QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: An Office action was mailed in which a three month shortened statutory period for reply was set. Four and one-half months after the mailing date of the Office action, the applicant submitted a fully responsive Amendment along with a petition and fee for a one-month extension of time. The petition for extension of time included an authorization to charge fees under 37 CFR 1.17 to applicant's deposit account. The applicant knew at the time the Amendment was filed that a two-month extension of time was required. Unfortunately, however, a clerical error was made that resulted in only a one-month extension of time being requested. Applicant overlooked this error when the amendment was filed. Assuming no further papers by applicant, which of the following statements is true?
A. The Amendment is treated as untimely and the application becomes abandoned. However, applicant may petition to revive the abandoned application on the basis that the abandonment was unavoidable.
B. The Amendment is treated as untimely and the application becomes abandoned. However, applicant may petition to revive the abandoned application on the basis that the abandonment was unintentional.
C. Applicant will be notified that the petition for extension of time was insufficient and will be given 30 days from the mailing date of the notification to request an extension of time for a second month.
D. The petition for a one-month extension of time will be construed as a petition requesting the appropriate period of extension.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Joe files a nonprovisional patent application containing claims 1 through 10 in the USPTO and properly receives a filing date of December 6, 2000. The first Filing Receipt including a confirmation number for the application was mailed on December 20, 2000. On January 30, 2001, the examiner mails Joe a NOTICE indicating that a nucleotide sequence listing in accordance with 37 CFR§ 1.821-1.825 is required. On February 27, 2001, Joe files the required sequence listing as well as a preliminary amendment adding claims 11 through 13 to the application, along with a copy of the application as amended in compliance with the Office electronic filing system requirements. Assuming the Office has not started the publication process at such time and that Joe's application is subsequently published pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 122(b), which of the following statements accords with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. The published application will contain claims 1 through 10 only because the preliminary amendment adding claims 11 through 13 was not submitted in reply to the NOTICE.
B. The published application will contain claims 1 through 13 because a copy of the application as amended in compliance with the Office electronic filing system requirements was filed.
C. The published application will contain claims 1 through 10 only because the copy of the application as amended in compliance with the Office electronic filing system requirements was not filed within one month of the actual filing date of the application.
D. The published application may contain claims 1 through 13 because the Office may use an untimely filed copy of the application as amended in compliance with the Office electronic filing system requirements where the Office has not started the publication process.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Stan, through a registered practitioner, files an application for a patent. During the prosecution of Stan's patent, in an amendment, the practitioner admitted in his discussion as to "all the claims" of Stan's application, that "the most pertinent available prior art known to the Applicants and their representatives is the Acme Patent, cited by the examiner." Within one year after the patent issues, Stan comes to you and wants to file a reissue to broaden his claims, based on the fact that the Acme patent is not prior art. He has ample evidence to show that he conceived and reduced his invention to practice before the filing date of the Acme patent. Which of the following is true?
A. Stan should file a reissue application accompanied by a declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 to swear behind the date of the Acme reference. The statement by the registered practitioner, who formerly represented Stan, that the Acme patent was prior art constituted error without deceptive intent and may be corrected by reissue.
B. The explicit admission by the registered practitioner, who formerly represented Stan, that the Acme patent constituted prior art is binding on Stan in any later proceeding involving the patent.
C. Stan should file a request for reexamination and submit the Acme patent along with evidence in the form of affidavits or declarations showing that the Acme patent is not prior art.
D. Since the Acme patent was cited by the examiner and not by the registered practitioner, who formerly represented Stan, Stan can not be held accountable for the error. Moreover, the statement by the registered practitioner was directed to the pertinence of the prior art and not to the issue of whether the date of the Acme patent could be sworn behind. Accordingly, the statement has no binding effect.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is the best way to recite a claim limitation so that it will be interpreted by the examiner in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6?
A. dot matrix printer for printing indicia on a first surface of a label.
B. dot matrix printer means coupled to a computer.
C. means for printing indicia on a first surface of a label.
D. printer station for printing indicia on a first surface of a label.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Registered practitioner Pete received on September 13, 2001 a notice of allowance dated September 10, 2001 in a utility application filed December 5, 2000. The client for whom the application is being prosecuted has repeatedly stressed to counsel how valuable the invention is, and that it will remain so throughout the entire life of any patent that should issue. Pete is determined to take no chances with this application, particularly since patent term adjustment has been accumulated and the lack of any action or inaction by applicant that would cause loss of patent term adjustment. Thus, Pete is ready to pay the issue fee on the very day the Notice of Issue Fee Due is received. Before payment of the issue fee, the client faxes Pete information identifies prior art first cited on September 3, 2001 by the foreign office examining a foreign counterpart application. This prior art was not previously cited by another foreign patent office. The invention had been filed with a second foreign office that mailed the same prior art at a later date than the first foreign office. Also, this prior art was previously unknown to the client. The client is very desirous of having this cited art made of record in the file. Which of the following alternatives would best achieve the client's objectives of maximizing patent term and having the foreign cited prior art considered by the USPTO?
A. Pete should file a petition for withdrawal from issue of the allowed application for consideration of a request for continued examination based on an information disclosure statement (IDS) and include in the petition an offer to file the request and IDS upon the petition being granted.
B. As it is still within three months from the date cited by the foreign office, Pete can submit the prior art in the allowed application up to the last day of the three month period making any required statements and fee payments.
C. Pete should submit an IDS citing the prior art in the allowed application within 30 days of the September 3, 2001 mailing by the foreign office with any appropriate fees and statements.
D. If, Pete could use the date of mailing by the second foreign office to file the IDS in the allowed application within three months of the communication of prior art by the second foreign office thereby allowing the client extra time to evaluate the allowed claims and still have the IDS entered.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Belle Bordeaux files a French patent application for a rejuvenating lotion in the French Patent Office on January 10, 2000. On January 10, 2001, she files a PCT Chapter I Request in the EPO Receiving Office, in which she requests that the European Patent Office act as the International Searching Authority. In her PCT application, Bordeaux claims priority to the French application, and indicates the U.S. as a designated state. Bordeaux makes an appointment to meet with you on June 8, 2001, to discuss filing a patent application in the USPTO on the rejuvenating lotion, in which she wants to claim priority not only to the PCT application, but also the French application. In preparing for your meeting with Bordeaux, you realize that she has several options here, and so you prepare an analysis of the various options, which are detailed below. Before entering the U.S. national stage, Bordeaux wishes to have an official international preliminary search report that indicates claims having the best chance of being patentable. Which of the following will achieve Bordeaux's objective in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. Bordeaux should enter the national stage by filing an application under 35 U.S.C. § 371 on or before September 10, 2001.
B. Bordeaux should file an application under 35 U.S.C. § 111(a) on or before September 10, 2001, claiming priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to the PCT application, and claiming priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119 to the French application.
C. Bordeaux should first file a PCT Chapter II Demand in the USPTO on or before August 10, 2001, and then file a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. § 111 on or before September 4, 2001.
D. Bordeaux should first file a PCT Chapter II Demand in the USPTO on or before August 10, 2001, and then enter the national stage by filing an application under 35 U.S.C. § 371 on or before July 10, 2002.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: The specification in your client's patent application has been objected to for lack of enablement. To overcome this objection, your client may do any of the following except:
A. traverse the objection and specifically argue how the specification is enabling.
B. traverse the objection and submit an additional drawing to make the specification enabling.
C. file a continuation-in-part application that has an enabling specification.
D. traverse the objection and file an amendment without adding new matter in an attempt to show enablement.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Registered practitioner Joe files a design patent application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) having one claim on May 6, 1999. The USPTO sends Joe a notice of allowance dated November 10, 2000. Joe pays the issue fee on November 15, 2000. On November 23, 2000, Joe learns about a publication (the "Smith Reference") which he knows to be material to patentability of the claim, but which was not considered by the examiner during prosecution of the application. Joe prepares an information disclosure statement that complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98, listing the Smith reference. Which of the following actions, if taken by Joe on November 24, 2000, will result in a request for continued examination of the application being granted in accordance with USPTO rules and procedure?
A. Filing a request for continued examination of the application with the information disclosure statement listing the Smith Reference, without the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e).
B. Filing a request for continued examination of the application with the information disclosure statement listing the Smith Reference, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e).
C. Filing a request for continued examination of the application with the information disclosure statement listing the Smith Reference, the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), and a petition under 37 CFR 1.313 with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h).
D. (B) or (C) above.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant Jones filed a request for a first continued prosecution application (CPA) on December 29, 2000 in a utility application that was filed on April 28, 2000. Jones received a final Office action mailed on June 28, 2001. In response, Jones filed an amendment amending the claims in the first CPA. Jones received an advisory action on September 27, 2001 stating that the proposed amendment to the first CPA would not be entered because it raises new issues that would require further consideration. Additionally, the proposed amendment did not meet the requirements for a complete reply under 37 CFR 1.111. On December 28, 2001, Jones filed a petition for a 3-month extension of time with appropriate petition fee, a request for a second continued prosecution application, a request for suspension of action, and appropriate processing fee for the request for suspension of action. No application filing fee was filed with the request for the second CPA. Which of the following would be a proper communication mailed by the Office based on Jones' actions?
A. A Notice of Allowability.
B. A Notice to File Missing Parts.
C. A first Office action on the merits.
D. A notice of improper Request for Continued Examination (RCE) and a notice of abandonment.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Evidence of unexpected results is relied upon to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. Which of the following is incorrect?
A. The evidence must compare the claimed invention to the closest prior art.
B. The evidence must be commensurate in scope with the claims.
C. Data relied upon to show unexpected results need not cover the full range of the claims if one of ordinary skill in the art could ascertain a trend in the data that would allow that person to reasonably extend the probative value of the data to the full scope of the claims.
D. Unexpected results can be shown by factual evidence or, if no factual evidence is available to the applicant, by sound argument by the applicant's agent or attorney.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On March 20, 2000, Patsy Practitioner filed a patent application on widget Y for the ABC Company based on a patent application filed in Germany for which benefit of priority was claimed. The sole inventor of widget Y is Clark. On September 13, 2000, Patsy received a first Office action on the merits rejecting all the claims of widget Y under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Jones in view of Smith. When reviewing the Jones reference, Patsy notices that the assignee is the ABC Company, that the Jones patent application was filed on April 3, 1999, and that the Jones patent was granted on January 24, 2000. Jones does not claim the same patentable invention as Clark's patent application on widget Y. Patsy wants to overcome the rejection without amending the claims. Which of the following replies independently of the other replies would not be in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedures?
A. A reply traversing the rejection by correctly arguing that Jones in view of Smith fails to teach widget Y as claimed, and specifically and correctly pointing out claimed elements that the combination lacks.
B. A reply traversing the rejection by relying on an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 that antedates the Jones reference.
C. A reply traversing the rejection by relying on an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 containing evidence of criticality or unexpected results.
D. A reply traversing the rejection by stating that the invention of widget Y and the Jones patent were commonly owned by ABC Company at the time of the invention of widget Y, and therefore, Jones is disqualified as a reference via 35 U.S.C. § 103(c).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A nonprovisional patent application was filed by a registered practitioner in the USPTO with a declaration under 37 CFR 1.63. The declaration named the individuals known to the practitioner to be the inventors of the claimed invention, but the declaration was not signed by any of the individuals. Within two weeks of the filing the application, the practitioner discovered that there is one more individual, who was not named on the unexecuted declaration, who is an inventor in the claimed invention. Which of the following actions, if undertaken by the practitioner, would properly correct the inventorship in the patent application?
A. File a new declaration under 37 CFR 1.63, identifying all the inventors including the newly discovered inventor, which is signed by each of the inventors.
B. File only a letter requesting that the inventorship be changed to add the newly discovered inventor.
C. File a petition under 37 CFR 1.48(a) for correction of inventorship. The petition contains only a request to add the newly discovered inventor. File with the petition(1) a new oath or declaration identifying and signed by only the newly discovered inventor, and (2) the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i).
D. File a petition under 37 CFR 1.48(a) for correction of inventorship consisting only of a request to add the newly discovered inventor, a statement by the newly discovered inventor that the error occurred without deceptive intention on his part and a petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant files a patent application in Japan on February 28, 1996. Applicant files a PCT international application designating the United States on February 27, 1997, based on the Japanese application. The international application is published in English on August 28, 1997. The international application enters the national stage in the United States on August 28, 1998. The USPTO publishes the application on June 7, 2001 at the request of the applicant. The application issues as a United States patent on December 4, 2001. When examining an application filed on or after November 29, 2000 or any application that has been voluntarily published, what is its earliest possible prior art date, for the June 7th U.S. published application in view of 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999?
A. February 28, 1996.
B. February 27, 1997.
C. August 28, 1997.
D. August 28, 1998.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant files a patent application in Japan on February 28, 1996. Applicant files a PCT international application designating the United States on February 27, 1997, based on the Japanese application. The international application is published in English on August 28, 1997. The international application enters the national stage in the United States on August 28, 1998. The USPTO publishes the application on June 7, 2001 at the request of the applicant. The application issues as a United States patent on December 4, 2001. For the United States patent, what is the patent's earliest date, for prior art purposes as a patent, in view of the amendment to 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999?
A. February 28, 1996.
B. February 27, 1997.
C. August 28, 1997.
D. August 28, 1998.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is not in accord with proper USPTO practice and procedure regarding ex parte reexaminations filed in March 2001?
A. In every instance of an interview with an examiner in an ex parte reexamination proceeding, a complete written statement of the reasons presented at the interview as warranting favorable action must be filed by the patent owner.
B. Third party requesters have the option of attending interviews, but their presence is not mandatory.
C. A patent owner's reply to an outstanding Office action after the interview does not remove the necessity for filing the written statement of the reasons presented at the interview as warranting favorable action.
D. The written statement must be filed as a separate part of a reply to an Office action outstanding at the time of the interview, or as a separate paper within one month from the date of the interview, whichever is later.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Able is a registered solo practitioner. Ben asks Able to prepare and prosecute an application for a utility patent. As part of the application, Able prepares a declaration and power of attorney, which Ben reviews and signs. Able files the application, the declaration, and power of attorney with the USPTO. Able quickly recognizes that help is necessary and contacts another registered practitioner, Chris, who often assists Able in such instances. Able, with Ben's consent, sends a proper associate power of attorney to the Office for Ben's application and directs that correspondence be sent to Chris. The examiner in the application takes up the application in the regular course of examination and sends out a rejection in an Office action. Chris sends a copy of the action to Ben to obtain Ben's comments on a proposed response. Unfortunately, after the first Office action, Able becomes terminally ill and dies. Ben does not know what to do, so Ben calls the examiner at the number on the Office action and explains that A died and Ben is worried how to proceed. Which of the following statement(s) is/are true?
A. Chris should inform Ben that the Office will not correspond with both the registered representative and the applicant and therefore, Ben should not have any further contact with the Office and let Chris send in a proper response.
B. Ben should send in a new power of attorney for anyone Ben intends to represent him before the Office.
C. Ben should execute and sent to the USPTO a new power of attorney for any registered patent practitioner that Ben intends to have represent him before the Office.
D. (B) and (C).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Jill, a registered patent agent, receives a Notice of Allowance from the USPTO with a mail date of November 13, 2001, regarding a utility patent application for an improved garden hose which she had filed on behalf of one of her small entity clients. The Notice of Allowance specifies a sum that must be paid within three months of the mailing date to avoid abandonment. The sum specified includes both the issue fee and the publication fee. As a result of a small fire in her office building, Jill is unable to resurrect her files until the last day of the three month period. Jill mails a letter to the USPTO on February 13, 2002 using the U.S. Postal Service. Jill does not employ the procedures of 37 CFR 1.8 or 1.10 to mail the letter. The letter is received in the USPTO on February 15, 2002. The letter correctly identifies the application. The letter authorizes the USPTO to charge the proper issue fee for a small entity to her deposit account. The account has been identified in a previously filed authorization to charge fees. At the time the letter was filed in the USPTO, the account had a balance of $1000.00 in funds. Nothing in the letter authorized payment of the publication fee, no petition for an extension of time was filed, and an Office-provided issue fee transmittal form was not filed. No postal emergency was involved in filing the letter. Which of the following statements accords with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. The application will become abandoned because Jill did not authorize payment of the publication fee.
B. The application will not become abandoned because the authorization to charge fees operates as a request to charge the correct fees to any deposit account identified in a previously filed authorization to charge fees.
C. The application will become abandoned because Jill's letter did not include a petition for an extension of time accompanied by the proper fee.
D. The application will become abandoned because a completed Officeprovided issue fee transmittal form, PTOL-85B, did not accompany Jill's letter.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)