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!
my claim 1. 1. A cookware (1) comprising a metal cooking surface (20) coated with an inorganic sol-gel layer (21), wherein the inorganic sol-gel layer having a hardness of at least 12 when measured according to the ISO 14705 norm of 31.12.2016.
ReplyDeleteMy claim1. 1. A cookware (1) comprising a metal cooking surface (20) coated with an inorganic sol-gel layer (21), wherein the inorganic sol-gel layer having a hardness of at least 12 when measured according to the ISO 14705 norm of 31.12.2016.
ReplyDelete9. 9. Use of a sol-gel composition comprisng a combination of tetraethylorthosilicate as a sol precursor and citric acid as a gel starter in a ratio of sol precursor to gel starter between 1:1 and 6:1 by weight for preparing an inorganic sol-gel layer having a hardness of at least 12 when measured according to the known ISO 14705 norm of 31.12.2016.
10. 10. A process for applying a sol-gel composition to a substrate comprising the steps of:
(a) providing a sol tetraethylorthosilicate as a precursor,
(b) performing a gelation by adding citric acid as a gel starter to obtain a liquid sol-gel
composition having high-viscosity,
(c) applying the liquid sol-gel composition obtained in step (b) to a substare, and
(d) performing a drying-densification at a temperatures above 250°C to obtain a substate
surface coated an inorganic sol-gel, wherein the ratio of sol precursor to gel starter is between 1:1 and 6:1 by weight.
Somewhat close to Ai answer.
Hi All. My solution as follows:
ReplyDelete1. A cookware (1) comprising a metal cooking surface (20) coated with an inorganic sol-gel
layer (21), wherein the inorganic sol-gel layer having a hardness of at least 12 when measured according to the ISO 14705 norm of 31.12.2016.
9. Use of a sol-gel composition comprisng a combination of tetraethylorthosilicate as a sol
precursor and citric acid as a gel starter in a ratio of sol precursor to gel starter between 1:1 and 6:1 by weight for preparing an inorganic sol-gel layer having a hardness of at least 12 when measured according to the known ISO 14705 norm of 31.12.2016.
10. A process for applying a sol-gel composition to a substrate comprising the steps of:
(a) providing a sol tetraethylorthosilicate as a precursor,
(b) performing a gelation by adding citric acid as a gel starter to obtain a liquid sol-gel
composition having high-viscosity,
(c) applying the liquid sol-gel composition obtained in step (b) to a substare, and
(d) performing a drying-densification at a temperatures above 250°C to obtain a substate
surface coated an inorganic sol-gel, wherein the ratio of sol precursor to gel starter is between 1:1 and 6:1 by weight .
Seems perfect to me
DeleteI also went for a PbP.
ReplyDelete1. Method for producing cookware
2-14 a dependent claims
15. Cookware produced by the method
You should review the Guidelines. The selection of citric acid and TEOS in this case is 100% novel. In my view, it is also inventive
ReplyDeleteI have had a very similar approach. Only for the claim directed to the cooking ware I used hardness as measured by ISO Norm, a bit similar as to paper was claimed in A paper from 2022
ReplyDeleteDid you actually need the hardness? I just put it in a dependent clam…
Deleteagree
ReplyDeleteAll specific combinations of sol-gel precursors and gelling agents seemed novel, as the 2-list principle applies for all cases. However D2 already discloses that they achieve a coating with an excellent hardness (whatever this may be), so any combination that may be novel is not necessarily inventive imo. The hardness obtained by TEOS+CA was "by far" the best as indicated by the client, and as evidenced by the measurements with the ISO norm. So that's why using TEOS+CA was not only novel but also inventive. Yet the coating itself does not comprise TEOS anymore... so: PbP is only allowable if there is no other way of defining the product. In this case, we had the possibility to define the product by the hardness. This is not a "result-to-be-achieved", it is a result that IS achieved. As evidenced by table 1, which should then be incorporated into the description, since the burden of proof lays with the applicant to show that the effect is actually achieved.
ReplyDeleteThe solution provided by Qthena (without further prompting or guidance), based on Google Gemini 2.5 Pro, is the following (broken up in several post, because of the limited comment length):
ReplyDelete1. The Problem to be Solved
The invention addresses the significant drawbacks associated with conventional non-stick cookware, particularly those using Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) based coatings like Teflon™. The primary problems are:
Toxicity and Health Risks: PTFE coatings release toxic and potentially carcinogenic substances when heated, posing a risk to consumer health.
Environmental Harm: PTFE is a "forever-chemical" that degrades very slowly, leading to long-term environmental contamination.
Limited Durability: These coatings are susceptible to scratching, which diminishes their non-stick performance and can exacerbate the release of harmful substances.
The objective is to create a new generation of cookware that is non-stick, highly durable, scratch-resistant, non-toxic, and environmentally safe.
2. The General Solution Proposed
The client's proposed solution is to replace the traditional PTFE coating on metal cookware with a specific inorganic sol-gel coating. This coating is formed through a multi-step process involving a sol precursor, a gel starter, and a high-temperature drying-densification step.
3. Analysis of the Prior Art
DeleteA careful review of the prior art (D1 and D2) reveals that several key aspects of the general solution are already known:
D1 (EP06180111): Discloses that applying sol-gel coatings to cookware (specifically, handmade ceramic cookware) to achieve non-stick and scratch-resistant properties is known. It also explicitly discloses a bi-layer metal substrate for coated cookware, comprising an upper layer of aluminium for adhesion and a lower layer of stainless steel or iron for heat conductivity.
D2 (International Journal of Material Science): This document is highly relevant and discloses:
The exact chemistry: The use of precursors like TEOS and gel starters like citric acid.
The precise ratio range: A weight ratio of 1:1 to 6:1 for precursor to gel starter.
The manufacturing process: A process of gelation followed by drying-densification at temperatures above 250°C.
The application method: An automatic, controlled spraying system that can adapt its angle to coat inclined or complex surfaces.
The intended use: D2 explicitly suggests that these specific sol-gel coatings are suitable for cookware like pans and pots due to their non-stick properties and food-contact safety standards.
4. Identification of the Core Inventive Concepts
DeleteGiven the extensive disclosures in the prior art, the invention's patentability does not lie in the broad idea of using sol-gel for cookware. Instead, the core inventive concepts are found in the specific, optimized, and previously undisclosed implementations discovered by the client.
I have identified three distinct but interrelated inventive concepts:
Concept 1: The High-Performance Composition (A Selection Invention) While D2 discloses the general components and ratios, the client has identified a specific combination that yields unexpectedly superior results.
The Invention: A sol-gel composition for cookware comprising TEOS as a precursor and citric acid as a gel starter, specifically in a 4:1 weight ratio (TEOSCA41).
The Inventive Merit: This specific composition achieves an optimal hardness of 15 (per ISO 14705), which provides exceptional scratch resistance and durability for cookware—a result not taught or suggested by the prior art for this specific combination and ratio.
Concept 2: The Dual-Coating Cookware Product The client has developed a novel product structure that optimizes cost and performance.
The Invention: A cookware item having a cooking surface with at least two distinct regions coated with different sol-gel compositions:
A first, high-performance coating (e.g., TEOSCA41) applied to the primary horizontal cooking surface.
A second, different sol-gel coating (e.g., TEOS and citric acid at a 2:1 ratio) applied to non-horizontal surfaces (like the walls of a pot).
The Inventive Merit: This configuration provides maximum durability where it is most needed (the base) while using a more economical coating on less critical areas, achieving a technical and commercial advantage not disclosed in the prior art.
Concept 3: The Dual-Coating Application Method This concept relates to the specific industrial process for creating the dual-coating product.
The Invention: A method for coating a cookware item using an automated sprayer, comprising the steps of:
Applying a first sol-gel composition to the horizontal surfaces of the cookware.
Applying a second, different sol-gel composition to the non-horizontal surfaces of the cookware.
The Inventive Merit: This specific, two-stage application process using two different compositions is a novel manufacturing method. While D2 discloses spraying complex surfaces, it does not suggest using different compositions for different parts of the same item in a sequential process.
Conclusion
My understanding is that while the general field is crowded, the client has carved out distinct and potentially patentable inventions through specific optimization and novel combinations. The path forward will be to draft a patent application that protects these three core concepts, ensuring they are linked to form a single general inventive concept as requested by the client. We will start by drafting claims centered on the high-performance composition and the novel dual-coating product.
**1. A cookware item, comprising:**
Deletea substrate having a cooking surface, the cooking surface comprising at least one horizontal surface and at least one non-horizontal surface; and
an inorganic sol-gel coating applied to the cooking surface,
**characterised in that**
the inorganic sol-gel coating comprises:
a first inorganic sol-gel coating applied to the at least one horizontal surface; and
a second inorganic sol-gel coating applied to the at least one non-horizontal surface,
wherein the first inorganic sol-gel coating is different from the second inorganic sol-gel coating.
**2. The cookware item according to claim 1,** wherein the substrate is a metal substrate.
**3. The cookware item according to claim 2,** wherein the metal substrate comprises an upper layer (21) of aluminium and a lower layer (22) of stainless steel or iron.
**4. The cookware item according to any one of the preceding claims,** wherein the first inorganic sol-gel coating is obtained from a first sol-gel composition comprising a first sol precursor and a first gel starter.
**5. The cookware item according to claim 4,** wherein the second inorganic sol-gel coating is obtained from a second sol-gel composition comprising a second sol precursor and a second gel starter.
**6. The cookware item according to claim 5,** wherein the first and second sol precursors are selected from a group comprising tetraethylorthosilicate (TEOS), methyltriethoxysilane (MTES), 3-glycidyloxypropyltrimethoxysilane (GPTMS), and 3-mercaptopropyltrimethoxysilane (MPTMS), and wherein the first and second gel starters are selected from a group comprising citric acid, ethanol, lactic acid, and oxalic acid.
**7. The cookware item according to claim 5 or 6,** wherein the first and second sol-gel compositions each comprise a weight ratio of the respective sol precursor to the respective gel starter of between 1:1 and 6:1.
**8. The cookware item according to any one of claims 4 to 7,** wherein the first sol precursor is tetraethylorthosilicate (TEOS) and the first gel starter is citric acid.
Delete**9. The cookware item according to claim 8,** wherein the weight ratio of tetraethylorthosilicate (TEOS) to citric acid in the first sol-gel composition is 4:1.
**10. The cookware item according to any one of the preceding claims,** wherein the first inorganic sol-gel coating has a hardness of between 12 and 15, as measured according to ISO 14705.
**11. The cookware item according to any one of claims 5 to 10,** wherein the second sol precursor is tetraethylorthosilicate (TEOS), the second gel starter is citric acid, and the weight ratio of tetraethylorthosilicate (TEOS) to citric acid in the second sol-gel composition is 2:1.
**12. The cookware item according to any one of the preceding claims,** wherein the first and second inorganic sol-gel coatings differ in their chemical composition.
**13. The cookware item according to any one of the preceding claims,** wherein the cookware item is a frying pan (10), a cooking pot, a wok, a pressure cooker, a raclette kit, an air fryer, a waffle maker, a baking tray, a barbecue grill, or a plancha plate.
**14. A method for coating a cookware item,** the cookware item having a cooking surface comprising at least one horizontal surface and at least one non-horizontal surface, the method comprising the steps of:
applying a first sol-gel composition to the at least one horizontal surface of the cooking surface by means of an automated sprayer (30);
applying a second sol-gel composition to the at least one non-horizontal surface of the cooking surface by means of the automated sprayer (30), wherein the first sol-gel composition is different from the second sol-gel composition; and
drying and densifying the applied first and second sol-gel compositions at a temperature above 250°C to form a first inorganic sol-gel coating and a second inorganic sol-gel coating.
**15. Use of a sol-gel composition for coating a cooking surface of a cookware item,** the composition comprising tetraethylorthosilicate (TEOS) as a sol precursor and citric acid as a gel starter in a weight ratio of 4:1.
Hi, I forgot to put in the first claim (and I did it in the next comment) to add 1. 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. The process for obtaining the inorganic sol-gel coating is not novel as such over D2, but you have the list of sol and gel disclosed in D2, so you have to make a selection of two list and then you have your novel and inventive step. By having the TEOS+acid citric, which was disclosed several times and there were several technical effects related to it, also in the Table. So, Im not sure if that was the solution but for me it worked.
ReplyDeleteI agree! I also did a product by process claim for obtaining the inorganic sol-gel coating with the organic sol precursor TEOS + the gel as acid citric, and the ratio by weight 1:1 to 6:1. Then the rest of the claims, but I think there was the trick!
ReplyDeleteClaim 1 and 3 here don’t make any sense. The letter said you form a liquid coating by mixing sol and gel and then apply to the substrate and drying it by heating.
ReplyDeleteYour claim 1 and 3 mean there’s two heating steps.
I thought they were testing the same issues that came up in the 2022 paper making paper because there were intermediate products in the making of the final coating.
ReplyDelete1) Method of making sol-gel composition (TEOS + CA in 6:1 ratio)
2) sol-gel composition obtainable by claim 1
3) method of making coating by applying and heating sol-gel composition of claim 2.
4) Coating (per se) made from TEOS/CA in 6:1 ratio with hardness 12-15 as determined by ISO.
5) Spraying machine with novel speed range and the two different spray angles (no idea how this is inventive or unified), but it really seemed they wanted to claim this.
6) method of coating cookware with horizontal and non-horizontal surface using spraying machine of claim 5
Refuse to believe the last two claims can be "unified" with the rest of the composition claims though... This paper really did seem unfair and I am really hoping the marking takes account of this. At least in the 2022 paper they hinted they wanted a lot of claims.
Anyone know what they do in marking in the case of disunity?
This was my exact thought process
ReplyDeleteHello, I did something similar but I was struggling to find a unitary concept with the broadest scope. It felt much more difficult than any other year (2018-2025) and it did remind me 2022 paper.
ReplyDeleteI may have overcomplicated things but In the end I formulated:
- a sof-gel composition obtained from a combination of a sol precursor and a gel
starter; wherein the sole precursor is TEOS and the gel starter is citric acid, and the ratio of
TEOS to citric acid is 1:1 - 6:1 ( I also mentioned the hardness and the ISO standard).
- a cookware with this composition.
-An automatic spraying machine comprising a controller and a memory including the special feature of storing 2-D data. (I think optimizing speed is routine work).
- a method of obtaining a cooking surface using the device.
I know I should have also claimed the method for obtaining the sof-gel composition also...
Hi all,
ReplyDeleteI was not too sure about the speed range of 0.1 to 0.8 m/s being novel. I initially drafted claim 1 as a method claim centred on speed. However, the English text read "speed of up to 1.9 m/s". This can easily be understood as any speed from 0.1 m/s to 1.9 m/s. Selecting a range within that range does not seem to be novel, as one skilled in the art could routinely try all possible ranges in the aforementioned range. Yes, the mention of 1.5 m/s to deal with more complex shapes *could* be understood as the lowest possible speed known in the prior art - but the expression "up to 1.9 m/s" threw me off - so I removed the speed limitation from claim 1 (which was initially my only characterising portion). Maybe I should not have done that.
I then struggled with the selection of TEOS and citric acid. There is an argument to be had that selecting a sol from the first list of possible sols and a gel starter from the second list satisfies the so-called "two-list principle". However, D2 disclosed sol-gel coatings on metals (even if for space applications), but did state such coatings could also be used for cookware. It would not be all that difficult for one skilled in the art to apply those teachings and apply this to cookware, i.e., D2 teaches the person skilled in the art precisely why it would be useful to apply sol-gel coatings on cookware (D1 mentions cookware made of metal). Choosing one sol from a list and a gel starter from another list would be routine experimentation. However, if one then adds a specific ratio, then that becomes inventive as there is no teaching in the prior art that would motivate them to pick *that* particular sol-gel combination in that specific ratio.
That is the method claim I drafted. I kept the speed at claim 2 dep on claim 1. Now I am thinking it may be too narrow.
For products, I struggled and I may have added one too many ind claim. I drafted first a product obtainable by any of the method of claims 1 to .X., and then I had an independent product claim just claiming cookware with a coating providing a given hardness range . This is because client's letter said "non-stick property is crucial for our business", and that the scratches appearing after two years are the main threat to said non-stick property, so I assumed they would sell mostly cookware with the high(est) values of hardness.
I had cookware with two metal layers and
ReplyDeletesol- gel coating as claim 1? Anyone else?!
Also had:
- Process for coating cookware of claim 1
- Intermediate sol gel product claim (composition)
- sprayer + control system for use in process (step of adding sol gel)
- method operating sprayer
- also claimed the steps carried out by control system of sprayer as a CII method as a panic claim at the end…
It is novel, but not inventive.
ReplyDelete