Mock A under exam conditions on 6 December 2021 (and on 3 Feb 2022)
A mock A exam under exam conditions allowing you to test the updated WISEflow version with video/audio invigilation is available on 6 December 2021. See here.
The main purpose of the December Mocks is to test your equipment and settings, including camera and audio.
You can practice the papers at a later moment, as they will again be made available as Mock papers for a longer period, but without invigilation.
It has also been announced by email from the EQE secretariat to all candidates that, i a further mock under exam conditions will be conducted on 3 February 2022. The purpose of this mock is to check your equipment and settings. This mock will not contain a new paper, but a known paper used in the currently open mocks.
Please feel invited to post your experiences with the Mock and the platform, comments and tips as comments to this blog. It is appreciated if you use your name or a nickname in your post, for easy reference (you can use the Anonymous option and close the message with your name, or use the google account or name option).
Wiseflow/Flowclock has been improved for the main exam papers:
ReplyDeleteThe pdf viewer now allows annotation:
- highlight, underline,
- free form shapes/drawing, shapes in 4 colors,
- comments on the page, comment balloons
The editor now allows:
- strikethrough
- copying from the pdf viewer into the editor using Ctrl-C - Ctrl-V has been improved (it does no longer break every line after several characters, which it dod before)
Use the opportunity to test the updated, improved version with the Mocks, and familiarize yourself with the tools and options!
As with the mock of paper D, opening the assignment in a separate tab took me between 1-2 minutes. I hope that the loading times do not get worse in March.
ReplyDeleteAlso, at some point I lost the marks and annotations I had done in one of the pages of the assignment. I could not copy or view new highlighted text from that page either. But after refreshing the tab everything went back to normal.
The colors for highlighting, underlining and so on that I set for the mock for paper D were remembered by the system for paper A, which is good.
I used a stopwatch to time it:
Deleteit took 2 minutes and 20 seconds for Wiseflow to open A in a separate tab at the start of the assignment.
Something similar for me. But it seems that only the first time is slow. Opening it again in another tab was much faster.
DeleteI checked the loading time for Paper B:
DeleteIt took 3 minutes 20 seconds to load the paper at the start. After ~2 minutes, the Tab window changed from white to grey, but it took another ~1 minute before the paper became available.
Loading the paper again in another Tab goes within seconds.
The B paper is quite some more pages than the A paper (which took around 2 minutes), which is maybe why it took longer to load it - how long will C take to load?
Paper C is 2 to 3 times as long as paper A, so lets see how long its takes to load. Lag time is a real issue especially if there are hundreds of candidates all doing the exam at the same time. They will need to sort this bit out.
DeleteFor me it took 1:58 to load paper C (28 pages) in a separate tab at the start of C Part 1. (A was 10 pages; B was 24 pages).
DeleteMy previous message related to C part 1.
DeleteFor C part 2 (27 pages), it took 3:17 (after 2:40 the wiseflow tab turned from white to grey, and the turning circle moved from the top left to the center of the grey field): 50% longer than for part 1 while the number of pages was (almost) the same.
So the load time does not, or not only, depend on the number of pages, but (also) on something else.
The paper A mock this year was completely unrealistic to the main paper A exam. It was rather disappointing.
ReplyDeletemark scheme is very harsh. 10 marks loss if you fail to put in a "suitable for" clause - really. Is it that harsh in the real exam? That's a third of the mark for something that is only suitable for. Novelty assessment is not relied on after the suitable for clause so it seems extremely harsh to lose 1/3 marks on just this.
Deletewhere did you find the answer/ mark scheme please?
Deletehttps://www.epi-learning.org/course/view.php?id=44
Delete2Anonimous @2:15 pm:
DeleteI agree with you. for me "for" only means "suitable for" (as we always interpret it in the FD4 paper of the UK finals), and therefore it's a non limiting feature. if they really wanted to specify that this stick is to be used with the golf ball, they should have at least suggested to use "which is configured to be inserted into a golf ball" rather then for insertion in a golf ball.
I do not agree. "Suitable for" can have a limiting function, and often does! See "Mold for molten steel" vs "Mold for ice cubes" in Guidelines F-IV, 4.13.1.
DeleteBy the way, the main purpose of the Mocks is to test your equipment and settings (see email with the invitation for the Mocks). The mock paper reflects what an A paper could look like (and quite well in my opinion), but was not designed by the EQE A Committee itself. The marking scheme from the epi Model Solution reflects what a "true" Examiner's Report may look like, but may not correspond in full detail to the one of the same paper if it would be a real EQE A paper.
You may have noted that the paper is derived from Paper B e/m 2007.
I take you point of the ice mold case, but I can envisage the situation when the claimed stick technically can be used for the same purpose as the stick of D2 (to light the area) without insertion into the golf ball.
Deletefeels incredibly harsh to lose 10 marks just on that. A lightstick comprising would also include it being suitable for golf balls and other balls (even though its not explicitly said that its suitable for golf balls)
DeleteThe lightstick of D2 is NOT be suitable to be inserted into a golf ball, as it is way too big:
Delete[003] The smallest lightstick that we make has a length of 150 mm and a diameter of
20 mm. We can supply lightsticks in all dimensions ranging from 150 mm to 250 mm
in length and from 20 mm to 50 mm in diameter. This is to ensure that the lightstick
provides sufficient light for a period of 5 to 7 hours.
So, the "suitable for" is an important feature!
yes true but losing 10 marks is too much for marks only out of 30. You could argue that the thickness of the breakable material needed to be a certain thickness to prevent breaking during transit but this was not in claim 1. It can arguable be an important feature too.
Deletethe rigidity of the tube should be sufficient to be over D2 so I'm not sure why you would want "suitable for" insertion in golf balls. Your claim does not need to be narrow. I don't see a huge problem in leaving a broad claim to A lightstick comprising a rigid housing. It would still be novel over D2 and why would you want to limit your claims to only be suitable for golf balls when it can also be inserted in a football etc...
DeleteI had major issues in copying text over to the text editor. If you've highlighted part of the text already, it won't let you copy the text???
ReplyDeleteThis needs fixing.
You need to switch between "View", "Annotate", and "Shapes" at the top of your pdf viewer window.
DeleteI think it is only possible to do Copy when you are in "View", and not when in "Annotate"
Thans for the suggestion. I also had issues in copying text and asked the invigilater but he replied that didn't know; in plus I did not see recent instructions for the changes in the editor
DeleteHow do you actually contact the invigilator?
DeleteThere was no zendesk tab in my wiseflow.
I only saw EPO legal text and some other tabs but not zendesk?
DeleteCan anyone advise?
There is no zendesk anymore
DeleteTo contact the invigilator use the integrated chat widget that appears in the right bottom corner of your screen once you are in the FLOWLock environment. The invigilator will also be able to contact you via this chat widget. The chat widget is only present in the first tab (editor tab) but remains active when you are on another tab.
You must inform the invigilator via the chat when you take an unscheduled break and when you return to your desk e.g. “I take an unscheduled break” and “I’m back from the unscheduled break”. You do not have to wait for authorisation from the invigilator before leaving your desk. Make sure you leave the system/browser running.
@James December 06, 2021 10:26 pm:
DeleteBottom right corner of your screen shows a green-white blob - if you click on it it expands and says what it is - if you then clock on it it opens a chat window at the lower right bottom.
No Zendesk anymore.
Also no documentation for wiseflow EQE 2022 on the EQE website.
The Chat function (Bottom right green/white object, which expands to "Contact an invigilator", and which opens a Chat window) worked very fine. Quick contact with an invigilator. The name of the invigilator shows on the top left of the chat window, so you know who you "talked" with.
DeleteAnd at the end you can get the chat transcript by email.
ah ok, so it has been changed. I've missed this as last year, we used zendesk. But this seems better.
DeleteOverall, a typical E/M paper, reasonably easy, I'd say.
ReplyDeleteI've got one thought, however. Please comment if you think I'm wrong.
I think that specifying a thickness in the independent claim for a lightstick is essential, because the description says "The minimum thickness is selected to avoid accidental breakage during transport or handling" therefore when having "any" thickness as suggested by the EPI model answer (especially below the minimum thickness) the invention won't work - it'll simply break during transportation before it actually reaches the end user.
On a technical note, besides slow loading of the paper in a new tab, the browser refreshed itself half-way during the exam and I got a message "retrieving the saved draft" or something like this. Only the last few words were lost.
I agree with inclusion of the thickness.
DeleteThe tube is rigid, and cannot be bent. It has to be actuated by hitting the ball. Thus, the breakable material needs to be specified.
I think the argument for not limiting to a thinner wall/not having a minimum thickness is that it is possible to transport it carefully and not have breakage happen.
DeleteIt is not as such a feature of ho the product functions, but for protection away from when it is being used. SO it is actually possible to have it be made with a thinner wall and still work for the intended purpose - lighting up when hit to play golf. There will also just be a risk that it has been ruined during transport, but if it had not actually been ruined in transport, it would still function for the intended purpose.
Having a thinner wall doe snot make it unable to function, even though it increases the risk of it breaking/malfunctioning in some of the cases.
I also have a question where I kindly ask for comments:
ReplyDeleteIf I did not specify that the first and second chemiluminsecenct materials are separated by "a breakable material" but simply that they are separated (without mentioning "breakable material") would that cost me points?
In my opinion, a claim to a lightstick defining that the stick comprises two chemiluminescent components that emit light upon mixing should implicate a breakable material between them.
And a second question, where I also kindly ask you to comment on:
Do you think that I would have missed points by claiming a golf ball (not golf ball body), a lightstick and a kit? My golf ball is defined similar to the golf ball body in the model claims.
you can also have 2 "separated" materials when they are 2 miscible liquids and there's a boundary (sort of separation) between them (say, they can be mixed and react upon shaking when the user hits the golf ball). Yet, this separating boundary isn't a breakable material
DeleteAs a biologist, I really struggled with this paper. The subject matter was simple to understand but it was not imminently clear to me how to go about drafting the independent claims. The text could have done more to guide the non-mechanical users to select which are the features for independent claims. I felt that I had to alot of creative drafting on my own for the independent claims whereas the recent paper A had more in the text to guide you to critical features of the independent claims.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the EPI mock Paper A is not quite the same as the recent papers as more guidance would probably been given in the text to accommodate non-mechanics (and there was no method of manufacturing claims).
DeleteIt is still useful to try out the system which is really the main aim of these papers. Don't worry too much about the papers themselves. We're 4 months away from the real thing.
As a Chemist, I completely agree with you about this paper. The invention is easy to understand but very difficult to draft if you are not a mechanical person.
DeleteYou are suppose to use only the words that are given to you in paper A. This is one of the older papers when you did require to do some more creative writing. The recent papers will not be like this one and the recent papers will provide much more clear guidance in the text and there will be less creative writing in the real paper A exam.
DeleteI thought it was a very difficult paper, even for those with a mechanical background, and I would have no chance if this is the real thing.
ReplyDeleteIs there a situation where your independent claims are novel but if you missed enough essential features, you end up with no marks.
ReplyDeleteDoes seem to defeat the object of the paper if you get zero marks for having a novel claim. Personally, the mark scheme here is far too harsh. Losing 20 oir of 30 marks for forgetting one essential feature is far too much. Even limitations 5 to 10 marks) per limitation is too much.
DeleteI suggest that this harsh mark scheme won't be applicable for the main thing.
Yeah. Wouldn't make sense otherwise. Yes essential features are needed but not so punishing that you can't pass with a novel claim.
DeleteTake this paper and mark schemes as a pinch of salt. Its more important to try out the system.
Im still having trouble searching. For example if you search for plastic. It won't find plastics?
Hope they sort it out soon
I tried the search today in paper B Mock:
DeleteSearch (Ctrl-F) on "sea" in the pdf of the paper (opened in separate tab) DOES find "seal".
Search (Ctrl-F) on "sea" in the editor DOES find "seal".
@Anonymous December 06, 2021 6:20 pm: I am using Windows. Are you using iOS?
I could however not search in the legal texts (EPC Articles, Rules, Guidelines, ...)
DeleteI had the same problem with the search function when doing paper A - is it just paper A pdf. Paper D seems fine.
DeleteThe paper is not quite a true reflection of the real thing. Do the recent EQE papers as they are the closest thing to the paper A.
ReplyDeleteI think the EPI really wanted to test the system so don't give too much weight on this paper. I don't think it's a true reflection of modern paper A.
Why not? I think it is. There is a lot of variation between papers and this is not that different.
DeleteWell, the mark scheme seems way too harsh for a start. 20 marks out of 30 marks lost for not having an essential feature is too much.
DeleteThere were no method of manufacturing claims.
The "suitable for" clause - 10 marks loss is a bit too much too.
I also feel that recent papers give more guidance to the claim language in the description to account for non-mechanical backgrounds.
Perhaps the mark scheme is not really a true reflection of a real EQE mark scheme. It feels very punishing to lost 66% for not having one essential feature. Plus you also got clarity marks to remove too. Having said that, the paper is good practice.
As a chemist I found it ok... although it is always hard to describe a chemical compound by its result.
ReplyDeleteI also had a doubt the separative material thickness.Started with an independent claim for the lightstick then the golf body claims configured to receive the lightstick (considering that not any lightstick can be operated such as a flexible one).
§20 was challenging for this claim configuration.
"We have designed the three-compartment lightstick to be compatible with the
press-fit arrangement and similarly the capsule-style lightstick can be used in the threaded arrangement"
Considering it as essential, I did some last minute adjustments in the dependency of the dependent claims concerning the press-fit embodiment embodiment with the compartment-type embodiment claims. Likewise for the caps-threaded embodiment claims
Everything works fine technically, except for the paper is a bit long to load (a few minutes). I appreciate that they have gotten rid of the "throw out key combinations."
ReplyDeleteTested alt+tab and a few other just for fun.
On the other hand I have to say that I am a quite disappointed with this mock exam. If the lock and key + kit subject was interesting, there are multiple things I do not understand in the Model solution, and that are potentially wrong.
For example
- how can the diametric bore be a through bore and a blind bore? Claim 6(4)(2)... Does not make sense to me
- there is no basis for a kit made of a blind bore with the press-fit solution ([11] mentions the through bore as (what i see as) essential for releasing the lightstick)
- how can you combine the threaded embodiments (claim 4 and 13) with the non threaded embodiment in a kit... again, there is no basis and it would simply not work...
For me part of the difficulty of the exam was carefully choosing the order of the claims so that I could get the proper combinations that represent the embodiments without claiming non working embodiments...I am disappointed that the model solution appears to carelessly combine features... Or did I misread something?
- its too bad that we don't get a model for the introductory part. (Just general comments and marks)
Will DP propose its own model solution?
Olivier, as far as I understood the paper as chemist, I used as explanation the parag of the description:
Delete[020] We have designed the three-compartment lightstick to be compatible with the press-fit arrangement and similarly the capsule-style ightstick can be used in the threaded arrangement.
,
Hi Olivier,
DeleteNo, DeltaPatents does not intend to propose its own model solution on the blog. "The main purpose of the December Mocks is to test your equipment and settings, including camera and audio" (see email from Secretariat). Further, the model solution from epi was promptly available (in contrast to the real exam, where it takes a whole), and there is no need to have a public discussion on the blogs to provide input to the Committee as to different interpretations and solutions so as to influence the allowable solutions and the marking (which is an important side-effect of the blogs for the real EQE).
This paper is derived from a former B electricity/mechanics 2007 paper, with some chemistry added. The paper is drafted by epi, not by the EQE committee. Those may be factors as to why some of the comments posted to this blog are of the opinion that the style deviates a bit from recent papers. My first impression was that the paper was well-suited for the purpose of the December Mocks, and I did like the paper - hints to claim categories and claimed objects were clear, as well as several details for some dependent claims.
@Oliver: indeed, 5(4)(2) is an incorrect claim dependency that should preferably not have been part of the claim set as 5 defines blind bore and 2 defines through bore.
Even though some claim combinations, such as 15(4)&(13), could have been phrased more specifically (the inner/outer "thread along at least a portion" be as corresponding portions or something alike), it is also observed in official examiner's reports that the dependent claims do not always need the same level of care and accuracy. So in my view, the proposed claim set in the epi model solution is a fair representation of what an EQE Examiner's Report could look like.
Hello all,
ReplyDeleteI have a question relating to the use of the term "rigid" for the light stick. I interpreted this term as relative language according to F-IV 4.6.2 as there is no measurement of rigidity included. I therefore thought that including the term "rigid" would result in a lack of clarity. In doing so it seems that I have excluded an essential feature and lost 10 marks.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
James
I do not understand your point. The paper nowhere mentions that rigid comes in degrees of rigidity, and I also do not know that from daily life. To me, rigid seems to be a well-defined term similar to flat or solid. Maybe you have special knowledge on this? Candidates shall however not use any special knowledge they may have of the technical field of the invention.
DeleteHi James.
Delete[012] says: "However, we found that using a flexible tube made it impossible to insert it into the golf ball and then to remove it for replacement. Accordingly, our lightsticks use a rigid tube and the capsule has been adapted to break when a user hits the golf ball."
That makes "rigid" an essential feature, which needs to be in the claim somehow.
And as there is no indication in the paper that the term "rigid" as such is problematic, nor does it provide an alternative term that reflects "rigid" (and which would not have tour alleged problem), there is no other option than to include the term.
OK, thank you Roel.
Delete