B 2025: first impressions?
To all who sat the B-paper today:
What are your first impressions with
respect 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 ones of the last few years? Similar
difficulty level? Or harder/easier?
Could you understand the examiner's objections well? And the client's wishes
based on his letter and his proposed amendments? Was the Art.123(2)
argumentation difficult, if any? Clarity? Novelty? Was it clear what the
closest prior art was?
Was the subject-matter well understandable, for chemists as well as e/m
candidates?
Multiple independent claims? Functional features?
What was the effect of doing the
paper online? 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? Did you struggle with the online format in any way? What was the effect
of the situation that you had to take the exam largely from the screen as only
a part could be printed?
Did you take the exam from your home
or your office? Or somewhere else? How did that work for you?
Did you experience any technical
difficulties during the exam? How and how fast were they resolved? Did you use
the widget to contact the invigilator?
Please be reminded that, if you wish
to lodge a complaint pursuant to point I.8. of the Instructions to Candidates concerning the conduct of the
examination , you must do so at the latest by the end of the day on
which the paper concerned takes place, by filling in the dedicated form on
the EQE website. The Form for paper B is
(only) available on 18.03.2025, 13:00 - 23:59, CET.
The paper and our answers
We aim to post the core our
(provisional) answer shortly after the exam in a separate blog post, as soon as
possible after we have received a copy of the paper, preferably in all three
languages. Should you have a copy, please send it to any of our tutors or
to training@deltapatents.com.
Please be reminded that you can view
and print/download copy of your exam answer after the exam, via the eye
below the "1. Paper"-icon in the bottom left part of the flow window
of the respective flow. (It may not be available immediately after the official
end of the (part of the) paper, but only 30-60 minutes later.) Apart from the
pre-printable parts, the paper itself cannot be downloaded (unless you copied
it in full into your exam answer).
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 18-03-2025 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!
Results now? June 2026?
ReplyDeleteTutors and Epi do not check the papers before they are released. Only a handful of EQE Committee members draft the papers and I'm pretty sure these papers are not distributed outside this small group.
ReplyDeleteVery challenging subject matter and long paper! I broadly understood the invention and general differences between locking systems and accessing systems but in truth, I missed most of the nuances. I did not know how to argue for unity, so I deleted the tampering prevention (claim 10) and kept the miniaturization (claim 5). Since I deleted claim 10, the lack of clarity objection of “substantially” also went away.
ReplyDeleteThe Examiner said that the subject-matter of claim 5 and 6 appear to be patentable in view of the available prior art. I understood this to mean that claim 1+ 5 or claim 1+6 (claim 6 depending on claim 5) are novel over the prior art. The client was pleased that the examiner identified novel subject matter and was willing to accept claim 1 +6. However, claim 1+6, which is actually claim 1+5+6, is overly limiting since claim 1+5 was also novel. Instead of amending to claim 1+6, I amended to claim 1+5. Any one else do that too?
For novelty of renumbered claim 6, I did claim 6+11, without including subject-matter of claim 10 (because it was deleted to overcome lack of unity) and using (025), first sentence of disclosure as basis of support.
I argued inventive step of claim 1 in view of D1 and Fig2 of D3, and inventive step of renumbered claim 6 in view of D2 alone.
Any one else did the same?
The subject matter of the paper this year was too mechanical and too many different embodiments to understand and consider. People with non-engineering background are subjected to a
ReplyDeletehuge disadvantage, due to time constraints and inability to understand the nuances of the differences between the invention and prior art, I had a huge difficulty deciding on the claim amendments and writing my inventive step arguments 😞
I have chemistry background but I have done few mechanical applications. I can say for sure that none of them were this complex as in this year's paper B. This is way too long (30 pages, 11 claims, 3 references) for 3,5 hours compared to older exams (20 pages altogether), when it was pretty clear which amendments were preferred and what was the CPA. Funny thing is that last week I did Epi Mock exams 2021 for paper B and they were so easy (logical and concise) compared to this. This year's exam is on completely another level.
DeleteI did 2024 paper B as well and while I had trouble identifying the novelty/technical effect, at least I had time to reach to the end of the inventive step argument. Too bad that was not enought to get 50 points. However, this time, I felt like my brain capacity reached the information limit by the time I finished reading the description. I ended up changing the claim amendments multiple times, which resulted in losing too much time. In the end, I was still not sure what was the CPA. I think the only correct thing I managed to do was addressing the clarity issues.
ReplyDeleteIf the trend goes on, next year will be an impossible paper B, which would force us all to take the new EQE M3 (part) and lose all the COMP FAILs.
Hi! I think as many people as possible should file a complaint abiut this absolutely unreasonable paper. I have done 9 paper Bs and passed A, C and D already. This was way more difficult than any previous paper Bs.
ReplyDeleteToo long to read, too many claims, incomprehensible prior art. Unity which has not been tested in any of the previous papers from what I have seen combined with the above mentioned was too much asked in 3,5 h and unfair to well prepared people who put in the time. Absurd to make a paper like that! Evil actually…
Do you hear the people sing?
I'm afraid the complaint will not do anything because they will just say that everyone had the same exam so there was no unfairness or disadvantage. :( I think they might be lenient about giving the points in order to keep the pass rate about 50% or less like last year. However, we can say bye bye to 65% pass rate like in older paper Bs.
DeleteAgreed
ReplyDeleteYes
ReplyDeleteFile complaints!! It was a paper that was way more difficult then all previous 9 papers I practised due to
ReplyDelete1) 31 pages of text
2) unity test
3) D1 to D3 with several embodiments
4)difficult technology
If you don’t say it, they won’t know!
@ Erik Olsson: I totally understand your point of view and your explanation and I agree it is something entirely different compared to the description. However, with novelty that shouldn't matter. With the right (or rather wrong) claim wording a watering can could be novelty destroying for a thee pot.
ReplyDeleteYour interpretation requires logging the information, which is not present in claim 6. Claim 6 only says that the circuit of claim 1 is configured to implement serial reading (as opposed to simultaneous reading), not that the detected signals are logged. if "configured to implement serial reading" means that information is stored somehow, then I agree. But a "serial reading means" (shortly) could mean that the circuit just does what it says: measure the signals one after another, with as a result an output.
Whether or not D3 is concerned with serial reading operating as in the application is irrelevant. Moreover, if the examiner is of the opinion that the button 'shaft' or whatever could be a key, than I think my reasoning above is less far-fetched...
@Chemist - I do agree with your point about the "button" being an "elongated key", but I still think you underestimate the limitations imposed by the claimed feature...
DeleteThe way you talk about it with "it doesn't matter for novelty" sounds to me exactly like the reasoning that is used to determine if something is "suitable for" something, rather than if a circuit is "configured to implement" (although a word like "execute" would have been preferred imo) certain steps. (I hope I'm not misinterpreting you, it's not meant in a bad way at all)
[018] in B describes fairly clearly the function of a system "configured to implement" the serial reading, namely that it can serially read magnets of a key being inserted and then compare it to an expected sequence, and then actuate a lock based on that (not stated in [018] but clear from overall disclosure).
This function can be implemented in different ways technically, but exactly which way isn't relevant since it is a functional claim feature. If it wasn't, the scope of protection would be extremely small. One way of implementing it would be to have a "logging" function with a database such that you can look at the historical readings of inserted keys. Another way would be to have a transient memory just sufficient for the time it takes to read a single key being inserted, which is then discarded (i.e. not a "logging function"). I'm not an expert in the field but I'm sure there are several other relatively simple ways to do it as well. The claim imposes the limitations that it has to be able to do it in SOME way, but does not limit which way. It does not simply limit it to a circuit which COULD BE programmed to do it, but a circuit which IS programmed to do it. If it did limit it in that way, then all computer chips would basically anticipate all functional feature claims performed by a processing circuit.
The point is, even though the bar disclosing this is relatively low, it is not described at all in any of D1-D3, and thus it is novel (and inventive).
It was indeed a very long paper (much like 2024 actually), and not in the format that the pre-2024 papers had. It's difficult to prepare like this.
ReplyDeleteI comfort myself with the idea that it was long and difficult for everyone.
Yes! Me!
ReplyDeleteI just asked chat gpt about the novelty of claim 1+claim 6 over D3. Chat GPT is my new best friend now because he/she/it argues that it is not clear from the claim that there is a time logging or storing of data and that from the wording of the claim simply reading the signals sequentially as the key is entered, and processing them in any manner anticipates the claim.
Why claim 4: This seems to be one of the core features of the invention, doesn't it? There's about 16 paragraphs leading up to this fantastic invention of discs with empty spaces wherein magnets can be mounted so that you can generate some unique code, such that it is more difficult to counterfeit! Woah! Unfortunately this requires a lot of detectors, so hence the system of the single detector.
Not including this feature in the first claim is disrespecting the core of the invention in my opinion.
It is the combination of the empty spaces (to put magnets in or not) AND the serial reading that allows for a more secure system that is easy to manufacture.
Still think the discs should have been added too, but don't think they saw them as essential.
ALL prior art documents except D3 comprise the empty spaces.
It is not even a limitation against the wishes of the client because all key/lock embodiments have those empty spaces radially spaced or whatever.
I really think it makes it novel, ànd inventive over the prior art. Makes a good story and covers the invention.
I am with you!
I would like to se the face of people who draft.this f. paper
ReplyDeleteI can't understand why the Exam report is not available after the exam but in July.
ReplyDeleteIf they draft a paper to test the candidate skills they just have to know what the is the solution
I guess it is because they want to see which part of the exam was challenging or easy so they can address to those parts better in their report. And if many candidates have provided other solutions than the model one, they can discuss which ones were also acceptable and which are not.
Delete@Chemist, par §4 of D3 was here to tell us that only amending claim 1 with the first part of claim 6 (more magnets than transducers) was not enough to differ from D3. But with the entire claim 6 (the circuit is configured to implement serial reading), new claim 1 differs from D3.
ReplyDeleteClaim 1 + Claim 6 is anticipated by §004, D3 for the following reasons:
ReplyDelete- D3 describes a system where multiple magnets and a single detector are arranged along an axis, meaning the detector must interact with magnets one after another as the key (push-button) moves.
- Since the detector in D3 recognizes different positions of the key based on the magnets passing by, it necessarily detects signals in sequence as the key moves.
- The claim does not specify that "serial reading" involves storing or comparing signals over time, so any system where the detector sequentially reacts to passing magnets qualifies as serial reading.
- The electronic circuit in D3 already determines different key positions based on these sequential detections, fulfilling the functional role attributed to serial reading in the claim.
- Because the claim does not require a specific processing method for the sequence of signals, the prior art inherently meets the broad interpretation of "serial reading" as detecting signals one after another.
What is explained in the description does not change this outcome. The examination is carried out based on the wording of the claim. If the claim itself does not state that serial reading involves tracking signals over time (and comparing them, etc), the broadest reasonable interpretation applies.
The question is whether this constitutes own technical knowledge. I.e. if the description is used to define the common understanding of the feature in the world of Paper B.
DeleteI also felt that claim 1+6 is not new, however it really depends on from which point we apply own knowledge.
- Own technical knowledge should not be used in the EQE.
Delete- Common general knowledge should only be used if supported, i.e. if it is explicitly stated that something is generally known.
- although the description clearly describes in [18] what the inventors regard as serial reading ([17]; "what we call serial reading"), the claim does not reflect this explanation.
- For novelty analysis, only the claim wording matters, not the additional details in the description.
- the claim should therefore contain that a series of electrical signals are analysed by the processing circuit and compared with the expected series corresponding to the lock system in order to fully cover the intended meaning of serial reading.
- as this is not the case, the broadest reasonable interpretation must be applied.
@serial reading - I think you make very good points! I may have read too much of the description part into the claim in my previous arguments here (specifically about comparing it to an expected sequence), but I still think the wording "as is" is enough to differentiate against D3 (at least within the context of paper B, but I would at least argue for it IRL as well).
DeleteI think everything hinges on the term "AS the key is being inserted and the plurality of magnets pass".
Both embodiments of D3 are only interested in, and only described as detecting, which position is once it has been moved, not during movement. This is explicitly described in [004] of D1 related to embodiment 1 (push-button), and [007]-[008] related to embodiment 2 (rotary switch). Nowhere is it stated that it detects a position, change, or similar during movement, only after a (predetermined) position is reached.
You could argue that the transducer is likely to be able to also detect the magnets during rotation/push, which I think is true, but it's not explicitly stated. In fact, [002] of the description rather indicates the contrary, since it states that the transducer "detects its (the magnet's) proximity" only after it has been depressed (implying that it could not sense the proximity before it was depressed). It does not state that the transducer detects a change in its position or similar - if it did, that would have been more of an indication of your interpretation.
I do have to conde though, that if we really get into the weeds here I have to admit that it is extremely unlikely that there is NO point prior to reaching the detectable position (which would have to be a position during movement) in which the transducer can detect the position. However, we can't exclude that's the case either, especially if we are taking this line of argument to its theoretical maximum. Regardless, this is not stated in D3 and I would therefore argue that D3 does not disclose it.
For the record, I would also argue that even if the transducer could detect it, that's not the same as having a circuit configured to implement a reading of it. [002] in D3 does state that the signal transmitted from the transducer to the microprocessor 25 is done when it detects the proximity, which is after the movement. The microprocessor 25 is thus configured to determine "when the push-button element 2 is depressed or not". There is no mention of sending a signal in any other position than when the button is pressed, in fact I would argue that it would go against the the entire idea of D3, which is to detect when a button/switch is in one of a number of predetermined positions. If the signal was sent during movement, that would mess up the intended purpose and cause uncertainty about which position the switch was in (since it would create an infinite number of positions).
- [3], D3: "In an alternative embodiment shown in Fig. 1b, the transducer is positioned within
ReplyDeletethe housing 21 at its periphery along the axis 8 while the magnet is positioned in the
interior part 5 also along the axis 8 and such that the transducer can detect the magnet
when it passes at proximity during the operation of pressing."
- "when it passes at proximity during the operation of pressing" is equivalent to "as the key is being inserted and the plurality of magnets pass", taking into account the content of [4], which is an alternative of [3] with multiple magnets and/or detectors.
Hence, Claim 1+Claim 6 is anticipated by D3.
@serial reading - You are right! I concede the point about the transducer.
DeleteI still maintain the part about the microprocessor though. I can see the argument against it, but I don't think it will change my mind since there is no mention of adapting the microprocessor or how/when the signals are transmitted from the transducer in relation to [003]. I would argue that there is still no need for the transducer to transmit (or the processor to receive) anything other than that the magnet HAS passed, not that it IS passing. I'm happy to hear an argument for it though, maybe I'm missing something (again).
- Claim 6 says: "wherein the electronic circuit means are configured to implement a serial reading of said detectors' electric signals"
ReplyDelete- [2] "When the push-button element 2 is depressed, the magnet 10 moves closer toward the Hall-effect transducer 15, which detects its proximity and transmits a signal to a
microprocessor 25 located inside the housing 21. Hence, the microprocessor 25 is configured to determine when the push-button element 2 is depressed or not. Depending on the assessment of the microprocessor 25, a latch (not shown) can be actuated to execute the start/open or stop/lock function"
- it has already been established that the transducer can detect the plurality of magnets
when they pass at proximity during the operation of pressing: [4] + [3], D3.
- Accordingly, the detector transmits electrical signals to the microprocessor when the magnets pass at proximity during the operation of pressing.
-[4] "Such alternative arrangements make it possible to detect whether the push-button is in an open position, a closed position or any intermediate position (depending on the geometric arrangement and the number of transducers or magnets).
- The detection of all the positions in [4], in contrast to the two distinct positions in [2], is possible only if the microprocessor is configured to detect (=read) all these signals one by one (=serial reading of the signals; broadest reasonable interpretation).
Hence, Claim1+Claim6 is anticipated by D3.
Here I must disagree, as expected. I agree with most of your logic, but you make a leap when arguing that "accordingly, the detector transmits electrical signals to the microprocessor WHEN the magnets pass at proximity". This is not disclosed in D3, period.
DeleteThe only passage disclosing that even the transducer, let alone the microprocessor, is able to detect DURING a movement, is in [03]. [04] explicitly discloses "ANOTHER alternative embodiment", immediately after the embodiment disclosed in [03]. Nowhere is it stated that [03] is combinable with [04] (or that embodiments are freely combinable in general), thus such a combination is clearly an intermediate generalisation.
Further, even if it wasn't, there is no need for the microprocessor to be able to detect the signals one by one (or rather for the transducer to detect and then transmit to the microprocessor). It only needs to determine the signals from all magnets WHEN they are in position, not during movement. And even if it was necessary, it is definitely not necessary to transmit the signal to the processor during such a movement. And, to top it off, even if you could argue that it is likely for that to be the case, it is not explicitly disclosed.
Even if I disagree with your conclusion, I think the arguments are good enough to at least make a decent case for it. It's been fun (a bit too much so, I really should prioritize studying for C instead), well argued! =)
@ Erik Olsson
DeleteI can even make an argument for novelty-destroying the whole concept of serial reading as viewed by the client based on D3, [4], not just the broadest possible interpretation :-).
- D3, [4] states that the system determines whether the push-button (key) is in an open, closed, or intermediate position based on the geometric arrangement of magnets. ([4], last sentence.)
- Since only one detector is used (D3,[4]), the system must infer position from a sequence of detected signals over time as the key moves.
- For the processor to know the key’s position based on detected signals, it must compare those signals to a predefined reference or expected positions (implicit disclosure).
- This means that the system not only detects a sequence of signals over time but also interprets them by reference to stored positional data, which is functionally similar to what the client regards functional reading.
- Since D3 inherently includes both sequential detection and comparison to expected values, it already discloses serial reading as worded by the client in [18].
Based on this, any amendment further specifying the details of serial reading disclosed in [18] would not make Claim 1+ Claim 6 novel over D3,[4].
Thanks for the discussion, was pleasant.
Good luck with your C-exam!
Communication was so lousy that could be a real one issued from EPO
ReplyDeleteHi everyone, I have started a PETITION to urge the EPO to offer the EQE twice a year, thereby minimizing the negative psychological impact on our mental health when we fail one part of the exam (and thereby the whole exam!hence forced to wait one complete year to retake - as if lifetime is endless).
ReplyDeletePlease I urge you to sign the reasonable (vernünftig, raisonnable) petition and to share it with colleagues, friends, trainees, and whoever you think can accelerate taking a decision by the EPO.
Thank you DeltaPatents for allowing us to share our concerns about the exam. While many companies in this domain are very much profit and business focused, you are humain and quality focused. Thanks from the heart.
Petition:
https://chng.it/V29hwhJQ8n
Is it possibile that EPO can't find some patent attorneys capable to write few page of a fairy comprehensible paper?
ReplyDelete@Anonymous: I suspect AI being involved in drafting paper B ('24 and '25). The style is too different compared to before.
DeleteYes, you can complain based on subject matter because the exam is supposed to be based on technology accessible to all candidates of various backgrounds!
ReplyDeleteNo more Einstein working in Patent Offices nowdays.....
ReplyDelete