Paper A Electricity/Mechanics
Dependent claims may follow
after we've done part of the B exam.
Usually many different
formulations are acceptable.
Looking forward to your
comments.
Click "read more" for the claim.
Independent claim
A force sensor for detecting a location at which a force is applied, comprising:
- a sheet comprising a plurality of input optical fibres and an output optical fibre;
- the output optical fibre overlapping each of the input optical fibres at respective coupling locations;
- a light injecting device arranged to inject into each of the input optical fibres an optical signal with a respective different characteristic allowing the optical signals to be distinguished from each other;
- the sheet being arranged such that when a force is applied on the sheet at a coupling location, a distance between a respective one of the input optical fibres and the output optical fibre at the coupling location is reduced so that the optical signal is coupled from the respective one of the input optical fibres into the output optical fibre;
- a light receiving device arranged at an end of the output optical fibre for receiving a coupled optical signal, comprising:
- a converter for converting the received optical signal into a different electrical signal for each different characteristic of the received optical signal; and
- a processing unit arranged to monitor the electrical signal produced by the light receiving device to determine the characteristic of the received optical signal and determine a coupling location at which a force is applied based on said determined characteristic.
Independent
claim:
© Copyright DeltaPatents, 2015
All rights reserved. No part of this answer may
be reproduced, used in any way for generating further course material or
updates, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without
written consent of DeltaPatents.The answer is made
available for personal use only.SHARE:
Even though its just over 24 hours ago since I wrote it I'm not certain anymore of details. Overall I wrote down a claim which was pretty similar to yours, in that respect I am relieved. However I'm certain my claim is not as succinct nor as clear. So I will have to wait till July to see how wrong I was.
ReplyDeleteNot sure whether the "sheet" was mandatory, since it can be a cavity also instead of a sheet.
ReplyDeleteSame doubt for the converter/processing unit : wouldn't a light receiving device be enough? (light receiving device arranged to determine which coupling location is submitted to a force based on the different characteristics of the output signals)
I tend to agree, I skipped the sheet based on the cavity and some phrasing in the line of "as long as the distance is changed due to a force".
DeleteI also only focused on the light receiving device, stating the purpose of that was to determine the coupling location based on based on the different characteristics
I also skipped the sheet based on the same logic as Stockholm, however I did have the converter and processing unit...
DeleteI put the sheet in the claim. My reasoning was, without the "elastic" sheet there is no separation of the fibers, and the device could not achieve the technical effect. Plus, the specification noted that the cavities were present in the elastic sheet or the sheet could be transparent.
DeleteMy claim is similar save from the sheet and because I wrote that each injected optical signal has a different value of the same characteristic... By characteristic, I understood frequency, colour, etc... And I used value for f1, f2... Or for blue, green... Not the best word perhaps, but I didn't come up with anything better, and I think it's clear from the description and dependent claims...
ReplyDeleteJuan
Hi Juan,
DeleteGood point, your phrasing indeed appears to be more in line with the meaning of 'characteristic' in the client's letter (e.g., pulse frequency, colour). Probably this should be corrected in our attempt at the independent claim. However, one could still argue that red light has a 'different characteristic' than blue light, so it seems unlikely to me that this would result in a severe penalty.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy claim was similar to the above. I wasn't sure if claiming frequency rather than characteristic was ok....since different colours of light are at different frequencies. ...
ReplyDeleteCreative solution, I would indeed argue that the term frequency covers both color and pulse frequency (and let's hope the marking sheet takes this into account, as color is more commonly referred to in terms of wavelength rather than frequency).
DeleteHowever, by claiming frequency, you might exclude other characteristics (intensity? amplitude modulation?) at which the client hints at: "Other characteristics could be used, as long as they allow the optical signals to be distinguished from each other", [027].
Yes. I agree it may not cover alternatives hinted at by the client. However, all the embodiments disclosed appeared able to be covered by frequency. I am more worried that the examiners may not think I have covered all embodiments....leading to quite considerable loss of marks. ...also I thought that intensity and amplitude modulation were dependent on the amount of coupling ie pressure applied to the coupling regions so would not work in the same way as changing frequency
DeleteAlso omitted the sheet as this would exclude the cavity option. This was a dependent claim for me.
ReplyDeleteI went back and forth as to whether a 'light-receiving device' would do or if it needed converter and processing unit. I went with the converter + processer as i) I thought light-receiving device alone is arguably a bit 'result-to-be achieved' and ii) - a purely personal reason - I tend to go too broad rather than too narrow if I don't check myself (as far as the EQEs see it) so took the option with more features...!
Hi "It's Over!" and others,
DeleteRegarding the sheet vs. cavity discussion, our impression from [028] of the client's letter was that the cavity was an alternative to the sheet being _transparent_. As such, the sheet may comprise a cavity instead of being transparent. We therefore used the term 'sheet' as referring to the resulting structure which comprises the optical fibers.
However, it does seem possible to simply omit the sheet, rather directly stating that the force sensor comprises a plurality of input optical fibres and an output optical fibre, with
the output optical fibre overlapping each of the input optical fibres at respective coupling locations. Maybe that's even a better solution than claiming the sheet.
Nico, do you think there will be a large penalty for specifying that the sheet is transparent and flexible?
DeleteDifficult to say, particularly not knowing the official claim.
Deleteif we anyhow do some pure speculation: in A 2014 Nutcracker, both embodiments used rods to connect two plates. The text did indicate at one place that instead of rods also tubes could be used. Limiting the claim to rods (covering both shown embodiments, but not a suggested option) lead to -10 marks. Limiting the claim to tubes lead to -50 marks (since both shown embodiments were not covered).
What about claiming 'frequency' instead of 'characteristic'? It was my opinion that 'frequency' covered the case of different colours and pulsed light, since different colours have different frequencies and different pulsed light have different frequencies.....
DeleteHi all,
Deleteregarding the sheet vs no sheet question: I also opted against the sheet. I agree that it does not exclude any cavity embodiment, since the (possibly opaque) sheet can have these cavities. But I am wondering, in D1 the closest prior art embodiment has a patch for each of the coupling location, rather than one single large sheet in which all of the input and the one output fibres are arranged. I am wondering if the proposed solution would exclude the "one patch per coupling location" architecture and thus be slightly too restrictive. Also, regarding the two-part form. Wouldn't this sheet have to be in the characterising portion vis-Ã -vis the D1 embodiment, the way the proposed claim is formulated?
To anonymous 5:52
ReplyDeleteThere was two kinds of frequency indeed, the pulse of switch ON/OFF and the colour. I doubt though that it was intended to lead to the word "frequency" as part of claim 1... Otherwise they would have stated somewhere that different colours are different frequencies (you are not supposed to come with any such knowledge at the exam).
To "It's over" :
The sheet could not be a dependent claim because it was not a fall back position compared to the prior art.
You are probably right. It just seemed obvious that different colours have different frequencies.....we were taught it at school.
DeleteI agree. Any highschool graduate knows colour, wavelength and -hence- frequency are just different expressions / unit systems for the same characteristic of (near-) visible light. The word 'characteristic' can thus not be necessary to cover all three, if no other characteristic is to be covered too. Its use may rather result in lack of clarity, support, or even novelty!
DeleteConverter + Processor + electric signal? Not sure. Novelty is assured by the processor distinguishing between the characteristics. The signal is claimed as electric, but why restrict to it when it's not necessary. It could be acustic (louder when near), etc... For the rest my claim was almost identical.
ReplyDeleteYes, one of our alternative solutions was indeed a purely functional definition of the light receiving device, omitting the converter, processing unit and thereby also the conversion to the electrical domain. Both formulations provide novelty and encompass all described embodiments, so this may be an example of different acceptable formulations.
DeleteI wonder if a totally functional definition would not be too close to a "goal to be achieved" or lacking essential technical features, though. This is where paper A gets ridiculously far from reality. In real life, it is subjective to the examiners whether functional feature are admitted or essential feature are missing, there is no right or wrong answer. Paper A should really be more realistic in that sense, IMHO.
DeleteNico, as an alternative solution, would it be possible to specify a light injecting device arranged to inject into each of the input optical fibres an optical signal (without indicating that the signals are different from each other), provided that it was then specified that the light receiving device was arranged to convert the coupled optical signal into separate electrical signals according to a characteristic of each optical signal.
DeleteWell, it's certainly not an ideal formulation since the relation between the characteristic of the optical signal and the input optical fibre (being different for each input optical fibre) is lost. In addition, I believe that in the embodiment using pulse frequency, the photo detector converts the optical signal in one electrical signal (and not separate ones) from which the processing unit then detects the pulse frequency.
DeleteWhat CPA did people select? I took Alpha.
ReplyDeleteThe last embodiment in D1 (matrix of coupling locations and different colors injected; this embodiment allows determining several locations independently [like the invention] and has most features in common with the invention [it is the only embodiment in prior art where optical signals with different characteristics are injected] but with much more complex structure as it requires as many photo-detectors as locations).
Delete... and included in the summary of prior art a remark that in that very last embodiment described in D1 the different characteristics allow determining easily a malfunctioning LED, whereas in the invention they allow identifying the locations where force is applied.
DeleteI don't have the paper in front of me but I remember that it was stated that the first embodiment of the invention was based on Alpha... I used this reasoning as why it would be the starting point for the invention... I was under the impression D1 would require more work to modify...
DeleteThe closest prior art:
Delete• Technical field: force sensors based on optical fibres - Both Alpha and D1 lie in this field
• General purpose: detect if someone is stepping on/lying on the sheet - Both Alpha and D1 relate to this purpose
• More specific purpose: determine at which location the force is applied [09]. Alpha cannot do this; D1 can. However if we add: in a simple way (also in [09]), then D1 is not so great, leading us to look at:
• Structural/functional similarity/ease of rebuilding: The claimed embodiment is an adaptation of Alpha, see [010]. The modification is simple: different signals are inserted into the fibres. Looking at D1: the matrix layout of the fibres is quite wrong. Seems more difficult to rebuild.
So, if you put a lot of emphasis on the purpose, you may go for D1. If you look at structural similarity you may go for Alpha.
The inventor was using Alpha. He realised a problem with it and looked around and saw that D1 had solved that. He now had a choice of adding the location detection to Alpha or simple structure to D1. He chose to further develop Alpha (see [010]). Thus he used Alpha as the closest prior art. I would also go for Alpha. However, in some A exams both choices are fine and otherwise the penaltyis very low (e.g. 2 marks).
I thought so initially as well, and then when I went beyond the question of the purpose to eliminate the embodiments that did not fit and checked as a second criterion the number of features in common, I found the last lines of D1 to be highly relevant and that that embodiment, although not shown, was the closest...
ReplyDeleteOops, this was an answer to @Dublin February 27, 2015 11:08 am
DeleteThanks Anonymous,
DeleteAnyone else have some comments?
I also had difficulty selecting CPA, so much so that I chose not to use a characterizing portion (I noticed delta's proposal above doesn't have one either). I wrote a somewhat lengthy introduction and pointed out how the claim differed from each of alpha and D1.
DeleteHopefully it'll attract enough marks. Wait and see...
"Santry"
Would there be any problem with just claiming a first and a second input optical fibre instead of a plurality of input optical fibres?
ReplyDeleteJuan.
I don't see any substantive problems, provided you used an 'open-ended' term such as 'comprise' (and not 'consists of', 'made of', etc), thereby allowing the claim to also cover more than two input optical fibers.
DeleteI did... Thanks for the prompt answers!
DeleteWhy "an output optical fibre" when there were embodiments with a plurality of output optical fibres. Would "at least one output optical fibre" not be better, in order to cover both embodiments?
ReplyDelete"An output fibre" covers the case of multiple output fibres. If a competitor would make a mat with a plurality of output fibres, they would infringe the patent since their mat would indeed have "an output fibre". Thus, "an output fibre" is equivalent of "at least one output fibre". Am I correct?
DeleteBut I did write "at least one" myself... :-)
Kaa
See indeed Kaa's comment. "At least one output optical fibre" would also appear to be perfectly acceptable, albeit it may make the remainder of the claim formulation more tricky (which is why we decided against using it).
DeleteIn your opinion, how many point you lose if the claim refer to an article instead of a force sensor?
ReplyDeleteDepending on whether or not the claim makes clear it is actually a thing working as a force sensor, this may be fine.
DeleteI was a little worried about using the terms input and output fibres. Would a number of first optical fibres and at least one second optical fibre be acceptable?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, that would depend whether or not it is implicitly or otherwise clear from the claim as a whole that the optical signals generated by the light injecting device are injected into the number of first optical fibers and the coupled optical signals are received by the light receiving device from the at least one second optical fiber. In such a case, it would follow implicitly from the claim that the first optical fibers are "input" fibers and the at least one second optical fibers is an "output" fiber.
DeleteOk. Yes. I made it clear that an optical signal was coupled to each of the number of first optical fibres and light collected at the at least one second optical fibre.
DeleteWhen do they send the exams home?
ReplyDeleteThe paragraph on the "cavity" was really unclear to me.
ReplyDeleteIt said "In both cases, overlapping fibres are separated by an elastic layer through which light can pass". (For this reason, I included the feature "transparent elastic sheet" in claim 1.
Separated at the coupling location "by a cavity" as I understood it didn't exclude the presence of the sheet.
I considered excluding the sheet from the claim, but decided that wouldn't make clear how a force applied at the coupling location could reduce distance between the fibres.
Settled on "wherein the plurality of input fibres and the at least one output fibre is arranged with respect to sheet such that a force applied...reduces... blablablabla"....
My claim is similar to the claim mentioned here. I did not claim the sheet, as a "Hohlraum"/"empty space" was also mentioned as spatial separation. Thus I phrased it like "wherein the input and output optical fiber are spatially separated in that ..." I am reöevaed to see, that this claim seems to be correct. Overall, I think that A was more difficult than the recent years. For dependent claims I used: camera, the frequency f, the color/light wavelength/light frequency, saparation by elastic transparent sheet, saparaton by emty space/Hohlarum, the larger entities "Matraze" and "Fußmatte" comprising the sensor, the shutter, the switching on/off of the signals
ReplyDeleteMy objective technical problem was sth. like "providing a force sensor that requires less light detectors" As we add more electronic entities, I thin that "less components" as mentioned in the paper is not adequate. In D1, each coupling location requires its own light detector to be able to distinguish between the coupling locations.
I think that "and determine a coupling location at which a force is applied based on said determined characteristic" is not needed, as the problem is already solved by determining the characteristic of the output signal if the input signal characteristics are defined. Thus, "determine the characteristic of the received optical signal" should be enough.
ReplyDeleteI have a question: how much are little clarity objections penalized, if in this large amount of functional language you have some small error in referencing the entities?
ReplyDeleteIf indeed it is just a small unclarity it may only be 5 or 10 marks. However, it is a different story if on a reasonable interpretation of your claim, you do not cover all embodiments or the claim is not new.
DeleteI have the same structural features as suggested and similar wording for the functional language, but I am closer to the language in the paper, as I tried to copy as much as possible of the functional language from the paper. For example, the paper states that "the electrical signal is generated from the coupled optical signal according to the characteristic (translated from the German exam) of the optical signal". I used this language to make sure I am closer to the paper. In the past exams, the characterizing portion was literally in the paper, while the preamble had to be generalized.
DeleteAs "anonymous" is not available for the B-blog, I am posting my comments at this place: I have exactly the same claim set as DeltaPatents suggests and I argued R. 43(2) c). I also discussed A. 84, 82 and R. 137(5) in the reply, as the second independent claim was largely taken from the description, as in paper A 2013. I found the amount of prior art and formal issues in this paper a bit too much and could just finish on time. I found B more work compared to the previous exams.
ReplyDeleteI used the term "light source" instead of "light injecting device", is that a problem? I could not find any hint in the exam, that the applicant does not sell the system without something that emits light (=light source). In fact, it could be argued that it is essential to have sth. that emits light to claim a complete solution. From my point of view device 5 is a device that emits light so that I called it "light source". This light source can then comprise multiple LEDs or the white light lamp 12 with spectral filters.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the sheet should not be in the claim, because of the embodiment with the cavity.
Apart from that my claim is essentially the same.
I meant: "I could not find any hint in the exam, that the applicant does sell the system without (!) something that emits light (=light source)."
DeleteWhy should the term "light source" for device 5 be a problem: it is a device that emits light.
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteI failed paper A... my last paper to pass.
I have a question: the description relates to "overlapping fibres" [0028] whereas the examiner's reports specifies :
the output optical fibre overlapping each of the input optical fibres (feature d)).
I consider this is more limiting.
I also consider it is unclear since it is not said that the force sensor has an upper and under face...
May I have lost points with this aspect?
Is there somethong else to understand?
Thanks for the comments...
I wish a nice summer to everybody.
Hi Article 84,
DeleteI'm not entirely sure if I understand your question correctly, but feature d) is indeed more limited than 'overlapping fibres' since it explicitly indicates that the output optical fibre overlaps with each of the input optical fibres. This indeed appears to be essential for the invention to work. If the claim would specify simply 'overlapping fibres', this would also include the input fibres overlapping each other but not the output fibre, which clearly would not work.
By the way, it appears that you consider the term 'overlapping' to indicate that the output optical fibre lies 'over' (i.e., above, on top of) the input optical fibres.
If that were the case, this would be a undue limitation since the invention appears also to work if the output optical fibre would lie 'under' (i.e., below) the input optical fibres.
Admittedly, I did not see this implication and rather considered 'overlapping' to mean:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/overlap
2. To have an area or range in common with.
and not:
1. To lie or extend over and cover part of.
I suspect that the examiners report also did not take into account the possible interpretation of overlapping to mean 1) as above.
In view of the more recent interpretation, does a further independent claim directed to floor mat (or mattress) comprising the device of claim 1 cause a deduction of points?
ReplyDeleteThanks for the attention