Paper B e-EQE 2021: first impressions?
To all who sat the B-paper today:
What are your first impressions to this year's B-paper?Any general or specific comments?
Surprising elements in the client's letter and the prior art?
What was the effect of doing it online? Of typing your answer rather than writing it by hand? Could you benefit from being able to copy from the exam paper into your answer? And from copying parts of your answer elsewhere into your answer?
How did you experience taking the exam from your home or office location rather than in an examination center?
(How) was it different due to the due of the LockDown Browser?
What was the effect of the situation that you had to take the exam largely from the screen (as only part of the paper could be printed) rather than from paper?
Did you experience any technical difficulties during the exam? How & how fast were they solved?
How many marks do you expect to have scored?
What is your expectation of the pass rate and the average score?
How did this year's paper compare to the 2017, 2018 and 2019 papers?
Similar difficulty level?
Could you understand the examiner's objections? And the client's wishes based on his letter and his proposed amendments? Was the Art.123(2) argumentation difficult, if any? Clarity? Novelty? Closest prior art selection, distinguishing feature, effect, objective technical problem, and the rest of the inventive step argumentation?
Was the subject-matter well understandable, for chemists as well as e/m candidates?
Multiple independent claims? Functional features?
UPDATED! The paper and our answers
[Update 7 March 2021:] The core of our answers is provided here.
We look forward to your comments!
Comments are welcome in any official EPO language, not just English. So, comments in German and French are also very welcome!Please do not post your comments anonymously - it is allowed, but it makes responding more difficult and rather clumsy ("Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Anonymous of 04-03-2021 20:21"), whereas using your real name or a nickname is more personal, more interesting and makes a more attractive conversation. You do not need to log in or make an account - it is OK to just put your (nick) name at the end of your post.
Please post your comments as to first impressions and general remarks to this blog.
Please post responses to our answer (as soon as available) to the separate blog post with our answer.
Thanks!
SHARE:
That was a nasty paper!
ReplyDeleteTough tough paper. Lots to consider and not enough time to do so.
ReplyDeleteExtremely difficult paper
ReplyDeletedid anyone manage to finish on time...?
ReplyDeletealso, my wiseflow system shutdown for absolutely no reason (I was reading my amendments, not even typing) and had to call the exam secretariat and explain for about 5 minutes. the exam secretariat laughed at the situation.
I feel the words "nasty" and "tough" don't even begin to describe this paper...
DeleteI didn't finish, didn't realise the time (as no 15 minute warning given like in real life) and got shut off midway through I.S claim 1.
DeleteThe paper was much longer, more independent claims, 3rd party obvs, and 3 prior art docs. Compound this with the fact you can't print most of the docs of this exam, and the fact you have to use square brackets and the formatting is totally screwed, means it is far harder/more time consuming than previous years.
This was not a fair test, and I have complained. I would implore any of you who feel the same to complain as well: 'helpdesk@eqe.org'
I'd be quite happy to complain about this one (I also ran out of time long before completing the paper and felt there was far too much to deal with in the 3.5 hours), but what is the procedure for complaining about non-technical issues?
DeleteFrom my point of view Paper B was an extremely unfair paper. Very much text to read, three documents, three independent claims to evaluate and in addition for the first time also an observation by a third party. I felt well prepared for paper B in advance but spent so much time to analyse the patent situation that I did not manage at all to write anything with respect to inventive step due to lack of time. I also think about complaining. It would have been much better having only 3 hours time for paper B, but a less complex patent case.
DeleteThis paper was a joke.
ReplyDeleteTHREE independent claims.
A TPO (never tested in B, or in any other papers excluding D as far as I recall)
A computer implemented invention (which I think 90% of the candidate will never draft in ther life)
A prior use (never tested in B)
We weren't able to sit for EQE 2020, and what we get this year is a completely new paper B, unlike all the others.
I fear that due to Covid the Committee wasn't able to properly test/evaluate this year's Paper, because so far (considering D, A and B) the situation looks grim...
This was an incredibly difficult paper! I had way too little time and am totally unsure of my claims.
ReplyDeletecomputer methods and mental acts?
ReplyDelete"As for current Paper C and the Pre-Examination, Papers A and B will be set in technical fields that are accessible to everyone." (taken from the EPO website) - so seems very unfair for them to have put a computer-implemented method in there :( (arguably the technology itself was accessible, just not the computer-related law)
DeleteI expected the amount of information/number of pages to read would have been not too high given the new move to the online format, so having three pieces of prior art, plus third party observations, plus three independent claims, was quite a shock and a lot to deal with in such a short space of time/on screen!
ReplyDeleteAnyone else torn between D1 or D3 as CPA. I went for D1 in the end as it has greatest number of features and D3 related to an algorithm development.
ReplyDeleteSame and for same reasons
DeleteSame, and novelty / IS approach seemed to be almost identical for claim 1 and 4
Deleteyeah - i didn't have time to think about claim 4 so just said claim 1 arguments applied to claim 4. NOT enough time here.
DeleteI thought paper A was extremely confusing yesterday but this took it to another level.
^ Same. Only did full i.s. for claim 1, and used the same argumentation for the method and computer-implemented method
Deletesame
DeleteI went for D3 for C.4 as at first i took out optional recovery of wormies but changed this last minute and couldnt think of reason after that to strat from D3. Shoudl ahve chnaged to D1 but ran out of time.
DeleteThis paper was NOT manageable online. Flciking between 3 independent claims, letter, office action, 3rd party observations filed. It was an absolute NIGHTMARE.
ReplyDeleteI SPENT THE FIRST 20 MINUTES copying over the claims to the text editor which was appalling. Its not manageable to do this paper online.
That was an extremely difficult paper, especially for B. Not enough time, a lot to read, and the amendments were tricky (upper/lower, making the claim novel/inventive but not including the material for mositure absorption). I suppose it would have been easy to take the subject matter of claim 2, but the client specifically said not to do.
ReplyDeleteI hope they will not give too many markt on inventive step.. I didn't have time to go deep... And the amendments of the claims were exremely difficult... So the basis of all arguments are probably not the correct claims.
ReplyDeleteI expect that 80% will fail this paper if they do not mark "nicely".
so much contradiction in the client letter..
ReplyDeleteclaim 1 needed to have the drain hole to overcome D2 but client suggested to remove into dependent claim.
client wanted to remove the preamble of claim 1 but in fact it was fine to leave it in because it was only a container suitable for organic refuse (and in fact can be used for any refuse)
usually the client is half right in past papers. this felt a bit brutal.
common theme here - contradictory statements. It was the same for Paper A but this paper was BRUTAL.
DeleteClient letter didn't really help much at all. Spent so long copying claims over - it didn't track the deleted claims so I had to really look at it over. Not enough time really.
Not so easy, or at least not short compared to previous years. 23 pages in total is on the high side. Also, three prior art documents + third party observations (mentioning both an internet disclosure and a public prior use). The 6 claims included product claims, method claims, and a method for calculation claim which had an art. 52(2)(c) issue as directed to a mental act. Also quite some proposed amendments from the client to consider, some of them quite drastic. Altogether, lots of stuff to deal with...
ReplyDeleteI thought Paper A was bad yesterday - this paper seemed to be drafted to get as many people as possible to fail.
ReplyDeletesecond that - paper A and B were bad. Paper D isn't exactly kind either coupled with EPO incompetence at the start of the week.
DeleteI fear paper C - they are going to bring out the COW paper to punish us all.
Seriously. What are they playing at this year!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteCan they just adjust the pass mark to 40 or something, this is ridiculous all across the exams.
ReplyDeletePaper C is usually difficult as it is. Can't wait to see how much more intense it's going to be tomorrow.
Glad others found it tough!
ReplyDeleteI used the last second of the time, as I kept making tweaks to the claims. I addressed every issue though.
I ended up not changing claim 1 much, and argued it was novel over D2 b/c it comprised earthworms (although D2 comprised worms). Argued it was inventive as earthworms would not survive in the soil of D2, since it was too dry. D1 or D3 didn't have any spraying means.
I kept the proposed amendment by the client which said 'claims 1-4' in the first method claim. This meant I didn't bother arguing for I/S for the first method claim.
I said the 2nd method claim had one or more steps which were carried out by a computer, to overcome the mental act objection, and then cited the relevant guidelines.
What did everyone else do? Feel free to attack what I did! I'm all ears
It was such a difficult paper - especially claim 6. I don't even know how you would overcome it not being in the field of electronics.
DeleteFor claim 1 - I ended up leaving the client's previous steps b and c and argued that the holes are adjustable (which they are not in D2). It also mentioned in D2 that larvae can go through lower compartment but the holes in the invention did not allow that. It was going against the client's wishes but it was the only thing I can think of that clearly gave me novelty and some inventive step arguments to write about.
Extremely difficult though - I then had to deal with internet and prior use or was it oral disclosure instead - WTF.
Did you add moisture detector?
Deleteyes. I added it in claim 1. The CPA was D1 and had such a moisture detector .
DeleteI also added the water container although I am afraid that was too much adding.
I deleted the lower compartment . I didn't change from organic refuse to refuse because of "suitable for"...
Yeah I probs should have added a moisture detector, however is my claim 1 not novel, since it says it 'comprises earthworms', and D2 does not? D2 only suggested that worms could be present.
DeleteIf it was paper A I would have def added a feature to claim 1, however I went for the bold option.
^^ that was me
DeleteNo I didn't feel the need to add in moisture detector. Once you've amended the drain hole to be adjustable (based on a paragraph) you then have novelty over D2 as D2 holes are not adjustable and IS because D2 is not used for draining moisture but for allowing larvae to enter to lower chamber.
DeleteI didn't remove the lower chamber as the holes and lower chamber + upper chamber are interconnected. There is only a paragraph stating removal of lower chamber but nothing about the holes being separated too so I fear that I would be adding in Art 123(2) EPC. In the end, I added to 2 steps back in from the client that suggested removing it in the first place.
The issue with D2 is that worms may also be earthworms according to para [6] of the client invention so I don't think novelty would be achieved if you solely rely on earthworms.
Delete@AnonymousMarch 04, 2021 1:37 pm
DeleteI disagree. If I drafted a mechanical application, and said a screw could be any fixing means in my application, that does not mean that a prior art document which discloses a bolt, also discloses every type of fixing means.
Do you not agree?
I suppose so - I thought paragraph 6 of client letter was a confusing. I suppose you then have inventive step to overcome. This is why I thought it was better to add the two features into claim 1 and argue the adjustable drain holes over D2. Thought that was an easier argument to make.
DeleteThere is a phrase in [6] that states worm and earthworms are interchangable used i.e. they mean the same thing. That's the impression I got from it.
DeleteAnnoy 1.49pm - I too took it that worms and earthworms are interchangable words and therefore decided to include the 2 features back in again. The client in his letter also said that "he thinks they are optional". which prompted me to add them back in. Once they are added back in, inventive step arguments flow a bit better.
Deleteit may be slightly narrow but it clearly distinguishes over D2 in which the holes did not allow flies to go through it.
I assume that in the figure of D2, there was no arrow for the mesh floor 5 on purpose. I argued that D2 did not disclose the openings to drain water and the compartment to collect water because it was possible that an obstacle deviates the cleaning water before it reaches the lower compartment, while allowing the worms to migrate to that compartment...
DeleteSo i did this:
DeleteAdded to B that holes prevent worms from upper to lower. Thought of using "adjustable" but i didnt think this met suffciency. No explanation of how this is achieved. Okay i have ideas but i am not meant to impart my knowledge RIGHT!.
Then added at end of C1, wherein the lower part is removable and then added that the upper part sits on soil and drains via holes to soil and stops worms. I then argued that this was implicit as the lower is clearly optional and the only common sense motherfucking reading of "it drains into the soil" is via the holes (see figs) and that these are the same holes that stop worms as no other goddamn holes are described.
Oh yeah, sorry, point of this was that it gave client part of what they wanted "no lower compart" but also had novelty and IS no one describes holes or mesh as stopping worms. I also said you have to use hindsight to consder the mesh of D3 to stop worms as there is no suggestion as such (its also not a drainage mesh and mesh in D2 was specifcsally for letting worms or larvae through so that helped define my mesh argument.
Deletedidn't even finish!!!
ReplyDeleteI think I might as well re-book my EPO exam for next year for papers A and B. What the hell was all of that.
ReplyDeleteSimilar feelings ...
Deletewell paper A was confusing. Paper B decided to test on niche areas of the law. What next for paper C - an intervention to deal with or something like that.
DeleteThe time provided was not enough to complete the paper properly...too many issues to deal with in that time. An extra half hour would have been better!!!!
ReplyDeleteI suspect (like paper A) they actually filled out the full time by throwing more issues to load us up right to end of time. More issues - need more time.
DeleteContradictory statements on purpose to only confuses everyone and actually, is not really a test to pass.
Irrespective of the contents and topics covered (in brief, for me it was tough), it is IMPOSSIBLE to sit paper B from the screen. I genuinely struggled with switching between the tabs and no being able to see some bits of paper side by side like you would do with the paper version. Paper B is all about comparison between documents and various parts of the documents, so the EQE committee MUST do something with the structure for the next years.
ReplyDeleteI fully agree ! Paper B is simply NOT SUITABLE FOR being sat online... it was a nightmare
DeleteMany details and not so much time especially that you cannot see everything at one shot. Lots of scrolling. It was also not easy to copy the claims and edit them to reflect the changes by the client. This copy/paste must function properly, ie copying the text changes too. I still don't believe how this feature is not yet implemented.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone actually keep the flies?
ReplyDeleteNo, it did not seem possible to do so (added matter). Unless you could argue that it was clear from '003 that the prior art mentioned it. But there was definitely not a "and/or" construction....at best "or", which also seemed wrong. I left them out.
DeleteI kept them in on the basis of par. 3 (I think), which stated that it was known to use the fly eggs for the same purpose. Statement in one of the later paragraphs insinuating that flies must be kept away related to flies as such, and not the eggs/pupae. That being said, I have not idea whether this was the right thing to do, lol
DeleteSame here Gregory, I thought A.123(2) also so left them out too.
DeleteI did add water tank as I feared there was an intermediate generalisation for it.
I also left out flies - but then everything was on screen and I didn't have time to check my amendments. Ran out of time.
DeleteNo, i removed earthworms from claim 1 instead, since the refuse is not part of the claim anyway (only needs to be suitable for organic refuse with earthworms in it). That way the claims covers refuse with worms and/or eggs.
Delete[022] mentions prior art and the use of additional features like (whatever) and like mentioned in the prior art. That was the way to come to [003] and add the flies...
DeleteI put earthworms or earthworms and housefly eggs. I couldn't find basis for housefly eggs on their own
DeleteI actually left eggs out too due to fear of Art 123(2). I couldn't really find explicit basis for it. There is an argument for [003] but wasn't clear if I can use it as it belonged to the prior art.
DeleteI also left the flies out, because they were only mentioned in the background section of the application and never in connection with the actual invention.
Delete-Flora
Client said that it was particularly good to have earthworms + housefly eggs in the letter, I think it should have been included as an option
DeleteThe clients application said that flies were a pest, so I didn't include in any claim.
DeleteWe cannot take basis from the client's letter.
Alexander, flies but not the eggs
Deleteand there was basis for the addition of fly eggs with the earthworms in the application as filed
Deletesorry fly, I missed that...
DeleteI didn't dare to leave "and/or fly eggs"in the claim, because I thought the basis for only fly eggs was shady. Instead, I opted for a dependent claim adding the fly eggs to the earthworms which the client said was particularly good.
DeleteI was utterly confused about the flies tbh
ReplyDeleteFairly speaking, this year's B is more like real life. If EPO gives greater portion of marks to basis for amendments (instead of the fictional inventive-step argument in previous years), many candidates may still pass...well, just a personal opinion.
ReplyDeleteI left flies out as earthworms seemed to be the very relevant for all the embodiments in the application. The conditions being optimised for the refuse was particularly for earthworms (at least in the application as filed and all its embodiments). So didn't include flies...
DeleteMy main inventive step argument was based on D1 as CPA. Basically, adjusting the moisture helps the worms live longer. It seemed the combinations, D1, D1 and D2, D1 and D3, and D1, D2, and D3 and (if you considered the Third party observation), did not disclose that.
ReplyDeleteGreg, I didn't add moisture detector in the claim. Did you?
Deletesomething similar here but no way was my arguments properly laid out. No time.
DeleteIn a rush, I added the detector. I just felt that D2 discloses a "spray cleaning device connected to a water tap," and this hurt my novelty/inventive step of a water tap to adjust moisture, because these actually do the same thing. I thought the detector helped me, so I added it. Now, I think that was too narrow, but I'd rather play it safe. It made the inventive step much easier to argue with the detector. It did not feel right, but I had NO time to think.
DeleteD1 had a detector.
DeleteFig 1 of our client's app doesn't include a detector though... So I thought it was too narrow to add it.
DeleteAfter the shambolic day of D, this leaves me depressed. Totally unrealistic both in terms of content and the online limitations for this paper.
ReplyDeleteGood Job EPO for a great 2021 exam experience. Not only the tool made it complicated with scrolling and the amazing copy/paste function, you even made the exams (not only B) even more complex.
DeleteAwful
ReplyDeleteEPO told during online sessions that, while drafting exams, they have considered the fact that it is online, with all new system/format.
ReplyDeletethis is what they have considered it! I am just curious now about C tomorrow... it is going to be another monster.
Absolute nightmare for me. First time ever I felt lost in a Paper B. I tested and finished all of the prior years successfully but this time I am pretty sure I failed.
ReplyDeleteyep - also for paper A. I failed that too. I've just been confused all week.
DeleteOn top of everything said before, the amended claims proposed by the client did not indicate all amendments as amendments. Hthe client proposed to include claim 5 in claim 4 but the features of original claim 5 were not marked as added in claim 4. There were some other similar cases.
ReplyDeleteI noticed this too, Uli. Not all additions were in bold (for instance in method claim 5, the addition of "spraying water" in method step B was not marked in bold as addition)
DeleteTotally missed that...
DeleteI completely missed this. Is this another trick/trap by the EPO. It was hard enough flicking between screens.
DeleteIt said spraying was well known??? I ended up rejecting spraying means as being too simplistic because it implied it was known to spray with water!!!!! Did anyone else do this/was completely at a loss as to what the invention was?
ReplyDeleteI've failed because it was/is ridiculous.
i probably lost the plot at the moment. I didn't trust what the client was saying anymore. I rather read it myself and make my own amendments. #confusion
Deletereally? did it say spraying was well-known!? I don't recall reading that bit tbh...
DeleteALso, what a terrible client, I will charge if extra! He caused a lot of issues. Client's letters in the past helped, I felt this one hurt.
ReplyDeleteBe realistic, he even read the communication himself!
DeleteThe paper itself was a bit of a mess - D1 description [005] refers to (3a) which isn't then present on the figure itself, and point 11 on the Figure of D1 and Figure 2 of the application doesn't point to anything.
ReplyDeleteThe client's claims also included the spraying amendment in claim 4 but this wasn't highlighted in bold (in the EN version anyway), so you couldn't immediately tell there was an amendment.
Did anyone else find that for D2 figure - there was no label for point 5. Took me some investigation to work out where it was meant to be. Doesn't look like the paper was checked sufficiently. could say the same for paper A and D too.
Deleteah - I missed the "spraying" bit in claim 4.
DeleteI assume that in the figure of D2, there was no arrow for the mesh floor 5 on purpose. I argued that D2 did not disclose the openings to drain water and the compartment to collect water because it was possible that an obstacle deviates the cleaning water before it reaches the lower compartment, while allowing the worms to migrate to that compartment...
DeleteToo many topics in too short time and too many proposed amendments with extensive testing if compliant with Art.123(2)
ReplyDeleteAlmost each prior art had at least some relevance for claim 1 and 4.
TPOs was another time waster, not difficult to overcome but still needed to check the guidelines briefly.
I also hope that inventive step does not give high marks as it seemed that by copy+pasting some effects or field of invention, most of the arguments could be formed. I did not finish though.
The hole paper today- not a pleasant experience.
Ich schreib das jetzt in Deutsch, weil ich so geladen bin, dass kann ich in Englisch noch ausdrücken! Ich dachte nach A gestern könnte es nicht schlimmer kommen, aber weit gefehlt. 3 unabhängige Ansprüche, anonyme Eingabe, computerimplementiertes Verfahren und 3 D-Dokumente. Was denken die sich beim EPA? Das ist eine gefühlte Sauerei. 2019 war B schon umfangreich, aber das hier sprengt alles! Dazu technische Schwierigkeiten bei hunderten von Kandidaten, die auf EPA Seite lagen. Es ist unfassbar!
ReplyDeleteDas sehe ich genauso. Alleine der Umfang der zu lesenden Materialien war deutlich mehr als sonst, und gerade online ist es super schwierig, die verschiedenen Offenbarungsstellen auseinander zu halten.
Delete-Flora
Yeah missing labels from figures is a bit embarrassing. How long do they have to prepare these exams? Does no one proof read them?
ReplyDeleteI fear that due to covid proof reading was skipped this year. Too many mistakes in one paper (see also amendments of client not highlighted properly)
Deletethere were also mistakes in paper A and D too.
DeleteI did not have enough time, mainly because it took me so long to figure out the amendments (and I do not believe I got them right in the end anyway).
ReplyDeleteI was rushing inventive step and did not have time to address the mental act objection.
I very briefly mentioned the third party observations in regards to novelty of claim 1, but did not feel like I had sufficient information to determine one way or another if the disclosure was enabling.
I agree, that paper was difficult and nasty and very long. Three independent claims were even one more than the 2019 paper. It seems like the EPO is tired of the decent pass rates for paper B and they are now making it more and more difficult until the pass rate is also down to 30%.
ReplyDeleteI managed to finish just in time, but only because I started reading the prior art already 20 minutes before the official start of the exam.
- Flora
for me too, not enough time, too much stuff - now my IS argumentation is quite poor
ReplyDeleteI deleted claim 6 in the end as I didn't think there was basis for it with all of the features of the container claims and I didn't have time to look at the guidelines to consider arguing for it. Hopefully I won't be penalized too much for doing that... I thought 3 independent claims was way too much! Compared to Mock 2 it was about twice as much to do.
ReplyDeletehad no enough time to finish and I got really confused during the exam as some reference signs cannot be found in the description and some do not point to anything in the figure? The amendments from the client are not shown correctly as amended...I was checking the original claims and the amended claims from the client back and forth... it is really a long paper for such a short time doing online, plus that there are many small mistakes on the paper to distract the focus :( They should at least provide a well-written paper for people to read..
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI converted cl.6 into a computer implemented method with reference to cls.1-3 and defining that the moisture value was red by the moisture meter
ReplyDeleteFor claim 6, I thought you could not include "according to any one of the claims 1-4" if you made it into a "computer-implemented" method because the computer-implemented overcomes the Art. 52(2)(c), but then I got nervous and added "according to any one of the claims 1 to 4" just to be safe. Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteI didn't even think of adding a computer implemented method to claim 6. Never dealt with such claim. In real life, I would kindly ask my electronics colleagues to take a look and not amend claims nilly willy.
DeleteI left it as it is and argued that because the claim had a container, it contains a technical feature which has technical character etc... Who knows.
D3 was kind of teaching that a software could be developed to control the moisture level. So I thought it would be nice to include further technical means, such as the container of claim 3 (you need the sensor) to make it 100% inventive. Yes, I did the same.Hard without the time to think properly about every single unusual aspect of this paper.
DeleteGiven the errors in paper D, paper A and in paper B especially today (relating to figures), I think we need to notify the Exam sectreriat about all papers. I don't think it was checked properly given the pattern so far.
ReplyDeleteThe contradictory statements, missing labels, not providing bold text for amended features creates confusion and mayhem. Some missed thinga, some got confused for papers A, B especially.
claim 6: ok, right, I didn't use the proposed "according to cls.." instead I said "using the container accrding to cls..."
ReplyDeleteAre worms the same size as fly larvae? :-D They were drawn the same size in the figures. ;-)
ReplyDeleteI think amending the client's claim 1 to add that the spraying device was connected to a water container gave novelty, as neither D1 nor D3 disclose a spraying device, and in D2 the sprayer is connected to a tap and not a container. Anyone disagree?
ReplyDeleteThat was my thinking but sure I didn't get a chance to argue in my IV step as I didn't finish. I read somewhere something about reduct operative interacting hence included the tank and would have argued against the tap if I had time.
DeleteI did the same
DeleteAfter all the nagging from the EPO that amendments must be marked by brackets and underline, and the amended claimset they give us doesn't even mark the proposed amendments, and uses BOLD... Was that seriously necessary??
ReplyDeleteThis combined with the fact they didn't even correct the numbering of questions in paper D1... Surely these errors don't test us in any meaningful way and should have been so easily corrected.. whatever happened to quality control
DeleteIn my opinion, claim 1 is only novel/inventive if there is spraying with water and ajustable hole sizes (controlling BOTH input of water and ouput at the same time). In process claim 4 spraying with water is sufficient for novelty/IS, and in claim 6 the infrared counting of worms is novel and inventive over D3.
ReplyDeleteoh, my amendments are bold :((
ReplyDeleteI added a computer implemented method as well :)
ReplyDeletedid any one else add a claim indeed
Could we remove display for Fig. 2 embodiment. I read with display somewhere and therefore no basis to remove. But could be removed in [24] - I was confused so much between clicking back and forth. Way too much material - I didn't even finish IV arguments so totally failed on that basis.
ReplyDeleteSO SO many questions after that paper. The one I most wonder about, is the removal of holes and the lower container from claim 1? I left the holes in, removed the container. Worried that without the holes I wasn't inventive (CPA D1, all about moisture monitoring and control). But I did this fairly last minute and wonder if it was added matter. Argued it would be allowed based on 2 paragraphs. Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteI removed the container and left the holes as an essential feature.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI considered arguing that, but I was worried it wouldn't be considered inventive even though the spraying device was for a different purpose in D2 and D2 was in a slightly different field. Was also worried tank instead of connected to mains water was obvious modification (and no benefit?) Therefore, I kept in the holes (but deleted the lower chamber) and made them adjustable holes, argued inventive starting from D1
DeleteI agree with you about adjustable holes.
DeleteI couldn't justify leaving out lower tank as the holes were never described separately from the upper chamber and lower chamber so added the lower chamber back in too.
earthworm was enough to be novel over D2, then spraying with the tank for moisture (don't even remember the wording). CPA D1. D2 for cleaning not improving lifetime of worms in low moisture high temperature day. No sure though.
ReplyDeletebased on [6] of the client letter - not sure if earthworms was sufficient. It said earthworms and worms are interchangeable words.
DeleteWe also had an objection from the examiner about that. This was not clear. Maybe flyworms exist!
Deletei do believe he is correct in that earthworms are enough. The examiner objected claim 4 under clarity in that it was directed to worms (i think i remember) while the embodiment only spoke about "earthworms". The examiner very much does not agree in that worms = earthworms.
DeleteFurthermore (and very importantly) D3 [001] states that "earthworms" belong to the class of worms, which comprise many different distantly related animals..". It follows that earthworms is a selection from the group of "worms.
also in D2 it was connected to a tap.
ReplyDeletePaper B can kiss my adjustable hole.
ReplyDeleteI thought the adjustable holes were novel and an inventive way of controlling the moisture level based on the prior art. The spraying in D2 was suitable for controlling moisture.
yep same here - went for adjustable drain holes too. Also included the lower chamber as I couldn't justify leaving it out when I added drain holes back in.
DeleteI did the same. I had an argument for not being obvious to include the sprayer from D2 because different technical field and taught for a different purpose, but it felt tenuous so I was worried about getting a catastrophic mark for I.S... Including the water level monitor didn't seem to help because it's in D1. Still felt odd to keep the holes, because the client asked us to remove them
Deleteno no-they were able to be adjusted in D2 as well.
DeleteI went for moisture detector with display
did the same but left lower chamber in as well as holes as holes were never described in isolation of upper and lower chambers.
Deleteholes were essential to stop worms falling through...sounds like a night out at the Taj Mahal curry house :-)
Deletenoddy: Where do you think D2 discloses adjustable holes? It just says that the upper compartment has a mesh floor.
DeleteI put non-transparent covering lid + water spraying in claim 1.
ReplyDeleteNon-transparent lid could overcome D2 and also the public disclosure as the people cannot see the interior of the container.
I like...because I did the same 😅.
DeleteHowever for the public disclosure it seems irrelevant because this anyways was unsubstantiated (missing the "what")
I went with the water-absorbing material in claim 1, because I could not defend novelty of the water-sprayer. The client said, if possible, do not restrict. Well, to bad, it wasn't possible in my view.
ReplyDeleteThe water spraying is then protected by adding it to the method of claim 4.
For claim 6, I just added, wherein one, more, or all steps are computer-implemented.
Anyone else thinks the computer implemented method claim was wholly unfair on non-electronics candidates. Its surely too specific for this paper.
ReplyDeletethe whole paper was awful. No alteration for online made. Didnt get to inv step argumentation due to all the online windows shopping :-(
DeleteIt does seem completely unfair to non-electronics. I'm in electronics so I felt it was ok but I would also be completely not confident or even attempt to amend claims to second medical use claim or something therapy etc...
DeleteIt did seem a bit specialist. I get the point that if you are already not comfortable with the specific subject matter, you are even more unlikely to want to change it. In the real world, we would get someone who is a specialist in the area to look at it. That's why there are several departments in firms.
(Unfortunately) relieved to hear most (if not all) found the paper nasty!
ReplyDeleteClear to me that this was B2020 with no alterations for the online (sh*t) experience.
Has highlighted that PC skills are now paramount to passing. The wiseflow browser needs to be replaced by software allowing you to see multiple windows in parallel from which you can cut and paste. It was terrible trying to read A94(3), client letter, and desc as well as original claims which were only online.
Anyone else amend claim 1 to require "holes configured to prevent worms falling through" or something to that effect...just to get novelty wrt. D2 and then argue IS starting from D1 and that it was not obvious to include the water sprayer of D2?
ReplyDeleteYes I did!
Deleteyep me too - but I also included the lower chamber as holes were not described in isolation of upper and lower chamber ever in the letter.
DeleteYep! Glad I wasn't the only one.
Deletedid you include the lower chamber too?
DeleteThat's what I did but was super unsure
DeleteGood to hear - I deleted the lower chamber though, and argued that as it was removable, it was optional...
DeleteYes. I argued D2 would not be consulted as it related to larvae and even if consulted allowed migration of larvae so incompatible with D1 which requires earthworms to be in the refuse for compost production (words to that effect)
DeleteI was torn about removing the lower chamber or not. My reasoning is that the holes were never described in isolation with the upper and lower chambers anywhere in the spec. There is basis for saying lower chamber can be isolated on their own but not for the adjustable drain holes as well (i felt anyway). So I needed to add it in otherwise I may be contravening Art 123(2) EPC.
Deletei argued that holes wer epart of upper and their function doe snot chanage without the lower chamber so add wherein lower chamber is removable so that the upper sits on soil and drains to soil. I arued that the function of teh holes is implicit as they are the only holes and it clear they still carry out same function and are part of the upper. D3 just says mesh but does not suggest or mention whether this prevents worms falling so to say it does uses hindsight. Also as mesh in D2 let them through a mesh could be anything.
DeleteThe Spraying device, the water Container, the moisture detector and the display were disclosed together. However the display was bot inextricably linked to the other features and could be removed.
ReplyDeleteI wasn’t sure about the water container so I kept it (but my feeling is that I shall have removed it)
the water container was a no go - you wouldn't have been able to prevent anyone producing a composter with that!
DeleteSame as you! Removed the display.
DeleteSo i did this:
ReplyDeleteAdded to B that holes prevent worms from upper to lower. Thought of using "adjustable" but i didnt think this met suffciency. No explanation of how this is achieved. Okay i have ideas but i am not meant to impart my knowledge RIGHT!.
Then added at end of C1, wherein the lower part is removable and then added that the upper part sits on soil and drains via holes to soil and stops worms. I then argued that this was implicit as the lower is clearly optional and the only common sense motherfucking reading of "it drains into the soil" is via the holes (see figs) and that these are the same holes that stop worms as no other goddamn holes are described.
Oh yeah, sorry, point of this was that it gave client part of what they wanted "no lower compart" but also had novelty and IS no one describes holes or mesh as stopping worms. I also said you have to use hindsight to consder the mesh of D3 to stop worms as there is no suggestion as such (its also not a drainage mesh and mesh in D2 was specifcsally for letting worms or larvae through so that helped define my mesh argument.
problem is that the claim then becomes a bit unclear. removable lid. I ended up just adding it back in. Holes were never described in isolation and is always linked to upper and lower chambers.
Deletehold on, the invention aims to keep worms happy which made the moisture detector essential otherwise the refuse would be too dry or too wet. The display was inextricably linked to the device
DeleteIs there a paragraph towards the end of the letter that stated a monitor without the display.
DeleteI was in trouble if put or not the absorbing lid 9 in the main claim. Anybody did? I eventually put it in because i felt the claim not inventive.
ReplyDeleteSteeve
I am confused - do we need to have moisture detector and display in claim 1?
ReplyDeleteyes
DeleteAgree - yes
DeleteNo - not completely necessary.
DeleteYes
DeleteI dont't feel we have to, since it said that the moisture detector and the display are optional. Only put in the spraying device and the tank. But very unsure of this.
DeleteMoisture detector yes, with a display seemed optional
DeleteHonestly. that paper B was not good at all. There were far too many things to look at in the amended claims and it was super difficult. I probably missed some stuff too and it seems everyone here has missed bits here and there and it is clear that everyone (yesterday for paper A) and today for paper B found it utterly confusing with several conflating statements.
DeleteI did it to have novelty over D2. The tap in D2 could be seen as water container, so adding this was not enough in my opinion. But I agree with the above comments that earth worms were not disclosed in D2, only worms. I missed that. But I also thought it was always disclosed in combination with the water sprayer so could not be removed. Also it seemed for me to be essential to the core idea of the invention which is providing good conditions for worms by being able to check humidity and spraying water to control the humidity.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo I failed this one. Feels super disappointing after this year-long wait, but it is, what it is. I introduced claim 2 into claim 1, because the covering wasn't disclosed anywhere (as far as I know at least), but arguing IS was obviously very hard ^^ I know I got it wrong, I dismissed the spraying device quickly but I don't know why I did that...that was just stupid. And now, I have to put my family through this sh** again. Really a disappointing day :/
ReplyDeleteI feel your pain. I just hope the EPO goes easy on the grading? Maybe 15% compensible pass?
DeleteI dismissed the spraying device also, because in D2, the spraying device would be suitable for moisturising the refuse.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI feel you!
DeletePaper B and Paper A in my view were difficult. I do hope they adjust and account for this year too. Doing it online for the first time is really difficult.
Deletesame here - after 2 years! Was 10 times harder not having the stuff on paper!
Deletethe spraying device in D2 was connected to a water supply, in effect making it a sprayer as in teh claims. no?
DeleteLots of justified complaints on here - what is the 'proper' way of raising these issues formally? Does the same apply as for reporting technical issues?
ReplyDeletego to salted patent blog - there are complaint templates there...but you have to submit within 24h
DeleteThis is what I ended up with for claims 1 & 6. I made claim 4 dependent on claim 1. I used D1 as the CPA for claim 1 and D3 for claim 6. Inventive step of claim 1 seemed thin from the combination of D1 + D2, but it seemed to just about work.
ReplyDelete1. A container (1) for organic refuse, comprising
a. an [upper] compartment (3) having a support (3a) for holding the refuse (7) populated with earthworms (8);
[b. a lower compartment (4) for collecting excess moisture (6);]
b[c]. drain holes (5) permitting moisture to drain from the [upper to the lower] compartment; [and]
c[d]. an upwardly opening covering lid (2) which fits over the container (1),
d. a moisture detector (11) with a display (12); and
e. a water spraying device (13) connected to a water container (14).
6. A calculation method for optimizing processing organic refuse, comprising the steps of:
a. defining a target value TV at time point tp > 0 for the amount of the earthworms (8) present in the refuse (7) at said time point tp;
b. receiving data relating to the moisture of refuse (7) and the amount of earthworms (8) at a plurality of time points tp;
c. determining if the value for the amount of earthworms (8) present in the refuse (7) at tp > 0 is equal to the defined target value TV for the
amount of earthworms (8); and
d. recommending adjusting the amount of moisture added to the refuse (7) at said time point tp, if the value for the amount of earthworms (8)
present in the refuse at tp > 0 is not equal to the defined target value TV for the amount of earthworms (8),
wherein one, more or all steps of the method are implemented by a computer.
My claim 1 was identical
DeleteThe sprayer in D2 was connected to a water tap, so in effect it is a water spraying device....
DeleteI did the same for claim 1. Reading the comments I'm not sure if it was the right call though, many people didn't put the moisture detector and the display, and instead modified the drain holes to be adjustable.
DeleteClaim 4: I couldn't find suitable basis for making the method dependent on the container. So I made step 2 (adjusting moisture) non-optional. Now I'm not sure about novelty over D3, though.
Claim 6: I simply put "computer implemented calculation method", but I know nothing about CII so I don't know if it's correct.
something similar too. I also left the "for" adjusting moisture as this was merely suitable for.
DeleteI changed holes to adjustable holes but everything seems ok.
I didn't even attempt claim 6 as I didn't understand it really. Computer implemented stuff is not my thing. Hoping I've gained enough to pass.
D, I get that, but D2 doesn't have a moisture detector. Given that the water spraying device in D2 is for cleaning, there is no reason why the skilled person would combine the water spraying device with the container of D1 to solve the objective technical problem (e.g. increase worm survival/regulate moisture of the organic refuse).
DeleteI found this almost impossible. First of all, I should say I am a chemist, and I don't think the subject matter was particularly accessible for me. I spent so long fretting about the computer implemented invention, I went down a complete rabbit hole, got the wrong solution and ran out of time to do anything else, including inventive step (not that I will have passed anyway based on my amendments).
ReplyDeleteThere seemed to be a lack of information, and conflicting statements.
First of all, the third party observations. Yes they weren't substantiated, but this still implied that the product had previously been disclosed in public. This pushed me into a direction that the container must comprise a computer configured to carry out the method, as this would be the only way it was not enabling. All the other features would be visible to everyone there?
Next with regards to the spraying. I could see this feature was novel over D1. But I discounted it for simply not being inventive. It stated in the background section that "spraying is known for increasing moisture". How is a water spray then, in any way inventive? I know that we aren't supposed to use "real-life", but i think its a bit of stretch to state "spraying is known" implying that this is common general knowledge within the paper, and have this as the only feature missing from D1. I even started trying to make this argument, but it felt so bad, and wrong I was convinced I was missing something.
Then, looking at the mathematical method, this could only be carried out if you had a detector, and a means for measuring earthworms, and a display/alarm for alerting the user. I put these features into the method. Then I was convinced I had to have these features in the container claim too so that the claims were unified.
It felt wrong, and i then ran out of time before I could finish my inventive step arguments. I come out and see that the common consensus was "adding a spray can". Now i feel like an idiot by being guided in the above direction, but honestly still can't see how these things aren't genuine problems for patentability
Honestly so disheartening
the features were enclosed in the container so not visible to the public...thats what I put down!
DeleteIt seems everyone's take was different. In my view the water spraying device + container + moisture sensor + display were disclosed in one single embodiment only, I added all of that to the main claim just for 123(2) matters.
ReplyDeleteAdded the fly larvae as optional addition to the earthworms, based on 003.
Omitted the container from claim 6, instead just added computer-implemented method to make it technical.
TPO not novelty-relevant because no evidence in later published description, as the newspaper did not contain any info on what was actually disclosed, and because non-enabling disclosure, because audience were laymen.
D1 as CPA for claim 1,
D2 as CPA for claim 4,
D3 as CPA for claim 6.
Well, let's see.
Same here, except: I didn't add fly larvae (too scared of violating 123(2)), and D1 as CPA for claim 4
Deletehas anyone amended the claim 1 to comprising claim 2? or is it inventive?
ReplyDeleteFrom what I gathered during DP course, the clients amendments are nearly/mostly novel and inventive over the cited art and may not meet requirements of A.123(2). Therefore I concentrated on the amendment incorporated regarding the spraying and not the drain holes. I included water tank to avoid intermediate generalisation.
ReplyDeleteGuessing my approach wad completely and utterly wrong sighs.