B 2024: 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?
Did you have enough time?
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 2021, 2022 and/or 2023 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?
Once we receive a copy, the core of our answers will be given in a separate blog post.
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 14-03-2023 14:14"), 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!
For that reason I went with hemp at the end of the day, because native only confused me.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you and these are our last 2 years for the people who already passed some of the EQE papers.
ReplyDeleteI can only agree with the statements here. 31 pages (in 2017 there were 17 pages!) and then everything depends on how you differentiate yourself from D1, because the documents are so confusing that you no longer dare to think logically. Unlike usual, the client had no idea at all, because he thought filter layer made of hemp with nanocelulose fibers was new compared to D1. Even the examiner did not write that it was shown in D1. Is it all just to trap the candidates? Or did he mean something else? And nanocellulose fibers were not implicitly shown in D1... In both cases it is simply unfair to the candidates. Even in the case of the decision that ended up being the "right" one for the examination board, a lot of time was lost while they thought about how to differentiate themselves...
ReplyDeleteDear Examination setter, in case you are reading the above comments, please don't be happy that you could frustrate so many candidates with your incompetence of framing the EQE paper. The fact is that you failed to show your competence to prepare EQE paper which is considered as one of the best exams to test the candidates fit for practice. Will happily attend this paper again next year as this year got wasted because of someone else's incompetence.
ReplyDelete@CMJ: but you chose D2 as closest art dont you? That is why you needed to argue based on the comparative test provided by the client. In fact thèse were 3 problem solution approaches excepted here. One against claim 11 and 2 against claim 1 both with 2 différent closes priori arts (D1 and D2)
ReplyDeleteStill no answer from Deltapatent, I guess they are also debating
ReplyDeleteI understand that it must be difficult to set papers having a similar complexity year on year. EQE candidates are an intelligent lot, and if papers are too similar then we will just be recognizing patterns/strategies and passing too easily. There has to be some sort of challenge for us.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, rather than presenting different or alternative challenges from a legal perspective, paper B (and this year's DII) were particularly difficult only because of the length and complexity of the subject matter. The underlying legal content is similar to previous year's papers, but we are not allowed the same opportunity to demonstrate how we are fit to practice as previous year's candidates because of the increasingly lengthy, complex or convoluted scenarios we have to manage. This is not a fair way to keep the pass rate down.
They may examine us and set papers as they see fit, and I accept that, but it is difficult not to feel hard done by. I hope the new EQE will be a fairer system.
It felt like "native" is a well-defined term for biologists, but I am not. There was no definition anywhere in the paper. Is the correct answer relies on "native", there is a problem.
ReplyDeleteWhat on earth is "native", and how does that magically solve all issues? I have absolutely no idea. You guys (chemists) are clearly advantageous over us EM guys. This is unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteGerman chemist here as well. I have no idea what native means and would have never dared to include "native", to me it was not clear... I included the crystal structure. But also a lot of other things because D1 could also include nanofibers... they are inherent.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the meaning of "native"? Is it distinguishing from the prior art?
ReplyDeleteI do not know, the paper does not define "native".
I did not dare to amend claim 1 to just include "native", even though it felt like that was expected.
I cried, I got angry, now i can only laugh because what else should we do... I think from the comment section here it is clear that we are all not okay with this exam. I still have no idea what the answer would have been? No one seems to know for sure. So they better accept a lot of solutions.
ReplyDeleteAgree 100% with you!
ReplyDeleteAlso saw the 1micro-m. I think up to 100nm is OK because it says "average pore size of less than 100nm" (average), so also covers having larger individual pore sizes. I thpught it should on average be smaller than 100nm thpugh, because otherwise Corona can go through (don't remember whether the application stated that Corona joins aerosols or not).
ReplyDeleteHey Verena, das tut mir leid. Bei mir ist es nicht besser, ich glaub nicht, dass sich da die 45 Punkte ausgehen. Hast du im Kopf, was die normal abziehen für ein Widersprechen des Mandantenwunsches?
ReplyDeleteWas mich ärgert, ist, dass ich so lange gebraucht habe für die Ansprüche, dass die ganze Beantwortung leider sehr ungenau und kurz ist.
Hey Verena, das tut mir leid, bei mir ist es nicht besser, glaube auch nicht, dass sich da die 45 Punkte ausgegangen sind. Hast du im Kopf, was die abziehen für ein Widersprechen des Mandantenwunsches?
ReplyDelete(Ich hab das zwar gerade schon einmal geschrieben, aber offenbar zeigt es den Kommentar nicht an...)
I did it too. But also think it was not the expected amendment. Still made it at least novel over D2 and also D1?
ReplyDeleteI found D1 to be cpa for the subject-matter of claim 1 and D2 to be cap for the subject-matter of D2.
ReplyDeleteI thought nano is not enough, because "up to 1micro-m" does not seem to define "nanoscale" anymore. So, thought one should include as definition an "average" size of up to 100nm.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, think that "cellulose" includes nanofibres. So, to distinguish from D1, I included some limitatioon, better safe than sorry. [Now I am sorry...]
Indeed, since there is no clarity objection, I think it's fair that nanofibre is clear in itself. Should not be punished too much after all.
Is "native" the same as "plant-based"?
ReplyDeleteIs "native" the same as "non-synthetic"?
Is "native" the same as "non-treated"?
Is "native" ...?
I was also confused about the term "native"
ReplyDeleteI also added FFP2 mask, and degrading within 90 days. What bothered me was that the degrading conditions were not defined, but what else could I do to overcome the biodegradable objection?
ReplyDeleteI restored claim 4 and 11 by adding the specific reference to the PCT method of [044]: "the waste residues being obtained from the method of papermaking from plant fibres comprising cotton, hemp, or other plants described in published international patent application PCT/EQE/2022A".
Not known to me. Not defined in the paper. Exam regulations provide that all information is in paper. May result in complaints and appeals.
ReplyDeleteNot known to me. Not defined in the paper. Do not the exam regulations provide that all necessary information must be in paper? Appeal?
ReplyDeleteSame! But narrowed it to hemp, missed the other fibers, they could also be gelatine coated!?/resitter
ReplyDeleteOur paper B was only 4 pages fewer than last year's paper C
ReplyDeleteAs a tutor, it is is impossible to properly prepare people for the EQE.
ReplyDeletePre-Exam and D are relatively stable (D did have a blip in 2023), so those who have time to prepare should be able to pass. I think A is also relatively predictable, but it does seem to require more claims to be drafted. Predictability for C has been getting slowly worse over the years, and the WISEflow environment has just made it worse. B is now also an "EQE lottery ticket". B is the most difficult to do in WISEflow anyway because you need to be able to compare different parts of the exam with each other. After the exams, they relax the marking to artificially inflate the passing rate, but it has become impossible to predict who will pass. But there should be a clear association between those who are best prepared and those who pass.
So many tutors have complained privately and publicly, but these exams are just getting worse. Or maybe we are missing something. Maybe someone from the Examination Board can explain the skills that are being tested here so that candidates can prepare.
It seems like the majority of candidates spent a lot of time trying to arrive at the right claim set and then ended up not having enough time for their arguments (obviously, most points are awarded for the latter). Relaxing the marking cannot help these candidates, as they have simply written too little for which points could be awarded. I presume that especially the good candidates are prone to trying to find the right solution for too long. Ridiculous...
DeleteI totally agree that such a paper doesnt make you fit to practise. Imagine you prepare with this years paper B for paper B_2025 or for examination reports in real life. What should me teach this paper? Handling a tons of documents in 3,5h what was'nt expectable from the last years papers?
ReplyDeleteAlso thought of "up to 1 um", then decided to use "average of up to 100nm". The "average" means that single sizes up to1 um are not excluded, but the mask is still effective avainst anything larger than 100nm (because average is up to 100nm).
ReplyDelete@LG: inclusion of size was "better safe than sorry", only for novelty, because somewhere it said that cellulose always contains some nanofibres. Should be minor though.
Yes I did it in English Maro123. In english claim 3 said "..., wherein the at least one filter layer is made of cellulose nanofibres"
ReplyDeleteI see your point, that it is now made of, and not comprising, but there is basis also for comprising in the text I guess.
But this is just one of the ZILLION details that one should see and did not have time to see :-). Maybe there are actually 200 marks to be earned for this paper and its sufficient to get 50.
Suggestion for the examination committee? :-).
I also don't know what it means in English. I am not a native speaker though....(ehehehehehhehee).
ReplyDeleteIm sure Ive failed! But it wasnt really so complicated but there was not enough time! Should have practiced fast typing….still not enough time. So sad, so much iWork, money (time off job) and effort, sad, sad…
ReplyDeleteNone of the tutor's know how to prepare candidates any more for B and C. A seems to be heading that way as well.
ReplyDeleteThere used to be a clear association between the amount of preparation and the chance of passing for AB and C, but that has gone now. After the exam, they lift the passing rate by adapting the marking, but that still excludes a lot who were well-prepared.
Maybe someone from the Examination Board can explain the skills being tested and rewarded with these bloated exams. Maybe they can also explain how you are supposed to do these exams in WISEflow within such limited time.
Is there a way to file a group appeal against this paper that was clearly designed to make us fail and not to test if we are fit to pratice? It seems like the EPO does not want more European patent attorneys, so it designs impossible papers to prevent candidates from qualifying. What is the purpose of all of this?
ReplyDeleteAlso one of the traps... the communication was not the usual A94(3) Communication... quite frustrating! Cau
ReplyDeleteYes! I noticed this and wasted time checking Hoekstra for details about responding to the Search Report before a Rule 71(1) communication. I think the real power move would have just been to write: "No response is required at this time""!
DeleteWhat is the purpose of this paper? Make candidates fail or test if we are fit to practice? It feels like the EPO does not want too many European patent attorneys and designs impossible papers to make most of the candidates fail. How can we officially complain about this behaviour?
ReplyDeleteFeels so unfair that this year both B and D2 were nothing like the years before… I’m really worried about C now. Been studying since September and feels like a waste of time right now.
ReplyDeleteThanks for asking that, Victor, and also thank you, Fabienne, for answering. I was wondering the exact same and was using the "crystal structure" wording (cannot remember what that was exactly) in the end because I was so confused about whether "native" is a proper term that any person skilled in the art might use (I am not a chemist, maybe I am not even skilled :D ;)). After handing in the exam, I was additionally wondering whether nanofiber would actually be something as well, that one would consider to be not as clear term (although the examiner did not comment on this term used in the original claims).
ReplyDelete...and these were just two of the many questions I had and still have.
Please post your comments on the EQE website in the form given for each exam. As said by some one, it is a cruel joke. The committee should understand this and not frame such overcooked papers which don't test anything. If we don't post in the forum then we just encourage these behaviour. The guinea pigs who test these papers are mostly testers who already know a lot about paper B so they are not like us. I guess they don't have a reference to what should be asked and definitely not objective in consideration with previous years. Please post your concerns in the official forms. Again, the form is not short and requires lot of technical details. Needs to be done by 2359 today.
ReplyDeleteHi all German Anonymouses 1-5, I was confused as well and I didn't realize that "bestehen"/"consist of" wasn't used in the English version. I should have used some of the time I did not have to read the English version as well ;) At this point in time, I do not even know how I would phrase my complaint, as I am still overwhelmed by all the amount of unexpected "challenges".
ReplyDeleteAgree with LG. Nano was sufficient to provide novelty over D1
ReplyDeleteHi Gabriel, I am not sure about my exact wording there, but I used the same arguments.
ReplyDeleteI amended claim 1 based on original claims 1, 3 and 4 and the description to define that the filter layer comprises native cellulose nanofibers with crystal-I structure and the cellulose nanofibers are coated with gelatin (replacing the unclear feature from claim 4).
ReplyDeleteI do not see where D1 directly and unambiguously discloses “native cellulose nanofibers” or even “cellulose nanofibers”. However, D1 directly and unambiguously discloses “cellulose fibres” and “compacted cellulose fibres”. As I understand the paper, “cellulose nanofibers”, native or not, are the result of a special treatment of “cellulose fibres”.
I added the feature “coated with gelatin” because it seemed to me that the application discloses only one method of obtaining such native cellulose nanofibers. This structural feature can therefore be considered essential to the invention and omitting it would contravene Art. 84.
I chose not to use the original term “besteht aus” (“consists of”) from claim 3 because I considered that to be too restrictive. Also, there seemed to be no direct basis for the feature “consisting of native cellulose nanofibers” in the (German) description, but only for “comprising native cellulose nanofibers”.
Really wanna see the tutors’ suggested solution, this one is taking a lot longer than papers A and D 💀
ReplyDeleteAm I the only one that thought "native" just meant hemp or cotton picked/grown locally and so wasn't a useful word? I didn't realise it could mean something in a pure, uncombined form. Was "native" defined in the spec? I wish I'd noticed. Would have saved a lot of agony.
ReplyDeleteSame like many here, I am sad that this paper was so much about chemistry. And then there was the huge amount of text. Anyway..
ReplyDeleteI amended claim 1 by adding the features of claim 3 (nanofibres), "native" from the description and "pore size ... smaller 1 Mikrometer". I added "gelatine" and "cellulose nanofibres .. 1 %" (cant remember the wording) to claim 4 and 11.
I don't know. Difficult exam :(
I amended claim 1 based on original claims 1, 3 and 4 and the description to define that the filter layer comprises native cellulose nanofibers with crystal-I structure and the cellulose nanofibers are coated with gelatin (replacing the unclear feature from claim 4).
ReplyDeleteI do not see where D1 directly and unambiguously discloses “native cellulose nanofibers” or even “cellulose nanofibers”. However, D1 directly and unambiguously discloses “cellulose fibres” and “compacted cellulose fibres”. As I understand the paper, “cellulose nanofibers”, native or not, are the result of a special treatment of “cellulose fibres”.
I added the feature “coated with gelatin” because it seemed to me that the application discloses only one method of obtaining such native cellulose nanofibers. This structural feature can therefore be considered essential to the invention and omitting it would contravene Art. 84.
I chose not to use the original term “besteht aus” (“consists of”) from claim 3 because I considered that to be too restrictive. Also, there seemed to be no direct basis for the feature “consisting of native cellulose nanofibers” in the (German) description, but only for “comprising native cellulose nanofibers”.
Snoop Dogg
Totally agree with you
ReplyDeletePaper # pages # pgs figures Total txt Claims
ReplyDelete2017 15 4 11 6
2018 21 6 15 5
2019 17 4 13 6
2021 23 4 19 6
2022 20 4 16 7
2023 21 4 17 5
2024 30 2 28 11
Average 20 4 15 6
2017 - 2023
Summarized, Paper B 2024 was twice as long compared to the average paper B 2017 - 2023 within same 3.5h time limit.
When is DP going to release the answers? Being late is a good indication that the exam was too long.
ReplyDeleteI am sitting here for 8 hours and becoming more and more confused about what is the solution to be here.
ReplyDelete
Not mentioning the distinguishing feature just thinking about the closest prior art of claim 1.
I chose D2 as CPA. But it appears that D1 should be the CPA since it is biodegradable, environmental friendly (non toxin) and with good air permeability. Instead D2 used toxin solution with worse degradability and worse air permeability. But if D2 is not the closest CPA which renders the post evidence and D4 unnecessary.
I still remember when I was taking the coursr, Tutors said that technical information are that for reasons. Are they existing to tell us that D2 is not the CPA? Isn't that possible for the Examiner to put the hint in one sentence without using 5 pages to mislead us?
But if D2 is the CPA, I can't understand why now.
Can't comment?
ReplyDeleteI added native cellulose nanofibres having a diameter of 25 µm and Cellulose-I-structure. I hoped to differentiate the nanofibres from non-nano fibres by including the 25 µm diameter, due to that damn sentence in the description that cellulose consists of nanofibres :x
ReplyDeleteI did pretty much the Same as Verena described. However it took me far too much time. And the basis argumentation was complex for such a claim. The time left was not sufficient for a proper PSA in my case. I wanted to use the undo button but accidently clicked the back-arrow on the the upper left which kicked me out and I had to call the helpdesk for an invigilator password.
ReplyDeleteComplete frustration at the end. This paper was from another galaxy and not compareable to and other paper B so far. Does this really prove if we are fit for practice???!
Ich habe den gleichen Lösungsnsatz über diese Eindchränkungen. Hat mich auch extrem viel Zeit gekostet, die dann für alles weitere gefehlt hat. Komplette Katastrophe…
ReplyDeleteCase Law T1688/21, the board believes that "made of " means "consist of". But the decision dated June 2023.
ReplyDeleteIn my view "native" would be a massive limitation that is not intended by the client. "Native" would exclude typically favorable forms of cellulose such as viscose, which is made using non-toxic solvents, is biodegradable, and also has a type I structure.
ReplyDeleteWithout an indication from the client that he explicitly does not want to use such forms of cellulose, I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of a patent attorney who has to tell his client that by his own motion he excluded all non-native forms. On the other hand, I also note that the claim may read "comprises" native nanofibers (although I think was dependend on the language version). Without an indication of a weight percent of native nanofibers - for which there is no basis - this feature cannot be argued to bring any technical effect (or would one seriously say that 0.01% of native nanofibers solve any technical problem?).
In addition, there was no indication that the solvent treatment of cellulose led to 100% conversion, was there? In the absence of such indication, I think one cannot just assume that this is the case (which I believe would also not correspond to the reality, when you actually measure it). Hence any "treated" or "regenerated" cellulose would comprise native cellulose and would thus take away novelty of a claim limited to "native nanofibers".
I) If one limits the claim to only "native nanofibers", I think this would be a massive limitation that is not intended by the client. For example, consisting of "native nanofibers" would exclude typically favorable forms of cellulose, such as viscose, which is made using non-toxic solvents, is biodegradable, and also has a type I form. I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of a patent attorney who has to explain his client that he introduced such massive limitation on his own motion.
ReplyDeleteII) If one uses "comprises" native nanofibers (basis for which I think also depended on the language version), this cannot be argued to bring any technical effect - unless one specifies the weight percent (for which there was no basis, was there?). Or would someone argue that 0.01% of native nanofibers would solve any technical problem?
III) There was no indication that the solvent treatment led to 100% conversion of cellulose, was there? In the absence of such indication, I think one cannot just assume that this is the case (which I believe would also be in contrast to reality). This means that also cellulose acetate would still comprise a certain amount of native cellulose nanofibers and would thus take away novelty of a claim, which uses only "comprises native nanofibers".
IV) Was there even an indication that native nanofibers would only exclude solvent treatments? If not - can it not even be argued that the applicant's manufacturing process does not yield native cellulose?
Have the same feeling. Totally unnecessary complex and way too long. 2021 was not easy, however at least there was a chance to understand something from clients letter.
ReplyDeleteAlso in snowshoes paper there were a clear indication, and 10 pages less and only 6 claims…
In my country the terms "native" is most intended as a sociological meaning regarding people or cultures originary of a specific place.
ReplyDeleteSince DP is not publising the expected solution yet. I will paste my amended claim set. Feel free to destroy it.
ReplyDelete1. Biodegradable disposable respiratory face mask comprising at least one filter layer comprising native cellulose nanofibres made of cotton or hemp.
2. The biodegradable disposable respiratory face mask according to claim 1 wherein the cellulose nanofibres are derived from waste residues comprising at least 1% (in weight) of cellulose fibres, and gelatin.
3. The biodegradable disposable respiratory face mask according to any one of claims 1 to 2 which is a surgical face mask or a dust face mask.
4. The biodegradable disposable respiratory face mask according to claim 3 which is an FFP2-type face mask.
5. The biodegradable disposable respiratory face mask according to claim 4 wherein the FFP2 face mask comprises a multilayer structure with at least three layers comprising at least one outer layer (A) with a thickness of about 40 μm acting as a water barrier; at least one inner (middle) layer (B) with a thickness of about 8 μm acting as a filter layer; and at least another outer layer (A’) with a thickness of about 40 μm for contact with the skin.
6. The biodegradable disposable respiratory face mask according to claim 5 wherein the FFP2 face mask comprises five layers comprising the outer layers (A and A’) and further comprising two inner (middle) layers (B and B’), acting as filter layers, separated by a hydrophilic separation layer (C).
7. The biodegradable disposable respiratory face mask according to any one of claims 5 or 6 wherein at least one layer is manufactured by conventional techniques for making nonwoven fabrics such as meltblowing or spunbonding.
8. The biodegradable disposable respiratory face mask according to any one of claims 5 to 7 wherein the outer layers (A and A’) are made of nonwoven cotton or hemp fabric.
9. Process for manufacturing a biodegradable filter layer for a multilayer FFP2-type face mask, the process comprising:
providing waste residues comprising about 1% (in weight) of cellulose fibres and about 0.1% (in weight) of gelatin, milling using grinding balls with diameters between 0.1 and 1 mm, and casting into a thin nonwoven layer by meltblowing or spunbonding.
Hi Mike, I have identical claim 1.
DeleteIn view of the nature of the comments above and the very different approaches the candidates seem to have taken, I can't wait to read the DeltaPatent guys regarding this 2024 paper B and have a look at their proposed solution !
ReplyDeleteWay too long and way too chemical related. Definitely unfair this time.
ReplyDeleteIt really was a joke that there was no definition given for "native", when usually they define every relevant word ("silver (a metal)"). Native means natural to a life science person, but I wouldn't even consider it the technical term. I also used it but it was not clear if it was considered to have a technical meaning or not.
ReplyDeleteSame here. They regularly give us things like "silver is a metal" but they could not be bothered to define such an unusual term?
ReplyDeleteWhen can we expect the answers of this paper from Delta patents?
ReplyDeleteSame here
ReplyDeleteThey made A and B already more difficult then last years. I can only imagine how "fun" C will be tomorrow
ReplyDeleteI cannot read the more recent comments eg from today. Why is it the case? How can I change that?
ReplyDeleteWe have posted our attempt at this years paper at https://eqe-b-em.blogspot.com/2024/03/our-solution-to-paper-b-2024.html#more
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYes it appeared essential for producing the nanofibers, not only enough to grind the cellulose mixture
ReplyDeleteI agree, studying is no guarantee to pass. I am an electronic engineer, am I supposed to know what native means in the context of chemistry? Well I don't. This means I have no way to know if this term is clear and specific or if it is not.
ReplyDelete5 months to carry out the results of this piece of s..t of paper B?
ReplyDeleteWho all believe that the Examination committee did not compensate in marking for the complicated paper B? I found the question paper unrealistic and the marking even worse. Is it just me who feels it this way?
ReplyDeleteYou are not alone! I kind of expected it that I did not pass this horrible paper B. I just started to read to report but had to stop due to rapidly rising rage and frustration...
DeleteAgain stumbling over this term "native" for which the Examination Committee does not see any clarity issues was enough to get too high blood pressure.
@Anonymous and @Tom
DeleteI just want to say you are indeed not alone. Another B-resitter here who stumbled over "native" and, with grace, fell on his nose and landed a few points short of passing.
I say give an appeal a try if you only miss a few points. Maybe you are lucky. Otherwise, let's try again next year. At least there is not so much to prepare for the B paper other than to recap a strategy, so hopefully it does not take away much time.
Good luck to you and don't get discouraged by the unjust exam!
When I read "native" I was in such disbelief that i almost chocked. I am so filing an appeal.
ReplyDelete