Paper A e-EQE 2021: first impressions?
To all who sat the A-paper today:
What are your first impressions to this year's A-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 papers of the last few years?
Similar difficulty level?
Could you find the wording for claim features in the clients letter and the prior art?
Was the subject-matter well understandable, for chemists as well as e/m candidates?
Multiple independent claims? Functional features?
The paper and our answers
Copies of the paper will be provided on this blog as soon as we have received copies of the papers, preferably in all three languages (English, French and German). Should you have a copy, please send it to any of our tutors or to training@deltapatents.com.
The core of our answers will be given as soon as possible 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 04-03-2021 23:24"), whereas using your real name or a nick nameis 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!
What are your first impressions to this year's A-paper?
Any general or specific comments?
Surprising elements in the client's letter and the prior art?
What was the effect of doing it online? Of typing your answer rather than writing it by hand? Could you benefit from being able to copy from the exam paper into your answer? And from copying parts of your answer elsewhere into your answer?
How did you experience taking the exam from your home or office location rather than in an examination center?
(How) was it different due to the due of the LockDown Browser?
What was the effect of the situation that you had to take the exam largely from the screen (as only a part could be printed) rather than from paper?
Did you experience any technical difficulties during the exam? How & how fast were they solved?
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 papers of the last few years?
Similar difficulty level?
Could you find the wording for claim features in the clients letter and the prior art?
Was the subject-matter well understandable, for chemists as well as e/m candidates?
Multiple independent claims? Functional features?
The paper and our answers
Copies of the paper will be provided on this blog as soon as we have received copies of the papers, preferably in all three languages (English, French and German). Should you have a copy, please send it to any of our tutors or to training@deltapatents.com.
The core of our answers will be given as soon as possible 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 04-03-2021 23:24"), whereas using your real name or a nick nameis 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!
Update:
SHARE:
Adhesion layer yes, or adhesion layer no? What team are you on?
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen the paper yet, so no idea... Am looking forward to find out though.
DeleteAnd we're looking forward to find out what you find out! :)
DeleteAdhesion layer yes
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the bus motor was novelty-destroying otherwise..
No, because the bus motor did not comprise substrate superalloy (in my opinion)
DeleteBus motor was not a superalloy so I thought it was fine
DeleteBus motor? Where was this? I didn't see any reference to a bus motor anywhere in the paper.
DeleteI am with the person above, WTF bus motor????????
Deleteit was the paragraph under the figure description, just some background art. you clearly didn't read carefully enough. sorry.
Deletecan you just clarify, which figure description?
DeleteWhere it says "figure 1 discloses ... figure 2 discloses ... figure 3 discloses...". The paragraph beneath this was a description of a bus motor from which the invention took some inspiration
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBus motor was an experiment performed by their own researcher right? Or did I misinterpret? I thought it was not prior art (though it doesn't matter for the claim in my opinion)
DeleteI also thought that the bus motor was an experiment performed by one of the inventors. I could see no suggestion in the relevant paragraph that this was made public and therefore was not prior art. I thought it was rather something to be protected by the claims if possible.
DeleteMy understanding was for the bus motor to be a motor which was currently on the market with the features as described in the specification. The researcher did perform experiments on it but it was a known product.
DeleteOr component obtaind by the method?
ReplyDeletei did with adhesion otherwise not novel over d2 i think
I felt it's risky to draft it without adhesion layer.
ReplyDelete- 10 marks, if adhedion layer is in and this is considered wrong.
- 30 marks, if adhesion layer is missing and the bus motor was considered novelty destroying
No adhesion layer for me but I included the 25 micrometer width, for novelty over D2 + IS thanks to contribution to heat dissipation
ReplyDeleteI did the same, I felt the letter hinted at no adhesion layer, benefit being the reduced weight. Also used the >= 25 um width for novelty + IS
DeleteThat
Deletesame
DeleteSame!
DeleteIS was complied with also without adhesion layer in my opinion because D2 was completely silent about increasing lifetime of the component through a column microstrocture of the ceramic oxide layer (=> no prompts for using such microstrocture for increasing lifetime were provided by D2).
But I might be wrong...
And of course, >25 micrometers had to be claimed for novelty reasons over D2.
Deletesame
DeleteSame. But i was stressing about it!
DeleteMich
I don't think >25 micrometers was needed. It was described as a preferable width (admittedly one to provide sufficient thermal insulation). In C1 I defined the width as (IIRC) "having a thickness to provide sufficient thermal insulation", while also defining the coated component as a whole as being (suitable) for use in an engine whose combustion zone is at least 1600 deg". D2 didn't disclose such a thickness, therefore novel. TP of same lifetime with less weight is still solved. Felt it was risky so >25 was put into claim 2.
Delete25 was described as optional. I went for the specified angle as it was described as essential for creating the effect. D2 was silent about this.
DeleteWhilst 25um was described as optional in the specification, and so preferably it would not be in an independent claim, I think that this feature was essential to provide novelty over D2
Delete@Blink, agree. D2 described perpendicular (=90 deg)
Delete25 um for D2 and angles because they were described as essential for the invention to work.
DeleteNo intermediate layer thought.
25 um was essential. Otherwise no efficient heat insulation can be achieved according to the clients letter.
DeleteThis ist also simply logical. If the layer was too thin, the superalloy would melt anyway.
Essential features are those which are either required to achieve the effect or essential for enablement. >25 was essential for enablement. The papers says if it is not above 25, it does not provide sufficient isolation. Also i think less than 2mm is also essential, as if it is not there, there is no weight less advantage.
DeleteTherefore, my claim didn't have adhesion layer but has these ranges to enable it and to get the advantage.
I did not enjoy that paper, it felt more complicated than previous years in my opinion. Unsure if that was just due to the stress of the exam or not, however.
ReplyDeleteI also incorporated the adhesion layer in product claim 1. Last minute I also focused the scope to Zirconium oxide (§5 in THAT case..) for sake of inventive step.
ReplyDeleteHad trouble in finding a wording for encompassing both process variants in one claim.
I wasn't sure about the adhesion layer at all. it was indicated strongly in the letter as optional. So I opt for specifying the specific angle of providing perpendicular as it was not specified in D2.
ReplyDeleteSame - I specified the actual angle to confer novelty as this was essential for achieving the effect.
Deletethe angle itself wouldnt be inventive, you would have to specify thermal insulation requiring at least 25micrometre of thickness, I think anyway. D2 mentions perpendicular whoch is 90degrees and within the range of 75 to 105 degrees. so destroys novelty. D2 only mentions a thickness of 1micrometre however and wouldnt be enough for thermal insulation nor wpuld it be enough to achieve the effect of reducing stress due to thermal expansion.
DeleteI went with a claim comprising
ReplyDelete- a coated engine component suitable for engines having a combustion temp of at least 1600degrees (novelty over D2)
- thermally insulting layer of ceramic oxide + 25micrometre thickness (need the thickness for sufficiency) (novelty over D2)
- columnar microstructure (novelty over D1)
independent claim to method of producing the above using electron beam
independent claim to method of producing the above using a laser (alternative method to electron beam so two method claims would be allowed)
I drafted very similar claims, but I didn't specify the laser in the independent claim for the last method, I generically stated that the column microstrocture was provided by "machining" (I don't even know what it means :) )
DeleteI also did machining in my 2nd independent method claim. Then added with a laser as a dependent claim.
DeleteMy solution ist almost identical. However I additionally included the angles in Claim 1 because from the letter i understood this as an essential feature for the microstructure to work properly
DeleteTough paper, I felt. Definitely harder than 2019 or 2017.
ReplyDeleteThe paper was not well drafted I felt - andoisation - what is it? there was no definition of this.
ReplyDeleteI specified the perpendicular angle as this was not mentioned in D2. Adhesive layer was an optional layer all throughout the client letter so didn't put it in.
The perpendicular angle was mentioned in D2: "This coating has a columnar microstructure with columns perpendicular to the component surface [...]". This is novelty destroying for the angular range in the client letter.
DeleteI struggled not to apply my own knowledge here (with a degree in materials science, and a fair amount of practice with turbine blades...) - anodized Al microstructure typically has a sort of honeycomb structure - debatable whether it's really columnar...
DeleteVery difficult paper - confusing me all throughout by stating adhesive is optional. In the end, I went for specifying the angle to provide the column effect as it was stated as a MUST in the client letter and not disclosed in D2.
ReplyDeleteThis was my independent claim, as far as I can remember.
ReplyDeleteAn engine component for an enigne with a combusiton section at a temperature at least 1600, comprising:
A substrate made of a superalloy;
A ceramic oxide layer deposited on the substrate, the ceramic oxide layer has a columnal microstructure having columns and spaces bewteen the columns,and has a thickness of at least 25;
characterised in that:
the columns are oriented such that angle between a column and a surface of the substrate is 90 - 105 (I dont remember exact number).
Any opinion?
I did the same here except I did not add thickness of 25 as it was described as optional.
DeleteI also didn't include the at least 1600 but should have done looking back at it now.
got similar claim.
DeleteHard paper for sure.
Same claim but not the 25 thickness. letter was slightly confusing that it described it as optional but I justify leaving it out because D2 did not mention the angle and there is no standard definition of what is meant by perpendicular.
DeleteYes, I also hesitated adding "thickness 25" as it was "preferred". But at the following, without this, no thermal insulating effect can be expected.
DeleteI thought thermal insulating is essential for the component.
you may lack sufficiency if you dont have 25 and have thermally insulting layer I think. also, I don't think the specific perpendicular angle is characterising portion nor is it inventive.. substantially perpendicular is simply in the range of 90 degrees and I think D2 had the word perpendicular. there was no speicifc advantage for a range of 95 to 105 for example
DeleteI got a similar claim to you also. Didn't include the thickness but did include the angle.
DeleteI went for a broader preamble - just an engine component [without for an engine with a combustion section at a temperature at least 1600] as it means suitable for anyway.
I drafted a very similar claim.
DeleteI also included the definition of ceramic oxide as provided in D1, because D1 stated that "ceramic oxide" could refer to different groups of materials. So I also stated that ceramic oxide are metal oxides melting >1600 C.
And by the way I haven't drafted it in the two-part form
I think the angle is required. The issue with the 25 is that it was stated as preferred so it is very confusing if this is the way the EPO want your independent claim. The angle is described as essential. D2 only mentions the word and did not specify the angle so it would be novel. The angle is described as essential for achieving the effect of the columns so there is an advantage associated to it.
DeleteAdded the angle and not the thickness too. I did debate about this but it clearly stated the 25 is preferred. The specified angle was NOT mentioned in D2 and described as essential for providing the desired effect of the column arrangement.
DeleteLike others, it would feel harsh if we are penalized for not adding 25 as it was optional. The paper was either not clear or it was misleading.
In my mind, i had the angle but not the thickness for the exact reasons here. thickness of 25 was optional. Adhesive layer was optional. Only the angle was described as key to providing the effect - so this is where the advantage is.
DeleteIn the letter, if my memory is correct, "substantially perpendicular" is the only way for achieving reducing the stress on the component and prevent deforming.
DeleteBut, in my opinion, if you claim just "substantially perpendicular" without angle, it is disclosed in D2.
So, I decided to add the angle.
the perpendicular nature of the columnar microstructure is technical. the specific range of angles is not essential nor does it add any technical effect on top of the wording "perpendicular columnar structure"
DeleteI also had a similar claim including the 25 um, 1600 degrees and the angle range. I was also struggling with the 25um, because normally the EPO clearly steers you in the client letter. In case preferably is used, do not use a feature as essential feature or distinghuishing feature. However in this case I have chosen to be better safe than sorry. D1 claims all features of the claim except the specific suitability (for an enigne with a combusiton section at a temperature at least 1600) and the 25um. D2 might be suitable, but then has a decrease thermal insulation which decreases the lifetime. Therefor I have choses to include the "at least 25 um" also in the claim. In this case the claim is inventive, both starting from t D1 or D2 as prior closest prior art. If starting from D1, the skilled person will not learn that the columnar structure has less weight. If the skilled person nevertheless applies the teaching from D2, than the skilled person ends with a ceramic layer with columnar structure of 1um with a decreased thermal insulation. The skilled person is not prompted to make the layer substantially thicker to improve the thermal insulation. On top of that the skilled person will not try to use layer of D1, because the purpose is different.
DeleteYes, exactly the same Claim 1 Here!
DeleteI drafted a very similar claim, however:
Delete-my characterizing portion comes right after superalloy, because D1 does not disclose "a ceramic oxide layer with a columnal microstructure deposited on the substrate"
-I did not include the exact values for the angle, because perpendicular in the prior clearly falls into the range 90-105, so therefore my columns are just "substantially perpendicular"
I think the key feature in claim 1 is "layer + thickness of 25 micrometer + columnar structure"
- columnar structure is novel+is over D1
- columnar structure of 25 micrometer is novel and inventive over D2
D2 only teaches a columnar structure of 1 micrometer, so does not disclose the feature. Also, the columnar structure is only taught for the base [which I think is the root, but there was no information on that] of the blade for a different purpose [anti-counterfeiting]. A further teaching away from "columnar structure of 25 micrometer" is that the coating of D2 is not used during the actual operation of the component [D2: "can be removed with a plasma before the component is used"]
yes, I added this angle but not the at least 25 as it was described as preferred.
ReplyDeleteI also claimed the angle in my independent claim and didn't include the thickness. My justification is similar to what is said here in that D2 is slient about the exact angle and there is no standard way of saying what the perpendicular angle is in the prior art. It also describes the angle as essential for achieving the effect.
ReplyDeleteWell D2 discloses a columnar microstructure suitable for filling gaps with rare earth ions. So the angle of the columns (with respect to the surface of the substrate) has to be substantially perpendicular, in order for the gaps to "hold" the ions. I'm not sure there is anything technical about the angle of the columns, as long as you mention that it is perpendicular you should be fine as it is an essential feature.
Deletebut it also said that the angle had to be 90 to 105 to achieve the effect and this angle was not mentioned in D2.
DeleteIt is a very confusing paper and badly worded. The 25 thickness kept contradicting itself. 25um thickness was in my mind described as optional so I left it out. Otherwise, I should also add 200um, adhesive layer etc as these are optional but can be added in.
In my opinion, perpendicular = 90 degrees by definition, which falls within the range of angles specified (even "roughly" 90 degrees does). I therefore believe the thickness was required to be novel over D2, and thereby inventive as the layer of D2 was unable to provide thermal protection.
Delete^ finally someone who agree with me.
DeleteI added at least 25 because the letter described it on the one hand as optional but on the other hand as needed for sufficient isoliation. Beside that, it was needed for novelty in view of D2. Very confusing paper.
ReplyDeleteLots of unclarities. I was totally unsure in view of the adhesive layer. I case you do not claim it, a depending claim comprising it must specify that the adhesive layer is between the ceramic oxid layer and the substrate whereas in claim 1 the ceramic layer is on the surface of the substrate. Therefor I claimed it as optional in claim 1. It felt not right, but I was afraid of loosing points for unclear claim language otherwise.
One could say that the ceramic layer is coated on component. 1 dep claim to directly on substrate and 1 dep claim with adhesion layer inbetween. At least that’s what I claimed ;)
Delete^ that is right, I should have done the same but ran out of time in the end.
DeleteI did exactly the same. However, i feel totally uncomfortable of leaving out the adhesive and the zirconiumoxide.
Deletevery confusing indeed. In the end, I decided to opt for leaving the 25um out but adding a dependent claim to it. I did specify the angle.
DeleteIt looks like you can go either way based on the letter which to be honest, was quite confusing in some parts.
Basically that is what I did with two optional embodiments in claim 1, one with one without the adhesive layer. Claim scope is the same, however it does not cover parts with additional layers (which were not disclosed) between the ceramic oxid layer and the adhesive layer. Could be punished due to rule 43, but I hope to gain enough points with the process claims.
DeleteIn the last paragraph, the turbine engine with holes. Should it be a method claim or a product claim, or both? I suddenly felt a bit blue, as I came across this last paragraph with so much compact information....after being exhausted by previous claims...
ReplyDeleteI simply said that the coated engine component is a turbine blade with a hollow centre and holes provided on its walls for air cooling
DeleteI was thinking the same...until I read the last sentence that the laser can be used to drill the holes...
DeleteI think the angle 90 - 105 is needed and is enough to achieve novelty over D2 simply by the fact that D2 did not mention this angle. There is no standard definition of what is meant by perpendicular otherwise they would have mention it in the paper. We are not allow to import knowledge. So, in the absence of any definition of what is meant by perpendicular, the angle 90-105 should confer novelty.
ReplyDelete"perpendicular" is not technical knowledge. it simply means something is 90degrees (substantially) to something else. If, like in D2, you was to fill the spaces between the columns with something like earth ions then you need a perpendicular columnar structure.
DeleteThere is a whole heap of case law of what is meant by "substantially" perpendicular.
Deleteby specifying the angle of 90 to 105. you should be novel over D2. I agree with annom that D2 didn't specify the angle.
Should it however be undestood that by applying the same technique at the same T 950°, D2 inevitably leads to such angle?
DeleteSo, do you mean perpendicular does not include an angle of 90 degrees?
Delete"There is a whole heap of case law of what is meant by "substantially" perpendicular."
Deletebut you're not claiming substantially perpendicular... the case law is only really necessary if you use the word substantially in the claim (which isn't the question here). the question is whether you would be novel over 90 degrees by using the range 75 to 105 degrees. and you wouldn't be,
I think you would still be because D2 describes the gaps are filled with ions - so essentially there is NO SPACES between the gaps of the column.
DeleteThe angle would give you the broadest novel claim over D2 without the thickness.
But like I said, I didn't think it was well written. They should have included a definition of what is meant by substantially perpendicular in D2.
Is the limitation of the substrate to being a superalloy necessary? I recall in [5]or [6] that they described their invention in generic terms as being a coated engine component comprising a substrate (must be metal?) and having a metal oxide coating.
ReplyDeleteI simply said an engine component made of a substrate for engines with a combustion section at a temperature at least 1600.
Deletethought of including superalloy but didn't in the end.... hopefully it won't be necessary
reading back and contemplating this again I think superalloy is essential and necessary to be novel over the bus motor... i guess ill sit the exam next year
DeleteI specified the angle but left out the requirement that oxide layer is at least 25 in thickness. The "25" feature is described as optional, it makes little sense to mislead candidate on purpose by describing an essential feature as optional. Also, in D2, it states that the space in gaps are "loaded" with ions, which suggests that the space is filled up, so it has be questioned whether there is any space between the columns at all in the turbine component of D2.
ReplyDeleteagree- I also specify angle but left out thickness for the same reason as you.
DeleteMy reasoning is this.
DeleteD2 explicitly states "perpendicular". Perpendicular = 90 degrees (this is not technical knowledge, so you're not importing any knowledge into the exam)
The angle in the description was 75 degrees to 105 degrees and is defined as "substantially perpendicular" in the client's letter.
If you have a range of 75 to 105, and a prior art document that teaches towards 90 degrees (within that range), then it is novelty destroying and definitely IS destroying.
Yeah, just say perpendicular columnar structure + 25 thickness at least. good to go.
DeleteI agree with AnonymousMarch 03, 2021 2:30 pm
Delete25 micrometre was optional only if a thermal insulation wasn't needed.
However, bly claiming a component for engine yadda yadda >1600 °C, I felt that specifying the thickness of >25 micrometers was mandatory, because otherwise the superalloy would melt (as it wouldn't be sufficiently insulated).
I think you would still be because D2 describes the gaps are filled with ions - so essentially there is NO SPACES between the gaps of the column.
DeleteThe angle would give you the broadest novel claim over D2 without the thickness.
But like I said, I didn't think it was well written. They should have included a definition of what is meant by substantially perpendicular in D2.
There is argument to say that D2 does not disclose gaps at all as this is filled with ions so specifying angles should be sufficient to overcome D2.
DeleteI did put 25um as a dependent claim. It would feel harsh if I was to be penalised without putting in 25um in the independent claim.
I think there will be alot of appeals on this unless the EPO is open minded about the 25 thickness and angles.
ReplyDeleteit is confusing that 25 thickness is described as optional. The angle are specified as essential for achieving the effect so I feel that it should be put in and that should achieve novelty. By not adding 25 um, you shouldn't get penalized for it as the paper really was not clear and people have gone either way.
I think the angles are clearly not novel.
DeleteThe first part of the sentence said that 25 was optional, but then the second part added that 25 was needed to achieve the effect of the invention, so it was clearly an essential feature. I understoof this to be a deliberate misdirection to increase the difficulty of the exam paper.
I felt I had too much time. Getting the papers 20mins before the exam starts turns an exam which used to be 3.5hrs long into an exam which is almost an hour longer!
ReplyDeleteProbably still failed though lol
D1 already discloses the "thickness of 25". assuming you included this limitation in claim 1 because you are concerned that D2 discloses the same columnar structure, is the "thickness of 25" feature inventive in view of D1 in any case?
ReplyDeleteyou're inventive over D1 because you say it's a columnar structure
Deletewhat about over D2 in combination with D1. If D2 is judged to disclose the same columnar structure, then D1 teaches using minimum of 25 in thickness as a trivial feature, then would the claim be inventive over D2+D1?
DeleteNo indication in D2 that the columnar structure could be used for thermal protection/reducing stress in an engine component. Hence, no motivation to implement it for that reason.
DeleteIf D2 is the starting document and is assumed to disclose the same columnar structure, and the problem solved by the "minimum of 25 thickness" feature is to provide sufficient heat protection. D1 in this regard clearly discloses the solution. I'm opening a can of worms here as the arguments for combining documents is the test of paper B and not A. But it would be very strange for the main distinguishing feature over D2 to be a trivial feature from D1.
DeleteImo the key feature in claim 1 is "layer + thickness of 25 micrometer + columnar structure"
Delete- columnar structure is novel+is over D1
- columnar structure of 25 micrometer is novel and inventive over D2
D2 only teaches a columnar structure of 1 micrometer, so does not disclose the feature. Also, the columnar structure is only taught for the base [which I think is the root, but there was no information on that] of the blade for a different purpose [anti-counterfeiting]. A further teaching away from "columnar structure of 25 micrometer" is that the coating of D2 is not used during the actual operation of the component [D2: "can be removed with a plasma before the component is used"]
- substantially perpendicular should be clear enough, without specifying the angles.
wanted to put adhesive+zriconiumoxide in on the last go, but i didnot. feel so bad about it now...
ReplyDeleteboth not essential, and I didn't either (with confidence).
Deletei hope you are right
DeleteDear anonymous 2:40pm
DeleteI am intrigued. Please supply your inventive step analysis (with confidence of course)
I remember somewhere, it is said, "perpendicular",'horizontal", such words are not clear, should use "axial" or similar...or define the positional relationship more precisely...
ReplyDeletehorizontal and vertical is not clear unless it is with respect to something else. perpendicular is absolutely clear...
DeleteD2 expressly states perpendicular - 90 deg by definition. So my analysis was that the range 75-105 deg wasn't novel or inventive over this disclosure.
ReplyDeleteNow, if I am judged to have brought my own specialist knowledge to the paper I'll be really annoyed. I didn't seek to define the term perpendicular, it just has (in my mind) a very standard meaning that comes second nature to me. It would be like including the word cheese and not expecting us to know that it's a dairy product...
Though I did include "substantially perpendicular" because I thought this was essential.
Deleteexactly
DeleteI think you would still be because D2 describes the gaps are filled with ions - so essentially there is NO SPACES between the gaps of the column.
ReplyDeleteThe angle would give you the broadest novel claim over D2 without the thickness.
But like I said, I didn't think it was well written. They should have included a definition of what is meant by substantially perpendicular in D2.
but what if you don't fill the gaps with ions. then you have spaces. it's not necessary that they fill it with ions to make the structure
DeleteYes agree, it says they "can be" filled with ions... so they might not be. And either way there will be an intermediate product before they are filled in which there are gaps.
DeleteD2 also discloses that the filled gaps can be re-opened by plasma, whereby it effectively discloses an embodiment wherein the ceramic oxide layer has gaps and thus a column microstructure (in my opinion)
DeleteAnd this is one of the difficulties of the paper - it was confusing throughout. 25um was described as not essential and optional so it feels harsh to be penalised heavily for this if you don't put it in. D2 does not explicitly mentioned the angle range and also describes no gaps I felt by filling it with ions (a confusing point).
DeleteI feel that the paper was not clear at all.
I think you would still be novel without adding the 25um and only the specified angle because D2 describes the gaps are filled with ions - so essentially there is NO SPACES between the gaps of the column.
ReplyDeleteThe angle would give you the broadest novel claim over D2 without the thickness.
But like I said, I didn't think it was well written. They should have included a definition of what is meant by substantially perpendicular in D2.
Perpendicular = at an angle of 90° to a given line, plane, or surface or to the ground. "substantially perpendicular" = 75-105 ° to a given line, plane, or surface or to the ground. GL F-IV,4.7, "substantially" to express that the concerned value or features should not be taken literally. It will be interpreted as if there were no "substantially".... so might be not a novelty-earning feature
ReplyDeletei put:
ReplyDeleteC1: compenent for engine with combust' zone @1600 comprising:
super alloy substrate;
ceramic layer coated to a surface of substrate;
wherein cermaic is 25um;
characrterised by colunmn structure and angle.
D1 CPA
novel over D1 by columns, novel over D2 by thickness
IS as D2 suggests smaller thickness and not same purpose, also suggest filling gaps so points away from solution.
method of elctron beam producing n.b CPA was D2 for this and in thi smethod i included teh adhseive layer (probaly shouldnt have)
method of plasma spraying n.b no adhesive layer
engine including the component
i didnt find many good fall backs to be honest though for dependt claims
If you mention that the layer is perpendicular to the SUBSTRATE at an angle of 70-105 then you would be novel over D2. There is no mention of this in D2.
ReplyDeleteD2 says that the columns are "perpendicular to the component surface". In my opinion, it's clear that the component surface is a substrate. Also clear that perpendicular falls within the range of 70 to 105 and so is novelty destroying.
DeleteNot IMO as perpendicular is 90 degrees in a normal dictionary meaning and so falls within that range destroying novelty. That is very basic undertsanding so i assumed it is part and parcel of what any sensible person would know and not importing extra knowledge.
DeleteSurprised people thought the angle = novelty/inventive over D2.
ReplyDeleteI went for the angle in claim 1 to provide clarity to 'substantially perpendicular' and then over 25 micrometres for novelty/inventive step.
Think I may lose -5 or so marks for the angle being specified as it's probably unnecessary
I went for the angle but not for the thickness as I got confused with the 25um thickness. I did add this in my dependent claim so hopefully I can claw back marks.
DeleteI was generally a little confused about D2 and thought that filling the gap meant that there was no gap. Also it didn't specify the angle (75-105 if that was the angle)
remembering the example on the previous paper on respiratory device: I thought it is needed to be claimed in a functional way so that the gap is is indeed a space and can be used for expanding the thermal insulating layer upon heating. So, added a functional feature "wherein the the spaces between the columnar microstructure are configured to allow to deform when substrate and thermal insulating layer expand upon heating."; [instead of specifying angle 90-105, as indicated by others.....].I thought the functional feature makes it novel and inventive over D2.
DeleteI don't think that angle was unnecessary for clarity reasons:
DeleteGL F IV 4.7: "... If error margins are specified in the application, they must be used in the claims in place of the expression containing "about" or similar terms. ..."
If we apply the same logic to our case, "substantially" has a particular technical definition (the angle being of X to Y °), whereby it must be used in the claims in place of the expression "substantially" (perpendicular)
Specifying the angles (75-105 or whatever) is actually broader than "perpendicular", being 90 degrees. So I believe that's a good choice. (Also, perpendicular, being defined as 75-105 deg, was essential)
DeleteDid anybody provide independent claims directed to methods of manufacturing the engine component with the ceramic?
ReplyDeleteI had an ind claim which was essentially the electron beam method described in D2, but disclaiming a temperature of 950 degrees to be novel over D2.
I had a second ind claim directed to general applying of layer + machining columns, with a dep claim for applying being a plasma spray
My point of novelty over D2 for the electron beam method claim was specifying forming the layer of >= 25 um. This is novel over the 1um specified in D2, and I think also inventive in my opinion
DeleteHi Megan
DeleteI had 3 indp claims. 1 product, and 2 methods.
1st method was to electron beam method in D2, but was a method 'for applying a thermally insulating layer'... which should have made it novel over D2.
2nd method claim was same as yours, but had plasma spray in the indp claim, and laser machining in a dep claim.
Sounds like we're on a similar page
Would you mind explaining what is your reasoning for considering it inventive? I thought about this for a long time but couldn't work out a good reason why the skilled person would not simply use the method of D2 but keep applying material until the columns were 25um to reach the same subject matter.
DeleteAh, thank you for your response Alexander. I don't think I put in that it was for applying a thermally insulating layer. That is most annoying because it would have solved my problems!
Deleteyeah because there was no indication that a thicker layer of their 'security layer' would become a thermal protective layer.
DeleteStarting from D2, and faced with the problem of 'how to provide a thermal layer', if they looked to D1, they would have stuck in an intermediate layer- not made the ceramic layer thicker.
what you think?
I wondered about that too: my thinking was that starting from D1 you wouldn't turn to D2 in the first place; and starting from D2 you had to keep the layer thin to enable it to be removed with plasma (although it's not really clear to me now that you couldn't remove a layer of more than 25 um like that). In D2 you'd also have to modify to change the location of the structure too, because it's only on the base of a turbine blade, which presumably doesn't provide protection
DeleteWhat you say makes sense to me and I agree with your opinion. Thank you :)
DeleteIf the EPO are being fair, then as long as you have 25 um thickness in your dependent claim, you should gather sufficient marks.
ReplyDeleteIf we are to not imply any knowledge, then perpendicular should be provided with a definition. D2 doesn't mention specific angles and gaps are filled.
Will the product claim be novel and inventive if it is claimed in this manner (not exactly same word as I wrote from memory)?
ReplyDeleteA component comprising
a super alloy and
a thermally insulating layer on the super alloy;
wherein the super alloy comprises columnar microstructure oriented substantially perpendicular to the surface of the super alloy,
the columns having space in between ,
wherein the the spaces between the columnar microstructure are configured to allow to deform when substrate and thermal insulating layer expand upon heating.
I think there is a problem that in your claim superalloy has the microstructure, but it should be the insulating layer on top of the superalloy that has it.
Deleteresult to be achieved?
Deleteoops its a typo here, its thermal insulating alloy comprising columnar microstructure oriented substantially perpendicular to the surface of the super alloy.. that part is ok.
DeleteBut the functional feature at the end be allowed?
I have done it similarly, in my opinion the (empty) spacings were key. However, why superalloy?
DeleteThis is what I went for. Don't think it's result to be achieved, and have seen far more functional language used as the characterizing portion in past papers. This claim in my view is novel and inventive. D2 does not disclose a product having spaces configured as claims. Skilled person wouldn't think to do this because of teaching of loading.
DeleteI think the functional def. is fine, usually they love functional features in module A ...
DeleteD2 mentions gaps between the columns. also, it mentions that it "can" be loaded. doesn't have to be
DeleteI went with 25um instead of thermally insulating, which, in my opinion should be equivalent. now, with time I would change my 25um to thermally insulating.
DeleteBut you'd never end up with a product with spaces to allow expansion during heating. No teaching to even use the turbine blade in that way. The whole coating can be removed before use.
Deletei thought empty spacing was the key noval feature in view of D2 and it was only possible to claim it in a functional way.
Deletefurther, i thought super alloy was essential as all embodiments discloses it...(except the bus engine!!)...
good point Anonymous :)
DeleteAgreed re. superalloy being essential. That and the spacing configuration and function of the spaces provides novelty and IS over all documents and the bus embodiment.
DeleteI went with the same/similar approach, but without superalloy limitation as it wouldn't cover all the coated engine components.
DeleteHi Delta patents or anyone else- if you put 25um in as a dependent claim - would it still to enough to pass. I generally got confused with the wording used and also D2.
ReplyDeleteif that is the solution then hopefully they will give some marks for this as it feels very harsh if you only left out 25um especially when the text around 25um was confusing (optional or not) and confusion around D2 "perpendicular" definition and "gap filing - no spaces or not".
DeleteI was confused by the process of D1 (plasma spraying + laser). It looks like such process will generate the column structure inherently, based on the letter of the client. In D1, it was called "melting" the coating with a laser and it led to better protection against erosion. In the client's letter, they "machined" the coating, optionally with a laser.
ReplyDeleteIs the melting with a laser in D1 and the machining with a laser in the client's letter the same?
I thought it was, and I have therefore made claim 1 "consisting" of a substrate and a ceramic coating, hence exclusing an adhesive layer, to provide novelty inventive step (lightweight) over D1.
Anybody else made such consideration?
melting in D1 is on the surface of the layer, where as machining in invention is selectively on the material of the ceramic layer (from fig 2).
Deleteif we said substrate (not specifying superalloy), would we still be novel over the bus motor? ours works with any substrate (prefereably superalloy) but the bus motor is only specific to aluminium.
ReplyDeletei initially thought it was an easy paper, but feels much complicated......
ReplyDeleteI did not include the thickness and went with the angle. After looking at D2 again, I feel I should have included the thickness as 90 degree will be a point within the range specified in the invention.
ReplyDeleteClaim with the thickness should be novel and inventive in view of D1 and D2 (even though D1 discloses the thickness) because D1 will be the CPA in this case...differentiating feature...Column structure...effect...to reduce stress caused by heating.......D2 cannot be combined even though it discloses the structure as the effect of the feature is not same. My two cents!
I didn't include the 25um too as I thought the angle would confer novelty. I did add it in my dependent claims. I do hope its enough to achieve some marks. I really thought 25um was intended as a fall back position based on the description given and it really did confuse me alot. The angle, I thought would be ok to confer novelty over D2 as this range was not explicitly specified in D2. If perpendicular means 90c (i know it is in real life but not specified in D2) then I hope having it in a dependent claim would still give me enough marks to pass. Feels difficult if this is the only thing missing from claim 1 when there is some confusion over it.
DeleteThis is definitely one of the badly drafted paper A so far in the new format. I agree with others that the definitions, text around 25 thickness, angles are so unclear and confusing.
ReplyDeleteD1 says that ceramic oxide is a term used by different manufactures to refer to different group of materials. Due to this, I used the term 'thermally insulating layer' in all my claims instead of ceramic oxide.... is that ok?
ReplyDeleteD2 mentioned that only the base of the turbine blade is coated.
ReplyDeleteMine is something along the lines as below - D2 did not mention depositing layer on surface of substrate. I think its novel as only the base of the turbine blade is coated and the columns are orientated substantially perpendicularly to the surface of the
Deletesubstrate (no mention of this in D2).
I got the 25um as a dependent claim also as wasn't sure when reading the text of the client letter - it confused me alot.
An engine component comprising
a substrate made of a superalloy;
a ceramic oxide layer deposited onto the surface of the substrate, the ceramic oxide layer having a columnar microstructure comprising columns with spaces between
the columns;
columns are orientated substantially perpendicularly to the surface of the
substrate at an angle between 75 and 105°.
You should achieve novelty as you explicitly mention substrate. May be tricky for inventive step but if you have 25um in dependent claims then I think you should pick up some decent marks.
DeleteAfter all, by putting it in a dependent claim, there is room to draw it out when you get a R71(3) notification or proposal by the examiner so you shouldn't get penalised to heavily around this. Especially when the wording around 25um is largely confusing.
FWIW, my independent claims are below. I thought the minimum thickness was require to establish novelty over D2, but not for the "machining" method.
ReplyDelete1. A coated engine component (10, 20, 30) comprising a superalloy substrate (11, 21) having a surface, wherein the surface of the superalloy substrate (11, 21) is coated with a ceramic oxide layer (13, 23) having a columnar microstructure comprising columns (14a, 14b, 14c, 24a, 24b) and spaces in between the columns (15a, 15b, 25) wherein:
- the angle between the columns (14a, 14b, 14c, 24a, 24b) and the surface of the superalloy substrate (11, 21) is between 75° and 105°; and
- the ceramic oxide layer (13, 23) has a thickness of at least 25 micrometres.
10. A method of generating the coated engine component (10, 20, 30) of any one of claims 1-6 or 8-9, wherein the method comprises:
- fixing an engine component comprising a superalloy substrate (11, 21) having a surface to a holder and placing it in a vacuum chamber, wherein the vacuum chamber comprises a source of ceramic oxide;
- evacuating the vacuum chamber;
- evaporating the ceramic oxide using an electron beam;
- depositing the ceramic oxide onto the surface of the superalloy substrate (11, 21) to generate a ceramic oxide layer (13, 23) on the surface of the superalloy substrate (11, 21), wherein the ceramic oxide layer (13, 23) has a thickness of least 25 micrometres;
wherein the temperature of the surface of the superalloy substrate (11, 21) during the deposition of the ceramic oxide is 920-1050°C,
wherein, if the ceramic oxide is zirconium oxide, the temperature of the surface of the superalloy substrate (11, 21) during the deposition of the ceramic oxide is 950-1000°C.
12. A method of generating a coated engine component (10, 20, 30), wherein the method comprises:
- providing a engine component comprising a superalloy substrate (11, 21) having a surface comprising a ceramic oxide layer;
- machining the ceramic oxide layer to form columns (14a, 14b, 14c, 24a, 24b) in the ceramic oxide layer (13, 23), wherein the the angle between the columns (14a, 14b, 14c, 24a, 24b) and the surface of the superalloy substrate (11, 21) is between 75° and 105°.
I had the same issue here in that the text around 25um was so confusing - i ended up not putting into any of the independent claims at all. I should have in hindsight but got slightly confused with it because I also thought 25um was not needed for laser.
Deletesimilar to you, but for your claim 12, I included a step with a laser and plasma. It does not seem possible to make such a generalization for claim 12 based on the language of the letter, but if might be right too.
DeleteFor claim 10, I put "wherein, if the ceramic oxide is zirconium oxide, the temperature of the surface of the superalloy substrate (11, 21) during the deposition of the ceramic oxide is 950-1000°C." in a dependent claim. But your setup looks right too.
I thought the paper had its challenges, but it was doable. It was a lot better than D the day before (with the language problem). It reminded me of Paper A 2018 with the glass. I had a coated engine component claim, two different methods for making that coated engine component claim (laser and plasma spray versus electron-beam), and then some "independent claims" covering engine components or turbines with the coated engine part. The two method claims seem to relate to the two different embodiments (flatten layers that form a column and columns from the electron-beam process). As far as leaving in the 25 micometers, I left it in to be safe. Yes, I will loose points if it is optional, but the client's industry is 1600C hot, which means the 25 is required. So, I did not loose that much scope in my opinion. D2's security layer was annoying because even though the "gaps are filled" at some point there are "gaps." Also, the fact that it was a security layer and only 1 micrometer, made me think you have good inventive step arguments to not worry about it if you claim covers 1600C components.
ReplyDeleteIt seemed the adhesion layer should be in a dependent claim. The paper said several times "if" adhesion. Also, it does not help with novelty as D1 shows it and explains it. But putting adhesion in a dependent claim made for some tricky claim language with "ceramic oxide layer on the surface of the substrate," in the independent claim. So, I probably lost some points for clarity. Also, the effect of no adhesion layer was mentioned by the client as helping to be light (weigh less), which is important for aircraft. The prior art did not mention this effect, so I thought it should definitely be in a dependenent claim.
On to B!
It is not fun reading the blogs, all these smart people have good points. Makes me wonder if I was wrong. That is why I am happy we just need 45 points (or hopefully 50). No one gets a perfect on A, no even close. Even if there are some -10 marks for including things, so be it.
Totally agree, and I would add that 25 micometers was not optional since the purpose of the claimed product was to be used in the field of T >1600°C.
DeleteWithout thickness of 25 micrometers, thermal insulation would be insufficient (§5 or §6 of client letter I believe), whereby superalloy would melt at T >1600 °C (first paragraphs of client letter)
I belive you are not wrong ��
DeleteNice comment! Since the paper has many unclarities I hope the EPO will not be very strict when it comes to loosing points.
DeleteIn general: in view of the fact that this a complete new way of doing the EQE with all the new regulations challenging the candidates I would have expected an easier paper. This feels like a double punishment. Some of us were prepared to do the paper last year. We are waiting one year. Waiting for 2022 due to not passing EQE 2021 would be very annoying.
Did anyone think that, without an adhesion layer, you needed to specify the maximum thickness for the ceramic oxide layer as 2mm to ensure the weight of the component is kept down?
ReplyDeleteIf this is not specified, the claim seems to cover components without an adhesion layer (which were stated as having no lifespan benefit over D1), and with a very thick ceramic layer (so you presumably also lose the reduced weight benefit over D1). You therefore seem to lack the features needed to provide an advantage over D1 over the scope of the claim, so may not have solved any technical problem?
For me adhesive layer yes. In this way independent device and electron beam method claims are unitary (solve the problem of improving lifetime). Also,electron beam method with 25 micro meters minimum thickness is not inventive over D2+D1: problem would be provide thermal insulation, D1 disclosed feature + effect and D2 states that thick layers can be made even on large components, so no hindrance in combining d1 w d2. But I'm in a minority, so probably was wrong.
ReplyDeleteShould have passed though
First impression - a very confusing paper and therefore a very difficult one. I echoed many candidates on here regarding the angle. I left at 25um thickness but shouldn't have. Would be a hard pill to swallow if it a failure based on 25um thickness not being in the independent claim, especially with the confusion of the text surrounding it.
ReplyDeleteshould say that I put in the angle but left out the 25um in a dependent claim - still enough to pass? I hope so.
DeleteI didn't particularly enjoy that paper. Felt I had a reasonable stab at the product claim (although had a niggling doubt in the back of my mind that they'd wanted product-by-process claim - glad to hear that's not been a common opinion here!). Really didn't like the method claims though, and felt I hadn't found many good fall-back options for dependent claims.
ReplyDeleteRoll on 'paper' B!
I had a stab at the product claim but had the angle and left out the 25um for reasons many have already mentioned here. I do hope it is still enough to gain sufficient marks. Feel terrible for leaving out 25um last minute because I felt they were hinting it as optional. I got confused like quite alot of people on here it seems about the paragraph.
ReplyDeleteAlso left out the 25um thickness from independent claim but added it as a dependent claim. If its enough to get 50 then I be happy.
DeleteAlso, I must say, Paper A could be a lot easier if the EPO wrote with clear sentences. At least with a real client, we can ask questions and follow up about certain issues "25 micrometers preferred, but not sufficient insulation without it." To me, that implies necessary, but it would be nice to ask the inventor "are you aware of it working with less than 25 micrometers?" Then, based on his/her answer, we could settle the issue and not worry. Now, we need to spend 3-4 months waiting. If the EPO just wrote "25 micrometers is required", most people would include it, and everyone would feel better. Why does A need to test such things, this relates to language and reading compression, not to the core of Paper A. I can promise you, at an opposition, the opponent will argue it is required to have the 25 in the claim, and the patentee will argue the opposite. The board will have no easy answer other than asking for examples or proof that it does not work below 25. Thus, putting that in paper A, is tough on us.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you here. If they make 25um thickness text a lot clearer, many wouldn't feel the need to leave it out vs leaving it in. It creates massive confusion during an intense exam.
DeleteI think the EPO will probably need to look at this point {25um) more. It really was confusing for me and seems like for many others too. Is it optional or not - why provide conflicting statements in the same sentence?
The paragraph about the 25um thickness also doesn't seem clear to me either. Confused!
ReplyDeleteCould someone also not open the printable documents before entering the flow? Because I had no access to the documents.... Due to the XML error message "access denied", I assume that the system did not give me access to open or download the documents.
ReplyDeleteI put both embodiments into claim 1, specifying optionally with adhesion layer - with one arrangement ceramic oxide directly on (i.e. with no adhesion layer) and the other, with the adhesion layer between the substrate and the ceramic oxide layer. Doing this made drafting the method claims a bit easier, but it altogether seemed a bit clunky.
ReplyDeleteI think i have gone wrong in practice papers (e.g. 2019, 2018 papers) for going too broad, but i feel like doing this I have gone too narrow, possibly even with R43(2) issues and clarity issues. Do you think this would be a problem?
I also had a mild panic 3 hours into the paper that the laser cutting of D1 would implicitly lead to the columnar structure. I'm glad that most people here have decided that this isn't the case, but usually they only mention something for a reason! If not the case, why mention it at all?
(I should say, aside from the above I opted for >25 micron thickness for both novelty and sufficiency reasons of D2), and also specified the angle range for clarity reasons.
I swithered back and forth on it but decided in the end to limit to non-granular columns, i.e. columns which don't have flattened grains as I though it was better to err on the side of caution. I put it in and took it out about five times though and it was very unclear.
DeleteI did the same (two embodiments in claim 1). I directed it to a component instead of a component for a motor. I think this is probably too broad, however, D2 discloses components in general and turbine parts as an embodiment. Will see ... I think 25µm is necessary for novelty and essential for solving the problem although the letter is unclear in this regard.
DeleteDid anyone else limit to exclude the second embodiment of the client's invention, where the material is formed using plasma and laser? D1 uses the same method of plasma to form a layer with flattened grains and then melts it with a laser to make it better to withstand erosion, which means it flakes off less easily. The client deposits material as flattened grains using plasma then forms columns by hitting it with a laser which makes the holes. Does this method not therefore make the second coating inherent as you're using the same materials in the same method to make a coating in the same way as in GL G-VI 6?
ReplyDeleteI did that! I just don't whether that was stupid...
DeleteI think it was necessary to habe the ceramic oxid layer between 25um and 2mm, because the aim of invention ist to have either a coated engine component that has the same lifetime as the state of the art component, but has less weight than it, or have a coated engine component that has a longer lifetime as the state of the art component. Both advantages of the invention were stated in the description.
DeleteWell yeah exactly this. But I was worried if I took this view, the product claim would also be implicitly disclosed and I didn't have the time to fix it!
DeleteI came to the conclusion, there is no indication in D1 that you would get columnar structure from the lasering/machining, so I was hoping that specifying "machining/lasering to form columnar microstructure" would be enough in the method.
But honestly so much going on with this paper
very difficult paper! too many things/embodiments and conflicting statements I feel.
DeleteI struggled with this but came to the conclusion that melting the coating with a laser doesn't necessarily generate a columnar microstructure, particularly because D1 emphasised the coating should be "uniform". Out of interest, how did you exclude the second embodiment? A disclaimer to the stacked form of the columns? If this was required to establish novelty over D1, I'm not convinced it would be enough to provide basis for an inventive step.
Deletecan anyone let me know what features could have been used to overcome the bus motor embodiment please? worried that im getting zero after all that...
ReplyDelete"Superalloy" I think.
DeleteThe bus motor wasn't suitable for use at high temperature (made of aluminium, even with coating will melt at 1600) so if your component was for an engine at those high temperatures the bus engine components aren't suitable for that purpose, ditto it didn't use superalloys I don't think
Deleteyep.
DeleteThe bus motor embodiment was not prior art (i.e. it was not publicly disclosed) as far as I can recall so it was not necessary to overcome it.
DeleteWorried that I'm getting zero for simply not putting in 25um thickness given the debate around it and the confusion the paper has caused over it. I left it out but now I should have put it in.
ReplyDeleteThere is alot of us worried on here as many didn't put it in the independent claim.
DeleteLets hope the EPO are reasonable on this front given the confusing disclosure of the paper surrounding that particular feature.
The bus motor used the metall aluminium and not am aluminium alloy, so in my understanding that is not a superalloy at all. The invention uses superalloys as a substrat of the engine component.
ReplyDelete