improved or unexpected result for the claimed invention.
(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 paper 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: The sole claim in an application filed by A and having an effective filing date of June 5, 2002, recites an electrical signal amplifier comprising a plurality of germanium transistors connected together in a particular configuration. The claim is rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being obviousness over a primary nonpatent reference publication (Reference P) in view of a secondary nonpatent reference publication (Reference S). Reference P has an effective date of April 3, 2002, and names A and B as the authors. Reference S has an effective date of December 10, 2001, and names C as the sole author. Reference P discloses an electrical signal amplifier including a plurality of silicon transistors connected together in the same configuration as that set forth in the claim. Reference S discloses a signal amplifier employing germanium transistors connected in a configuration different from the claimed configuration. The applicant does not deny that the references render the claimed subject matter prima facie obvious. Which, if any, of the declarations under 37 CFR 1.132 set forth below should be sufficient under the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP to overcome the rejection?
A. An uncontradicted declaration by A asserting that the subject matter relied on by the examiner in reference P constitutes A's sole invention, with the result that Reference P is not available as prior art against the claim.
B. A declaration by A asserting that "the claimed amplifier has satisfied a long-felt need in the art."
C. A declaration by A and accompanying copies of competitors' advertisements which conclusively show that those competitors have exactly copied appellant's commercial embodiment of the claimed amplifier.
D. A declaration by A and supporting documentation establishing that ever since the filing date of A's application, sales of the commercial embodiment of A's claimed amplifier have consistently constituted ninety percent or more of the relevant signal amplifier market in the United States.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An application naming X and Y as joint inventors, filed on April 3, 2002, has a single pending claim, and does not claim the benefit of any earlier application. Which, if any, of the following items of prior art that have been relied on in various rejections of the claim may be overcome by a suitable affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131 in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
A. A U.S. patent to G that issued on March 27, 2001, has an effective U.S. filing date of January 4, 2000, and does not claim the "same patentable invention" (as defined in 37 CFR 1.601(n)) as the rejected claim.
B. A U.S. patent to P that issued on June 5, 2001, has an effective U.S. filing date of February 1, 2000, and includes a claim that is identical to the rejected claim.
C. A journal article to H published on December 10, 2001, and characterized in the application as "describ[ing] the prior art."
D. A foreign patent issued to X and Y on November 7, 2001, which claims the same subject matter as the rejected claim and is based on an application filed on January 3, 2001.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: The specification of an application does not disclose the utility of the claimed composition. In fact, the claimed invention is useful for shrinking a specific class of tumors. In a first Office action, the primary examiner has properly determined that the claims lack utility, and has rejected all of the composition claims under the first paragraph of 35 USC 112 as lacking utility. Which of the following responses is in accord with the USPTO rules and the procedures of the MPEP for persuading the examiner that the rejection is improper?
A. Explain that the rejection is statutorily improper because the first paragraph of section 112 is concerned with enablement and written description issues and therefore does not support a rejection for lack of utility.
B. Point out that the rejection is based on an erroneous finding by the examiner because the specification, in fact, clearly discloses that the composition in question possesses "useful biological" properties.
C. Show that the rejection is improper by filing probative evidence that the claimed composition has unambiguously proven to be useful for shrinking a specific class of tumors.
D. File declarations by persons with ordinary skill in the art stating that they would immediately appreciate that the claimed composition is useful for shrinking a specific class of tumors due to the fact that similar compositions having the same characteristics as applicant's claimed composition were known to be effective for this purpose.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)