QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: A registered practitioner filed in the USPTO a client's utility patent application on December 30, 2002. The application was filed with a request for nonpublication, certifying that the invention disclosed in the U.S. application has not and will not be the subject of an application in another country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires eighteen month publication. Subsequently, the client files an application in Japan on the invention and some recent improvements to the invention. The improvements are not disclosed or supported in the utility application. Japan is a country that requires eighteen month publication. Two months after filing the application in Japan, and before filing any other papers in the USPTO, the client remembers that a nonpublication request was filed and informs the practitioner about the application that was filed in Japan. Which of the following courses of action is in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
A. The application is abandoned because the practitioner did not rescind the nonpublication request and provide notice of foreign filing within 45 days of having filed the application in Japan. The applicant must now file a petition and fee to revive under 37 CFR 1.137(b).
B. The application is abandoned because the applicant did not rescind the nonpublication request before filing the application in Japan. The applicant must now file a petition and fee to revive under 37 CFR 1.137(b).
C. The applicant should file an amendment to the specification of the U.S. application, adding the recent improvements to the disclosure in the specification.
D. The application is abandoned because the applicant did not rescind the nonpublication request by notifying the Office under 37 CFR 1.213(c) within the appropriate time. The applicant must now file a petition and fee to revive under 37 CFR 1.137(b).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, an abandoned U.S. patent application:
A. is never available as evidence of prior art.
B. may become prior art only when it is properly incorporated by reference in the disclosure of a U.S. patent.
C. may become prior art as of its filing date, but only if it is properly incorporated by reference in the disclosure of a U.S. patent.
D. may become evidence of prior art as of its filing date, but only if it is properly incorporated by reference in the disclosure of a U.S. patent or U.S. application publication.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In accordance with the patent law, rules and procedures as related by the MPEP, which of the following is not a "printed publication" under 35 USC 102(b), with respect to a patent application filed June 1, 2002?
A. A paper that was orally presented at a meeting held May 1, 2001, where the meeting was open to all interested persons and the paper was distributed in written form to six people without restriction.
B. A doctoral thesis that was indexed, cataloged, and shelved May 1, 2001, in a single, university library.
C. A research report distributed May 1, 2001, in numerous copies but only internally within an organization to persons who understood the organization's unwritten policy of confidentiality regarding such reports.
D. A reference available only in electronic form on the Internet, which states that it was publicly posted May 1, 2001.
(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 statements regarding claim interpretation during patent prosecution is incorrect?
A. A claim is to be given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure in the specification.
B. Because a claim is read in light of the specification, the claim may properly be narrowed by interpreting it as including elements or steps disclosed in the specification but not recited in the claim.
C. If an applicant does not define a claim term in the specification, that term is given its ordinary meaning in the art.
D. When an explicit definition of a claim term is provided in an applicant's specification, that definition controls the interpretation of the term as it is used in the claims.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Buddy is a recent father and a machinist at a local machine shop. One day while driving to work, Buddy conceived an idea for an improved baby stroller. He quickly worked out many of the details of how to build such an improved stroller, but he still had questions. Buddy later explained his idea to his employer and showed the employer detailed preliminary drawings of the stroller without any agreement as to confidentiality. Buddy wanted use of his employer's machine shop to build a model. Buddy's employer was also excited about the stroller idea and its commercial potential, and the two quickly reached an oral agreement. Buddy would have free use of the machine shop equipment and supplies after regular business hours to work on his model. In exchange, Buddy agreed to assign any patent rights in his invention to the employer for $1,000.00. Only Buddy and, occasionally, his employer were ever present in the shop when Buddy was working on the stroller. Buddy finalized the design just over a year later, and a nonprovisional patent application was on file within a month of finalization along with a recently executed written assignment of the rights in the invention to Buddy's employer. During prosecution of the patent application, the examiner learned of the oral agreement between Buddy and his employer, and rejected the claims on the basis that the invention was on sale more than one year before the application filing date. Determine which of the following would provide the most reasonable basis for traversing the rejection in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP.
A. The examiner cannot properly make the rejection because it is not based on prior art patents or printed publications.
B. The oral agreement was a private transaction between Buddy and his employer and no private transaction can provide a basis for an on-sale bar.
C. An assignment or sale of the rights in an invention and potential patent rights is not a sale of "the invention" that would operate as a bar to patentability under 35 USC 102(b).
D. There can be no on-sale bar even though there was no express requirement of confidentiality because no one other than Buddy's employer was present in the shop when Buddy was working on the stroller and the oral agreement was not public.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Inventor files an application for a non-theoretical metal alloy. The application as originally filed contains the following Claim 1: 1. A metal alloy comprising at least 20% by volume of iron; at least 10% by volume of gallium, and at least 10% by volume of copper. In accordance with the patent law, rules and procedures as related by the MPEP, which of the following claims would be properly held indefinite under 35 USC 112(2)?
A. Claim 2: The alloy of claim 1 containing 66% by volume of gallium and 14% by volume of copper.
B. Claim 2: The alloy of claim 1 containing at least 21% by volume of iron, 11% by volume of gallium, and 10.01% by volume of copper.
C. Claim 2: The alloy of claim 1 containing 20% by volume of iron, 10% by volume of gallium, and 10% by volume of copper.
D. Claim 2: The alloy of claim 1 containing 54% by volume of copper and 27% by volume of gallium.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Ben hires a registered practitioner to prosecute his patent application. The practitioner drafted an application having fifteen claims. Claim 1 is independent, and each of claims 2-15 are singularly dependent upon claim 1. A proper non-final Office action is mailed to the practitioner. Following consultation with Ben, the practitioner timely prepared, signed, and filed a reply to the Office action containing an amendment that does not add new matter, but does add claims 16-27. Each of claims 16-27 is directed to the same invention sought to be patented through claims 1-15. The dependency of each of claims 16-27 reads "any of claims 5-15." For purposes of fee calculation in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, how many total claims are contained in the application after the amendment is entered?
A. One hundred thirty-six.
B. One hundred thirty-five.
C. Twenty-seven.
D. One hundred forty-seven.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant filed a patent application claiming a polyol. The application discloses that the claimed polyol is used to form rigid polyurethane foam having structural formula Z. The examiner properly rejected the claims as unpatentable over prior art disclosing the claimed polyol and its use to form rigid polyurethane foam having structural formula Z. Given the fact that applicant's specification discloses that the polyol may be produced by a process comprising steps A, B, C, and D, and such process is novel and unobvious, which of the following claims, if introduced by amendment, would overcome the rejection?
A. A polyol having the property of forming rigid polyurethane foam having structural formula Z, the polyol being produced by the process comprising the steps A, B, C, and D.
B. A polyol produced by the process comprising the steps A, B, C, and D, said polyol having the property of forming rigid polyurethane foam having structural formula Z.
C. A polyol produced by the process comprising the steps A, B, C, and D.
D. A polyol comprising the resultant product of steps A, B, C, and D.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: The specification of inventor B's patent application discloses an electrical circuit comprising, in series, (a) a DC current source capable of producing a variable current in the range of 5-25 amperes, preferably 10-20 amperes; (b) a fixed resistor in the range of 5-15 ohms, preferably 8-10 ohms, and (c) a fixed capacitor in the range of 3-8 渭f, preferably in the range of 6-7 渭f. The application includes the following four claims: 1.An electrical circuit comprising, in series, a 10-20 amperes DC current source of variable current, an 8-10 ohm resistor, and a 3-8 渭f capacitor.2. An electrical circuit according to Claim 1, wherein the resistor is a 5-10 ohm resistor.3. An electrical circuit according to Claim 1, wherein the capacitor is a 6-7 渭f capacitor.4. An electrical circuit according to Claim 2, wherein the capacitor is a 3-8 渭f capacitor,and the DC current source is a 10-20 amperes source.A British patent, published three years before the effective filing date of B's patent application,discloses a single circuit consisting of, in series, a 12 ampere DC current source of variable current, a 3 渭f capacitor, and a 9 ohm resistor. Which of the following statements regarding the claims is true?
A. Claim 1 is an improper independent claim because there is no support in the specification of B's application for the circuit to have "a 10-20 amperes DC current source of variable current."
B. Claim 2 is a proper dependent claim because Claim 2 depends from a preceding claim, and Claim 2 further restricts the scope of the claim from which it depends.
C. Claim 3 is a proper dependent claim because it depends from a preceding claim, and because it narrows the scope of the claim from which it depends.
D. Claim 4 is a proper dependent claim because it further restricts the scope of the claim from which it depends.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: All of the following original claims are found in a single patent application. Claim 1 is an independent claim, and Claims 2, 3, 4, 7 and 9 each depend on Claim 1. Claim 6 is dependent on Claim 4. Claims 5, 8, 10, and 11 are multiple dependent claims which appear below. Which of the following contain permissible wording for proper multiple dependent Claims?
A. 5. A widget as in either Claim 4 or Claim 6, wherein ...
B. 8. A widget as in Claim 5 or Claim 7, wherein ...
C. 10. A widget as in Claims 1-3, or 7-9, wherein ...
D. 11. A widget as in any one of Claims 1-4, 7, or 9, wherein ...
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Patentee P wishes to amend Claim 1 in the patent granted to P, and obtain the following amended Claim 1 either through reexamination or reissue: 1.A ball valve comprising: a) a housing; b) a valve [member] ball rotatably joined in the housing; c) a [flanged] seal engagable with surfaces of the [member] ball; and d) a linear spring [means] interposed between the housing and the seal and biasing the seal into engagement with the [member] ball.The amended claim is supported by the original disclosure in the application which matured into P's patent. In the absence of questions of recapture, novelty, obviousness, and utility which of the following statements is true?
A. A claim so amended is properly presented in a reissue application filed on May 20, 1997, and a reissue patent is grantable where reissuance is sought of a patent granted on February 7, 1995.
B. A claim so amended is properly presented in a reissue application filed on May 20, 1997, and a reissue patent is grantable where reissuance is sought of a patent granted on June 6, 1995.
C. A claim so amended is properly presented in a request for reexamination filed on May 20, 1997, and a certificate of reexamination is grantable where reexamination is sought of a patent granted on February 7, 1995.
D. A claim so amended is properly presented in a request for reexamination filed on May 20, 1997, and a certificate of reexamination is grantable where reexamination is sought of a patent granted on June 6, 1995.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You draft a patent application disclosing and describing an electrical chronometer containing a resistor having a resistance of 10-90 ohms, preferably 40 ohms. You draft the following independent claim: 1.An electrical chronometer comprising a resistor with a resistance of 10-90 ohms.Which of the following would not be a proper dependent claim if presented as an original claim in the application when the application is filed in the PTO?
A. 2. The electrical chronometer of Claim 1 wherein the resistor has a resistance of 40 ohms.
B. 2. An electrical chronometer as in Claim 1 wherein the resistor has a resistance of 40-90 ohms.
C. 2. An electrical chronometer as in Claim 1 wherein the resistor has a resistance of about 10 - 90 ohms.
D. 2. The electrical chronometer of Claim 1 wherein the resistor has a resistance of between 50 and 90 ohms.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Claim 1 in the patent and as amended below is fully supported by the original disclosure in the application: 1. A fluorescent light fixture comprising: a semicylindrical enclosure; i) a fluorescent light lockably connected in the enclosure; ii) a pair of [bayonet] sockets on opposite ends of said enclosure which engage the fluorescent light; and iv) a longitudinal adjustment screw [means] positioned between each [bayonet] socket and one of said ends of said enclosure to secure said fluorescent light to said pair of [bayonet] sockets. Claim 1 is the only claim in the original patent. Claim 1, as so amended, may be considered proper in:
A. In a reissue application filed within two years of the patent grant wherein claims broadening the scope of the claimed invention may be presented in appropriate circumstances.
B. In a reissue application filed any time during the term of the patent inasmuch as the claim does not seek to enlarge the scope of Claim 1 in the original patent.
C. Only in a request for reexamination.
D. In a request for reexamination or in a reissue application filed within two years of the patent grant wherein claims broadening the scope of the claimed invention may be presented in appropriate circumstances.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You are drafting a patent application disclosing and describing a door assembly wherein a door, a door frame, and a pair of hinges are separate elements which must be included in a claim to the assembled combination of a door secured to a door frame by a pair of hinges. The application discloses that it is essential to the invention that the door be secured to the door frame in the described manner to permit the door to be readily opened and closed. The application further discloses that the assembly, in a closed relationship, keeps out exterior elements, and provides privacy while permitting quick egress in an emergency. Which of the following claims properly sets forth the combination?
A. An assembly having a door capable of being hingedly connected to a door frame.
B. An assembly having a door and means for securing the door.
C. An assembly having a door and a pair of hinges for securing the door.
D. An assembly having a door, and a door frame, said door being secured to said door frame with a pair of hinges.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Inventor A filed a patent application in the PTO on November 12, 1993, disclosing an acne-treating composition which was described in the specification as comprising 5-22 mg. salt; 8-15, preferably 8-10, mg. sugar; 0.01-2.0, preferably 0.5-1.0, mg. sodium nitrate; and 0.01-1.0, preferably 0.04-0.06, mg. vitamin C. On June 6, 1995, a patent was granted to A. The patent contains only the following claim: 1. An acne-treating composition comprising 5-22 mg. salt, 8-10 mg. sugar, 0.5-1.0 mg. sodium nitrate, and 0.01-1.0 mg. vitamin C. Recently, inventor A became aware of a British patent published in 1990 disclosing an acne-treating composition consisting of 10 mg. salt, 9 mg. sugar, 0.6 mg. sodium nitrate, and 0.02 mg. vitamin C. Inventor A files a reissue application with an amended claim. In which of the following situations would amended Claim 1, which is supported by the disclosure of the application filed on November 12, 1993, be sufficient to distinguish over the British patent?
A. The reissue application is filed on May 6, 1997, containing the following amended claim: 1.An acne-treating composition consisting of 5-22 mg. salt, 8-10 mg. sugar, 0.5-1.0 mg. sodium nitrate, and 0.01-1.0 mg. vitamin C.
B. The reissue application is filed on May 6, 1997, containing the following amended claim, and an affidavit showing that the amount of vitamin C in amended Claim 1 provides an unexpected 210% improvement in the treatment of acne: 1.An acne-treating composition comprising 5-22 mg. salt, 8-10 mg. sugar, 0.5-1.0 mg. sodium nitrate, and [0.01]0.02-[1.0]0.06 mg. vitamin C.
C. The reissue application is filed on July 7, 1997, containing the following amended claim, and an affidavit showing that the amount of vitamin C in amended Claim 1 provides an unexpected 200% improvement in the treatment of acne: 1.An acne-treating composition comprising 5-22 mg. salt, 8-10 mg. sugar, 0.5-1.0 mg. sodium nitrate, and [0.01]0.04-[1.0]0.06 mg. vitamin C.
D. The reissue application is filed on July 7, 1997, containing the following amended claim, and an affidavit showing that the amounts of sugar and vitamin C in amended Claim 1 provide an unexpected 180% improvement in the treatment of acne: 1.An acne-treating composition comprising 5-22 mg. salt, 8-[10]15 mg. sugar, 0.5-1.0 mg. sodium nitrate, and [0.01]0.04-[1.0]0.06 mg. vitamin C.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Assuming that each of the following claims is in a different utility patent application, and each claim is fully supported by the disclosure in the application in which the claim appears, which of the claims, if any, particularly points out and distinctly claims the invention?
A. A system for the display of stereographic three-dimensional images of celestial objects as disclosed in the specification and drawings.
B. The features of novelty herein disclosed.
C. As a new article of manufacture, a door mat made of corn-husks substantially as described.
D. A paint remover as herein shown and described.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Assuming that each of the following claims is in a different utility patent application, and each claim is fully supported by the disclosure in preceding claims or in the application in which the claim appears, which of the claims properly presents a process claim?
A. A process for using monoclinal antibodies to isolate and purify interferon.
B. A process of using paint to cover a surface comprising applying paint to a surface and removing the excess.
C. The use of a metallic fibrous compound having a proportion of metallic granules as a motor compression part subject to stress by sliding friction.
D. The use of a sustained release therapeutic agent in a human body wherein said sustained release therapeutic agent comprises a pain killer absorbed on a polymeric surface.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You filed a patent application for a client containing a claim to a composition wherein X is defined as follows: "X is a member selected from the group consisting of elements A, B, and C." The claim is properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by a reference describing the same invention wherein X is element A. The rejection may be properly obviated by:
A. Amending the claim by canceling elements B and C because the reference is concerned only with element A.
B. Arguing that the reference is not relevant because it lacks elements B and C.
C. Amending the claim by canceling element A from the Markush group.
D. Amending the claim by changing "consisting of" to "consisting essentially of."
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Your client informs you that he has discovered a chemical compound that exhibits outstanding insecticidal properties, and he provides you with reliable test data establishing this fact. Assume that the name "compound Z" fully and definitely identifies such compound. Preliminary to preparing a patent application, you conduct a search of the prior art, and find that the compound per se and a method for its preparation are disclosed in a scientific journal that was published some 75 years ago. Notwithstanding, you decide to file a patent application on your client's invention. Which of the following is the best way to claim your cient's invention?
A. A method of preparing compound Z, said compound being characterized by outstanding insecticidal properties.
B. An insecticidal compound consisting of compound Z.
C. A process for using compound Z as an insecticide.
D. An insecticide substantially as shown and described.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant's specification discloses a process for converting compound X to compound Y by heating at a temperature in the range of 275掳F to 295掳F in the presence of a trivalent metallic chloride catalyst. However, the specification indicates the heating must occur in an inert atmosphere. The specification also discloses the following test results:1. AlCl_3(Catalyst),275掳F(Temperature),94%(Conversion);2.AlCl_3(Catalyst),295掳F(Temperature),89%(Conversion);3.ScCl_3(Catalyst),275掳F(Temperature),90%(Conversion);4.ScCl_3(Catalyst),295掳F(Temperature),87%(Conversion);Of the following claims, which is the broadest claim that particularly points out and distinctly claims the invention that can reasonably be expected to be allowed in the absence of prior art?
A. A process for converting compound X to compound Y by heating compound X in an inert atmosphere at a temperature in the range of 275掳F to 295掳F in the presence of a bivalent metallic chloride catalyst.
B. A process for converting compound X to compound Y by heating compound X in an inert atmosphere at a temperature in the range of 275掳F to 295掳F in the presence of a trivalent metallic chloride catalyst.
C. A process for converting compound X to compound Y by heating compound X in an inert atmosphere at a temperature of 275掳F or 295掳F in the presence of a trivalent metallic chloride catalyst.
D. A process for converting compound X to compound Y by heating compound X at a temperature in the range of 275掳F to 295掳F in the presence of a trivalent metallic chloride catalyst.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)