QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: Which of the following is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) which may be used to defeat the patentability of an invention conceived and reduced to practice in Des Moines, Iowa, on December 14, 1996?
A. A doctoral thesis shelved at a California university library, indexed only by subject, and cataloged in the library card catalog on June 15, 1996.
B. A doctoral thesis shelved at a California university library and indexed only by graduating class prior to December 13, 1995.
C. A doctoral thesis orally presented to members of a California university graduate committee prior to December 13, 1995.
D. An oral presentation of research to members of the public in England on December 13, 1995.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Your client, A, has assigned his original patent application covering a golf club with an elliptical shaft to his wholly-owned company, Golf, Inc. Since that time, A has filed a continuation-in-part application which claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 from his original application. The subject matter of the continuation-in-part application includes a golf club with an elliptical shaft having dimples on the shaft. The dimples on the shaft decrease the wind resistance and enable golfers to generate more club-head speed and hit golf balls greater distances. A has recently discovered that a competitor, Sports, Inc., has begun selling golf clubs with an elliptical shaft having dimples on the shaft. A wants his company to bring suit against Sports, Inc. for patent infringement as soon as the patent issues on the continuation-in-part application. To insure that Golf, Inc. owns the rights in the patent that issues from the continuation-in-part application, you should:
A. Do nothing because the assignment recorded against the original application gives Golf, Inc. the rights to the subject matter in the continuation-in-part application.
B. Do nothing because Golf, Inc. is wholly-owned by A.
C. Do nothing because the assignment recorded against the original application gives Golf, Inc. the rights to the subject matter common to both the continuation-in-part and the original applications.
D. Prepare and file papers assigning the continuation-in-part application to Golf, Inc. because continuation-in-part applications require a new assignment if they are to be issued to an assignee.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Your client, D, from Sweden, has invented a new panacea for all geriatric diseases. He requests that you file a patent application for his new invention, and you immediately comply with his request. The application includes a signed declaration that D is the original and first inventor of his new panacea. Several months later, you receive the first Office Action on the application. The Office action indicates that the declaration signed by D is defective because it failed to set forth the country of which D is a citizen. The most appropriate response to the Office Action is:
A. Prepare and file a new declaration, complete with statements that D believes himself to be the original, first, and sole inventor of his new panacea, and that he is a citizen of Sweden.
B. Prepare and file an amendment to the declaration indicating that D is a citizen of Sweden.
C. Prepare and file a response to the Office action stating that D is a citizen of Sweden.
D. Petition the Commissioner under 37 CFR  1.18 for a waiver of the requirement for a statement regarding citizenship, accompanied by the appropriate fee.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Alice invented a new pharmaceutical compound. You have prepared, filed, and prosecuted a patent application containing Claims I through 15 directed to the compound. All of the claims were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(b) in view of the Leary patent. You appealed the final rejection and have received a decision from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirming the rejection of Claims I to 10 in view of Leary and reversing the rejection of Claims 11-15. However, the Board has entered a new ground of rejection of Claims 11 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the Garcia patent. Which of the following is/are correct response(s) to the Board's new ground of rejection?
A. File a request for reconsideration by the Board within one month of the date of the Board decision.
B. File a Notice of Appeal regarding the Board's decision respecting claims 1-5 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit within 60 days of the date of the decision.
C. Submit an amendment to the Examiner that amends Claims 11-15 to avoid the Garcia reference, along with an affidavit providing evidence of the non-obviousness of the claimed compound compared to the compound disclosed by Garcia, within the appropriate time period set in the Board Decision.
D. Submit an amendment to the examiner amending claim 1 to define over Leary and amending Claims 11-15 to define over the Garcia patent.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: V has invented a new composition for stabilizing and preserving blood products. On October 30, 1992, V filed a patent application in the PTO for his composition. The specification discloses that the composition includes: 10 to 40 percent active component, preferably 20 to 35 percent active component; 5 to 20 percent preservative, preferably 10 to 15 percent preservative; and 40 to 85 percent water, preferably 50 to 70 percent water. The patent issued on April 5, 1994, with the following single claim: 1. A blood preservative composition comprising 20 to 30 percent active component; 5 to 20 percent preservative; and 40 to 85 percent water. On the evening of March 31, 1996, you receive a telephone call from V. In reviewing his patent, he has discovered an error in the patent that occurred without deceptive intent. He wants you to prepare a reissue application and make the following amendment to Claim I and add two claims. I.1. A blood preservative composition comprising [20] 10 to [30] 40 percent active component; 5 to 20 percent preservative; and 40 to 85 percent water. II.2 The blood preservative composition of Claim l, wherein the composition comprises 10 to 15 percent preservative. III.3 A blood preservative composition comprising 20 to 35 percent active component; 10 to 15 percent preservative; and 50 to 70 percent water. You prepare and file the reissue application on April 1, 1996. Which of the above claims is/are proper in the reissue application?
A. I.
B. II.
C. I and II.
D. II and II.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following elements are necessary to obtain an international filing date for an application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty? 缂哄皯鍐呭锛侊紒锛侊紒锛侊紒
A. An oath or declaration of the inventor
B. The correct filing fee
C. A part which appears on its face to be a description
D. A part which appears on its face to be a claim
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Inventor Jones received a patent that, through error and without deceptive intent, failed to disclose an embodiment of the invention. Eighteen months later, Jones asks whether a reissue application may be filed. Jones also tells you that the original patent with the blue ribbon seal has been lost. Your advice to Jones should include:
A. under 35 U.S.C. § 251, new matter cannot be added to a reissue application
B. any added claims to the new embodiment would not satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112
C. under 35 U.S.C. § 251, it is too late to enlarge the scope of the issued claims in a reissue application
D. under 35 U.S.C. § 251, Jones cannot get a reissue of a patent that has been lost
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You have filed a complete plant patent application claiming 1) a distinct and new plant variety and 2) a method for obtaining the plant variety. Which of the following statements is/are false?I. You may not amend the application to add additional description of the plant variety inadvertently omitted from the original application. II. You may be required to deposit an adequate sample of the plant variety with an acceptable depository and the claims may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 without the deposit. III. You may be required to restrict the claims between plant variety and plant method inventions you want examined for ultimate issuance as the single claim in the plant patent application to which you are entitled
A. III
B. II and III
C. I and II
D. I and III
(category: new plant variety, Chinese translation: 新植物品种)
Question: Banana, Inc. wishes to cite a prior art reference, consisting of a patent, to the PTO to be entered into the file of an issued patent owned by Orange, Inc. Which of the following is necessary to ensure that the prior art reference is entered into the patent file?
A. Banana's citation of the reference must be accompanied by an explanation of the pertinency and manner of applying the reference to at least one of the claims of the patent
B. The term of the patent must not have expired
C. The reference must present a substantial new question of patentability
D. Banana's citation of the reference must be accompanied by the appropriate fee
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which one of the following statements about multiple dependent claims is correct?
A. The total number of claims in a U.S. patent with one multiple dependent claim is two or more claims and one of the claims must be an independent claim
B. Multiple dependent claims cannot serve as a basis for another multiple dependent claim
C. A multiple dependent claim cannot be objected to if at least one of the claims from which it depends is allowable
D. If a utility patent application is filed without multiple dependent claims, it cannot thereafter be amended, consistent with 37 CFR § 1.75, to include any multiple dependent claims
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On April 7, 1994, applicant filed an international patent application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) in the European Patent Office (EPO). The international application was in the French language and the United States was designated in accordance with Article 4 (1)(i) in the application. The application claimed priority of an earlier French national application filed on April 14, 1993. The International Search Report was issued by the EPO on September 29, 1994. A copy of the international application was communicated to the PTO under Article 20 of the PCT on October 27, 1994, the same day the International Application was published by the World Intellectual Property Organization. A Demand for international preliminary examination, in which the United States was elected, was properly filed on November 2, 1994. The EPO issued the International Preliminary Examination Report, which was accompanied by an Annex, on July 10, 1995. The applicant filed in the PTO, the basic national fee to enter the national phase in the United States on September 6, 1995, and a translation of the international application on September 18, 1995. On January 16, 1996, the PTO sent the applicant a notice which required the oath or declaration of the inventor to be furnished within a one month period. The applicant filed in the PTO a proper declaration of the inventor on January 29, 1996, and an English translation of the Annex to the International Preliminary Examination Report on February 2, 1996. The declaration and translation of the Annex were both accompanied by the necessary fees. The United States national phase application issued as a patent on July 16, 1996. The USPTO examiner has cited the issued patent as a prior art reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). What is the effective date of the Patent as a reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)?
A. 783216000000
B. 810345600000
C. 811382400000
D. 822873600000
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: P files a patent application claiming a process for lubrication at a high temperature using a mixture of compounds X and Y. The process may be used in high speed aircraft. Included in the specification are test data supporting the high temperature lubricating utility of the mixture. In the first Office action, the examiner rejects all the claims as being anticipated by a prior art publication from 1900 which discloses a mixture of compounds X and Y and reveals test data at ambient temperature which supports the position that the mixture of compounds X and Y has poor lubricating properties. Which of the following arguments accords with proper PTO practice and procedure and represents the best chance for overcoming the rejection?
A. Argue that the claims required lubricating at high temperature and the prior art does not teach the use of compounds X and Y as a lubricant at high temperature and therefore the rejection was improper
B. Argue that the lubricant is intended for use with high speed aircraft, and that the reference publication issued long before high speed aircraft came into existence
C. Argue that the fact that your test data demonstrates good lubrication properties for a mixture of compounds X and Y and the fact that the reference's test data demonstrates poor lubrication properties for a mixture of compounds X and Y is clear and convincing evidence that your claims are patentable thereover
D. Argue that the reference publication is more than 75 years old, and that technological processes for preparing the mixture of compounds X and Y were archaic at the time, and that in all probability the test data in the reference publication was obtained with a contaminated specimen
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: The following claims are included in a newly filed patent application: Claim No. 1. Independent 2. Dependent on claim 1 3. Dependent on claim 1 4. Dependent on claim 2 and 3 5. Independent 6. Dependent on claim 1,2, or 5 7. Dependent on claim 6 Which of the following represents the proper number of total claims for fee calculation purposes?
A. 10
B. 9
C. 11
D. 7
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An application for an improved gizmo was filed by attorney X in the PTO on March 3, 1997. The declaration and power of attorney was signed by joint inventors A and B. A and B work for company Z. No assignment has been filed in the application. C, who also works for company Z became aware of the application filed in the PTO on March 3, 1997, and wants to inspect the application since C believes that she should also be named as a joint inventor in the application. You are a registered patent agent with an office in Washington, D.C. On June 2, 1997, C visits your office and hires you as her agent. Your client, C, informs you that she wants to inspect the application filed in the PTO on March 3, 1997. C also informs you that the application was filed in the names of A and B and that the invention is for an improved gizmo. Which of the following would be the most appropriate advice to give to your client?
A. That C may inspect the application if she can get written permission from company Z
B. That C may inspect the application immediately since she knows the filing date of the application and needs only the permission of the primary examiner in charge of the application
C. That only you, acting as her agent, would be permitted to inspect the application
D. That C may inspect the application if she can get written permission from attorney X
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You, a patent practitioner, receive a final rejection from the examiner allowing claims 2, 3, and 5 and rejecting claims 1 and 4. Which of the proposed responses below would be entered by the examiner as the applicant's matter of right?
A. An amendment canceling claims 1 and 2 and adding a new claim 6
B. An amendment canceling claim 4 only
C. An amendment canceling claims 1 and 4 and adding new claims 6 and 7
D. An amendment amending claim 4 and canceling claim 1
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You are a sole practitioner prosecuting a patent application for your client. You received a final rejection dated June 2, 1997. You believe that the examiner's final rejection is unsound. On July 1, 1997, you advised your client to appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. On July 15, 1997, your client informs you that she plans to obtain a new representative and you are to take no further action on the application. Thereafter, you mail to the PTO by 'Express Mail' a request for withdrawal, a certificate of mailing by 'Express Mail', and a postage-paid self-addressed card of receipt itemizing these two items. Actual withdrawal occurs:
A. On the day that you 'express mail' the request for withdrawal, certificate of mailing by 'Express Mail' and receipt card
B. On the day that the Office received your application for withdrawal as identified on the receipt card that was returned to you
C. On the day your client informed you she was obtaining a new representative
D. On the day that the Office approves your request for withdrawal
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An application received a first Office action from the examiner, dated March 18, 1996. A shortened statutory period for response was set at three months. Applicant filed a response on June 22, 1996. No fee or petition for extension of time accompanied the response. On June 28, 1996, applicant received a letter from the examiner indicating that the response of June 22, 1996 was not acceptable since no fee and petition for extension of time was submitted. If applicant submits a petition and fee to the PTO on July 22, 1996, how many month(s) must be covered by the fee?
A. Five months
B. Two months
C. Four months
D. Three months
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Kent, an inventor, filed a patent application in the PTO and received a filing date of June 14, 1995, on a supersonic krypton diffuser. On October 17, 1995, Mr. Kent filed an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS). On October 28, 1995, Mr. Kent received an Office action from the examiner dated October 19, 1995, allowing Claims 1-5, the only claims in the application. What action must Mr. Kent take to have the IDS considered by the examiner?
A. Submit a certification under 37 CFR § 1.97 and a fee
B. Submit a certification under 37 CFR § 1.97 only
C. Submit a certification under 37 CFR § 1.97, petition, and petition fee
D. Submit a petition and petition fee
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant files an application with the PTO on January 4, 1997, which is granted special status. The application is taken up out of turn, and a Notice of Allowance is mailed on April 15, 1997. Applicant files an Information Disclosure Statement on April 21, 1997, citing prior art that he has become aware of since the application was filed. The disclosure document will:
A. Be considered because the application was granted special status
B. Be considered because it was received by the PTO within three months of filing
C. Be considered because it was filed within a 3 month shortened statutory period of the Notice of Allowance
D. Be considered because the applicant has not received the Notice of Allowance mailed on April 15th, when the IDS was issued
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant filed a patent application in the PTO on January 30, 1997. The application was based on an application for an inventors' certificate filed in country X on January 31, 1996. The laws of country X permit applicants to apply, at their discretion, either for a patent or for an inventors' certificate, and country X is a signatory of the Stockholm Revision of the Paris Convention. In the first Office action, the examiner rejected applicant's claims as anticipated by a reference with an effective date of November 6, 1996. To overcome the rejection applicant is required to:
A. File a copy of the foreign application for inventor's certificate together with an English translation of the papers
B. File a copy of the foreign application for inventor's certificate showing the date of the application
C. File a claim for a right of priority based upon the foreign application for inventor's certificate together with an English translation of the papers
D. File a claim for a right of priority based upon the foreign application for inventor's certificate along with a certified copy of the foreign application, and an English translation of the papers
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On May 8, 1996, John Doe filed a first patent application containing claims to invention X and invention Y. In the first Office action, the examiner required restriction to one of the inventions. Doe elected to prosecute invention X. In the second Office action, the examiner rejected the claims to invention X as unpatentable over prior art. Following an interview with the examiner, Doe successfully persuaded the examiner that his claims distinguished over the prior art. The application issued as a patent on May 6, 1997. On May 7, 1997, Doe filed a second application claiming only invention Y. Which of the following is true?
A. The patent issuing on the first application may not be used as a reference against the second application because the latter resulted from a restriction requirement
B. The patent issuing on the first application may be used as a reference against the second application because the latter was filed after the patent issued
C. The patent issuing on the first application may not be used as a reference against the second application because the latter was filed within 1 year of the filing date of the first application
D. The patent issuing on the first application may not be used as a reference against the second application because inventions X and Y are independent and distinct inventions as evidenced by the requirement for restriction and were originally claimed in the same application
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements is true?
A. Where all of the members of a law firm are of record in a patent application withdrawal can only be accomplished by filing a request for withdrawal signed by all the members of the law firm
B. A registered practitioner not of record in a patent application is afforded the privilege of filing papers in the application provided such papers bear the signature and registration number of the practitioner
C. If an attorney is suspended from practice before the Office as a result of a disciplinary proceeding involving a patent matter, he or she can still represent trademark applicants before the Office
D. On January 3, 1993, the Commissioner excluded X and suspended Y for 1 year from practice before the PTO. On January 6, 1997, both X and Y filed petitions for reinstatement. The Commissioner will consider both petitions
(category: trademark，Chinese translation: 商标)
Question: Inventors X and Y jointly conceive and reduce to practice an invention. Subsequently, in the course of determining how best to commercially exploit the invention, they have a 'falling out' and decide to go their own ways. Inventor X decides to obtain patent protection for the invention, but inventor Y refuses to join in any application. Which of the following actions accords with proper PTO practice and procedure?
A. Inventor X should file an application for patent as sole inventor accompanied by X's affidavit as to the pertinent facts
B. An application for patent should be filed in the names of inventor X and inventor Y as joint inventors, but the filing fee should be allocated between them, with the rights of the inventors under any issuing patent being contingent on payment of the allocated fee
C. Inventor X should file an application for patent on behalf of himself and inventor Y and provide proof of the pertinent facts relating to inventor Y's refusal to join in the application
D. Inventor X should file an application for patent as sole inventor documenting inventor Y's refusal to join in the application, and requesting that inventor Y be barred thereafter from joining in the application
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)