A 2017: first impressions of the first one-for-all A paper?

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 many marks do you expect to have scored?
What is your expectation of the pass rate and the average score?

How did this year's paper compare to the mock paper?
Similar difficulty level?
Did it meet expectations, in view of the video about the one-for-all A and B papers, the mock A paper and its examiners report?
Could you find the wording for claim features in the clients letter and the prior art?
Was the subject-matter well understandable, for chemists as well as e/m candidates?

The paper and our answers

Copies of the paper will be provided on this blog as soon as we have received copies of the papers, in all three languages (English, French and German).

The core of our answers will be given as soon as possible in a separate blog post.

We look forward to your comments!
Comments are welcome in any official EPO language, not just English. So, comments in German and French are also very welcome!

Please do not post your comments anonymously - it is allowed, but it makes responding more difficult and rather clumsy ("Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Anonymous of 09-03-2017 09:09"), whereas using your real name or a pseudonym 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!

Comments

  1. I submitted two independent product claims: i) dishwashing prod. with first / second pouches, different thicknesses of PVA, both thicknesses in 10-50 range; and
    ii) dishwashing prod. with liquid composition in pouch of PVA film in 10-50 range.

    I now have a sinking feeling that this was the wrong move, and that the EQE markers will only look at my "worst" claim :-(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why did you draft two? In the video about this new A-paper it is clearly said that only the worst is marked if you have multiple independent claims of the same category (unless expected)...
      From what you wrote, it actually looks like you could have presented (i) as a dependent claim on (ii), or?

      Delete
    2. It is stated that an advantage of the PVA film is that liquid compositions can be used. This appears to be novel / inventive In its own right when looking at D1 and D2, and doesn't need to be combined with the two pouches embodiment. Likewise, you could have two pouches both containing solid compositions. There's no way to make one dependent on the other.

      Delete
    3. I agree with SG.

      And also need a process of making: a general one, as well as the preferred one of [023] with rolling to different thickness of at least two pouches.

      Delete
    4. What would be the unity? PVA is already known.

      Delete
  2. I drafted one independent claim regarding the dishwashing product, one independent claim regarding the process for making a dishwashing product (not referring back to product claims), and one indipendent claim for the delivery process of a dishwasing component (relating back to the product claims). Not sure if the last one was really intended by the examiners, but in the letter of the client they were cleary stating they wanted protection for all the features disclosed in their letter, and the controlled delivery of the dishwashing component was discslosed and it was the main problem they found in the prior art and in my opinion the main goal (technical effect) of their product.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. looks to me that the 3 one was not needed; the controlled delivery just giving the inventive step arguments for the product claim.

      Delete
  3. I drafted two independent claims: one is dishwashing product and the other is process of marking it. I also drafted a dependent claim directed to a strip of a row of dishwashing products according to the claims 1 to X, because in D2 ( if I remember correctly) it is disclosed the strip can be sold.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I drafted claims of theree different categories (composition, method and use).

    The independent composition claim is directed to a dish washing composition comprising
    a first dish washing constituent enclosed by a first polyvinylalcohol film and
    a second dish washing constituent enclosed by a second polyvinylalcohol film
    the second polyvinylalcohol film being thicker than the first polyvinylalcohol film and wherein the thickness of both polyvinylalcohol films is in the range from 10 to 50 um.

    The independent method claim is directed to a method for preparing a dish washing composition comprising
    enclosing a first dish washing constituent in a first polyvinylalcohol film and
    enclosing a second dish washing constituent in a second polyvinylalcohol film
    the second polyvinylalcohol film being thicker than the first polyvinylalcohol film and wherein the thickness of both polyvinylalcohol films is in the range from 10 to 50 um.

    I did not consider the features "both films being attached to each other", "films being in the form of pouches", "upper limit of less than 40 um", "lower limit of at least 20 um", "the dish washing constituents being dish detergents", "the second dish washing constituent being a rinse aid" and the physical states of the dish washing constituents as essential features.

    The use claim refers to the use of the compositon of claim 1 for dish washing in a dish washing machine.

    I considered D2 closest prior art.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I assume you mean "dish washing product (1)" rather than "dish washing composition"?

      Delete
  5. Is the vague language "dish washing constituent" (in my german claims: "Geschirrspülmittelbestandteil") clear? It is intended to cover e.g. rinsing aid or dish detergent.

    I look forward to DELTAPATENTS model solution for paper A.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Interesting discussion so far.

    Well, I think(!) the problem solved by the client was how to control the timing of release of two compounds for a wash cycle to enable better wash and/or use less composition (although in the exam I panicked and rambled on about additional benefits).

    My claims were:

    1) a dishwasher tablet:
    -with two types of dishwasher composition in two respective pouches,
    -The pouches:
    -are of PVA film
    -are sealed
    -have different thicknesses
    -both have a thickness of >10um and <=50um
    -both are soluble at a temperature that is between 40 and 71 °C

    (N.B. Rejigged into 2 part form based on D1 - since D1 is also related to differently-timed release of two compositions)

    2) A "strip" with a plurality of the tablets of claim (1), from which one can be broken off.

    2) A method of constructing a tablet as per claim (1) (but written out in full)

    3) Use of a tablet of claim (1) in a washing machine (why not I though)

    4) A PVA film (of the type described above, again 10-50um etc) having two portions of different thicknesses arranged to seal the two compositions to form the tablet of claim (1).

    I did not require "heat-sealing" because:
    A) I thought that heat-sealing was just one of at least two options (gluing would be another one that cropped up in the exam in two other places)
    B) the effects achieved in the experiments did not result from the use of heat sealing.
    C) the client didn't say heat sealing was essential, and
    D) the client seemed to say that heat sealing can be disadvantageous because it can damage the tablets, suggesting it might be best avoided.

    Although the client doesn't really state "sealing" is essential (very useful for storage clearly), it seems to me that the differential timing release won't work unless they are sealed because dishwasher water would get in and ruin the effect. Thus the feature is necessary in practice and must be claimed.

    Interested to know how far off I was.

    Mr I Hadenuf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Forgot to add..

      Unlike JGB I did require the pouches to be connected. Client gave two embodiments, one using two pouches that were heat sealed together, and one where both pouches are made from one piece of film.

      But I guess JGB is right. I now realise it isn't actually stated that the pouches in the diagrams are connected together :(

      Mr I Hadenuf

      Delete
    2. Actually in the method of the examples doesn't it state that the products of figs 1a and 1b are produced? And in those examples the punches are connected by heat sealing.

      Delete
    3. If they aren't connected aren't they more of a faff to use, I. E not a single item, which is the point of the tablet idea?

      Delete
    4. Clearly advantageous to have a single item, for sure. But is it required to achieve both inventiveness and advantageousness (via P&S approach) over the prior art.

      Mr I Hadenuf

      Delete
    5. Re "Actually in the method of the examples doesn't it state that the products of figs 1a and 1b are produced? And in those examples the punches are connected by heat sealing."

      Are you sure? Paragraph 18 just says they are 'arranged' next to or on top of each other. I'm missing a page so I can't tell.

      Usually the examiners deduct marks for unnecessary limitations, only to the extent that you haven't covered all of the client's embodiments.

      Neglecting the embodiment of experiment 1 (a single composition in a single pouch in 40um PVA) which isn't inventive over D2 (para 7), are there any described embodiments where the two pouches are not connected together?

      Mr I Hadenuf

      Delete
    6. @Mr I Hadenuf March 08, 2017 10:59 pm:
      Where do you see advantageousness as a requirement (different from inventiveness) in the EPC?

      The EPC only requires inventive step, for which the EQE requires the PSA (the Guidelines actually allow exceptions).

      The Guidelines actually explicitly say that technical progress / advantageousness is not required. The easiest patentable example of inventive step w/o advantage is an alternative solution for the same problem (the only advantage being that you give an alternative).

      Advantageousness is thus NOT a seperate requirement. It can be, but does not need to be, the reason for inventiveness: the advantage is the effect that is the basis for the formulation of the OTP.

      The Guidelines phrase it in G-I, 3 as "The EPC does not require explicitly or implicitly that an invention, to be patentable, must entail some technical progress or even any useful effect. Nevertheless, advantageous effects, if any, with respect to the state of the art should be stated in the description (Rule 42(1)(c)), and any such effects are often important in determining "inventive step" (see G‑VII, 5)."

      W

      Delete
    7. W, Good legal knowledge.

      But I meant the examiners expect you to claim something that is both inventive and also is of the greatest possible value to the client. So that's the goal of the paper.
      Mr I Hadenuf

      Delete
    8. I tend to agree with Mr.IH, based on the given answer in Mock A. The hydrogel was not really needed if just to establish novelty.

      Resitter 2020

      Delete
  7. I had claim 1 to a dishwasher composition, first and second pouch, (I used pouch as pouch was used by the client I think), made of plastic film, each has a different thickness. Method of making pouch of claim 1- putting agent on film enclosing and heat sealing. I think I has dependent claims to the 2 options of making them (separate pieces of film, or one film rolled to different thickness). Glued or heats eased together I too included the strip arrangement of the prior art, and also putting our tablets in prior art pouch of thicker pva (or the other ones). Can't remmeber what else! Good luck to everyone!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I only had two closed pouches made of water soluble polymer foil each comprising a part of a dishwasher composition,
    wherein the pouches are connected by means of heat sealing,
    characterised in that
    the thickness of the foil for each pouch is different and the thickness controls the time when the respective part of the composition of a pouch is realeased.

    PVA, thinkness, tempreture are in dependent claims.

    Method for making the pouches.

    A row of dishwasher tablets.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you didn't require PVA then you are probably used to mechanical/electronics papers.

      In the chemistry papers it's usually expected to only claim subject matter that the client's experiments provide basis for, and there was a bit of that sort of thing going on in the Mock paper too.

      Mr I Hadenuf

      Delete
    2. Result to be achieved

      Delete
  9. Interesting discussion so far..

    i drafted 1 product claim and 1 proces claim and also a strip with at least two products..

    For the first claim I drafted (not exactly in this wording) a product that has 2 connected pouches , containing two dishwashing products, the pouches made from water soluble polymer and being connected, both poaches having different material characteristics.

    i did not restrict to PVA, connecting the pouches by heat sealing and not to thickness, maybe wrong..those are dependent claims.

    I am indeed used to mechanics and work as an examiner maybe for too long ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "maybe for too long"? Open application?

      Delete
  10. I have actually been tempted for a long time to draft a claim with 2 components in one pouch, in other words the tablet in D1 in the soluble pouch of D2.
    D2 does not mention any other components then a detergent, so not more then 1 component
    D1 does not mention any pouch..
    and it is the broadest example of the client..

    so it would be novel, and as paper 1 is all about novelty...
    in the end i chickend out and went for two pouches ;-), but its worth a discussion to have only one..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But... then you get the dishwashuing product of [007] of D2: tables in 40 um PVA pouch, or? How did you distinguish from that? And why would you be inventive if both components are in one pouch, also in view of the combi of multiple-component tables packaged in a foil that is already made (or at least siggested) in [007]-[009] of the aplication?

      Delete
  11. I did the independent product claim having only one pouch with detergent and PVA thickness between 10 and 30..
    It seemed to me essential that detergent was to be released during the main wash (there were 2-3 comments about this in the exam). D2 with a thickness of 40 would not be released on time, as with thickness 30 the composition was released just before the end of the main wash s in one of the experiments.
    Dependent claims had other pouches with broader range 10-50 of thickness and with other dishwashing compositions inside.
    Crazy??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not crazy... Good attention to detail. Novel, but might be considered weak on inventiveness possibly?

      I'm amazed at how much diversity there is in people's answers. I doubt the examiners intended this outcome.. Mr I Hadenuf

      Delete
  12. My independent product claim required a plurality of connected pouches of Pva film of different thicknesses and containing different components of a dishwasher composition.

    I then had a dependent claim to them being adjacent, from which a manufacturing process claim depended. There was no support in the disclosure for a method of making a product where the pouches were on top of one another.

    A claim to a single pouch with multiple components in would not be inventive over D1 tablet with D2 soluble film from the final paragraph; I took example 1 to be suggesting as such.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are not limited w.r.t. support in A: you have a letter from the client and you need to draft the application. So you can put in whatever you want. There was an embodiment having them on top of eachother, so you need to get a claim that covers it (if possible).

      Delete
    2. I think that a claim to a single pouch of PVA of 10-50um thick with a liquid diswashing component would be inventive. I drafted a seperate independent claim for that.

      Delete
  13. How about dishwasher tablet cta in that it comprises at least 2pouches of watersoluable polymer films, the film of each pouch being of a thickness that (dont remember exactly but;) is chosen to open after a certain time to realease the content of the pouch at that time
    ?
    Does it has unnessary limitations, is it to narrow?
    Please comment!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment