A 2024: 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?
How did this year's paper compare to the papers of the last few years? Similar difficulty level?
Was the subject-matter well understandable, for chemists as well as e/m candidates?Multiple independent claims? Functional features? Could you find the wording for claim features in the clients 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 many marks do you expect to have scored?
What is your expectation of the pass rate and the average score?
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?
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?
We do not yet have a copy of the full paper. Should you have a copy, please send it to any of our tutors or to training@deltapatents.com.
Once we receive a copy, the core of our answers will be given in a separate blog post.
Please be reminded that you can view and print/download copy of your exam answer after the exam, via the eye below the "1. Paper"-icon in the bottom left part of the flow window of the respective flow. (It may not be available immediately after the official end of the (part of the) paper, but only 30-60 minutes later.) Apart from the pre-printable parts, the paper itself cannot be downloaded (unless you copied it in full into your exam answer).
We look forward to your comments!
Comments are welcome in any official EPO language, not just English. So, comments in German and French are also very welcome!
Please do not post your comments anonymously - it is allowed, but it makes responding more difficult and rather clumsy ("Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Anonymous of 09-03-2023 21:09"), whereas using your real name or a nick name is more personal, more interesting and makes a more attractive conversation. You do not need to log in or make an account - it is OK to just put your (nick) name at the end of your post.
Please post your comments as to first impressions and general remarks to this blog.
Please post responses to our answer (as soon as available) to the separate blog post with our answer.
Thanks!
Anyone?
ReplyDeleteCharacterising portion (novel and inventive part):
"The pressure in the third chamber for gas is around 100 kilopascals"
Anyone?
The closest prior art = D1
Anyone?
no, i think the novelty against D2 comes from the colum sealing the chamber 2 and 3
DeleteHi Mr. anyone, great to see you again!
DeleteFor me the novelty and inventive step was as indicated by the anonymous Mr. above + the nozzle. the fact that the column seals the chamber 2 and 3 is not enough, D2 also has a case in which the column seals (partially, but still, seals) the chamber 2 and 3.
In my view the nozzle was important in the claim.
What do you think?
D2 also has a column sealing the turbine and thereby the chamber, that's why I relied on the nozzle 35 for novelty/inventiveness against D2
DeleteD2 said the column MUST be under 7 cm. So using a dimension of 7 - 15 cm for the column would be new against D2.
DeleteValid point, but how do you argue for inventiveness? A range of 7 - 15 cm is not linked to a technical effect, whereas the nozzle is directly linked to the effect of higher precision
Deletethe rod 115 of D2 is in loose fitting with the valve and allows the gas chamber to be depressured. I think it is not a seal.
DeleteOne could claim that the column seals permanently the third chamber. This gives novelty over D2 (where in at least one position second and third chamber communicates, which present the drawback of provoking presence/exchange of gas in high pressure in the device, which is dangerous when taking it back to the surface.
DeleteD1 (Closest Prior Art) = very high pressure
DeleteD2 = 50 kilopascals
objective technical problem: before deployment, the gas chamber can be dangerous on the surface upon collision or a leak
100kilopascals for the third chamber. Novel and inventive?
Actually, I remember 100kPa+/-10% is only in a preferred embodiment and the later describes that the exact pressure used is not important, as long as the pressure difference between the deployment location and the chamber is at least 500kPa.
DeleteI also think that the column sealing the static disc is novel over D2 because the rod in D2 does not seal the chamber.
DeleteNo. the device should be claimed without mentioning any pressure, because when it it sold, the pressure in it can be any. The first step of the claimed method could mention a given pressure in comparison to the pressure in the well, and a particular difference between them (at least 500kPa, or700kPa). The gas is not part of the claimed device, nor the pressure inside the chamber.
DeleteThere's a difference between "around 100kPa" (claimed) and "100kPa+/-10% (preferred embodiment)"?
DeleteTo me D1 had the same purpose but D2 had most features in common. The difference compared to D2 was that the aim of D2 was to provide an arrangment for generating electricity, it seems to me that the sescond liquid chamber 122 in D2 was not comparable to the second chamber of the claims invention.
DeleteIf my asuumption is correct, D2 is silcent in regards to provide a solution for repurpose a well, where the liquid (perferably glue) is supplied throught the valve/nozzle 29 in the container 11. D1 does not provide a solution for a low pressure chamber 23
Device
- 3 chambers
the rod 15 is exposed to the low presssure in third chamber and the valve 16/29 when open cause the liguid to be expel
led
Yes. Every container/chamber has an inherent pressure associated with it. Gas pressure is always present.
DeleteMahmoud, I don't see the point in adding the nozzle in your independent claim. Such a nozzle is disclosed in D1 and is as such well known in the art for ejecting a liquid. If you were to consider D2 as closest prior art (as it is what you seem to have done, and I don't think it is correct), a skilled person wanted to use the device of D2 in order to eject a liquid with higher precision would consult D1 and find the nozzle in it.
DeleteIf you were to consider D1 as closest prior art (which is in my opinion correct) such a nozzle is disclosed in D1 and as such can't provide support to inventive step...
Yes but D1 does not have many other essential features, the three chambers to begin with, and the column.
DeleteMahmoud, D2 has it (the three chambers, the column). So the skilled person departing from D1 and consulting D2 in order to find a solution to work in low pression in the third chamber would arrive to your claim.
DeleteThe nozzle also had a technical effect btw.
DeleteThe skilled person would not add a nozzle to D2, otherwise D2 wouldn't work i.e. the liquid will go through the nozzle instead of through the turbine.
Deletearound 100kPa has a range of 100kPa +/- error by standard measurement, which maybe 0.5kPa. +/-10% has a bigger range
DeleteThe technical effect of the nozzle is implicit in D1.
DeleteI repeat:
DeleteD1 is the closest prior art here.
You cannot base your inventive step reasoning on a feature and its technical effect that are disclosed in the closest prior art.
I also identified as difference to D2 that the rod seals the chamber 2 from the chamber 3 as this is not the case in D2. In D2, water is pushed from chamber 2 to chamber 3 through the rotor during the working cycle and after wards the rod holds the rotor open so that pressure can be neutralized.
DeleteThis difference is also inventive as making the border between chamber 2 and 3 seal tight would teach away from the mechanism for producing electricity
I repeat:
DeleteStarting from D1 you have many things to change in order to arrive at the present invention.
First, you need to add a chamber.
Then, you need to add a column.
Then, you need to adapt the column such that the upper surface has more pressure than the lower one.
Furthermore, if you combine D1 with D2, you will end up with a turbine which means that the liquid can go to the third chamber instead of outside.
Also, you will end up with a column that doesn't extend through the third chamber and seals it.
I'm not saying the nozzle is the only essential feature to add in the claim.
kinderRiegel I've done it basically like you, though I've specified that it is sealed so that "the fluid from chamber 22 cannot enter into chamber 23, when the device is in use", which I'm not sure is correct.
DeleteJohn/Mahmoud: yes, starting from D1 (which is the closest prior art) you would have a lot to do to arrive to the expected claims, but: adding a entry chamber is disclosed in D2, working at low pressure in the third chamber is disclosed in D2. Which is not disclosed in D2 is that liquid chamber and gas chamber are permanently sealed, and this is done in the invention thanks to the arrangement static disc/column which allow a movement of the column through the static disc which ensuring permanent sealing of liquid and gas chambers.
DeleteAdding a nozzle is a useless limitation (the nozzle is not an essential feature since the client mentions that the device could work without it).
Without the nozzle there's no novelty over D2.
DeleteD2 also "seals", though partially, the third chamber using the column.
Look up the definition of seal in the dictionary.
There's no such thing in the paper as "permanently seal", you are going beyond the paper now.
John/Mahmoud, the explanations in the letter of the client and the drawings (showing specifically a departing position of the column and a ending position of the column clearly teaches that the third chamber is permanently sealed (that is, in any position the device could take). In D2, when the valve 143 is open, the third chamber is not sealed and liquid and or gas can be exchanged between both chambers.
DeleteJohn, are you a regular candidate or an EPI/delta patent member?
DeleteWho else (apart from John/Mahmoud) included the nozzle in its independent device claim?
DeleteMahmoud writes: "D2 also has a case in which the column seals (partially, but still, seals) the chamber 2 and 3." you are wrong: read D2 again. D2 says the rod 115 helps to maintain the valve 143 open, which is contrary to seal the chamber 123. rod 115 does not in any way serve to (partially) seal the chamber..
Deleteit is getting more and more mechanic-topic every year. For the Biotech people is way too complex
ReplyDeleteTotally agree. I felt alright with it but I imagined many others would not feel alright with such a topic.
DeleteI suppose this is why they add the glue composition and that a claim on it could be worth 10 or 15 points?
DeleteTo me D1 had the same purpose but D2 had most features in common. The difference compared to D2 was that the aim of D2 was to provide an arrangment for generating electricity, it seems to me that the sescond liquid chamber 122 in D2 was not comparable to the second chamber of the claims invention.
ReplyDeleteIf my asuumption is correct, D2 is silcent in regards to provide a solution for repurpose a well, where the liquid (perferably glue) is supplied throught the valve/nozzle 29 in the container 11. D1 does not provide a solution for a low pressure chamber 23
“the container is made of metal or metal alloy”
ReplyDeleteessential or not?
on one hand, we have competitor manufacture the device in absent of using it in a well
on another hand, we are aimed using it in the well and to cope with the condition in the well, it appears essential.
I was also wondering whether this is essential. Ended up including it in claim 1 because the client said that the materials are used to cope with the conditions in the well so figured that without you couldn't use the device in a well.
DeleteTo me yes, it was specified that for use in wells container have to be in metal or metal alloys such as steel
DeleteHi Johanna,
DeleteI also include the metal feature after drafting the description. Since the whole background is talking using this device in a well which have high pressure. Let's hope, otherwise I may appeal. O(∩_∩)O
I also specified that the recipient was metallic in my claim 1.
DeleteI do not remember that it said that the container has to be metal, I think it was preferred, but I can be mistaken and have just missed it :( I have no idea what other materials you could use but we should not have to speculate.
Delete( Environments other than wells should also be protected I think?)
I did not include it, instead I claimed a device "for" using it in a well which implies that I use a material that is suitable for that application. I made a dependent claim for the metallic materials
DeleteI still had problems with this damn wiseflow.
ReplyDeleteThe formatting menu on the work page disappeared and to make it reappear I did a refresh asking for the invigilator password because without I couldn't continue.
After the refresh something changed and in the assignement environment the cursor remained stuck in highlighter mode even when I was in view mode instead of annotate. Eventually I realized that in view mode the highlighting didn't persist and I was able to move on. I also had trouble copying and pasting the text because I had to put the mouse pointer one line above the text to select.
No extra time was appointed.
In the end I managed to continue but the levels of stress and loss of concentration were high with the invigilator asking me how many GB of RAM my PC had.... This is very annoying.
Maybe file a complaint and request for some compensation.
Deleteplease note that a complaint needs to be filed today
DeleteI tried all the key combination in wiseflow and finds out that if you are in the text editor press (Page up/Page down), the menu bar will disappear.
DeleteIf it adversely affected you, you can file a complaint until the end of TODAY, via the dedicated form on the EQE website, under the "EQE online" tab:
Delete"Complaint concerning the conduct of the examination
Candidates wishing to lodge a complaint pursuant to point I.8. of the Instructions to candidates concerning the conduct of the examination must do so at the latest by the end of the day on which the last examination paper takes place (15 March 2024, 23:59 CET), by filling in the dedicated form:
Form for paper A (available from 07.03.2024, 9:30, CET)"
--> https://forms.office.com/e/Nc9hUe2pxy
A candidate informed me that only on Monday, 11 March (so after paper D and paper A, but just before paper B and paper C), the EQE secretariat had send the following email:
Delete"From: helpdesk
Sent: 11 March 2024 11:[nn]
To: [Candidates]
Subject: EQE 2024 - Important information / EEP 2024 - Wichtige Information / EEQ 2024 - informations importantes
Dear candidate,
Some users have informed us that, when performing a certain key stroke, e.g. the key “PageUp” in a standard full-size desktop keyboard, the toolbar for formatting the text in the editor of the lockdown browser may temporarily disappear.
Should this happen, the toolbar can be restored by clicking the “Pause participation” button, which is located towards the top-right corner of the screen, below the indication of the time left. By clicking “Resume participation”, the toolbar re-appears when typing normally in the text editor.
****
Sehr geehrte/r Bewerber/in,
einige Nutzer haben uns informiert, dass ein bestimmter Tastendruck, z.B. „Seite hoch“ auf einer Standard-Desktop-Tastatur in voller Größe, dazu führen kann, dass die Symbolleiste zur Formatierung des Textes im Editor des Lockdown-Browsers zeitweise verschwindet.
Sollte dies passieren, kann die Symbolleiste wiederhergestellt werden, indem Sie auf die Schaltfläche "Teilnahme unterbrechen" klicken, die sich in der oberen rechten Ecke des Bildschirms unterhalb der Anzeige der verbleibenden Zeit befindet. Nach dem Klicken auf "Teilnahme fortsetzen" erscheint die Symbolleiste wieder, sobald Sie im Texteditor tippen.
***
Madame, Monsieur,
Certains utilisateurs ont signalé que, en utilisant une certaine frappe, par exemple la touche "PageUp" d'un clavier de bureau standard pleine taille, la barre d'outils permettant de formater le texte dans l'éditeur du navigateur Lockdown peut disparaître temporairement.
Dans ce cas, la barre d'outils peut être restaurée en cliquant sur le bouton "Pause de la participation", situé dans le coin supérieur droit de l'écran, en dessous de l'indication du temps restant. En cliquant sur "Reprendre la participation", la barre d'outils réapparaît lorsque l'on tape normalement dans l'éditeur de texte.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Sincères salutations
European Qualifying Examination EQE
European Patent Office
80298 Munich | Germany
Tel. +49 (0)89 2399 5155 (Mon, Wed-Fri 09.00-11.00 hrs, Tues 14.00-15.30 hrs)
Fax +49 (0)89 2399 5140
helpdesk@eqe.org
www.epo.org
Please consider the environment before printing this email."
Is anyone draft claims for glue and its use?
ReplyDelete- One independent device
- One independent method
- Glue for use in the method, comprising a special additive
- Use of the additive for glue
Pref glue is commercially available, but the special additive is not mentioned in D1 and D2.
My glue claim was independent, with special additive that gives resistance to high temperature.
DeleteMy claim use of the glue was for repairing metallic surfaces in well.
I have claimed also a use of the device of claims 1 to X in order to treat a well.
my glue is dependent, since I cannot find a common inventive concept here. I thought the inventive idea is to avoid high-pressure.
DeleteAre not we entitled to at least: an independent product claim (the glue), an idependent device claim (the device), an independent method claim and an independent use claim?
DeleteThe claimed glue is especially adapted to repair well. In that way, there is only one inventive concept here.
DeleteI went with an independent device claim and an independent method claim for using the device. I didn't go with an independent claim for the glue as first of all the glue is well known already as a commercially product and second of all, it would trigger problems with unity
DeleteI agree with Kinderriegel. No independent claim for the glue. Just because it is adapted to show benefical properties for the method doesn't mean it can't be used anywhere else.
Deletea glue presenting a high resistance to high temperature shows beneficial properties in potentially many other application than well treatment, don't you think?
DeleteI would like to report a missing word (a verb) in the french paper, precisely in the document that we were not allowed to print (client's letter). Was that also the case in the German and English versions?
ReplyDeleteJe voudrais signaler qu'il manquait un mot (un verbe) dans la lettre du client.
I did not encounter an issue with the EN version but not being native might be the reason
DeleteI agree pargraph [006] D2 - missing verb
DeletePlease be more specific? Which verb in the French version, which in the English?
DeleteDid it have an effect in your understanding, or was is rather an inconvenience but could the sentence be well-understood in its context?
At least one missing word in D2, Paragraph [0006] second sentence: "la tige 115 ensuite à travers la soupape 143 dans le réservoir basse pression 123..."
DeleteThe missing word in the French version is a verb: "extends" in the English version. Should we consider reporting this ?
DeleteAfter the complicated DII part, this was a very nice question to work with!
ReplyDeleteI went with a device claim and a use claim, where I included the glue as a dependent claim, looking back there might be a few points missing, since I can't prohibit the use of glue in high pressure devices...
I've formulated the characterising portion of the device claim as "said column (15) is arranged to engage with the static disc (17) and to seal it so that, when the device
ReplyDeleteis in use, a liquid contained in the second chamber (22) for liquid cannot enter the third chamber (23) for gas".
Paragraph [007] of D2 states that the rod 115 is "loose fitting" in the neck 142, which I think rules out that it would seal the static disk. From paragraph [005] of D2 I understand that by driving the fluid through the turbine and the valve, the fluid ends up in the low-pressure chamber.
I've also regarded the container being made of metal as an essential feature but I'm not entirely sure about that.
I did the paper as a bench marker today. The menu bar of the editor has been permanently disappeared - the problem did not occur with me in the earlier online EQEs.
ReplyDeletePlease report it.
DeleteI tried all the key combination in wiseflow and finds out that if you are in the text editor press (Page up/Page down), the menu bar will disappear.
DeleteAny neutralization?
DeleteThis is annoying, for paper B it is a disaster if this issue persisting.
DeleteI had that issue while practising paper B over wiseflow: I confirm this is a disaster. I did not have that issue today or on Tuesday. I don't understand what is the cause of it.
DeleteThe same was reported for paper D by some candidates and benchmakers, see our first impressions blog for D and its first set of comments https://eqe-d.blogspot.com/2024/03/d-2024-first-impressions.html. Trying Refresh may have made the problem even worse, as that would (the second time?) make the invigilator screen popup. Luckily invigilators need to let you in quickly - they will check thereafter from the logs whether it all seemed OK other something was suspicious.
DeleteContacting the invigilator during the exam and -if it made you loose marks- file a complaint may be considered.
Also, someone told me that using pause and resume in wiseflow may solve the problem without needing the invigilator, but I do not know whether that is correct - so if you try, it is at your own risk, do not blame me for telling you the rumour (but applause if welcome if it did help ;)).
Anonymous wrote:
Delete> if you are in the text editor press (Page up/Page down), the menu bar will disappear.
That was -as far as I know- not yet reported, but it would explain why my editor bar was lost multiple times when I sat paper D as a benchmarker. Is quite cumbersome to jump up and down without the PageUp-PageDown keys though... :(
See comment above:
DeleteA candidate informed me that only on Monday, 11 March (so only after paper D and paper A, but just before paper B and paper C), the EQE secretariat had send the following email:
"From: helpdesk
Sent: 11 March 2024 11:[nn]
To: [Candidates]
Subject: EQE 2024 - Important information / EEP 2024 - Wichtige Information / EEQ 2024 - informations importantes
Dear candidate,
Some users have informed us that, when performing a certain key stroke, e.g. the key “PageUp” in a standard full-size desktop keyboard, the toolbar for formatting the text in the editor of the lockdown browser may temporarily disappear.
Should this happen, the toolbar can be restored by clicking the “Pause participation” button, which is located towards the top-right corner of the screen, below the indication of the time left. By clicking “Resume participation”, the toolbar re-appears when typing normally in the text editor.
[+text in German and French + signature EQE secretariat"
it's interesting to see so many different opinions on the characterizing portion ... i myself have very mixed feelings about it and opted for the column that engages AND seals the static disk 17, thus sealing the third chamber, since according to D2 a possible seal was only given via the valve 143. the technical effect can be seen in allowing a different pressure on the upper and lower part of the piston 14, since one end of the column 15 facing away from the piston head 14 is exposed to the pressure in the third chamber.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your reasoning. D2 specifically said that the rod was "loose-fitting" in the neck, so this couldn't be a seal.
DeleteI think that what you describe is the solution.
DeleteI have that in my indep. claim. But did not argue for it in my description. Can I still get full marks for my indep. device claim, dear friend?
DeleteI also did not have time to well explain that in my description (the novelty and technical effect over D2). I except to be losing some points allocated to the description (usually 10-15) not more.
DeleteIs it necessary to mention "thus sealing the third chamber"? I left that one out! 😄
DeleteI've also kind of forgot that the technical effect and novelty should be included in the introductory part. I assume though that the claims are assessed independently of the introductory part so we should only lose points for the introduction.
DeleteMe too! But I argued for another feature as the characterising part in the description...Btw my indep claim was not in the two part form: Will my independent claim still be considered novel and inventive?
DeleteI mention that the static disk has an opening through which the column can engage and move, and that the column is permanently engaged in the opening thus sealing the third chamber, and an extremity of the column is permanently comprises in the third chamber.
DeleteI don't think the two part form was appropriate. D1 was the closest prior art and D2 discloses many missing feature in D1. So, as you are supposed to base your preamble over D1 teachings, you would have a very small preamble and a big characteristing part.. which is not appropriate.
DeleteI reckon we were not supposed to base our preamble over D2 teachings (which would make it longer) since D2 cannot be closest prior art here.
In my view, this was very tricky. People dealine with mechanical inventions definitely have a strong edge here. My claim got very long to fit all essential features and to also have a clear effect. I hope this was the case for everyone.
ReplyDeleteI am exhausted.
I think that was a difficult A paper.
DeleteWho went for an independent clue claim?
ReplyDeletewow, never crossed my mind. Perhaps this and idea, but I am not sure they said that this glue was new? Doesnt sound inventive to just apply any known glue
DeleteMe dear Marco, with the special additive which renders the glue resistant to high temperature !!
DeleteWell the basic glue composition was already known if I remember correctly, it even had a trademarked name. Furthermore, I suupose that an independent glue claim might lead to a lack of unity, but that's just a speculation.
DeleteIf they go for lack of unity for people claiming an independent glue claim instead of allocate points on it, that would definitely make the paper unmanageable for chemists.
DeleteAdding the special additive to the known composition of the glue has an technical effect, which could be patented.
DeleteYes, you need the additive, but the additive is novel and inventive. Did they set up a nasty trap here?
DeleteUnity can be argued stating that the independently claimed device can work with the independently claimed glue for at least a given application of the claimed device. So, there is only one inventive concept here and product (glue) and device for treating a well can be both included in one patent application.
DeleteI did not include that reasoning in my introduction thus.
Way too mechanical. For me this was equivalent to a pre-2017 mechanical paper. Only difference is that there was a glue composition thrown on top.
ReplyDeleteHad the idea that sealing and a limited pressure of the third chamber was needed to obtain the big advantage of the device that no high pressure would be present in the device before or after deployment which would be dangerous.
I did all the A exams back to 2015 and I think that even in the past there have been less complex EM papers. For some this might have been a huge problem.
DeleteI agree. Luckily the glue gave chemists some more familiar matter. But will that get us enough marks to pass?
DeleteDrafted a device and a method claim.Characterizing part of the device claim is that the column 15 seals the disk thus sealing the third chamber and the pressure differnce between the third chamber and well is at least 500 kPa.
ReplyDeleteWhy did you mention the pressure difference? When you're selling the device (and before its activation as described in the claimed method) the pressure is not relevant.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe pressure difference between third chamber and the well should be mention in the method claim only.
ReplyDeletei agree
DeleteAgreed.
DeleteThis was my approach. I included the limitation of "at least 500 kPa" in the independent method claim. No mention of pressures in the independent device claim (although I did has my first dependent claim specify the gas chamber being filled with a gas pressured between 90-110 kPa)
DeleteHow you guys did you manage the chambers disposition? They have to be in a specific order and each of them has to occupy the width of the recipient for the device to be able to work.
ReplyDeleteI myself define a longitudinal axe of device along which the recipient extend, and then described the first and second chambers as being separated between them by the plunger head extending orthogonaly to the longitudinal axe of the device, and the second and third chambers as being separated by the static disc extending orthogonaly to the longitudinal axe of the device.
That was my way to clarify the disposition of the three chambers inside the recipient.
In other words: if one claim only a recipient with a first, second and third chambers, there is a lack of clarity since it is not possible to know how to dispose them into the recipient. That is another reason why the paper A of this year was kind of hard for chemists..
DeleteHello, difficult paper to my mine.
ReplyDeleteWas the size of the column essential ?
I would say no but I don't think one would lose point if he includes the range 5 - 15 cm in claim 1.
DeleteHell no.
DeleteIf it’s an unnessesary limitation, then you loose points. I don’t think the size was essential (but I might be wrong!)
DeleteWow, I’m so surprised to see people mentioning glue as an independent claim. It never crossed my mind. I had it in a dependent claim…
ReplyDeleteMy device claim is: 3 chambers, piston head + column, (each providing a respective sealing- I copied directly from the client’s letter the way they named it), 2 valves. The novelty as compared to D1 (at least 3 chambers) and compared to D2 (providing a sealing using a column and a disc).
Method to treating wells using the device (1-X) and
use of the device 1-X to restore old wells for a geo-purpose.
I didn’t include metal casing in claim 1 :-O I hope not to loose that much marks…
I found it very candidate friendly that there was only one embodiment to describe (and not trying to figure out how to generalize 3 embodiments like in 2023).
Looking forward to DP version of the answers and analysis.
Where did you include the glue then? In your device claim mentioning that the third chamber could contain the glue ? I don't see it adding any protection but..
DeleteYeah same..but I argued for the novelty of another feature in the "description"..will I still get marks for my independent claims?
DeleteI had a glue in a dependent device claim, as a chamber comprising a glue with composition Y. It protects a device with a specific glue?
DeleteHi Ellie. I fully agree with you! Thanks for posting, it was reassuring to read your comment.
DeleteHow a glue could add protection to your device? The glue is not part of the device and the device can be sold without glue inside.
DeleteI disagree. Glue/acid is a liquid to be added before deployment. Hence, should be included as a dependent claim in a method claim.
DeleteThe specific glue is a liquid specifically adapted to work with the claimed device in order to treat a well. Thus glue and device are linked by a single inventive concept here, no?
DeleteI drafted the glue as a use claim. Known composition but new usage.
DeleteThe device is to be protected without any glue inside. The glue is only added to the second chamber when the device is about to be used (introduced in a well). That is why I did not specify that chamber 2 was destined/adapted to receiving glue (any chamber of devices of D1 or D2 are adapted to receiving any fluid, including glue). That is why I went for an independent glue claim.
ReplyDeleteMy independent device claim is as follows:
ReplyDelete1. A device (D) for deploying a liquid in a well, the device comprising:
(i) a cylindrical container (11) formed from a metal or metal alloy and divided into a first entry chamber (21) for well fluids, a second chamber (22) for liquid, and a third chamber (23) for gas;
(ii) a movable piston comprising a piston head (14) and a column (15);
(iii) a static disc (17);
(iv) a first valve (19) provided between the inside of the first entry chamber (21) and the outside of the container (11); and
(v) a second valve (29) provided between the inside of the second chamber (22) for liquid and the outside of the container (11);
wherein the piston head (14) separates and seals the first entry chamber (21) from the second chamber (22) for liquid,
wherein the column (15) is fixedly attached to the piston head (14) and extends through the static disc (17) so as to sealingly engage in the static disc (17) and thereby separate and seal the second chamber (22) for liquid from the third chamber (23) for gas;
wherein the first and second valves (19) and (29) allow or prevent passage of liquid and equalisation of pressure between the outside of the device (D) and the inside of the first and second chambers (21, 22) respectively;
wherein the surface area on the lower side (14L) of the piston head (14) is smaller than the surface area on the upper side (14U) of the piston head (14) because of the column (15) so that the movable piston is capable of moving by unbalanced pressures acting on the upper surface (14U) and the lower surface (14L) of the piston head (14).
My method claim is:
7. A method of using the device of claims 1 to 6, the method comprising:
(i) sealing gas at a pressure of 100kPa +/- 10% in the third chamber (23) for gas;
(ii) adding the deployment liquid to the second chamber (22) for liquid;
(iii) deploying the device into a deployment location in the well using a line (L);
(iv) opening the first and second valves (19, 29);
wherein a pressure difference of at least 500 kPa is present between the deployment location in the well and the chamber (23) for gas.
I decided that a lower pressure of 100kPa +/- 10% needs to be included because a pressure difference can mean a higher pressure inside, so liquid not squirted out.
My independent glue claim is:
13. A glue comprising:
- 30-60 wt% bisphenol A epoxy resin;
- 30-40 wt% sulfone polymer having an average molecular weight of 50 000-100 000 g/mol;
- 5-15 wt% toughening agent comprising liquid polysulfide rubber;
- 5-15 wt% curing agent comprising amines; and
- phenolic antioxidants;
wherein the weight average molecular weight (wt%) is measured by light scattering according to the standard method ASTM D4001-20.
I wondered about disunity, but it was clear that the glue on its own has a technical effect (thermostable) and is particularly suited to use with the device of the invention.
I did not claim any "use" given the method claim.
My claims are quite close but: why did you mention in your claim 1 : "wherein the first and second valves (19) and (29) allow or prevent passage of liquid and equalisation of pressure between the outside of the device (D) and the inside of the first and second chambers (21, 22) respectively;"
DeleteThis is only true when the device is in use, not true when there is no liquid in the device.
Also, we don't understand in your claim 1 how the three chambers are disposed inside the recipient, and the direction of the piston when it is moving... Also, the client says the device is cylindrical.. not the recipient (even if from the drawings one understand it is cylindrical)
DeleteI thought some way is needed to specify the function of the valves. With hindsight, I should have put "configured to allow or prevent passage..." - I'm not a mechanical person at all, so I forgot about that detail... I do think that the arrangement of the chambers is clear from the definition of the piston though, no?
DeleteI don't think that defining an upper and a lower side of the piston head is correct, particularly that the lower surface of the lower side is smaller than the surface of the upper side, given that it was acknowledged that the device can be turned upside down, in which case the surface of the upper side would be the smaller one.
DeletePretty close to my claims, even the claim numbers are identical. However, I think having 100kPa in the method claim is wrong, because it demands to just have a ratio, so that the 100kPa should be a dependent claim. Also, I dont see the point in limiting the shape to cylindrical. In claim 1, I specified that the are attacked by a pressure from second chamber is smaller (I did not include any pressure in the claimed object, just mentioned that the attacked area is smaller), because I think that also the rod from D2 decreases the surface.
DeleteBut very similar to what I got.
Is an independent claim to a glue really a thing?
ReplyDeleteDoubt it - technical problem to be solved was to deploy glue without requiring very high-pressure gas to reduce the risk of explosion (in my opinion), thus a claim to the glue would lack unity
DeleteI hope not, but I am very nervous now!…
DeleteI hope not. And I am not nervous!
DeleteI included an independent claim for glue. As I understand it, the unity of the claims is less to do with "do these claims all include the exact same special technical features", and more "could all of these independently claimed things be used together to achieve some effect". The paper A 2022 claims are a good example of this (although in this paper the paper sheets being claimed have special properties as a result of the machinery / method used). In any event, I dont expect the independent claim for glue (if there is one or not) will be too many marks!
DeleteExactly, Tony! I did the 2022 not too long ago, and was very angry that I did not claim the paper pulp. So I immediately concluded that the glue should be claimed. In 2022 it was demanded to claim the paper machine with the hammer I think, the paper pulp, and paper.
DeleteAlso, did not the paper mention that the client only has the money for a single application? This could be understood as a hint to include the glue in the application.
Delete@Marco123, I think papermaking exam was of completely different style, perhaps I am oversimplifying because I did my Phd about papermaking, but it was very clear to me to have pulp as an intermediate product and paper per ce. There is no intermediatee product here in view of the glue imho
DeleteJake
ReplyDeleteWhat did you do with the information that in some EU countries a well is not a well? Was it supposed to generalize to any sort of ground channels?
ReplyDeleteThe wording of that part was slightly awkward. I assumed that their competitors wanted to export such devices to countries where no wells existed, so only a method claim would not provide any protection given that in those countries there were no wells in which the method could be carried out.
DeleteMight be misremembering, but I thought all they were saying was that some EU countries dont have wells as a way to hint to candidates not to include features of the well in their device claim - i.e. dont claim the device only when its inside the well as this is too limiting and cant be relied upon to stop infringement in all EU countries. I think you can still include "a device for treating a well" (or whatever the language there was) as your preamble
DeleteThe information I remember was along the lines of “some manufacturers of the device are in EU countries that do not have wells”. So the client needed a product claim to go after infringing manufacturers. If we only drafted a use claim, the manufacturers in EU countries that themselves do not use the devices they manufacture would not directly infringe the claim. So they’d be free to manufacture our device all they like.
DeleteBasically just a bit of justification for the bit that said “we need a product claim”
As a chemist, I found this mechanical exam exhausting with all of these features connected and having funstions. I can compare this exam with paper A 2013 E/M ( but a little bit easier)
ReplyDeleteIt is true that there was only one embodiment but seeing the difference from D2 was quite hard for me and it took me too much time for defining a cliam 1.
I defined 3 independent claims: one directed to the device per se (as suggested by the client) , one mehod of treating wells using the device claimed and one claim for the use of the device claimed in wells. Reagarding the device independent claim, I found that the CPA was D1 as pertaining to the same field. Different essential features that the client said as the valves (which were disclosed regretfully by D2) the column that seals (D2 also discloses a sealing thorugh the use of the valve 143, but when using for producing electricty the liquid neeeds to enter the gas chamber, which is different from our invention wherein the liquid does not enter in the chamber 23), and the difference pressure at least 500KPa it is generated between the well location and the chamber 3 (and necessary according to the client letter who also clearly says that the exact pressure in each chamber doesn't matter) when the pressure force applied on one side of the piston is higher than the pressure force on the other side. In this case we should not mention up and down because the device can be used in inverted position.
For me the glue should be added as dependent claim as well as it following addtives, and so on.
For the method step, I based my claim in the text of the client whcih almost defined the claim, and I added a dependent claim for saying that a further step can be added before the step of deployment, which is a step of reducing pressure in chamber gas (as stated as one option by the client).
I think I would need 30 minutes more in order to make this exam in good conditions. Anyway, let's focus on paper B.
What was different between your claim to a method of treating wells using the device claimed and your claim to the use of the device claimed in wells? Is that not the same?
DeleteDeltaPatents has publisher their answer:
ReplyDeletehttps://eqe-a-em.blogspot.com/2024/03/our-solution-for-paper-2024-deploying.html
As a chemist, this paper is just too mechanical. I struggled understanding the invention. I am actually still not sure what the invention actually was. Last year it was at least obvious. Took me way too long to understand how the device works. Then D2 is very similar, so that took me a lot of time as well, especially since it can also expel fluids. Then needed to decide on which features were essential, which was barely indicated. Is metal necessary? What is adequate? And then write the claims. Just too little time. I didn't have time to think about the features I put in.
ReplyDeleteThat is why providing a faire amont of points for an independent glue claim + a couple more for a dépendent would be fair enough
DeleteI did the paper as a bench marker yesterday.
ReplyDeleteHow did you get the password for entering the flow?
I sent an e-mail to EPO and they replied that I will find the password in Chat (for security reasons, which I have not been informed).
But I knew that I could use the Chat only after entering the flow, that's why I hadn't looked carefully for Chat when I needed the password. Wasted time.
Cristina