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!
difficult to finish on time. Way to long, with too many claims
ReplyDelete11 claims (although some doesn't need argument), 30 pages of material.... really?
ReplyDeletecompared to the 6 claims and 20 pages in the past.. T.T
Guys I've mistakenly submitted a completely blank paper. At first the browser wouldn't let me submit the paper because it was saving. Then I clicked on X in the top left corner and left the flow without submission and somehow managed to submit something which turned out to be a blank paper only.
ReplyDeleteIs there any way to correct this?
Is there an offline copy stored? Maybe you call the invigilator direclty? +49(0)8923995155
DeleteDon't know whether there's an online copy, I don't have any. I'll try to call the inivigilator, thanks.
DeleteAwful! Sorry for you. Let us know, we all hope it will be solved! /resitter
DeleteI had a problem too, look for .wf file in your pc and then send it to the helpdesk
DeleteWell the guy at the EQE HQ told me that the paper has been submitted correctly. The paper was brutal though, so I don't expect to pass anyway :D
Delete@Martin, great news that the paper was submitted! good luck!
DeleteGOOD!!!/resitter
DeleteSo happy that the paper was submitted. Personally, I had many problems to copy paste in my paper, even my own sentences. And the highlighting function was terrible at the editor page. Someone else in the same situation?
DeleteWell that seemed particularly horrible - seemed to be too much going on with the client letter to really figure out what they wanted, and a very long spec.
ReplyDeleteEnded up including nanofibres, coated with gelatin, with an average of 100 um pore size. Threw in the 100 um bit near the end, since I wasnt sure saying nanofibres was enough to justify the TE of reducing coronavirus. There was a comment about these features combining to provide the overall reduction in covid transmission.
D1 as the closest prior art.
Anyone else?
yes, due to same field (face mask) and native cellulose material
DeleteD1 closest pa. But added gelatine coated hemp fibres. Client liked hemp and coated was new and inventive over everything. Suppose your answer was expected, seems less limiting
DeleteI've gone roughly in the same direction, though I've included that the nanofibres are obtained by milling of the waste comprising at least 1 % of cellulose fibers and gelatin. This is certainly gonna be too restrictive, but I couldn't wrap my head around the need for improved mechanical properties (permeability).
DeleteAnon - I thought about that, but didnt include the hemp restriction based on the client letter saying they wanted to stop competitors from making masks from materials other than hemp.
DeleteMartin - Yeah, I found it very difficult to figure out what technical features they wanted. The permeability statement threw me, since it was difficult to figure out exactly how far you needed to go to achieve the right amount of permeability
Yes, almost: not 100 and took hemp. Missed client was interested in all😭 and also thought the gelatine coating was only done on the hempfibers, not the other kinds of natural fibers. Was there gelatine coatings for all fibers?/resitter
Delete2 independent claims with 3 prior art documents, so 6 times inventive step argumentation. I don't know what kind of highly intellectual cyborg can finish everything on time.
ReplyDeleteThe second independent claim only had a clarity issue, right?
DeleteAnon - the only amendment I made was to resolve the clarity issue (same with claim 4)
DeleteBut if you were to keep that method claim, you need to give arguments as to why it is novel and inventive over prior arts (as it cannot benefit from novelty and iventivity of claim 1, being an independent claim).
DeleteI don't think we need to defend something that wasn't complained about?
DeleteI think you are wrong. The examiner did not object novelty or inventive step due to the clarity issue that prevents him to do so. But we were to clarify the claim and defend the patentability of the clarified claim
DeleteTo long for 3,5 hours 30 pages of paper. D4 only confused me more.
ReplyDeleteI have only added the word "native" to amended claim 1, anyone else did the same?
ReplyDeleteme
Deleteme, but I add characterized in that: native cellulose nanofibres
DeleteI added native (differnce D2) + nano (difference D1).
DeleteSame
DeleteYes, this is what I meant, nano was already added by the applicant.
DeleteD1 had native cellulose fibers as well I think.
DeleteOnly added native? How did you argument the inventive step over D1+D2?!
Delete"native" cellulose fibers just for novelty over D2 i think.
Delete> Stefano
Deletenative cellulose nanofibres implies the type I crystal strucure with better air permeability for the less breath resistance.
me too and i removed the limitation of hemp fibers
DeleteI did the same (native + nano) and chose D2 as CPA since the nanofibres mean protection for small aerosols (or something like that) which is only in D2 so same purpose. Plus it seemed that they wanted to see D2 as CPA to be able to introduce the comparative experiments showing the technical effect over D2 so figured it must be so ;)
DeleteFor people who only added native and nano: how is that novel?
DeleteIsn't this all in D2?
Cellulose acetate nanofiber anticipates cellulose nanofiber.
No?
@EQEer, the nanofibers disclosed in D2 were not "native" - the chemical treatment in D2 converts them to another form, as described in the applicant's patent application.
Delete@anonymous replying to EQEer
DeleteThat is relevant for inventive step (chemical process of D2 incompatible with "cellulose"). Cellulose does not encompass cellulose acetate, the examiners objection under G-VI-4 was unfounded. Thus cellulose is novel over cellulose acetate
I also only amended to "native cellulose nanofibre". However, there is some discussion in my cohort that D1 also "comprises" nanofibres since they naturally occure in cellulose, therefore it would have to be changed to "made of" from claim 3, which I did not do.
DeleteSame. I added native cellulose nanofibres in order to be different from D2 (cellulose acetate is chemical treated and therefore the native structure is not maintained) and I said nanoporous filter layer because the porosity in nanometer seemed to be important thourgh the text of application and D1 as the CPA discloses a layer that was compactted and that was used for microbes which are larger than coronovirus. I felt that this paper, as many of you, was too long for the given time. Too many documents and many claims. Anyway, for those who have finished the EQE with this exam, we are free until July so let's have a rest! For those who have paper C, good luck!
DeleteI just added "derived from papermaking waste residue according to the claim of the process". And I explained that the allegedly vague term is fully defined in the description and that the process is known and available to the public from the published PCT at the date of filing the application.
ReplyDeleteI have only added the cellulose and gelatin contents into the method claim.
ReplyDeleteYeah, and in claim 4 also.
DeleteOnly in the last few seconds I just realized that Product by process claim is useless due to product claim ... Am I right?
ReplyDeleteStefano
DeleteThe process to product the nanofiber layer i was meant sorry
DeleteI have to say, too much unnecessary inforamtion to confuse us.......
ReplyDeleteCan we see our work in Wiseflow now?
ReplyDeleteyes and you can print it
Deletei added middle layer to be made of cellulose fibres (biopolymer) to distinguish from D2. Is it too narrow limitation?
ReplyDeleteWay too long and quite a number time traps (what does biodegradable mean?) In the end I went for product by process type claim based on claims 3, 4 and a bit from para 48 where nanofibre made by milling of waste residue comprising % weight of cellulose and gelatin. Maybe that was a mistake....
ReplyDeleteI went into the same direction.
DeleteHowever, in my opinion, there is no need to limit in terms of milling % weight of cellulose and gelatin.
Biodegradable-removal: think it was 3-point test for removal of feature/resitter
Delete- I Did not mention D4, it seemed to be unnecessary as was many information given in the application and client's letter.
ReplyDelete- I kept and amended (composition of the residuals with gelatine and 1% of weight of cellulose) independent method claim 11 and provided some arguments as per unity of invention.
Method claim is novel and inventive in view of D2 (closest prior art) and D1. D2 concerns a method for filtering layer made of synthetic fibers, some steps are missing (using gelatine, second step also missing that by synergy provides a better filtering capacity). D1 does not disclose second step, and gelatine in another context and with another associated effect.
- My Claim 1 protect a mask with a filtering layer including nanofibers made from natural fibers, since the client wanted to protect all alternatives and we have support for this generalisation in the description. Novel and inventive in view of D1 (closest prior art) and D2. D3 irrelevant. D1 does not show nano, and D2 targets only synthetic fibers (incompatibility between D1/D2). Skilled person departing from D1 would not have a look to D2, since D1 enumerates the drawbacks of using synthetic fiber.
- Kept Claims 2 and 3 (removed by the client)
and kept also claim 4 with same limitation as for claim 11 (composition of the residuals with gelatine and 1% of weight of cellulose).
I did something very similar but I was a bit confused about the word "natural" because I guess cellulose is always from natural origin (even in cellulose acetate). That's why I went for "native" in the end.
DeleteI think you are right. Thought the same for the mask claim, but for some reason I made the mistake of considering D1 to disclose a hemp based (i.e native or natural) cellulose fibres that seemed inherently disclose nano scale sized fibres.
DeleteG 2/21 anyone?
ReplyDeleteYes! I cited this after some slightly panicked looking it up because I wasn’t expecting it
DeleteYes, as additional basis for inventive step
DeleteNice, I also used G 2/21 for additional basis for inventive step of my distinguishing feature over D2 (nano fibres with crystle-structure-I).
DeleteG 2/21 was decided on 23 March 2023 and published in the OJ on 29.09.2023 (OJ 2023, A85, https://www.epo.org/en/legal/official-journal/2023/09/a85.html), so is officially part of the EQE syllabus for EQE 2024.
DeleteBut it takes time to design, guinea-pig test, adapt etc an exam paper, so it is not that likely that is could have been considered when designing the exam, so that is is unlikely that using it was expected.
On the other hand, the change in practice seems rather small:
G-VII, 11 in GL per 1 March 2023 (version in force on 31.10.2023; before G 2/21):
"Care must be taken, however, whenever new effects in support of inventive step are referred to. Such new effects can only be taken into account if they are implied by or at least related to a technical problem initially suggested in the originally filed application (see also G-VII, 5.2, T 386/89 and T 184/82)."
G-VII, 11 in GL per 1 March 2024:
"Care must be taken, however, whenever new effects in support of inventive step are referred to. Such new effects can only be taken into account if the skilled person, having the common general knowledge at the effective filing date in mind, and based on the application as originally filed, would derive said effect as being encompassed by the technical teaching and embodied by the same originally disclosed invention (G 2/21, Headnote II)."
Did the application as originally filed mention the technical effects of the tests the client submitted. I did not dare to use D4, i think I failed this exam ;(
Delete3,5 hour for 30 pages of paper. Let's make 50 pages next time.
ReplyDeleteSo much material :-(. Wasn't sure how to make the claim novel over D1. In the description of the application it was said that cellulose consists of nanofibres so I wasn't sure if nano-fibres was enough to make it novel over D1 (anyone a comment on this?). Thus, I also added 100 nm pore size to make it novel over D1. Used D2 as closest PA, same field and most structural features in common and easier to adapt to come to a mask acc to claim 1.
ReplyDeleteAs a hint, the examiner does not target the novelty of claim 3 in view of D1, only in view of D2. I think (and hope) nano was enough to get novelty over D1.
DeleteAlso, if you were to consider D1 as disclosing nano, I don't understand your choice of D2 as cloest prior art..
D1 is imho closest prior art for the product claim, while D2 is closest prior art for the process claim.
I agree that cellulose in D1 comprises cellulose nanofibres, and that the pore size limitation was required for novelty.
DeleteI used D1 as CPA in the end (started with D2 initially but changed my mind) - the masks of D2 are for a slightly different use (reusable, washable) whereas D1 was intended for the same use (biodegrading). Also D1 uses the same natural material, using a whole different material (cellulose acetate) could be argued as a different technical field.
Far too long (and too complex)! I had more the feeling that reading comprehension (and speed) rather than EPC comprehension was being tested here. I can imagine that, once again, there will be comparatively many different solutions proposed by the candidates for an amended claim set. For example, I have decided to specify the fibers as native cellulose nanofibers and have also restricted the mask as an FFP2 mask with at least three layers. The last restriction doesn't seem absolutely necessary to me and I wouldn't have used it in a real case. However, I felt that the risk of not differentiating it enough from D1 (implicitly showing native fibers; in my opinion, excluding nanofibers from the non-woven fabric of D1 would have required arguments that could not be taken from the assignment text) was too high. However, I had to think about at least three other possible approaches in the meantime.
ReplyDeleteThis is very similar to my approach, I had the same concerns!
DeleteThis was my approach, because I based it on the client's comment that D1 doesn't disclose three layers as in our invention. It seems that not many people went for this approach...
DeleteI did the same. Restricting it to the native nanofibers didn't seem enough. Couldn't pick the layered structure without also including ffp2 and dust-mask because of Art 123(2).
DeleteI feel like that was a mistake since others seem comfortable with just restricting it to native nanofibers...
Same here. I just could not find any basis for arguing that "fibers" and "nanofibers" can be distinguished (and how this is done). Furthermore, it brings the claim further to D2 as CPA and points to the discussion of the supplementary experimental data provided by the client.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBruh what is happening? Like what is actually happening? Why are they overcooking these exams?
ReplyDeleteoh yes - you’re preaching to the choir. such an unnecessary disaster this year.
DeleteI did all of the exams of the last ten years. This cannot be compared to anything before .. maybe 2021
DeleteTried to cite the table as evidence under G2/21 but it wouldn't paste properly into wiseflow and I wasn't going to sit and format a table for 15mins, so I just said "see attached table".
ReplyDeleteI created one table, only add the VE and neglected other parameters.
DeleteIt happened to me and I did not want waste time for copying and making a table. The exam was already too long for making that edition so difficult. Basically, I said that I attached D4 and also some experiments that the applicant made where I compared a mask of the prssent invention with that to etc,.. etc......
DeleteI assume that they want us to use G2/21 supporting the post experimental evidence can be used to prove the existence of the technical effect over D2. But holy God..... Too much, TOO much
ReplyDeleteYes, I used G 2/21 in the same way!
DeleteExtremely difficult. I did not have any problems with past B papers when practising. This was a different level. Way too much material and too much information that leads us in the wrong direction. It should not be too much to ask to keep the difficulty roughly the same.
ReplyDeleteIn general, it feels like the style of papers has changed. I also have the impression that the legal problems arising this year (in all papers) are to a larger than usual extent chemistry-related.
Exterme mechanical A paper and extreme chemical paper B. well well well
Deleteworst paper B yet - I didn’t finish, was so overwhelming with all the documents. Ended up defining biodegradability in claim 1 as being fully compostable within 30 days but I think that’s far too limiting.
ReplyDeleteAdding claim 8 (the one with 5 layers and Fig. 2) to claim 1, anyone?
ReplyDeleteSee D2 [004] last sentence.
DeleteI don’t understand how the inconsistency in difficulty and amount of content from year to year is acceptable. In Paper B 2023 there was one A54(2) prior art document. This year we got 11 claims, 4 D documents, two independent claims and around 60 paragraphs of description!
ReplyDeleteI agree. I did so many exams to prepare. I would never have expected something like this. I feel like crying, do they know they cost us years of our life :(( completely unfair how the complexity varies.
DeleteThis is completely ridiculous!
DeleteAnd on top of that the changes by the client were completly wrong. As cellulose comprises nano fibres. Also the search division did mention that claim 3 is not novel in view of D1, because D1 also discloses a layer made of cellulose fibres from hemp. So if you did not see paragraph 22, you would have been lost with not being novel.
DeleteI think "cellulose comprises nano fibres" is only implicit (not mentioned in D1). So, in my opinion, that should be a minor issue not punished with many deductions.
DeleteI amended claim 1 to recite that the cellulose fibres were native cellulose nanofibres, and specify that they formed a network with pores less than 100nm. Native fibres and biodegradable (using the applicant's definition) give novelty over D2, the nanofibers and pore sizes give novelty over D1.
ReplyDeleteD1 closest prior art, as it is in the same field (biodegradable disposable face masks), OTP is to filter smaller particles while maintaining breathability. I argued that you wouldn't comine D2 as it isn't (i) biodegradable; and (ii) would reduce breathability (using experimental evidence from applicant and D4).
The only ther amendments I made were to claims 4 and 11 for clarity, and to delete claim 3.
I did not delete claim 3 since I modified claim 1 in order to replace "made of nanofibers" by "comprising nanofibers". In view of the amendment R3 covers a narrower subject-matter and thus I kept it.
Deleteclaim 3 insufficient Art. 83 EPC?
Deletesince no disclosure of only made of nanofibres?
Did you guys discuss novelty/inventive step over D4? Since I did not mention D4 in my answer (unnecessary for my problem-solution approaches) I found it unnecesary to mention D4 to the examiner, and thus only discuss novelty/IS in view of D1-D3.
ReplyDeleteI thought D4 is used to support that the VE is actually something recognized as technical effect? (Anyway, I don't have time to use it)
DeleteBut if you mention it in your answer then it technically become prior art known by EPO and thus it is wise to show it is not novelty destroying.
Delete> anonymous in second reply
Deletecan't image who will have the time to do so....
I used D4 because the experiment results that the applicant gave in his letter was made according to the method disclosed in D4. So I used D4 only together with my further results for arguing inventive step i claim 1.
DeleteSmall thing I noticed - D1 describes being made of 100% hemp, but then also stated the use of glue to hold the hemp together. These seemed to be contradictory. Didnt act on it in the end since I assumed what they really meant was hemp + glue = 100%, but Ill be interested to hear if anyone else noticed this / made their amendment based on it?
ReplyDeleteFar too long paper, too much, as previously commented on. What was the purpose of D4? I didn't use it anywhere...?
ReplyDeleteI had difficulties in copying the text from the paper to the wiseflow. It just didn't allow me to choose the text. I guess I will file a complaint.
I had a feeling about G2/21, but I wasn't very familiar with the requirements so I suggested to file a divisional application, which is not an expected solution as I see now.
I also didn't use D4, it seems to me that they've included it just to create confusion. Several people have pointed out the G 2/21, btu frankly it did not occur to me that I should look for board decisions for paper B.
DeleteOMG way too long. I should've know from experience being slow to start with, seeing the amount of reading material, that I should not read all material to make an initial analysis mapping prior art to claims to find a path ahead, but make claim amendments based on "experience" from client's letter + claims, and hope for the best, make adjustments based on argumentation describing the prior art after that instead.
ReplyDeleteI ended up reviving the process claim with the details provided by client (1% cellulose 0,1% gelatin, + grinding with balls of certain diameter, and made a mask claim with filter material made from the process in that claim. Not good. Should have made a product claim of the mask with certain features to best protect the product I know, but this is how it went with the time available for me.
I also add gelatin, it appears essential?
DeleteFor the method claim only.
DeleteI ìt would needed at least 5 hours for completing this paper
ReplyDeleteI think D4 was a trap. D4 only shows that using a mask lowers the breathing capacity of a person. Comparisons are only given between persons without mask, with FFP2 mask and surgery mask. it does not help in showing that the natural nanofiber mask of the invention provides higher breathing capacity in comparison with a mask described in D2.
ReplyDeleteI think D4 might be useful if you start from D2 (debatable, I also agree that the comparison is not made with the same mask as in D2). But if you start from D1, then I feel that you can totally ignore D4.
DeleteI think we should all submit a complaint for this nonsense paper. I wonder who came up with the brilliant idea of releasing a paper about Covid-19 when so many people lost their loved ones to the disease. On top of that, it was extremely long with so many pages unrelated to the invention itself.
ReplyDeleteAgree 🖤💔
DeleteI hope you at least appreciated the brilliant jokes (references to Paper B 2022, Mickey-Mask, family names, etc)
DeleteI was thinking that, completely agree with you.
DeleteI agree. We should complain: https://forms.office.com/pages/responsepage.aspx?id=PW17qF7Ym02HBGrtdqSURNkmJkEpg0dKjz2LkZIu9UhUMVlDVVhPQ1BDSDA2UU1WQTZNSDBXUjZHQS4u
DeleteCould you please give me the complaint form link?
ReplyDeleteHere: https://forms.office.com/pages/responsepage.aspx?id=PW17qF7Ym02HBGrtdqSURNkmJkEpg0dKjz2LkZIu9UhUMVlDVVhPQ1BDSDA2UU1WQTZNSDBXUjZHQS4u
DeleteB exam was way too long. It makes no sense to have only 3.5h and to deal with all these claims and pages of document.... What's the point?
ReplyDeleteAnyone else silly enough to put a disclaimer to chemical treatment in claim 1?
ReplyDeleteI added a disclaimer to claim 1 in the last 30 seconds of the exam… exam panic got the best of me :(
Wow. This was objectively A LOT more difficult than papers 2018-2023, which I looked at. I never had more than only a minor mistake, especially 2023 was in my opinion very easy. Only 1 document available for inventive step, full of very concise hints what was wanted.
ReplyDeleteHere, complete nightmare, so many options, so much information I did not use (I could see how it would be used, but I went another way - which makes one completely insecure as well)
agree with this completely.
Deletetotally agree. previous papers have been way more easy, shorter, straight forward, with a client that isn't giving so many false hints. And the time was way too short. I started reading prior art as soon as it was available, but no chance to finish this one. How could they do this to us...
DeleteI see some people mentioning G2/21 but I don't think it was issued when they drafted the paper (approx. 2 years ago, right?)
ReplyDeleteUnitary patent wasn't an issue 2 years ago. This didn't prevent them from putting a 4-5 mark question about UPC in D1.
DeleteTrue! But I feel like adding/changing a question in D1 would not require that much work, while basing B2024 on G2/21 would have required redesigning the paper entirely... But I might be wrong!
DeleteYes - G2/21 is dated 23 March 2023. Usually this would be considered to recent for being tested in an exam. However, I would not rule this out, as the decision was made before the deadline of October 31, 2023. At the same time, the decision is not yet readily available via the EPO's case table ....
DeleteYou probably did not need G2/21, but quoting G-VII-11 (in the 2023 version) was probably enough.
DeleteAlso, comparing with some German friends, the EN and DE version were once again different.. in claim 3 we have "made of" and in DE "besteht". There is no case law about "made of", whereas "besteht" is equivalent to "consists of".
ReplyDeletehuhu in DE version paragraph [021] "umfassen" (=comprise) -_-"
DeleteWe should complain: https://forms.office.com/pages/responsepage.aspx?id=PW17qF7Ym02HBGrtdqSURNkmJkEpg0dKjz2LkZIu9UhUMVlDVVhPQ1BDSDA2UU1WQTZNSDBXUjZHQS4u
DeleteAnother German speaker here, we should all complain. That is a fucking joke. Wasted at least 10 min on this, which is a lot given the length of the paper.
DeleteHow can it be that they draft a paper like that, and at the end of the day dont even get the translation right? Huge disadvantage for German speakers.
Also, was not the suggestion of the client "gefertigt aus"? If that has basis in the English version, but not in the German version, that is another significnat disadvantage.
Delete1. 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?
ReplyDelete-Is it allowable to copy from the exam paper into our answer? In paper A , I tried to do so. The exam stopped immediately and wiseflow asked for the inviligator password.
2.And from copying parts of your answer elsewhere into your answer?
-had no problem with this one.
3.How did you experience taking the exam from your home or office location rather than in an examination center? 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?
-Why just can' t we print all the pages of the exam? Is it because EPO wants eco-friendly patent attorneys? I promise that i won't print unnecessarily if i become an EPA. But for god's sake it is an exam and we have a limited time.
4.Did you experience any technical difficulties during the exam? How & how fast were they solved?
-Yes I did. Wiseflow system didn't recognize my microphone like for three times in a row. I turned of my computer several times. Finally I get the password to reenter the flow but I couldn't see the English version of the paper (there was only the german version and some buttons didnt work.) I tried several times to reconnect to the flow. I lost one hour. They should allow us to print all the materials of the exam at least 10 minutes before the start of the exam. :(
This was a joke. It was just too much and just too difficult. This is very unfair, compared to basically all past paper B.
ReplyDeleteYes, absolutly right! What would they do that? It the goal to destroy the participants or to test their knowledge? Seems like the first.
DeleteEveryone: expecting a double paper B. Pong! Punch right on the face
DeleteIs the word “native” enough? to express the meaning of natural/plant fibres…?
ReplyDeleteFor people who only added native and nano: how is that novel?
ReplyDeleteIsn't this all in D2?
Cellulose acetate nanofiber anticipates cellulose nanofiber.
No?
See my comment below - in real life, I would argue cellulose does *not* encompass cellulose acetate as they have separate chemical formula (i.e. they are alternatives), but this information is not available in the exam. Not sure how you would know this if you aren't a chemist.
DeleteD2 synthetic cellulose fibers which is different native cellulose fibers
DeleteNative with better air permeability
According to the application, native cellulose nanofibres are characterized by an I-fine structure, which changes to a II-fine structure after chemical treatment with TFE (as carried out in D2). So, in my opinion, native fibers exclude the fibers of D2. However I consider native celullose fibers not beeing excluded by D1 explicitely stating, that no chemical treatment is carried out. No hints at all were given in the assignement regarding the structure of non-woven textiles. (But generally, non-woven textiles comprise a mixture of fibers with different diameters which does not exclude diameters smaller than 100 um, i.e. nanofibers.) I would therefore conservatively consider a filter comprising native cellulose nanofibers not being novel over D1.
DeleteI think the word "individual/single" (in german: "einzelne") had to be added to the feature "native cellulose-nanofibers" (normal cellulose also has nanofibers and an I-fine structure, thus it is otherwise not novel with regard to D1)
DeleteSorry guys but I cannot follow your arguments. I may be stupid. I am also not a chemist.
DeleteIt is clear you are using your own knowledge. You are basically saying gold does not anticipate metal. It is exactly the same to a non-chemist:
Gold anticipates metal
Cellulose nanofiber anticipates cellulose fiber
@EQEer
DeleteD3 states that cellulose (a precursor) is transformed into cellulose acetate (a derivative) by a chemical reaction, thus they are distinct chemicals/alternatives.
It is confusing (and unfair for non-chemists) that they used similar names.
Anonymous:
DeleteI would describe myself as well-educated, but still, I cannot even understand your comment. I read it 10 times but still I cannot understand anything. It looks to me like you are speaking Chinese. In particular, I have no idea what precursors and derivatives are.
Therefore it is clear you are using your own knowledge.
@EQEer
DeleteIn that vein, where in the paper are you taught that cellulose encompasses cellulose acetate?
Surely you start from them being different, and use teaching in the exam to conclude that cellulose acetate destroys novelty of cellulose (other than them having similar names?)
I believe that a nonwoven fabric does not exclude individual fibers per se. I also believe that individual fibers were mentioned in the application text as being characteristic of native fibers (in contrast to bonded fibers of a II fine structure). Either way, the discussion seems to me to be based too much on individual knowledge, which was not readily apparent from the assignment text.
DeleteD2 discloses synthetic cellulose nanofiber. The invention relates to native (natural) cellulose nanofiber.
DeleteYou do not need to be a chemist to know the difference between natural and synthetic.
@sascha: At least in the German version of the application, it was explained that cellulose has "bound" nanofibers and also the native I-fine structure (D1 discloses the use of "native" cellulose fibers like hemp). In contrast, with regard to the fibers according to the invention, it was additionally disclosed that these are "single/individual" (which can be for instance obtained by the mentioned and claimed method), which also have this I-fine structure.
DeleteI did not know native meant natural…
DeleteEQEer:
DeleteAdding "native" is novel over D2, since in the application as filed it was said that the chemical treatment of D2 destroys the native cellulose crystal structure. So the nanofibres in D2 do not have native crystal structure. As such that does not have much to do with cellulose acetate, I find.
Regarding nano: I figured that D1 only disclosed cellulose fibres but did not say that they would be nanofibres, which would be a special type of a cellulose fibre.
I found it amusing that even the supposed examiner misquoted the guidelines regarding generic/specific disclosure following the recent changes (G-VI-5 being renumbered to G-VI-4).
ReplyDeleteI also struggled to argue that cellulose does not encompass cellulose acetate without bringing in my outside knowledge - all the case law relates to more niche examples instead of such a basic misunderstanding. I just said that cellulose cannot encompass cellulose acetate as you convert one to the other chemically. Did anyone cite anything useful here?
I added that cellulose is a biopolymer and that the layer of claim 1 is middle layer, unlike the layer of D2. Is it again too limiting?
ReplyDeleteI have limited claim 1 with "single native" cellulose nanofibers, since according to the description of the application cellulose also comprises nanofibers, which are however "bound" (D1 would thus implicitly also disclose cellulose nanofibers) .
ReplyDeletehahahaha, oh god, I did miss that!? So the many people using native nanofibers might not even be new? At least not if the claim is not formulated in a "closed" way, meaning that it cannot contain anything else. But then, gelatine would have also needed to be part of claim 1... which would also not make one novel over D1. So funny how i'm sitting here since 3 hours and still don't know what they actually wanted me to do. Honestly, I cried a bit, then I got angry and now I feel like this is a joke and laughed out loud when I saw this comment. If this was really written in the description... wow.
DeleteMake sure you submit your complaints by the end of the day! Don’t let this slide; you worked too hard to get to this stage just for you to end up with a bad mark for a badly written exam
ReplyDeleteCould you please post a link to submit a complaint and maybe some grounds, I don’t want to miss anything. Thanks :)
DeleteWhat complaint did you exactly make??
DeleteHere is complaint form: https://forms.office.com/pages/responsepage.aspx?id=PW17qF7Ym02HBGrtdqSURNkmJkEpg0dKjz2LkZIu9UhUMVlDVVhPQ1BDSDA2UU1WQTZNSDBXUjZHQS4u
DeleteOP is mistaken - you can only complain about the conduct of the exam, not the content.
DeleteNot true, you can complain about everything, also the content!
DeleteI amended claim 1 to include cellulose nanofibres and gelatin. I thought gelatin is required as the technical effect I identified is caused by the presence of gelatin.
ReplyDeleteAs an electrical engineer, I have no idea of the difference between cellulose and celluloseacetate. So I can only get information from D3 and the client letter. Celluloseacetate does not seem to be biodegradable according to the definition given the in the client letter. Therefore I have also in claim 1 that the celluluse nanofiber is biodegradable ...
ReplyDeleteI am a chemist (finished almost 10 years ago) and I based my whole argumentation about celluloseacetate not being biodegradable. But it was not part of the description how many days it takes for the invention to degrade, right? So while writing it my stomache already hurt. I had no idea what to do with D4. I'm starting to feel like the whole biodegradability was a trap and we maybe should have based the argumentation about all of those things claimed by D4 and the client? Honestly, still don't know. I've answered hundreds of this things at work. How is such a technically complex paper testing if we're fit for practice?
DeleteHaving a non chemistry background I could not get my head around the word ‘native’ and what it meant…in comparison to D2 and whether it was enough to be a novel feature.
ReplyDeletePersonally, feel like there could have been more explanation as to what this meant in the application if it is needed in the claim as a distinguishing feature
me too, so instead of native I used "biodegradable" to limit the nanofaber compared to D2, since "biodegradable" is at least defined in the client letter
DeleteI am a chemist and I have no clue what native means. Also did not see the effect of native.
DeleteFeel very frustrated. Why soo many more claims and prior art and comlications as compared to previous years?
ReplyDeleteD4 and client data: supporting evidence for inventive step.
Nano: itself not enough for novelty over D1 because nano not defined, so included average of max 100nm in claim 1 (copy-paste of wording used in description, forgot exact eording now). Also included FFP2 because that's client's main interest and is mentioned in connection with other features, so to be save against intermediate generalization.
Biodegradable. Conflicting statements between Examiner/D3 and client/description.
Included "biodegradable nanofiibre layer" as in the description and also that it is from plant fibres, because that is what client wants to protect and naturally generalizes the client's amendment ("from henf" or so, forgot the word).
Then argued based on client's input that D2 does not dislcose biodegradable nanofibres from plants fibres, and skilled person reading claim would understand that D2 is about synthetic fibres thus not biodegradable from plant fibres.
I hope that is accepted for novelty.
Inventive step: D2 is CPA, because same field, same purpose (also wants to save on plastic and thus reduce environmental impact), most structural similarity (everything excpet buodegradable + plant fibres).
I agree that nanofibre is unclear. But instead of 100 nm, I have added the definition for nanofibres whose pore size is up to 1 um (i.e. not bigger than 1000 nm) in claim 1, according to paragraph [020],
DeleteI have also done this, except for pore sizes of 100nm, but up to 1um.
DeleteHow can nanofibre be unclear and not novel over D1 when the feature is from original claim 3 which was regarded as clear and only disclosed in D2?
DeleteI am also not a chemist and therefore tried to rely on what was available and the usual "spirit" of Paper B which is very different from paper A. No objections from Examiner regarding non-novelty of nanofibers with respect to D1=> nanofibers are novel over D1. As a non-chemist you are not supposed to know what cellulose is made of. However, the word native was very well explained. That's why I considered native cellulose nanofibers to be novel over D1 and D2.
ReplyDeleteNanofibre is not like "high frequency", which has a clear definition in the state of the art. Therefore, I think we should define as in claim 1 with additional features such as preo size up to 1 um.
DeleteI am a chemist, but didn’t know the term „native“ (shame on me). I proceeded similar to you and came to the same conclusions. In my opinion the term nanofibre is also clear, since there was no objection against original claim 3.
DeleteI think it says something about the paper if the only argument why something is novel and clear is that "the examiner did not object to it" - whereas for me the paper itself speaks against it (as well as practical experience)..
DeleteI am really tired of the inconsistency among the exam papers. Why cant the examination board manage to design a set of exam papers with the same level of difficulty (both for exam types (A,B,etc) and years (...2022,2023,2024)).
ReplyDeleteThe EQE fails on being an objective and fair exam still it demands from candidates an objective solution problem approach to pass the exam.
EQE is the ultimate form of contradiction. And it also contradicts with the nature of the law.
I claimed a filter comprising cellulose nanofibres of natural origin. I’m worried about the natural origin part because everyone seems to have gone with native, but I wasn’t sure exactly what this means, and I thought the crystal structure of the native cellulose would be an intrinsic property of cellulose of natural origin anyway. I felt there was basis for saying natural origin from the early paragraphs of the summary of the invention. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteSame here. I think that is OK for novelty and just a different wording for the same.
DeleteInstead of "natural origin" I used the woring in the client letter ("from plant fibres" or so, generalizing "from henf") when the client mentions they want competitor products covered, and that wordning is also in the description at several places.
I hope that is also acknowledged as novel, because of the client's arguments regarding biodegradable + synthetic in D2 is not plant/natural/native.
Also did not understand the term "native" during the exam, so went with the term "plant fibres"...
I think the clues are:
- just arguing "biodegradable" not enough because of D3, but including biodegradable + natural/plant/native + arguments is OK.
- just nano not enoigh, because not idfferent enough from D1. So include 100nm (or sth similar) to distinguish from D1.
- Inventive step: very tricky to settle for a CPA. Went for D2 in the emd because also mentions desire to reduce plastic (same purposr) and has strucutral similaroty.
native nano-fiber is not inventive over D1+D2. By replacing the cellulose acetate of D2 by the plant-based fibers of D1, the skilled person would produce a native nano-fiber filter.
DeleteI might be mistaken though.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@Gabriel: I don't think so, since also in that case the plant-based fibers of D1 would be subjected to the chemical treatment in D2 which destroys the native crystal structure.
DeleteI also went for D2 as closest prior art and thought the post published data was a clue from the client that this comparison should be made
ReplyDeleteIn the light of D4, I have also chosen D2 as the closest state of the art.
DeleteEmotions after the exam were going from laughing at the total absurdity of this paper to depression about not being able to show that I am capable of doing this.
ReplyDeleteUsually I feel very confident about my method for B, I even like making B-papers. I enjoy showing that I understand how the argumentation works.
However, as I saw the time ticking away, I needed to make decisions to go faster and I just started randomly writing what came into mind. Hence I have the impression that I missed SO many things that I wanted to say, I made very idiotic errors (dependency typos all over the place) just by wanting to advance faster. I did not include the things that I noticed, because I needed to choose whether to go further or to elaborate. Providing a paper from good quality combined with arguments of sufficient quantity this year were not a possible combination.
It took me 1,5 hours to complete reading before I could even start thinking about how to approach the amending. Usually by this time, my claims are more or less finished and I can go ahead an knock myself out with the arguments.
I would like to complain, but I honestly don't see what impact it would have? Create awareness? I mean, they aren't idiots, they know they made their paper almost twice as long as previous ones (oooh how simple do the earthworms and fertilizers, or the solar cooker, seem right now; paper B of 2019 had 17 pages!).
Contentwise, I feel the paper was understandable enough, but as mentioned by others, to use all the information in a good manner and to discuss everything with sufficient quality, a lot more time should have been provided.
In summary: Paper B of 2024 is a cruel joke.
PS: I amended claim 1 by adding claim 2, 3, and 4, in which I tried to fix the clarity objection of claim 4. I thought the invention lied in the cellulose nanofibres used, linked to the process of making them (electrostatic effect and porosity were linked to this process and resulted in an improved filtration capacity compared to D1, which was i.m.o. CPA)
Rereading my answer, it's full of mistakes and inconsistencies, referring to wrong documents and claims, which was 100% linked to a lack of time.
Did you do the paper in English?
DeleteIn German, adding claim 3 was not possible, because of the limiting "besteht aus", which would allow only one layer. Should this be the solution, to arrive there in the German version, one had to look for a basis in the description, which is simply an unfair disadvantage.
I agree with you 100%. It's frustrating and annoying, of course, but above all it's deeply unfair. The designers of the paper must have realized that this paper is in a completely different difficulty class than any other Paper B before. Why are they doing this? I don't know, we can only speculate, but they seem to enjoy seeing so many candidates suffer.
DeleteIndeed, everyone should complain, but I doubt that we will see this injustice rectified.
Searched online and found a paper from research gate using the term "native cellulose nanofibres"
ReplyDeletehttps://www.researchgate.net/figure/Native-cellulose-nanofibers-containing-cellulose-I-crystal-structure-as-cleaved-from_fig1_42540292
I hope it is a known term. （｀Δ´）！
Who went for hemp in claim 1?
ReplyDeleteI know it partly contradicts the clients letter (aren't the claims also part of the clients wishes?!), but all the other reasonable options I saw lead to unallowable intermediate generalizations without hemp.
there is a sentence in Des of D1 that the papermaking waste residues are from paper making method using cotton hemp or other plant materials
DeleteHi Marco^^ Ich stand vor der exakt selben Problematik wie du. Habe stattdessen den Anspruch 7 (3 Schichten mit Dicken <1mm insgesamt) in den Anspruch 1 gezogen, was aber dazu geführt hat, dass ich mich auch auf Staubfilter + FFP2 einschränken musste, wegen Art. 123(2) EPÜ.
DeleteDie Problematik mit Anspruch 3 habe ich auch gesehen, mittlerweile herausgefunden, dass dies wohl in der Englischen Version anders war. Während ich in Zeitnot geraten bin habe ich dann völlig vergessen die Beschreibung nach einer Möglichkeit zu durchsuchen die Fasern als Nanofasern zu spezifizieren und einfach geschrieben, dass ich die Merkmale von Anspruch 3 aufgenommen habe, was eigentlich Blödsinn ist.
Ich war so unter Zeitstress, konnte für den Verfahrensanspruch gar keine Argumente mehr für Neuheit und ET vorlegen. Ich glaube nicht, dass ich 45 Punkte erreichen konnte.
In Anbetracht der Zeit, die ich in die Vorbereitung gesteckt habe, war es ein völliges Desaster für mich. Ich habe beim Üben selten ein B-Paper so wenig durchschaut, dass ich gemäß den Prüfberichten wirklich gefailed hätte. In dem Fall ist es schwer vorstellbar, dass sich das ausgegangen ist.
DeleteI am one of the people that put “native cellulose nanofibres”, and did not limit to the pore size. I can’t remember exactly what the application said about what cellulose nanofibres are, but I remember it feeling quite contradictory. One sentence said “cellulose consists of nanofibres”, and then the next paragraphs explained that obtaining cellulose nanofibres was “not trivial”. At that point in time this didn’t make sense to me (I still think it’s extremely unclear) and due to the time pressure I just limited to nanofibres and cracked on. Now looking back I wish I had erred on the side of caution and included the pore size limitation. I think that’s what they were looking for.
ReplyDeleteCan anyone remember exactly what those paragraphs about cellulose nanofibres actually said?
Cant remember exactly, but thought that nanofibres alone would not be novel as they are also contained in D1, at least implicitly.
DeleteIn my view and from what I remember it was clear that D1 did not disclose nano.
DeleteThe examiner did not object to claim 3 (including nano) in the A94(3) so I assumed nano is novel over D1.
DeleteI just want to share that I have the same feeling as most candidates that the difficulty of this year's paper was extraordinary and frankly out of proportion. Not only was it excessively lengthy for the time given, the subject-matter and features were simply not defined clearly enough, especially for candidates without a chemistry background. The paper appears to have been constructed with the sole purpose of being misleading to such an extent that any clear instructions, hints, or definitions of features are lost or even absent in a mountain of 30 pages.
ReplyDeleteIs this what determines a candidate to be fit to practice?
The examining board appears to have lost touch with the reallity that most of us spent months preparing for this examination at great cost of our own personal lifes and free time and those of our close ones supporting us.
I feel robbed of a fair chance to show that I am fit to practice.
PS: how does something like this pass without objections from attorneys who test the papers in advance?
Totally agree with this
DeleteWhat was the corresponding term to "native" in the German version? I feel terms like native, natural, natural origin are anything but clear and leave a lot of room for interpretation.. Likewise the term "nanofiber" for me cannot bring novelty (for the same reason as what people argued above)
ReplyDeleteBecause of this I decided to limit to an FFP2 mask with several layers (which forced me to take the three layered structure with their specified thickness into claim 1) and wherein the biodegradable single use mask can be degraded within 90 days.
D1 discloses two embodiments: one having just one layer and being degradable within 3 months (which I believe can be taken as 90 days). The other embodiment has two layers, one of which is the chemical PEI. First of all PEI should render this embodiment non-biodegradable (unless you argue that the difference between the terms "chemical substance PEI" and "synthetic ... LIKE PE" mean that PEI should in fact be biodegradable - which I think is an assumption that is really difficult to defend). Secondly, it still doesn´t have three layers.
D2 has three layers but comprises celluloseacetate, which is not biodegradable within 90 days under any circumstances. What do you think about this?
In German they used also "native" which is not even a german word. No german speaker has a real natural understanding what this term REALLY means. That is so ridiculous!
DeleteYes, I really struggled with the term „native“ in German and only the Paragraf where they described what happens if an organic solvent is added, helped me to understand that after the addition of organic solvent - as in D2 - no native fibers are present.
DeleteYou said it completely right! I have a 5-month-old daughter who I've hardly been able to look after for the last few month because I've been preparing really intensively like almost everyone else here. If you have made it to this point in your training and have prepared well, you MUST be able to pass the exam, anything else is unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteAnd I have to say that the frustration is slowly turning into real anger. This is not acceptable.
I am also fed up and angry. I also feel like the training offered Ceipi, DP or anyone else does not help at all, because these papers are just unstructured nonsense.
Delete