A 2026: first impressions?
To all who sat the A-paper today:
What are your first impressions with respect to the very final A-paper? Any
general or specific comments?
For example, was the subject-matter
well understandable, for chemists as well as e/m candidates? Was the paper
easier than in recent years, or harder, or at a comparable level? Did you
experience a lot of time pressure?
Please be reminded that, if you wish
to lodge a complaint pursuant to point I.9. of Instructions to Candidates EQE2026 concerning the conduct of
the examination, you must do so at the latest by the end of the day on
which the paper to which your complaint pertains takes place, by filling in the
dedicated form on the EQE website. The Form for paper A is only
available on 05.03.2026, 13:30 - 23:59, CET.
The paper and our answers
We aim to post our provisional answer in a separate blog post as soon as
possible after we have a copy of the paper, preferably in all three languages.
Should you have a copy of at least a part of the paper, please send it to any
of our tutors or to training@deltapatents.com.
Please be reminded that you can view
and print/download copy of your exam answer after the exam, via the view/download
button below the "1. Paper"-icon in the bottom left part of the outer
shell of the respective flow. It may not be available immediately after the
official end of the (part of the) paper, it can take 30-60 minutes to appear.
Apart from any pre-printable parts, the paper itself cannot be downloaded.
Comments are welcome in any official
EPO language, not just English.
In order to make responding to your
comments easier, please do not post your comments anonymously. You can use
either your real name or a nickname. 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, and post responses to our
answer (as soon as available) to the separate blog post with our answer.
We look forward to hearing from you!
Anyone?
ReplyDeleteNovel and inventive part: between 0.1 and 0.8 m/s? Anyone?
Method claim and automatic spray device claim anyone?
Anyone?
Yep I got N&V on spray speed. Claim for sprayer and pseudo-indep method of manufacture using the sprayer.
DeleteThen three (!!) independent product claims as the first embodiment was disclosed by D2 so I went v narrow on coating composition but didn’t want to carry that over to the other two embodiments
On my side, the novelty and inventive step of the invention are based on combining TEOS with citric acid.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. It reminded me of the "gold nanoparticle" past paper. Felt quite limiting at the time of reviewing the paper, but they made it very clear it was a hugely beneficial embodiment, so the "by far" indication in the paper led me to TEOS + citric
Deleteokay, but TEOS is evaporated after heating above 250 degrees Celsius making the coating "inorganic" i.e., devoid of organic compounds. So what is the product claim with TEOS and citric acid are you claiming there, when it may not even be detectible for infringement in the end product? There is no product for the sol-gel composition with these two elements as such.
DeleteReply to above: I think a product-by-process definition was expected
DeleteI picked up on the "by far" bit but felt that limiting to TEOS and citric acid excluded the other novel combinations in the client's table
DeleteI didn't want to rely on the 0.1 to 0.8 m/s as novel and inventive - surely it would be a routine modification going from a high rate with aeroplanes to a lower rate with small cookware! I did include it in the claim, but I also did limit the claim to TEOS + citric acid - it was "by far" their preferred combination, even though the paper indicated they could use "any" precursor, the later paragraph made it clear TEOS + citric was the way to go. D2 didn't teach the combination of TEOS + citric (selection from two lists), so whilst it might be slightly commercially limiting, it felt the safe path.
ReplyDeleteAh I did TEOS + CA in 4:1 ratio.. now I think this is too narrow... :(
DeleteI didn’t include the specific composition in the method because the speeds were novel (albeit maybe not inventive). I did include the specific composition in the device claim.
DeleteThere was a device claim?
DeleteThat was bleak.
ReplyDeleteI went with a claim to an item of cookware comprising a coating made of tetra and citric acid at 1:1 to 6:1 (novel I think as it’s a selection from two lists).
I felt this was the only option as the prior art seemed to disclose fully the broad idea the client wanted protected.
I went with a method of applying with the sprayer and included the 0.1-0.8 speed. This is novel but hard to argue inventive.
The issue with the method is covering all the embodiments they sell (including horizontal only).
Spent over an hour trying to find distinguishing features that still covered most of the clients wishes. Really difficult.
The question I ask myself what is the effect of "tetra and citric acid at 1:1 to 6:1"? Can that effect a hardness of 12 to 15 be part of claim and avoid PbP?
DeleteSpray speed? Anyone?
ReplyDeleteI was so much in doubt whether to include the application speed or not or whether to include TEOS + Citric acid. Both teos and citric acid was mentioned in D2 as components, although the combination was not explicitly tested in D2. I was afraid TEOS+Citric would not be novel/inventive over D2. In the end, i went with the hardness between 12-15. This was indicated as being measured with an iso standard and furtermore the hardness covers multiple ratios of TEOS and citric asid, and it was mentioned as their by far best coating.
ReplyDeleteYes, but the hardness feature was only by virtue of using TEOS + citric, so hardness without TEOS+citric is essentially a result to be achieved - not novel.
DeleteI thought of this, but isn’t that a result of the use of those two components?
Deleteresult to be achieved is allowable if it can be positively verified by tests or procedures known to the skilled person such as the ISO test they mentioned
Deleteyes, but it can be defined more precisely than via a result to be achieved, i.e. by specifying TEOS + citric acid lol. You can't draft a broader claim as a result to be achieved just because you can verify the result, otherwise everybody would do it!
Deletefair point, but in that case presumably it would have to be product by process because the TEOS (organic) was not actually comprised in the final coating (inorganic)?
DeleteI think we can't limit coating claim to TEOS+citric becos they are not present in the final product? So it is either pbp or hardness for the coating claim? To add to the confusion, they define the hardness of the "composition" in para [11] rather than the "coating"...
DeleteI don't see how the other combinations of sol/starter are inventive - but who knows.
I think an apparatus configured at the specific speed is probably the way to go too, but this didn't seem inventive to me during the exam.
I went to apply the two-layers of the coating for novelty and inventive step as the client letter indicated that it gives very good sticking properties and less material cost..
ReplyDeleteThen the client isn't covered for one-layer embodiments, major limitation.
DeleteBut the one-layer cookware is already disclosed by D2 in paragraph 6 of d2
DeleteThat's why you needed to limit to TEOS + citric acid - it was "by far" the best coating. This would confer novelty and inventive step over both D1 and D2.
DeleteI did this as well. I thought combining teo and citric acid was too limiting and would not be inventive over D2.
DeleteI did this doesn't look to be the ideal solution, just have to hope that it's good enough...
DeleteWell, if you limit the claim to a very specific combination of parts, you can’t use any parts. Major limitation as well. I think that’s the nature of a limitation that confers incentive step
DeleteI claimed a cookware (mentioned as desired by the client), novelty over D1 was the metal+coating, D1 only has ceramic + coating. Novelty over D2 was dual layer, D2 only has one AL layer. I kept AL+Steel/Iron in because simply having 2 different metals wouldn't achieve the effect mentioned. I think this claim might have been too limited.
ReplyDeleteI had a method claim for coating with at 0.1 and 0.8 m/s and drying >250. I think this method covers pans directly obtainable which have 1 layer, and a coating, so should cover the pan the client but I'm so unsure now!
But a claim simply to the automatic machine doesn't seem relevant for the client and was disclosed by the D2 machine with <1.9m/2.
D2 disclosed 1.5 to 1.9m/s during the method.
DeleteAgree!
DeleteI think claim lacks inventive step over D1+D2. D1 metal cook ware teflon replace with D2 sol-gel
DeletePerhaps not. D1 as CPA replaces solgel with teflon so disincentivises to combine with D2. Agree it's not clear though
DeleteWhat in the world..
ReplyDeleteI went for
1.composition claim of TEOS+citric acid in a ratio 4:1
2. sol-gel coating for a substrate obtained by process of mixing TEOS+citric acid and coating substrate, wherein hardness of coating is 12-15.
3. Cookware with coating of 2
4. Method of coating cookware of 3 per process of 2, with speed 0.1-0.8 m/s
Why so limiting with the 4:1 ratio of claim 1? The table showed it worked between 1:1 and 6:1, 4:1 (and 2:1 to 4:1) should have been dep claims.
DeleteI don't think you would be able to define the hardness of the composition, because the hardness relates to the coating itself, not the composition. It only becomes hard after the drying step.
DeleteNot defining the ratio 1:4 would not be novel, because prior art states 1:6 ?
I thought the paper was poorly drafted. The text relating to the tables referred to the "compositions" having the hardness, not the coatings per se.
DeleteCompletely agree: in the English version, "composition" and "coating" seemed to be used interchangeably and I'm pretty sure "composition" was even referred to as being inorganic whereas my understanding was it is only the "coating" (once baked) that was inorganic
DeleteYes! On this basis I chanced the claim as "Inorganic composition comprising"
DeleteI use the feature inorganic compostion as distinguishing technical feature. D2 does not disclose sol-gel composition as inorganic, and only disclosed separately sol and gel in organic. If I remember correctly, it seems all sol-gel compositions are in organic. although sol and gel could be separately in organic as disclosed, but it does not restrict only to oganic, it could be something else. If restrict the weight to 4:1 which would restrict the scope in my understanding. Inorganic had been repeatedly present in the letter in my impression. The technical effect is heathy and anti-scratch (last sentence of par.8 if I remember correctly.)
DeleteNot sure what the final inventive step.
Did anyone include an independent claim on the sol-gel compound combining TEOS + citric acid (which should be new and inventive in view of D2)?
ReplyDeleteyep, good one.
DeleteYeah but I even used all given connections as some of them had a hardness of the coating up to 11, so limiting to TOEF + acid may not be the best scope. But I don´t know if they acknowledge that all (tested) combinations are new and inventive
DeleteYeah but i did it only with the ratio between 1:1 and 6:1
DeleteI limited independent claims to the explicit combinations within the ration range. Then the teos citric acid as preferred embodiment. Anyone else?
ReplyDeleteThat was one of the hardest paper As I've seen as there was no definitive indication of the superiority of any specific technical effect
What do you mean? The general combinations are known from D2. The specific combo of TEOS and citric acid was not disclosed in D2.
DeleteBut this combination did not have any technical effect defined in the client letter. how would someone ague invenitve step
DeleteThe 4 or 5 specific combinations in the table were not disclosed in D2. I don't see them anyway.
DeleteAre you serious? It couldn't have been clearer that the optimal hardness was achieved by TEOS + citric acid. There was a whole table showing it!
DeleteIt’s explicitly stated that this combination had by far the best results.
DeleteAll combinations are novel. Some combinationations overlap with the hardness of the teos citric acid and so should be included. Then limit to teos and citric in dependent. Argument all have been demonstrated as good for cooking. Limiting to teos and citric in claim 1 seems too restrictive. Problem is there was nothing definitive to argue for inventions other than to make up the hardness is good for cooking
DeleteNon of the hardnesses achieved by the other combinations resulted in 12-15 hardness.
DeleteDid it say anywhere that a hardness above 12 was essential? I didn't see that? I didn't see anywhere anything saying a hardness of 4 was unworkable. That's why I claimed all of them. All combinations were definitively novel
DeleteAgreed - all combos in the table were novel. I claimed them by hardness of above 4
DeleteRe hardness above 12 not being essential - it was not stated as such, but then what is the technical effect of the compositions with lower hardness? To me it seems like in the absence of the improved hardness, you reformulate the OTP to providing a combination of sol + gel starter suitable for cookware, and you then have 16 possible coatings disclosed in D2 which tells you to use them in cookware, so what is the contribution here? Testing 16 and saying 5 of them work ok? Also the client said that they have also used other precursors, so why would you limit to the ones in table 1 specifically?
DeleteGL G-VII, 12 In this context, it must be assessed whether the skilled person, in the light of the teaching of the prior art, would seriously contemplate working in the selected subrange. If it can be fairly assumed that the skilled person would do so, the selected subrange is not novel. For this reason, excluding specific novelty-destroying values known from the prior-art range may not be sufficient to establish novelty.
The concept of "seriously contemplating" is fundamentally different from the concept used for assessing inventive step, namely whether the skilled person "would have tried, with reasonable expectation of success" to bridge the technical gap between a particular piece of prior art and a claim whose inventiveness is in question (see G‑VII, 5.3), because to establish anticipation, there cannot be such a gap.
I did the same, i.e. using all the combinations in the table. Two lists principle, so the combination is novel over D2. And the inventive step based on that the properties is better than Teflon™ ([5] of client letter, "even better" and "improved"). D2 says alternatives of Teflon™, but I'm afraid that I might over interpertating the text.....
DeleteI don't think you can limit to hardness as result to be achieved only allowed when technical features are not available, which here they are.
DeleteI think as there is no indication or suggestion at all to work in the substance from D2 it can be assumed there is no teaching or motivation to work in the substance so novelty is fine and IS is possible provided a technical effect is provided which here is hardness. As for improved hardness, there is nothing to say whether 4 is good or not. Just because 15 is nearly 4 times higher, there's no indication that 4 is bad, just that 15 is much better. It also shows a wide variation is achievable so we are in trial and error territory which the skilled person doesn't do. As there is nothing to say 4 is bad or unworkable, the composition giving the coating with 4 is still workable and not disclosed or taught in the prior art. Therefore limiting to all the specified examples is N and IS.
Limiting only to teos and citric rules out the coating with a hardness of 11 which is clearly far too limiting
what technical features are you referring to? I can't quite remember what was written, but we certainly didn't know the actual contents of the inorganic composition since the organic precursor decomposes.
DeleteThe technical features here are making the coating using a sol precursor / gel stater combination as explicitly disclosed in the table in the ratio range per the table. Product by process as the exact composition/structure of the coating is not available as it is only constructed following annealing of the coating
Deleteslightly confused - are you saying a product defined by the method of marking the coating? how would you claim the product other than by pbp or by result to be achieved, since the contents of the composition are unknown? we might not actually be in disagreement here, just trying to understand!
DeleteIt was a very confusing paper an difficult to discuss in this format. I think there was a method claim limited to the use of the sol gel composition prior to heating as the characterising feature. Then a product by process claim in which i claimed a cooking surface also limited to wherein the sol gel composition was the same as the method claim. Then a cookware item comprising the cooking surface with dependent claims to pans ect and also having two different cooking surfaces
DeleteThis also satisfies unity requirment
DeleteAh okay your approach makes sense. It does seem like there were multiple ways of validly claiming the invention. I'll be interested to see what the "expected" approach is in the end. I can't imagine very many people will align anywhere near
DeleteAgreed. I'd say this was the hardest paper A of the last ten years at least
DeleteClaim 1: cookware item comprising a metal substrate and a sol-gel coating, the sol get coating having a sol part and a gel part, characterized in that the sol is TEOS and the gel is citric acid, and wherein the ratio is between 1:1 and 6:1
ReplyDeleteClaim 9: method of coating a cookware item, comprising the essential steps, wherein the application is done using a spray machine comprising its essential features, characterized in that the machine moves at 0.1-0.8m/s
Claim 15: a coating for use on cookware, the coating comprising [same coating composition as claim 1]
pretty much same as me. Nice one. Hi5.
DeleteQuite the same !
DeleteOnly the speed in a dependent method claim.
this claim 1 is disclosed in D2, read para 2 + para 6. the client letter does not even suggest any technical effect of this combination to be superior than having any other combination
DeleteTwo generic lists not disclosing specific choices does not anticipate a specific selection from each list. D2 does not anticipate this.
DeleteNo it's not. TEOS + citric acid is a selection from two lists in which D2 provides no pointers to their combination. Client letter explicitly says that TEOS + citric was "by far" the best in producing the optimal hardness. Are you sure you sat paper A today?
DeleteD2 dislcoses two lists and a combination of two elements of two lists can be novel and inventive.
DeleteBut I threw every combination in there as the client explicitly stated that all combinations achieved good results. TEOS + acid just gave the best hardness. But for example the combination above it also gave a hardness of 11, so this may be too limiting.
I understood that one phrase with the organic parts not being in the final product as hint for a product by process claim for the cookware
Delete+1 for product by process being tested in this paper
DeleteGiven that claim 1 and 15 are both independent claims in same category, won’t we be penalised for that?
DeleteIn the final coating there is no sol is TEOS and the gel is citric acid. Its decomposed to inorganic sol-gel
DeleteTEOS + citric acid is new, since it results from the selection in two lists.
ReplyDeleteBut what about the inventive step?
ReplyDeleteTable 1 shows that it improves hardness and thus scractch resistance.
DeleteNeither D1 nor D2 suggest the combination of TEOS + citric, nor that their combination would lead to such an optimal hardness. Inventive step is clear.
DeleteThe sol-gel combinations of D2 are described as having "excellent hardness"... even with a novel combination (selection of two-lists) how can it be inventive without further limitation to the particular ratio?
Delete"by far" the best in hardness does not provide a surprising technical effect.
ReplyDeleteIt does if the combination wasn’t suggested by D2.
Deletemy solution:
ReplyDeleteA method claim: method for providing a sol-gel coating with the basic method steps, ...,
wherein the sol comprises TEOS and the gel comprises citric acid,
wherein the ratio of TEOS to citric acid lies between 1:1 and 6:1.
A product by process claim: Cookware comprising a sol-gel coating produced by the method
wherein the hardness of the coating lies between 12 and 15.
The method and the product are novel, as the claimed features represents a specific selection from two lists.
The method and the product further involves an inventive step, since the selected combination produces a surprising technical effect, namely an increased coating hardness.
I do not think that a PbP is allowed since you can define the product by hardness of the coating.
DeleteI see hardness is a result parameter.
DeleteIf hardness only arises because of TEOS + citric, then claiming hardness alone becomes: result to be achieved
not if you cannot claim the product made of TEOS + citric because the initial compounds decompose
Deletethe memory of the exam is already fading but I believe it said something about the coating only containing the inorganic composition (because of the heating above 250 degrees). Therefore presumably to define using the TEOS+citric acid you would have to do product by process as TEOS(organic) doesn't actually remain?
ReplyDeletei.e. the coating doesn't actually contain TEOS because it is organic and has dissovled (or whatever word they used)
DeleteDoes the paper indicated somewhere that TEOS is organic ?
Deletefrom memory it said any "organic precursors" could be used such as TEOS
DeleteThis decomposition of the organic compounds took me sooo much time thinking how to write the product claim, let's hope it gets rewarded
DeleteI also did not see how without any chemistry background we could understand that TEO is dissolved and does remain in the end product. They defined un organic as not containing carbon-carbon (or something like that)
DeleteCan’t remember the wording, but surely the TEOS is still present if it has dissolved into the gel? Dissolved means it’s incorporated within but not removed from.
Deletepretty sure it said "decomposed"... in any event, without using specialist knowledge the paper clearly said "organic" precursors but "inorganic" composition
DeleteI think a claim directed to TEO/citric has to be novel and inventive, but it can’t be for a coating or cookware claim (due to the decomposition upon heating) and so should be a composition or method claim. I went with Method for coating cookware with this feature and a separate independent claim for the coating defined by its hardness.
DeleteA cookware comprising a metal substrate coated with an inorganic sol- gel having a hardness of at least 12 according to method...
ReplyDeleteDo you think this is Novel?
the hardness should be inherent from the combination of TEOS and acid. But you don´t mention TEOS and acid. So one could argue that the hardness is implicitly dislosed in D2 (as they mention inorganic sol-gel). So even though it might be novel, I don´t think it is inventive.
DeleteIt is inventive because improved scratch resistance.
DeleteProcess claim
Normal process with TEOS+ citric acid and heated above 250°C.
You would end up with the product with inorganic sol- gel
yes, the hardness is implicitly dislosed in D2, however, does a harness of 12-15 is not disclosed. Since objective iy to obtain improved scratch resistance (hardess) and durability, a hardness of 12-15 not only novel seems inventive too.
DeleteI don't understand why so many claimed cookware item comprising ..... wherein the sol is TEOS and the gel is citric acid...
ReplyDeleteAfter curing, TEOS and citric acid are no longer present as such. During the sol-gel process:
TEOS hydrolyzes and condenses. Therefore, the final coating does not chemically contain TEOS or citric acid anymore. I think a product by process claim is necessary.
absolutely agree, if you were to define using the components used to make the sol-gel then it must be product by process because of the decomposition
DeleteAgree, its inorganic sol-gel
DeleteIn this instance, however, I didn't use PbP but instead used the hardness which is verified by the ISO test
DeleteA cookware comprising a metal substrate coated with an inorganic sol- gel having a hardness of at least 12 according to method...
DeleteThis my main claim.
Any comment
certainly novel and inventive but did you have the maximum of 15? I also wonder if it was possible to claim the whole range of hardness (4-15 I think?) because all of the tested varieties were novel by virtue of the two list selection point
DeleteI think generalized hardness create issue with D2, why 4-15? I see it as implicit disclosure. However above 12 is surprising
DeleteWhere in the description is mentioned that TEO and citric acid are not present in the final coating? The only definition of inorganics I saw was something about not containing carbon ...
Deleteit said that the composition is "inorganic" and that the "organic" precursors decomposed in the heating process to only leave the inorganic composition
DeleteFuck, I missed the "organic" precursors part. This means that it should be a process-by-process claim?
DeleteA bit of debate as to the correct way to go about it, but seems like people who noticed the organic/inorganic point either did PbP or result to be achieved with the hardness which can be verified by the standard ISO test
DeleteSeems to be a few different possibe independent claims (1. TEOS and Citric Acid, 2. Combination of two different coatings 3. Speed of spraying) - is it possible to get a passing score if you chose an approach that is different to the model approach?
ReplyDeleteWent in a way I haven’t seen in the comments yet. Claim 1 was a cookware item comprising a metal substrate coated with sol-gel formed from the component parts in a 1:1-6:1 parts ratio, and having a hardness between 4-15 according to the ISO (lower end of range from memory but based on the examples).
ReplyDeleteWas very tempted by the TEOS+CA combination, but the client had the other examples and so I thought they should be covered. thought that a hardness parameter makes the claim novel based on the fact that D2 does not mentioned hardness at all nor any specific combination of materials (double selection) which would implicitly have a hardness value according to the claim. And no explicit disclosure of a hardness value in D2, just indirect consideration of “excellent” anti scratch and non-stick, but again no quantification. Then for inventive step, my reading of the client letter was that the hardness parameter is known (as it is an ISO), but the inventors have used it for the first time to indicate when an inorganic sol-gel coating to *reliably* confers /has the advantages of non-stick, scratch-resistant, and non-toxic. Although the prior art mentions hardness, there was no recognition that such a sol-gel coating with that hardness range reliably provides a product with the above the benefits.
Anyone go in a similar direction? Think I’ve probably sunk this exam
the coating does not contain the component parts because they decompose during heating
DeleteI think generalized hardness create issue with D2, why 4-15? I see it as implicit disclosure. However above 12 is surprising
Deletesee other comments about selection from two lists. in any event the claim is novel because it has the metal substrate and D1 would be CPA
DeleteAgree about them not being there. Should have clarified that claim 1 had an *inorganic* sol-gel coating formed from a sol precursor and a gel starter, with the ratio etc. effectively product by process
DeleteDid anyone else see the error in the clients letter? They described that in a first step the coating is applied to a horizontal surface and in a second step to a non-horizontal surface. Then they said that two angles are used for that. A horizontal angle for the second step and a tilted angle for the first step.
ReplyDeleteSeems like they swaped first and second steps. It did threw me off a little bit but I assumed it is an error?
Did anyone else struggle to even make it to 15 Claims in total?
ReplyDeletecertainly, there weren't many dependent claims. A lot of time spent on the independent claims though
DeleteI specified that the sol-gel coating was "obtained from" TEOS + citric acid
ReplyDeleteSame here, thought it had to be done because we don’t know what the substrate components are after reaction, only what they were made from.
DeleteMy independent claim 1 was limited to the speed of movement. I guessed it could be considered inventive because D2 is not really a relevant document. Yes, it mentions cookware, but is of the field of aeronautics which is quite far away from the field of cookware. So if D1 is the closest prior art, then D2 would not even be considered when trying to solve the problem of toxic coatings. Even if it was considered, the method does not use the claimed speed, and there is no hint of changing it either.
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid I missed up when drafting my independent product claims to the coated cookware. I drafted a product-by-process claim referring to "the method according to any of claims 12 to 14". These method claims related to the combination of TEOS and CA (claim 12) with the specific ratio of 4:1 (claim 13) and the different ratios being used for the horizontal parts and the non-horizontal parts (claim 14). Does anyone know if such a product-by-process claim that refers to different methods, is allowable? Or would it be deemed unclear?
I also did something very similar. Pretty sure the product-by-process can refer to multiple claims.
DeleteTo me this exam felt a lot like the one with the paper production process. Several Independent claims, a device, a product by process Claim... I did not go for TEOS+CA, since this felt very restrictive and for hardness, the full range (4-15) was not covered by the experiments (none disclosed a value of 6 or Something in that range)...
ReplyDeleteAgreed that the specific composition felt too restrictive during the exam, I specfied in the method claim that sol-gel is applied to the cooking surface comprising a metal substrate with the device operating at 0.1-0.8 speed, with the hope that D2 would not anticipate it as the sol-gel is not really applied to a cooking surface, and not with the claimed speed, which should be sufficiently removed from the operational speed range suitable for aerospace composit materials, etc. I find the paper difficult and complicated. -FK
DeleteRestricting to the cooking surface sounds good... I did Not Go for that, because of the weird mentioning in the part where the method was described, that they want to protect the product as auch. And I was Not sure what product the client was referring to... -.-
DeleteWhat is your product by process Claim? They mention a hardness and how it was measured. This denies a product by process claim.
Deletepretty much the same we see here. cookingware comprising a sol gel coating obtainable by the method of claim X, also wrote for 1-layer and 2-layer products if I recall correctly. -FK
DeleteExtremely difficult. I decided to go with a cookware pan with two different coatings, one on a horizontal and one on a non-horizontal, and my method being the 2-step spraying, but that paper felt mean.
ReplyDeleteDid the same. And a device for producing the layer.
DeleteMe too. I considered to go for the TEOS citric acid limitation alternatively, but thought excluding the other compounds from the table and description felt too limiting.
DeleteI went for something similar: method for coating a metal substrate of a cookware item, wherein the metal substrate comprises a horizontal and a nonhorizontal cooking surface, the standard coating steps but, made two gelation steps for two different weight ratios for each of the horizontal/vertical surfaces, then two application steps using a spraying machine configured for each step, limited to two angles only for each. All ratios and compositions of the sol/gel lists in depclaims, also the movement speed. Then claimed any cookware item obtainable by the preceding methods, with depclaims listing all of airfyers, pans, etc, dual-layer substrate, the „we like to use aluminium“ for the layer contacting the coating. So covered all products single and dual layer, pans, so-gel mixes, 4:1/2:1 mixes etc. The novelty comes from the two-step application with gels of different ratios and the fixed angle spraying. I thought selecting two from a list is borderline not inventive (routine experimentation just like the table) machine speed included in „up to1.9m/s“ and didn’t want a restricted selection of gels/sols or ratios because the client wanted the entire table maybe. Forgot to specify that the two ratios in the two gelation steps should stay between 1:1-6:1 to have the nonstick effect (but I did not claim that anyway) but have the 250degrees for hardening up the coating in the main claim.
DeleteFor all time I was thinking how would the best limitation for don't loosin point. I understood the best solutiin 5 minutes before the end but was impossibile to change my paper. I'm very disappointed. It is not possible don't have a linear paper. The examiner have to understand that some candidate don't use their native languages do to the paper and are under pressure to formulate the claims if the patent is not linear and present a lot of informazioni like this one.
ReplyDeleteI too disliked this paper but regrettably time pressure is tested in every exam
DeleteI sat this paper in my native language and it was truly horrendous so I really feel for you
DeleteI can really see from the comments how this (although an easy technology) was challenging. I do not see what would be inventive here since the combination of both documents would lead to the invention except for some details in the method. The hardness is inherent with the covering no matter what combination you choose. The specific combination is too limited. The only thing I saw was the two layers, but indeed I do not see the invention at all. The signalling words were not specific since most of the time the client says "everything else also works". It was a lot clearer last year.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you
DeleteAgreed. Inventive step was so weird to spot here. I think the options were either to limit to two layers on cookware OR the specific composition? But both options exclude several embodiments which goes against everything previous paper As have taught us. Specific composition is so narrow, but the two layer cookware excludes all single layer ones…
DeleteHorrible paper...
ReplyDeleteI went for product-by-process. My attempt (roughly):
A method of making an inorganic sol-gel coating comprising having a hardness of at least 4 as measured by ISO method comprising:
- providing a precursor from the client's table (the same list as in D2)
- a gelling agent selected from the client's table (the same list as in D2)
- applying this to a substrate
- treating at above 250C
NOVELTY: hardness of at least 4 (I know, result to be achieved...) requiring selection from two lists in D2. INVENTIVE STEP: sol-gel coating with improved hardness over D2
A sol-gel coating obtainable using the method of the claim above
A cookware comprising the sol-gel coating of the claim above
A method of spraying ... characterised in the speed (not sure about this one at all)
Time to cry....
The product by process is ok but on the solution containing the tetrasilane and the citrico acid.
DeleteSince the sol-gel coating is having the hardness which can be described by the ISO method, no PbP is allowed. But indeed, I am also unhappy. I do have a cooking ware and a method for providing an anti-adherent coating. The sol-gel composition was only new in a specific combination what would be a separate invention, I think. I was thinking also claiming on a cooking surface and then on cooking device but I was not sure whether this cooking surface would be allowable. The wording in the paper was to unspecific to me.
ReplyDeleteI went for:
ReplyDelete1-cooking surface comprising an inorganic coating and a metal surface comprising a first metal layer, wherein the inorganic coating has a hardness of 12-15 as measured according the ISO standard.
2-cooking ware comprising the cooking surface of…
3- a method of manufacturing the cooking surface or cooking ware according to claims… compromising 1) providing TEOS
2) performing gelation reaction by adding CA in ratio by weight 1:1 to 6:1 to obtain a sol-gel composition
3) applying the sol-gel composition on the metal surface
4) this last step whatever it may be at a temp of at least 250C
Anyone else?
I had the same method/process claim but did not arrive at claims 1 and 2. I did not realize one can still use result-to-be achieved feature here. Now I think that your version is really good.
DeleteMethod of coating a metal substrate comprised by cookware with an inorganic sol-gen layer, with the steps set out by the client and a ratio of 1:1-6:1, using an automated sprayer with a movement speed of 0.1-0.8 m/s
ReplyDeleteCookware obtained from that method with an inorganic sol-gel coating with a hardness of 4-15 (as measured by the standard method given).
Any product claim had to be product-by-process because according to the client the organic sol precursor and gel starter are destroyed/degraded by heating to 250C - we didnt know the final composition of the coating.
Picking a combination of a specific sol precursor and gel starter is too limiting because they client said that any sol or gel starter could be used.
The spraying system and controller is disclosed in D2; and anyway, claims to this wouldnt protect the thing the client actually sells.
The speed is novel and inventive because D2 doesnt disclose this range or a method thats suitable for coating cookware; and the skilled person wouldnt seriously contemplate using 0.1-0.8 m/s in view of the 1.9 m/s (or 1.5 m/s for detailed work) disclosed in D2.
Potentially could do result to be achieved with hardness to avoid pbp
DeleteVery tough paper. Claimed the below.
ReplyDeleteSol-gel composition TEOS + citric.
Process with TEOS/citric for coating any metal substrate
Product-by-process cookware (referring back to process) + hardness definition using standard method.
Bunch of cookware dependent claims (material, upper/lower layer, pan, horizontal layer being harder than non-horizontal, etc.).
System + speed (thinking here was that how on earth is it obvious to take a system you apply to airplanes and spaceship, which must be massive, modify it so that it's suitable to apply stuff to cookware, modify the speed to be lower than the preferred speed of D2 and find out that the speed in the modified range is particularly efficient as noted by the client).
Bunch of system dependent claims
How about a claim to an automatic spraying device comprising the features described by the client, wherein the electronic controller is configured to apply a first sol-gel composition on a horizontal surface with the ratio 4:1 and a second sol-gel composition according to claim 1 (the broadest) different than the first composition on a non-horizontal surface?
ReplyDeleteThe electronic controller in D2 can adapt to different angles, but not provide control over different compositions
I drafted a similar claim to a spraying machine
Delete1. All the specific combinations of sol-gel mentioned in the table. All of these are selections from the list of D2 so novel and they’re said to be suitable with specific hardness value and (arguably) inventive.
ReplyDelete2. Two metal substrate cookware with a sol-gel coating - D1 discloses two metal substrate but not sol-gel and D2 explicitly mentions a single metal substrate. So novel and definitely not obvious
3. Single metal substrate cookware with two coatings where the two coatings are different - again novel and inventive and is broader than limiting to a cookware with horizontal and non horizontal surfaces
4. Method of coating the cookware where the characterising portion is the speed of the sprayer - a narrower range of 0.1-0.8 is novel over the broader ranger of up to 1.9
Haven’t seen this combo yet in the discussion and none of the claims limit to any specific sol-gel (as the client says any combo is useful for the cookware itself). Also it covers the product itself which is also what the client wanted
That said - the whole organic and inorganic threw me off because no more information was provided on that front
All is wery well described only the first cliam of composition is not a product claim but a product by process claim. IUnfortunately I realized all of this thinks at the end of my paper
DeleteWhat threw me was that the client's letter stated that all the tested combinations have suitable non-stick and hardness. Yes, the Citric Acid and TEOS was the best, but I took this as an indication that I needed to cover all the different combinations - so i ended up going for the 2 different layers
ReplyDeleteExaclty my thoughts. The TEOC+Citric was so narrow so I thought the best thing to claim was cookware having two separate sol-gel surfaces, that are different. D2 had TEOC+citric as possible options in its description so I thought it wouldn’t be inventive to just have a single layer with TEOC+citric.
DeletePlus the TEOC+citric melts away after heating so it can’t be in a product claim?
Exactly. You would exclude so many different embodiments with this narrow material definition. by contrast, the client's focus is on pans which also include non horizontal parts. If you can produce such pans more efficiently, you have an advantage regardless of the material used. So the claim is more future proof as well.
DeleteIn particular, the client tested only some combinations. Who says that there is none better combination? If there is, your patent is useless. Yet, when simply claiming different coatings on different parts, the patent still has the same value as before.
I was mostly unsure about whether the set of claims was expected to be unitary. I saw several inventions that could be argued to be novel and inventive, but not really sharing the same inventive concept:
ReplyDelete1) TEOS + CA composition in a 1:1 to 6:1 ratio (suitable for making coatings in different technical fields). I think something in this corner was the intended claim 1, also because of the reference to a "product as such" which was essential. I like the 'product-by-process' suggestions I've seen here, but did not think of that myself (so I ended up with a sort of intermediate product); I did include a corresponding independent process claim. I considered claiming sol-gel with hardness > 12, but used that as technical effect instead (novel because selection from two lists).
2) Cookware with two different sol-gel coatings (not necessarily TEOS/CA) for horizontal and non-horizontal surfaces. I only included this as a dependent claim (so with at least one TEOS/CA coating), but provided basis for a divisional in the Summary (but I do not think they give marks for that).
3) Method/system for coating cooking surfaces with a sprayer speed of 0.1 - 0.8 m/s. I think it needs to be limited to cooking surfaces, since clearly different ranges are optimal for coating planes (D2); compatible with TEOS/CA or 'two coatings', but such limitation appears not necessary.
4) Method/system for spraying in (exactly) two directions, instead of adjusting angle based on surface. This one ties in nicely with option 2 'two coatings' above.
I think cookware with a metal substrate and (generic) sol-gel coating is novel (D1 only discloses ceramic substrate + sol-gel coating and metal substrate with Teflon coating; and D2 discloses a metal substrate with sol-gel coating but not specifically for cookware, and cookware with a sol-gel coating), but not inventive.
1. A cooking item having a cooking surface, the cooking surface comprising a substrate having a first metal layer,
DeleteWherein the first metal layer is coated with a solution precursor-gel composition and wherein the ratio by weight between solution precursor and gel component is between 1:1 and 6:1.
D1 nowhere disclosed the ratio. D2 did not disclose a cookware item. In terms of inventive step, D2 was from a remote technical field.
2. A process for coating the cookware item, comprising the steps of… wherein the ratio by weight between the solution precursor and gel component is 4:1.
I think i made a mistake here, but at the time I thought this was novel over D2.
3. A system for carrying out the process of clam 2… wherein the moving speed of the sprayer is between 0.1 and 0.8m/s.
:/
Hopefully those of us ho didn't get the product by process trickery get at least some of the points if they have a good independent process claim, thanks to art. 64(2)
DeleteThe problem to be solved a cookware with improved hardness ( scratch resistance ), non stick, non toxic.
ReplyDeleteI think the solution (inventive step) is by providing an inorganic sol-gel coated metal surface having a hardness 12-15 according to ISO obtained from TOES+ citric acid
Yet another paper which proves how no matter how dumb it is to write a single paper for chemists and engineers for A, no matter how economical it may be for the EPO... I'm willing to bet the pass rate among non chemists will be abysmal. I get that most of the time it's us engineers who are favoured though.
ReplyDeleteYet another paper which proves how dumb it is to write a single paper for chemists and engineers for A, no matter how economical it may be for the EPO... I'm willing to bet the pass rate among non chemists will be abysmal. I get that most of the time it's us engineers who are favoured though.
ReplyDeleteindeed, although I'm not sure the paper was really that much better for chemist candidates...
Deletesuspect this paper as drafted by a chemical engineer
DeleteYeah I'm sure it was unusually hard for everyone. For non chemists it was pretty much unfeasible though
DeleteAs a chemist I used no specialist chemistry knowledge on this although I certainly admit a chemist would not be put off by the chemistry names like an engineer might be. The only thing one might need to take away was that the coating changes after it's heated but I don't think you needed that to make the claims and it was simply explained in the text. Although I admit again that some but not all chemist's would be more comfortable with that concept
Deleteone of my clients deals solely with sol-gels and i still struggled lol
Deletedoes anyone know how much (if at all) marks get adjusted for Paper A? Obviously this is only a small sample but it seems like arriving at the "expected" claim is very unlikely for a large number of candidates
ReplyDeleteI claimed:
ReplyDelete- spraying apparatus at 0.1m/s to 0.8m/s (novel owing to spray speed).
- method of coating a cookware item comprising obtaining a sol-gel, coating a metallic substrate pseudo-dependent on the spraying apparatus (for novelty) and heating.
- a cookware item having a coating obtained from a sol-gel comprising TEOS+citric acid in weight ratio 4:1 and having a hardness of 15 as measured by the test they disclosed (novel over prior art).
I think my product claim is too narrow (selection invention from two lists, TEOS+Citric could have been novel and arguably inventive over entire range of 1:1 to 6:1). Probably also in the wrong format, as pseudo-dependent on a method claim would have been better.
I think I missed a claim to a method of obtaining a sol-gel comprising TEOS+citric acid.
I think I also missed a claim to a sol-gel obtained by the method above.
I think I missed a claim to a method of coating a cookware item comprising the method of obtaining a sol-gel comprising TEOS+citric acid. The apparatus claim could have been dependent on such a claim.
Overall, good chance I've failed.
Does anyone know, if 25 points are always lost, if a claim is novel, but not inventive?
ReplyDeleteGiven the extreme lack of consensus here I'd say very few got the right answer. I'm guessing they will have to modify the marking scheme but no idea how
DeleteYou can look at the 2022 paper for an indication. Missing the claim to paper pulp but having the claim to paper in that year only lost 6 marks I think. It's likely to be similar if you miss the sol-gel claim as an intermediate product here.
DeleteLast year it was -35 points if novel but not inventive
Deletecan't imagine it will be as harsh this time. Last year's paper had a clear point of novelty and inventiveness
DeleteDP, any update on when you can publish your unofficial answer? thanks
ReplyDeleteI'm taking the silence thus far from DP as a hopeful indicator that they are also struggling for consensus on the right claims
DeleteI wonder if paper B and C will be as controversial as D and A have been so far...
ReplyDeleteMy approach for independent claims was:
1) Cookware: inorganic sol-gel coating on the metal substrate, wherein sol-gel coating has a hardness of 4 - 15 as measured according to the ISO 14705 norm.
2) Process of coating a cooking surface of cookware, [steps for preparing composition and heating >250C to form an inorganic sol-gel layer], wherein the precursor and gel starter are selected to form a sol-gel coating having a hardness of 4 - 15 as measured according to the ISO 14705 norm.
3) Spraying device for use with the process, [essential sprayer features], wherein moving speed of the sprayer is between 0.1 and 0.8 m/s.
Rationale being:
- In D2, heating @ >250C is not essential, thus doesn't reliably result in coatings free of toxic organic material
- Client requested protection for product "as such", and here it seemed possible to cover all their combinations by defining an inorganic coating by its ISO-tested hardness (seemed like a similar situation to paper A 2022 where a claim was expected for the paper defined by ISO-tested tensile strength)
- D2's spray speed is limited 1.5 - 1.9 m/s
Can't help but feel that relying on the sol-gel being inorganic was a bit weak though...
I had a similar claim 1 and claim 3. I was also not very sure on whether it was inventive enough but if D1 is the CPA it seemed arguable. I'm not sure paper D was "controversial", at least to the same degree as paper A, but it still felt harder than usual. fully expecting the worst from the remaining papers too...
DeleteYeah, I think you wanted a claim to the coating that was similar to the 2022 paper A for the paper claim.
DeleteSo a coated cookware defined by the coating having the ISO test hardness of at least 12 and that the coating is made from TEOS and citric acid in 1:1-6:1 wt. ratio.
Thanks for sharing. I followed suit with claims 1 and 2, under the same rationale about reliably accessing the coated products with all the benefits (non-toxic, scratch-proof etc)
DeleteThese are the independent claims I wish I got (and did not get).
ReplyDelete1. A method of obtaining a sol-gel coating comprising:
providing a sol precursor;
performing a gelation by adding a gel starter in a ratio by weight of the sol precursor to the gel starter of between 1:1 and 6:1; and
performing a drying-densification;
characterised in that the sol-gel coating comprises:
MPTMS & ethanol;
MTES & lactic acid;
TEOS & oxalic acid;
MTES & ethanol; or
TEOS & citric acid.
2. A sol-gel obtained by the method of claim 1.
3. A method of coating a cooking surface of a metallic substrate of a cookware item, the method comprising:
obtaining a sol-gel coating according to the method of claim 1;
applying the sol-gel coating to the substrate; and
drying the sol-gel coating in an appropriate oven at temperatures above 250°C to form a hard inorganic sol-gel coating layer.
4. A cookware item obtained by the method of claim 2, wherein a hardness of the hard inorganic sol-gel coating layer is greater than or equal to 4 as measured according to the known ISO 14705 norm of 31.12.2016.
5. An automatic spraying machine for apply a sol-gel coating to a substrate, the automatic spraying machine comprising:
a sprayer (30);
a control system configured to automatically control movement of the sprayer (30) to move within the geometrical boundaries of the cooking surface and to apply the sol-gel coating to the substrate of the whole cooking surface;
wherein the control system comprises an electronic controller to control the movement of the sprayer and a memory configured to store two-dimensional spraying patterns corresponding to the external dimensions of the cooking surfaces to be treated;
wherein the electronic controller is configured to select the two dimensional pattern corresponding to the cooking surface to be coated and operate the sprayer based on this pattern;
characterised in that a the electronic controller is configured to move the sprayer (30) at a speed between 0.1 and 0.8 m/s.
6. Use of the automatic spraying machine of claim 5 to apply a sol-gel coating to a cooking surface of a metallic substrate of a cookware item.
scrap the word "coating" and the drying step from claim 1. Typos. Meant to claim method of forming intermediate product and corresponding apparatus claim to intermediate product.
DeleteSimilarly, 4 should depend on 3. Did this in a bit of a rush.
DeleteThat is almost exactly what I wrote.
DeleteBut I fear that claim 1 is not inventive as it is lacking the "surprising" effect, although it is novel. So my feeling tells me that they wanted solely TEOS + acid as the surprising effect is the hardness of 12 to 15 (although MTES+ethanol goes up to 11).
Does anyone have a copy of the client letter they’d be willing to share? Thanks
ReplyDeletehttps://www.epo.org/en/learning/eqe-epac/european-qualifying-examination-eqe/compendium/paper-a
DeleteHere is the AI Solution:
ReplyDelete1. Cookware comprising a metal substrate and an inorganic sol-gel coating on a cooking surface of the substrate, wherein the sol-gel coating has a hardness between 12 and 15 measured according to ISO 14705.
2. A method for producing cookware having a sol-gel coating, the method comprising:
(a) providing a sol comprising a precursor;
(b) adding a gel starter to form a sol-gel composition;
(c) applying the sol-gel composition onto a cooking surface of a metal substrate; and
(d) drying and densifying the composition at a temperature above 250°C,
wherein the precursor is tetraethylorthosilicate (TEOS) and the gel starter is citric acid.
Interesting, which LLM foundation model did you use?
DeleteThe result in my view is not entirely correct at least because
(1) the weight ratio range 1-6:1 is missing in the method
(2) hardness feature in cookware claim lacks clarity as unallowable result-to-be-achieved.
However, surprisingly, I think this AI would pass because the claims are novel and inventive and there are no major mistakes.
You are right - the ratio is a clear essential feature.
DeleteI used gpt5.3
Omg these are my claims except that I did in fact add the 1:1 and 6:1 ratios. I hope AI was right
DeleteWhy limit to cookware? Shouldn't the coating have applications in rocket science due to improved hardness?
Delete'hardness between 12 and 15' - why limit to TEOS & citric acid ? the client says that all the coatings that was prepared have good non-stick properties, are scratch and food-safe. so why not include all of the specific sol-gel combos mentioned in table 1? but even doing this seems limiting as you could have an infringer who either sells a product that does not use one of the sol-gel combo coating or has a hardness that is outside the claimed value.
DeleteAI most certainly can't navigate complex lateral thinking + apply law in the same way we (as trainees) are trained to do - a pretty claim imo but definitely too limiting
PbP because if the independent claim defines the product by a result to be achieved and the result amounts in essence to the problem underlying the application, that claim must state the essential features necessary to achieve the result claimed?
ReplyDeleteI did several independent claims:
ReplyDelete1. Product by process claim for obtaining the inorganic sol-gel coating
2. An inorganic sol-gel coating obtained by the method according to claim 1.
3. A cookware comprising a substrate coated with inorganic sol-gel coating.
4. A system comprising
A control system
A spray machine comprising spray device
5. A method for coating a cooking surface with an inorganic sol-gel coating with the system according to claim X comprising the steps…
Does anyone did so many independent claims?
It remembered like the paper pulp paper.
Perfect solution
Deletehow is the process for obtaining the inorganic sol-gel coating novel? the process is exactly described in D2 (which also teaches the temperature of the over to be preferably above 250°C). granted D2 doesn't mention the coating to be inorganic but given the process is exactly the same - you're bound to end up with the same product if you use the method of D2 for a cookware (which it does teach)
DeleteI did several independent claims:
ReplyDelete1. Product by process claim for obtaining the inorganic sol-gel coating with the TEOS + acid citric at a ratio by weight of 1:1 to 6:1
2. An inorganic sol-gel coating obtained by the method according to claim 1.
3. A cookware comprising a substrate coated with inorganic sol-gel coating.
4. A system comprising
A control system
A spray machine comprising spray device
5. A method for coating a cooking surface with an inorganic sol-gel coating with the system according to claim X comprising the steps…
Does anyone did so many independent claims?
It remembered like the paper pulp paper.
Many people here seem to be misunderstanding with a selection invention is. A selection from two lists is only novel if the two lists are of substantial size. There is quite a bit of case law on how to interpret this, but in any case, a selection from two lists with only four components each would likely not confer novelty under established case law, let alone inventive step. This means that the further inclusion of 4:1 would likely be necessary, but this would constitute a significant limitation. There were various was to construe a claim which was novel and inventive while keeping the coating itself relatively broad. Claim categories that you could have unambiguously derived:
ReplyDelete- method for manufacturing
- a product claim (there were several ways to do this without limiting to the specific coating)
- a system claim (there was a difference between the system that was used by the client and D2)
- you could’ve probably claimed the coating itself (TEOS, citric acid, 4:1); however, this will likely not lead to a significant amount of points, as the client is not interested in selling coatings as-such
In any case, the exam was poorly construed with various confusing statements and terminology which relied of the technical knowledge of the examiner to understand whether or not it was relevant. Guess we’ll see in July.
agreed. also to add - prior art does explicitly teach that elements of list 2 is added to list 1
Delete"Many people" seem to just be able to read the EPO guidelines. I'm quoting :
DeleteThe identified selections involve the selection of individual elements or in selection of subsets of multiple larger sets. This amounts to a selection from two or more lists of a certain length. A list is a description of equal, i.e. non-convergent, alternatives.
A list is usually considered to have a "certain length" if it has a length of at least two or three elements. Whether a list has the required length has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. If a selection from two or more lists of a certain length has to be made to arrive at a specific combination of features, then the resulting combination of features, not specifically disclosed in the prior art, confers novelty (the "two-list principle").
Also, no one is arguing a selection from two list confers an inventive step. It confers novelty, and the fact that it leads to much better hardness is inventive
DeleteI came up with a plausible answer (in part), but just too late sadly...
ReplyDeleteI think the structure should be that one of Guidelines for Examination, F-IV 3.1, point (iii):
"in addition to an independent claim for a given product, an independent claim for a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product and an independent claim for an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out said process. "
wherein the apparatus is the spraying means with the memory and the instructions to carry our the method of the 2 step application as a configuration.
The product claim is a (cookware I think, but maybe it could be generalized to coated metallic surface, not sure), limited by the range of the table 1. The different combinations have different hardness, the higher the better (clearly the inventive step was there, linking hardness with more non-stickiness). So if you take the whole range (I think it was 4 to 15, from the lowest range to the highest range), it may be that the method disclosed in D2 for any combination of precursors and starters may possibly fall within that range, making it not novel. However, if you leave out the lowest range, something like 4 to 5.5, and claim from 5.5 to 15, then you are making sure (and have proof) that the range claimed is novel, and is inventive because the higher the better for the main purpose of the client.
For the method process, if you want to also limit by hardness you need to mention the combinations as well, to avoid it being enunciated as a result to be ahcieved, but that seems to me like too limiting, not something they would want us to do, just have that hunch. If you limit by speed of the sprayer, then inventive step is difficult to argue because the range of the client is actually slower than D2, so none of the mentioned possible technical effects of controlling speed which is being more efficient and saving costs would apply. If you limit by the two step process (vertical and horizontal coating), then you are limiting to cookware maybe? or at least to shapes with horizontal and vertical surfaces, and the paper was clearly hinting that this method had other applications appart from cookware, so it should not be the main point from the examiner, otherwise they would not be hinting towards it with D2 talking about coating for boats and with the client sailing away in the end. So for the method I am not sure what would be the best approach.
Hi colleagues,
ReplyDeleteI was struggeling with the Independent claims -especially with product vs pbp-and I invested a lot of time for interpreting and assessing options for them.
From my experience of 2025 I stick to the requirements for novelty and the problem solution approach.
I went for one product claim directed to a cookingware comprising a metal substrate and a sol-gel-coating (D1 fails to disclose sol-gel-coating with a metalic substrate; D2 discloses sol-gel-coating in combination with metal surfaces as well that sol-gel-coating may be possible for cookingware, but no disclosure in D2 is provided, that cookingware can be metallic; also since D1 mentions that cookingware can also be made from ceramic,; i.e. cookingware is described generic (implicitly D2 refers to metallic surfaces; no hint is given that the mentioned cookingware is metallic). For the inventive step, for the cookingware, D1 is CPA, D2 would not considered, as it is remote technical field and if considered, D1 teaches that sol-gel is expensive and with additional time effort, i.e. teaching away.
I think that a strict separation between novelty and inventive step need to be performed! Further, when performing the PSA, starting from D1, a skilled person needs a motivation to combine D1 with D2. However in light of the product claim, theres is no such motivation.
I also formulated a method claim with 0.1-0.8 m/s as the distinguishing feature.
I also drafted a sol,-gel- composition comprising Teos and citric acid and 1:1 to 6:1.