Our attempt at paper A Dishwashing product
Paper A 2017 Dishwashing product (paper here: EN, FR and DE)
Claims
1. Dishwashing product comprising a plurality of connected pouches, each pouch comprising a different dishwashing component packaged in a water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) film having for each pouch a different thickness of between 10 and 50 µm; wherein the thickness of the film of a pouch is designed to release the component from the pouch during a selected dishwashing cycle.
2. Dishwashing product as claimed in claim 1 wherein at least one of the dishwashing components is solid and at least one of the dishwashing components is liquid.
3. Dishwashing product as claimed in any of the preceding claims wherein the thickness of the film is at least 20 µm.
4. Dishwashing product as claimed in any of the preceding claims wherein the thickness of the film is less than 40 µm.
5. Dishwashing product as claimed in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the dishwashing component in a first one of the pouches comprises a first detergent and the dishwashing component in a second one of the pouches comprises a second, more aggressive detergent; the film of the second pouch having a greater thickness than the film of the first pouch for subsequent release of the detergents during a main wash of the dishwashing cycle.
6. Dishwashing product as claimed in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the dishwashing component in one of the pouches comprises a rinse aid and the thickness of the film of the pouch is selected to release the rinse aid only during a final rinse of the dishwashing cycle.
7. Dishwashing product as claimed in any of the preceding claims, wherein the polyvinyl alcohol has an average molecular weight of between 10 000 and 300 000 g/mol, more preferred 20 000 to 150 000 g/mol.
8. Dishwashing product as claimed in any of the preceding claims, wherein the pouches are arranged next to each other.
9. Dishwashing product as claimed in any of claims 1 to 7, wherein the pouches are arranged on top of each other.
10. Dishwashing product as claimed in any of the preceding claims, wherein at least one of the dishwashing component is selected from a detergent, a rinse aid, or salt.
11. A method of producing the dishwashing product of any of the preceding claims comprising a forming a plurality of connected pouches wherein each pouch comprises a different dishwashing component; the method comprising the step of forming a pouch by placing a dishwashing component on top of a water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol film and closing the film by heat sealing; each pouch having a different thickness film selected from a thickness of between 10 and 50 µm.
12. A method of producing the dishwashing product as claimed in claim 11, wherein the step of forming a plurality of connected pouches comprises forming separate pouches, each of a different thickness film, and connecting the separate pouches by heat sealing.
13. A method of producing the dishwashing product as claimed in claim 11, wherein the step of forming a plurality of connected pouches comprises a step of rolling different parts of a single thickness PVA film into different thicknesses.
Looking forward to your comments.
Jelle Hoekstra, Nico Cordes
(c) DeltaPatents 2017
(c) DeltaPatents 2017
SHARE:
I did not mention between 10-50. Just write different thickness. Should i buy the ticket for the next year. Between 10-50 is my second claim.
ReplyDeleteIn the chemical exams it probably would have been needed (essential for enablement), but is not normally deadly
DeleteHow many points do you think they will deduct?
DeleteI made this same mistake, I would be curious to know how many marks will be deducted.
DeleteThanks for the claims. My questions:
ReplyDelete1- do you need the last meaning in the First claim? "wherein the thickness of the film of a pouch is designed to release the component from the pouch during a selected dishwashing cycle." i beleive that it is implicit as every film has a unique thikness.
2- how much do you think Will be deducted IF heat sealing the films as well as heat sealing for connecting the pouches is inciuded in the first claim as well as in the method claim?
Thanks once again!
Regards from Sweden!
1. We were not sure about this one. Seems to help clarify it, but it may not be needed at all. We first had it as a dependent claim, but then it did not seem to add anything (being indeed more or less implied)
Delete2. We thought that heat sealing may not be required in the product claim (it is a product-by-process step where the paper does not make clear that this would imply any different property; so what would the limitation on the product be?); so we left it out. For the method claim we kept it since no disclosure is given for any method other than using sealing.
Thanks for your answer. I have your method claims 11 & 12 as my independent method claim. How badly do you think it is?
DeleteI agree with Maikel. I did not specify the last functional step of DP's claim 1 because I thought it was implicit. I also thought "water soluble" is implicit from PVA film so left that out too. Otherwise, same claim.
DeleteI left out heat sealing and had it as the first dependent claim in the method.
TP
Actually if you claim a plurality of pouches you cut out the simplest embodiment of the client's invention (see par. 13 and experiment 1). What do you think about it? I think that novelty (and inventive step) with regard to D2, last sentences is given by the functional feature that the water soluble film of the pouch is configured for dissolving in water at certain water temperatures during one step of a dishwashing cycle. What do you think about it?
ReplyDeleteBut the film in D2 was also always dissolved at a specific temperature, so I don't think that you would have even novelty with only one pouch?
DeleteD2 did not say disclose under which temperature conditions the film is water-soluble. They say just that it is water soluble. I even doubted as that further development of D2 was enabling as they do not say that it works, they just say they are testing a PVA film having a thickness of 40 µm. We now it works as we know the invention, but I am not sure if that disclosure is fully enabling. As a consequence, actually my doubt on the exam was: if I claim 2 pouches I cut out one embodiment (Examiners never want that), if I do not claim the conditions under which the film dissolves I am not new... Finally I decided to put a functional feature as the one of the above proposed solution, but claiming only one pouch. That applies also for the process, as in example 1 (even without explicitly describing the process), the client speaks about just one dishwashing tablet being packaged in a PVA film having a thickness of 40 µm. Am I totally wrong?
DeleteI think that the temperature at which the film dissolves in D2 is implied; so spitting it out gives no novelty.
DeleteJelle, that is a good point, but what about the simplest embodiment of client's invention (see par. 13 and experiment 1)? Also example 1 if I remember well is about a single pouch.
Delete"you cut out the simplest embodiment of the client's invention (see par. 13 and experiment 1)"
DeleteThe client asked to draft claims covering all his embodiments AS FAR AS POSSIBLE. So, embodiments that are not new do not need to be claimed. Actually, SHOULD not be claimed.
I think you also need a claim to the single pouch version with the liquid dishwashing compsition as a separate independent claim. That is a version of the simplest embodiment, and it is new.
DeleteCan you please comment?
W
I agree with W, the client's document states "An advantage of the invention is that it allows liquid compositions to be used", and it states this BEFORE describing the multi-pouch embodiments.
DeleteIn the fiction of the exam universe, liquid-containing dishwasher tablets do not exist at all. Liquids could not be used in D1 as the components are "glued or pressed" together, which is not possible for liquids. In D2, the pouch is used prior to use, which again does not allow liquids to be used.
pouch is *removed* prior to use
DeleteIn my opinion the simplest example of client's invention is new due to the "functional part" of the claim, the question is if that is inventive.
Delete"Reproducibility of the content of the disclosure" regarding paragraph [007] of D2:
DeleteCase Law of the Boards of Appeal: I. C. 4.11: pragraph 4:
For selection inventions the requirement of a reproducible disclosure also plays a significant role. In T 26/85 (OJ 1990, 22) the ranges of a certain parameter as defined in the claim fell within the broader ranges stated for the same parameter in a prior art document. The board considered that a realistic approach, when assessing the novelty of the invention under examination over the prior art in a case where overlapping ranges of a certain parameter existed, would be to consider whether the person skilled in the art would, in the light of the technical facts, seriously contemplate applying the technical teachings of the prior art document in the range of overlap; if it could be fairly assumed that this would be the case, it had to be concluded that no novelty existed. Such was not the case in the matter under consideration, since there existed in the prior art a reasoned statement clearly dissuading the person skilled in the art from using the range under a certain value, and the range of overlaps was under this value; the claimed range was therefore considered novel (see also T 255/91).
Our case:
[007] of D2 states that "We believe that the choice of a polymer film having a lower thickness [which must mean lower than 100 micrometer] will achive the required water solubility". In the present case the skilled person would, for achiving a longer shelf life and water solubility, use a thickness of just a bit lower than 100 micrometer.
And 20 to 50 micrometer would be new over paragraph [007] of D2, in paticular over 40 micrometer.
Am I right?
Pardon! I meant 10 to 50 micrometers, instead of 20 to 50.
DeleteThe problem here is: is the one of D2 an enabling disclosing? Where are the examples that their solution work? In my eyes it is just a desire ("we believe...", "we are testing...", no results given), that now we know to be working because of the insight given by the client's invention. Am I wrong?
DeleteI also had this version: Dishwashing product comprising at least one pouch, comprising at least two different dishwashing components packaged in a water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) film having a thickness of between 10 and 50 µm; wherein the thickness of the film of a pouch is designed to release the components from the pouch during a selected dishwashing cycle.
DeleteI had many thougths about the two or one pouch during the exam and I decided to go for this solution because: D2 says they will try to test pouches with a thicknes of 40µm and that they expect it to be water-soluble (no results are indicated); This one thicknes of 40µm is only capable of releasing the components at only one point in time, which is always the same. Therefore I believe the functional feature "the film of a pouch is designed to release the components from the pouch during a selected dishwashing cycle" makes the claim new over D2.
The test results of the inventor show that freshly prepared pouches with a thicknes of 40µm have 98DWE (which is a good result) - therefore the person skilled in the art would probably not find a reason to try different thickneses. In contrary to that our client found out, that to get better results some components need to be realeased erlier in time (reached by a thicknes of 20 or 30 µm). Nowhere in the prior art there was a hint that this would increase the results and that the products could be released at different times by using different thickneses. Therefore I think that the claim is also inventive.
My main thougts were: I would proably loose less points if my claim is not inventive, than if my claim cuts out one embodyment
I am looking forward to your comments
Regards
Thomas
Thank you Jelle and Nico.
ReplyDeleteI miss the release part. In my chemist head, this is a result to be achieved... Instead, I defined the films as having different water solubilities (which is the feature achieving the result, so I'm hoping it is as good). And I defined that at least one of the compositions should be a detergent. This seemed to me to be an essential feature, as it said in the client's letter that a detergent is always used in any dishwashing cycle.
Again an issue we looked at. I think that was stated in the context of the prior art tablet [07]. It also states in [14]: our invention is not limited to any composition. So, we left it out. Do not think this is a big issue.
DeleteHello,
ReplyDeleteI had a similar claim, even though differently phrased (a first and at least a second composition packaged in a respective PVA film thereby forming a respective first and at least second pouch + the pouches are connected and the films have different 10-50 thickness) but I left out the last feature " wherein the thickness of the film of a pouch is designed to release the component from the pouch during a selected dishwashing cycle" because I thought it was inherent to the PVA thickness and if this last was not claimed it would be a result to be achieved.
I also had a process of making the product, with the heat-sealing (albeit phrased differently),
a method of performing a dishwashing cycle comprsisng a step of releasing the claimed product in a dishwasher (or something to this meaning), and
a kit comprising the claimed product and a dishwasher configured to perform a dishwashing cycle (this last I figured to be a sort of dependent claim, even though it's not very useful).
I was not sure the pouches needed to be connected, but packaging two different known tablets in PVa film according to D2 was certainly known, and only the different thicknesses seemed a bit weak if the two pouches were not at least meant to be used togheter. In the end I opted for a more limited, safer and better supported claim.
I found it longer than the usual E/M papers on which I practiced, and was really scared of having put in too many indpendent claims.
Just my 2 cents.
AS
To be honest, the kit claim seems odd. The product will not normally be sold together with a dishwasher; it is also nowhere suggested.
DeleteFor EM candidates the idea of claiming dishwashing (normally done privately and thus not protectable) would be odd. It is my opinion that if the committee wants such a category, the client/prior art should indicate it. So, we left any use claim out.
I thought along those lines but figured they couldn't hurt since I had 13 claims only.
DeleteThe method seemed unitary and in a different category. I tought maybe somoe commercial washing enterprise existed. You are right that they would have mentioned it but during the exam one gets abit carried away with overthinking it.
Thx for the feedback
AS
In the end, the use/method claim to dishwashing was expected, although worth only 2 points.
DeleteHI Delta.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your proposal.
In your claim 1, a pouch corresponds to a film.
In my understanding a pouch may comprise several films.
See experiment 2 for example.
Besides, I don't see the interest of the second part of claim 1.
I think our claim says that a pouch is a component packaged in a film. It leaves open if the film is wrapped aroound the component or would be a top layer and a bottom layer
DeleteYour proposed method claim says it is a method of preparing connected pouches (plural) but then goes on to give steps to form a single pouch...
ReplyDeleteTo me this method does produce the claimed product, and I couldn't work out how to do so without including 2 independent process claims depending on whether a single film of variable thickness is used or multiple films of different thickness.
D
*doesn't
DeleteMay be it was better to say 'the step of forming each pouch ...'.
DeleteDo not yet see why this claim does not produce the product.
What about the need to specify the components are different? I flipped back and forth on this point and decided it may be advantageous to release the same component at a later stage of the cycle...
ReplyDeleteI also wasn't sure about the limitation to the pouches being connected, but in the end decided this wasn't essential as the effect is still attainable with disconnected pouches.
Jelle, what do you think about leaving out the limitation that the water soluble film is PVA as others have done?
In a traditional chemical paper PVA should be included. It seems to be the only polymer that can do it. It is then seen as essential. Missing it results in a loss of marks, but is not deadly as such.
DeleteOn the first two issues you raise: seems a bit too much thinking. I do not see a hint from the client or the prior art in those directions.
Thanks Jelle (excellent book by the way ;))
DeleteThanks for this. Really helpful
ReplyDeleteFor the method of making claims, I had two independent claims, with one for each of the two production methods described. Is there much chance of this being allowable under Rule 43(2)(c) or will it likely be fatal to picking up any marks for these claims?
Also, do you think it is important to include in the claim that the composition in each pouch are different? I think it is possible to imagine a product in which the compositions are the same providing useful advantages, and without this feature the claim is still clearly novel over D1 and D2.
Many thanks
Dear Anonymous,
Deletesame with me. I did two independent method claims directed to 12+11 and 13+11. I thought that this should be allowable under Rule 43 as the two different method claims are alternative solutions???
If this is not allowable, we should still obtain marks, however only for one of the claims which attracts less marks. This seems to be the EQE practice.
Any further comments to that?
I have the clear impression that a single independent method claim is desired. If so, using two results in a loss of some marks.
DeleteSecond issue: I think that the invention lies in the controlled release in different cycles. Do not see the use of twice the same composition hinted at. So, was probably not intended to cover that; all examples use different compositions. However, cannot see this as a very important issue as long as you seem to have a new claim covering the intended inventive step.
Agreed! I did this and I think it would be fine in real life, but maybe not for the exam! Hopefully won't loose too many marks...
DeleteI agree that that would be new, but what is the inventive step? Dumping the multi-layer tablet of D1 in the pouch of D2 is not inventive. Splitting the layers over several pouches: what problem does that solve?
ReplyDeleteUnless those pouches dissolve at diiferent times?
For me this claim seema novel over D1&D2 but you are not able to controll the release of each composition which is the main problem to be Solved by the imvention.
ReplyDeleteDear Peteris,
ReplyDeleteI have exactly the same solution as you.
Putting the "different thicknesses" into claim 1 makes it impossible for the client to obtain protection for "at least one of the dishwashing components being solid and at least one of the dishwashing components bein liquid" independently of the different thicknesses of the PVA film.
In the respective paragraph in the client's letter, there is a separate advantage connected with this embodiment, namely that solid and liquid components can be combined in a single product. This separate advantage is not connected with the different thicknesses of the PVA film.
Peteris solution leaves it open to restrict the broader claim 1 with suitable dependent claims (either different thicknesses or the solid-liquid embodiment) and therefore gives the broadest possible scope of protection.
At the same time, Peteris solution seems to be novel over D1 and D2. However, I'm not really sure about inventiveness?
Thank you for commenting Peteris and my solution!
Dear colleagues,
ReplyDeletewhat do you think will be the distribution of marks over the paper?
Product claim: 40 points
Dependent claims: 25 points
Method claim: 20 points
Description: 15 points
My problem is that I seem to have major flaws in my independent product and method claims, however the dependent claims look very well
Thank you for your comments!
Dear DP,
ReplyDeletethanks for the proposed answer.
I have a similar product claim but
1. the pouches are not connected in my claim. I have instead wrote the functional feature in relation to the different thicknesses "such that it can be tailored at which time in the dishwashing cycle the different components are dissolved".
2. I also don't have the water-soluble
What do you think?
For the method claim, I only wrote a process of making a product acc. to the preceding claims , without any details on steps.
What do you think? Is it a sure Fail or do I still have some chances?
Thanks for your feedback.
Item 1: to me it seems that if it is clear that you tailer the thickness then it is ok.
ReplyDeleteItem 2: As a non-chemical person I added water-soluble, since I am not sure if all versions of the material would be that. I do not think it is needed.
but do think that the pouches should be connected, basically forming one product. There is no discussion of a kit option with several pouches.
DeleteThank you very much for your answer.
DeleteDear Jelle:
Deletethx for your effort on this!
I fully concur with your solution. I just have a small remark in this regard:
1. "having for each pouch a different thickness of between 10 and 50 µm"
In my view this means that the film acutally has for each and every pounch a different thickness. In my view this is not required: you might have a third pouch with the same thickness as a second pouch (but may be with a liquid composition instead of a powder).
2. I don´t think that it is necessary to have different compositions. I defined a first washing composition and a second washing composition (which may or may not be the same). In my view, such a claim is new - as novelty is conferred by the films of different thickness. Second, I think such a claim is also based on an inventive step. For some washing compositions, it might be useful to have the same whasing comp. dissolving at different times (for instance in the first and the third washing cycle) leaving out the second for which for instance only clear water is used). Also inventiveness is conferred by the feature of having films of different thickness.
3. I defined pouches made from a PVA film. The Pouches have a thickness of 10 to 50 micrometer. Actually, in this regard, I prefer your solution.
Dear Jelle, Nico and Roel,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your proposed claims. Excellent job!
A few remarks/comments from my side:
I am wondering about the term “water-soluble”. I have independent claims which are comparable to yours except this term and the feature “the thickness of the film of a pouch is designed to release the component from the pouch during a selected dishwashing cycle”. During the exam I was thinking about the term “water-soluble” and decided to leave it out of the independent claim, because I concluded out of paragraph [10] (German version) “PVA films dissolve in water,…” that all PVA films are water-soluble. Moreover, I feared to run into a clarity problem because for me as a M/E guy the term seems not to be clear. Means water-soluble that it solves in water at every temperature and pressure of the water? Paragraph [10] seems to clarify this with giving a specific temperature “especially at the temperatures (40°C to 70°C) used in a dishwasher”. Therefore, I decided to put it in a dependent claim together with the specific temperature.
Water-soluble: I already commented on it. Think it is not required (no indication that not all PVAs are water-soluble), but I put it in just to be safe.
DeleteDissolving during the cycle:again, the main thing is to have the different thickness. My impression is that the function may not be needed, but again I put it in to be safe.
Regarding dissolving during the cycle: this feature makes the claim unclear. It is a definition of the subject-matter in terms of the result to be achieved. Moreover, it is also a definition by reference to use and to another entity. In real-life it would never be accepted by a patent examiner.
DeleteRegarding the questions Roel were asking on Wednesday, 8 March I wanted to say a few things, but to understand that I need to say a few words about my preparation for the new paper A format.
ReplyDeleteAs I already said I have a M/E background and for the preparation I started to do a few older Ch-paper. After I did a few, I felt very comfortable with the format of Ch-papers (I even started to question myself why I choose M/E for sitting the paper A the first time last year) because I always could find a red line going through the papers and thus gives you the feeling you are doing well if you follow the red line. After I did a few old Ch-papers (for sure I did also a few old M/E papers) I wrote the mock exam and I could also find a red line going through this mock paper, so I thought I am well prepared.
Then paper A 2017 came and after I did my analyze I was completely confused because I could not find any red line going through that paper. As already a few guys were writing I could find at least to independent product claims which were both new and inventive for me. The one independent claim that is comparable to yours as well as an independent claim regarding a liquid dishwashing composition in a film. Moreover, because according to the client letter this is advantageous ([15]). Sure the client is silent about the specific advantage but as already one mentioned advantageous is not even a criterion for patentability. After thinking a few moments about that I skipped the latter independent claim because I concluded that I would run into a unity problem. However, this took me already a moment and if you ask me was not really nice from the exam committee because unity was not a common problem in the last M/E papers.
After I solved this problem, I straight run into the next problem which is from my point of view paragraph [12] saying that “the average molecular weight of PVA is not critical for our invention” and in the next sentence some embodiments regarding a specific average molecular weight (I even do not know how to measure it or what it is besides the information given in that paragraph) are given. Here I decided not to put the embodiments into dependent claims (but you could probably also put the embodiments into dependent claims).
Next, I run into the problem coming from paragraphs [19] and [20]. A lot of information is given in these paragraphs, but for me the information were useless. And this was exactly my problem, because in the old papers A it was almost every time a hint that you overlooked something if you have not used a lot of information. So I sat in the exam and tried to find a use claim or something where I could use the information. However, in the end ended up with a desperate use claim as claim number 15.
So to summarize this, I found the paper A 2017 not very difficult from the technical point of view but difficult to tackle because of the problems. Thus, compared to the mock exam I found it a way more difficult. I have no idea if this was the intention of the exam committee or if I was the only guy with these problems.
After all, I am pretty interested in how was your impression from the paper? Could you finish it within 2 hours and had a feeling that it was a way to easy or did you struggle also a few times?
Best regards
Michael
Dear Delta, dear Colleagues,
ReplyDeleteI think I messed up the process claim. I wrote two independent of them as alternative solutions.
1) Process using different films of different thicknesses (this having a dependent claim of joining the pouches together), etc..
2) Process using one rolled film of different thicknesses, etc...
I know that the client told 2) is too expensive, but it was also told that protecting all the aspects is desired and Example 3 was directed to this, including an advantage of using less heat sealing. So I decided to write two process claims.
Do you think that only the worst (the second) will be marked? In this case, how many marks do you think may be lost?
Thanks for your opinion!
ClaimTwice
I already commented on a similar remark. I think you should have covered it with one claim. If so, using two claims results in a loss, but is not normally deadly. The committee makes a final marking table based on how things went. If many people struggled with this, less marks will probably be subtracted.
DeleteI agree with you Peteris, and I also proposed a claim without the different thicknesses. The client's letter says that the many pouches as such have a technical effect, which is the increased versatility of the product. Rejecting this as non-inventive seems totally arbitrary to me, as there is nothing in the paper that can lead to this conclusion.
ReplyDeleteHi Delta patents
ReplyDeleteThanks for the input...
I too claimed similar product and process claims, however my product claim was narrower/broader in two respects.
i. I did not limit to the lower end of the thickness range.
I understood the disclosure of the paper (that below 10 wasn't effective). However, my decision was based upon the 2016 chemical paper. In that paper you are told a similar piece of information, (above 30 is not effective) however you were not expected to limit the range in the independent claim. A dependent claim was expected and that was my approach in this paper.
ii. I specified at least three pouches
This was a tough call. However, I read the client letter and understood that detergent was released at two different points and rinse aid was released at the final stage (as such three pouches are needed).
Are either of these fatal?
I would appreciate any thoughts.
Thanks
AP
Things are very difficult to judge now. People from EM and chemistry have different habits and some blending has to happen, probably witghout too severe punishmnet in the beginning.
DeleteNormally an 'essential feature' for enablement should be in the claim but is less problematic than not being new, inventive or not covering the embodiments. Since this approach is quite new for EM, the punishment may be low.
I think it is reasonable to see that the inventive concept already works with 2 pouches. It looks like all embodiments have 3 pouches. I expect some punishment, but still covering all embodiments is normally not deadly.
Peteris's claim blocks a way around claim 1 that is proposed by DeltaPatents. A potential competitor can place different tablets made of different materials having different solubilities (like material used for differnt layers in D1), into different pouches. He will achieve the same technical effect without infringing the applicant's patent.
ReplyDeleteI claimed pouches made of water soluble polymer foil each comprising a part of a dishwasher composition,
ReplyDeletewherein 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.
Hmm I have the feeling that will return for Part A
Dear all!
ReplyDeleteI wrote "at certain times" instead of "selected dishwashing cycles". How much do I loose for this, the solubility and the times of realease were connected to times but as I saw it also to dishwashing cycles, I choosed times as I was afraid that it was supposed to be implicity understod that the temperatures could effect the soubility, and as I was stressed my thoughts looped a couple of times and this came out. Does not make any sense to me know, but how much will I loose?
Linda Ö
Looking at the paper (011), it says "at the right time during a dishwashing cycle"
DeleteSo, not just during a certain cycle but at a certain time, could it be interpretated as just cycles/times/certain times of cycles?
LindaÖ
Oh, question already answered at 8.26 by Jelle!
DeleteWhy doesn't the liquis dw component dissolves the film? The client had not tryed it but they wrote that liquids could be used, I doubted it as they hadnt tried it, was it enanled?
ReplyDelete(Claimed it though, in a dep claim)
LindaÖ
Well, it's an exam and not real life. :-)
DeleteFirst of all, there are other liquids than water and lots of them would not dissolve the PVA. Whether these other liquids would be suitable for dishwashing... Well, it's an exam! I hope you made it anyhow.
I have dishwasher tablets at home that are liquids in separate pouches..which dissolve in my dishwasher!
DeleteDear Peteris,
ReplyDeleteI have put the same solution as you. It makes me happy to see that someone has had the same solution.
Let´s see what the examiner´s report says.
Best regads to all
I'm of the opinion, paragraph 13 of the paper A 2017 was misleading : even if D2 discloses a component put inside a pocket made of the same film like in the invention, I thought that the client wanted also to protect (see paragraph 13)his "simplest invention" :
ReplyDeletea method for producing a diswashing product comprising a pouch made of a dishwashing component packaged in a water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) film having a thickness of between 10 and 50 µm characterized in that the process comprises the step of adapting the thickness of the film of the pouch to the component inside the pouch in order to release the component from the pouch during a selected dishwashing cycle.
Ok, it is perhaps very close to D2 but D2 does not discloses the step of adapting the thickness to the component...Product by process was clearly not possible (not new regarding to D2) but a method for producing ?
What I really do not like in paper A is its distance from real life. I mean, if a single pouch is not patentable because D2 discloses the 40 micrometers thick film and gives the technical teaching that lowering the thickness of the film in PVA the film become water-soluble, then, are we really sure that 2 pouches having different thickness are inventive? I do not think so...
ReplyDeleteFor sure it is, also in real life, provided all the advantages mentioned in this paper are true.
DeleteWhether you can convince the examiner or not is a different story... that depends in whether you know how to apply the problem-solution approach correctly... which is what you need to show in the B paper... And if the examiner would not take it, the board of appeal will...
I do not see at all why it would not be if you follow the standard inventive step that we all (need to) embrace?!!
In my opinion it is not inventive due to the following reasons:
Delete1) D2 discloses a plurality of connected pouches that can be arranged in rows (even if not directly speaking of PVA water soluble pouches, that clearly is a technical teaching),
2) D2 discloses a single PVA pouch that can be made of 40 micrometers thick PVA film,
3) D2 discloses that by diminishing the thickness of the PVA film, PVA "gets water soluble".
I mean, given all the above technical teachings to a skilled person, for him/her it would not be that inventive to variate the thickness of the PVA film to adapt it to its function and content, as it is what D2 already does.
Am I wrong?
Dear Jelle, thank you very much for the inputs.
ReplyDeleteI have not included in my claim 1, the lower limit of 10um and the
PVA. for the following reasons:
regarding PVA:
1. as I understood the passage of the letter "other water soluble ...unsuitable" it just says that is unsuitable but it does not say that "it does not technically work"...
2. if we write in the claim something like "a polymer film for forming a punch"; this would only covers the films that are suitable for...and thus would exclude the films which are unsuitable...
3. the description of D2 before the last sentence, clearly mentions the possibility of using other films than PVAs...
regrading the 10 lower limit
the cited passage of the letter is just related to the performance of the film at thickness below 10 um (e.g. ineffective) but it does not say that (>10um) is necessary for the effect to be achieved.
the last functional feature is necessary for inventive step with regard to D2. Without the functional feature, the claim would cover also randomly chosen thicknesses, and would thus be a mere repetition of the method of D2.
ReplyDeleteDear Jelle, thank you very much for your input.
ReplyDeleteSince I have the one pouch claim (at least one pouch, at least two detergents, …), I am wondering if there is a chance that I (and some others which I talked to) might have made the right choice by claiming at least one pouch. Hence, I shortly summarize what I believe I claimed (might be wrongly written, wrote the exam in German) and why:
Dishwasher product comprising at least two dishwashing components, which entirely dissolve during the main wash of a dishwashing cycle
[I chose two, since D1 shows two dishwashing components; D2 has only one dishwashing component; the mentioning of the dishwashing cycle I chose due to [002] ],
whereby the at least two dishwashing components are packed in at least one pouch
[D1 has no pouch; D2 has only one dishwashing component; [013] states “simplest example of our invention”, hence I figured I cannot exclude this embodiment, since it belongs to the invention]
made of PVA film
[D1 has no PVA film; D2 proposes a PVA film with 40 µm thickness],
whereby the PVA film dissolves in water at the temperature from 40°C – 70°C and whereby at least one part of the PVA film comprises a thickness between 10 µm and less than 40 µm, wherein the thickness of the PVA film is designed to release the dishwashing components during the main wash of a dishwashing cycle
[D2 proposes a PVA film with a thickness of 40 µm and is from the year 2007 – no new data there?; further in [021] the client describes that the second detergent is placed on a thickness of 30 µm. [22] …the second detergent was released near the end of the dishwashing cycle; hence I figured that the skilled person might try two dish washing components from D1 in a pouch with 40 µm from D2, however the pouch with 40 µm would (at least with my thinking at that time point) not dissolve during the dishwashing cycle, but later in the intermediate rinsing or rinsing… Now I think claiming between 10 µm and 30 µm might have been even better].
Do you believe this thinking was too abstract?
I would love to receive an insight,
Sebe
Dear Sebe,
DeleteIn my opinion, the single pouch embodiment of the client's invention was largely anticipated by the last paragraph of D2. As such, the client's actual invention over the prior art appears to be the more limited multi-pouch embodiment (different components in different pouches each having a different thickness film so as to dissolve at different times during a dishwashing cycle).
Arguably, the prior art did not explicitly disclose a single pouch filled with liquid detergent. However, the paper gave no arguments why it was inventive to combine a known pouch (of D2) with a known liquid detergent. Novelty alone is not sufficient. Without any arguments given for inventive step, it appears unlikely that this was the intended solution, in particular since this seems to rule out covering multi-pouch tablets with only solid dishwashing components as this would be non-unitary.
The same holds for your claim proposal - I doubt that combining a known pouch (of D2) with a known multi-component tablet (see D1, according to [007] of the client's letter such tablets are 'well known') is inventive.
By the way, "40um" arguably anticipates "less than 40um", if only for their overlapping error margins (GL/RL G-VI, 8.1).
Dear Nico,
Deletethank you for the fast reply. I was really thinking about this two pouches claim, however was hesistant due to [13] and previous EM exams, where excluding an embodiment (client wish) might kill the chance of passing the exam.
Sebe
The inventiveness is not in the plurality of pouches, but in the plurality of films (or film parts) with a plurality of thicknesses.
Delete[023] recites one pouch, one film with different thicknesses corresponding to different components.
To be complete the one film with different thicknesses can be obtained like in par[21] by joining different films or like in par[23] by rolling one film into several parts.
DeleteIn both cases the number of films thicknesses matters, not the number of pouches.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI have one question with regard to your example solution.
Your claim 1 defines that the pouches are connected. My claim is similar but missing this feature. Although it is the feature present in both applicant’s embodiments, in my opinion it not the essential feature of the invention, because pouches do not necessary need to be connected for the invention to work.
My reasoning is as follows:
Par. 8 of the applicant’s letter mentions that when the prior art tablet falls apart it becomes unusable. It does not give any further details. Is it because when the tablet is pulverized it cannot be picked up by the user and deposited into the dishwasher? Or is it because by breaking apart the dishwashing properties of the tablet are destroyed?
However, this is not the case with the product according to the invention. From Example 1 it is clear that by enclosing the prior art tablet into the PVA film it will prolong the shelf life of the tablet (will preserve the dishwashing properties of the tablets for a longer time). From this we can safely assumed that by enclosing the respective components into the PVA film it will also preserve their dishwashing properties (each separately).
Further the object of the invention is a dishwashing product, not a tablet, so it does not necessary need to be in one piece.
Further the gist of the invention resides in the different thickness of the film to be wrapped around the different components, which causes that that the components are released at the timely fashion (at different stages of the dishwashing process). Also from explanation in par. 4-6 of the applicant’s letter it is clear that the components are mutually independent and intended for different purposes at different times.
There is no indication in the applicant’s letter that the connection between pouches is essential for them to be dissolved at the right times. Separate pouches will work just as well. Therefore it is not necessary to define the structural relationship between respective pouches, as it is not important for the invention to work.
The connection between the pouches has a different purpose (effect), which is that the product is in one piece, so it is more convenient for the user to handle it. However, this is just a preferred embodiment, which should be claimed in the dependent claim. This can be also solved by number of different obvious ways, e.g. by putting separate pouches into a net pouch, or really any type of suitable container.
I know this is probably not what EQE examiners intended but such claim (without connection between pouches) will still be novel and inventive over the prior art and will have a broader scope of protection.
What do you think?
Zuzana
My reasoning was similar - so finally I removed the feature "connected" from CL1. Connection between pouches doesn't provide an effect which will solve the defined problem
DeleteWhen the pouches are not connected, you only have one pouch (unless you have claimed a kit containing the two pouches)...
DeleteTherefore the solution is similar to my solution: Dishwashing product comprising at least one pouch, comprising at least two different dishwashing components packaged in a water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) film having a thickness of between 10 and 50 µm; wherein the thickness of the film of a pouch is designed to release the components from the pouch during a selected dishwashing cycle.
I had many thougths about the two or one pouch during the exam and I decided to go for this solution because: D2 says they will try to test pouches with a thicknes of 40µm and that they expect it to be water-soluble (no results are indicated); This one thicknes of 40µm is only capable of releasing the components at only one point in time, which is always the same. Therefore I believe the functional feature "the film of a pouch is designed to release the components from the pouch during a selected dishwashing cycle" makes the claim new over D2.
The test results of the inventor show that freshly prepared pouches with a thicknes of 40µm have 98DWE (which is a good result) - therefore the person skilled in the art would probably not find a reason to try different thickneses. In contrary to that our client found out, that to get better results some components need to be realeased erlier in time (reached by a thicknes of 20 or 30 µm). Nowhere in the prior art there was a hint that this would increase the results and that the products could be released at different times by using different thickneses. Therefore I think that the claim is also inventive.
My main thougts were: I would proably loose less points if my claim is not inventive, than if my claim cuts out one embodyment
I am looking forward to your comments
Regards
Thomas
I've claimed product comprising at least 2 pouches
DeleteDear all,
ReplyDeleteI have understood from my reading of above messages that, in case of 2 independent claims of the same category , only the worst will be marked.
I did not know about it. Who knows where to find such an official message.
Thank you.
https://media.epo.org/play/EQE_ABPapers2017
DeleteI wondered this too. If its buried somewhere in a video, that doesn't seem right!
DeleteI have claimed: dishwashing product, process of making the dishwashing product and process of delivery of the dishwashing component of the dishwashing product of claim 1 (equivalent to a claim relating to the use of the dishwashing product of claim 1). In that case, where the last claim is substantially a use claim, if a use claim was intended by the examiners I think I will not get just the "worst" process claim marked but also the other one, am I right?
DeleteI don't think they will use the worst. In the past CH reports you can find a statment like this:
Delete"Answers having multiple independent claims in the same category and relating to the same type of subject-matter were awarded fewer marks because it is considered that the invention can be appropriately claimed with a single independent claim in each category (Rule 43(2) EPC)."
in the past ch papers, multiple independent claims (methods or products) were recomended/used in the exams. The example 1 (+[13]) must be covered in a separate indpendent claim. At least 3 independent claims (two products + 1 method) seem to be required for this case.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDear Jelle and Nico,
ReplyDeleteBased on your suggested claim I'm interested in your thoughts about enablement and basis for such a claim. I spent a considerable amount of time to find basis for at least two or three pouches, but in my opinion and based on my previous exams of paper A and unfortunately failing them based on similar considerations, I took a more conservative approach. I could only find basis for three pouches throughout the client letter and the examples so I only claimed three pouches.
Additionally the client wanted to cover only the disclosure in the letter, so my understanding is that three is good enough.
What are your thoughts on this?
Thank you!
In the past CH papers and also mock paper; essential features were very clearly highlighted in the description. They have used terms like “must” or “essential” or in the “worst case” they directly refer to the fact that the effect of the invention cannot be achieved “only x provides the effect” or “…could not be obtained using x” or “However, at a value different from x, no complex is formed…”. In the present exam, the upper limit of 50 is clearly described as essential in line with the previous papers.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the passages we refer to here as indicatives of the essentiality of AVP and the lower limit of 10 are not that clear or strong enough to decide whether the feature AVP or the 10 limit is essential or not.
In my view, if a feature is essential it has to be very clearly stated in the description such that it has a single interpretation. Otherwise it would be unfair to deduce 5 or more marks for a missing essential feature that was not so clearly stated.
on the PVA. D2 makes it clear that the PVA is not essential for diswasching products. D2 [004] :" A WIDE variety of polymers can be used for making the pouches. The preferred polymers are polyacrylates, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), polyethers and polyesters".
Delete{10] PVA films dissolve in water, especially at the temperatures (40ºC to 70ºC) used in a dishwasher
DeleteIs there any embodiment WITHOUT three pouches? The examiner's report seems incorrect to identify just TWO?
DeleteBut the inventive concept doesn't rely on there being three pouches...just at least two that release stuff at different times, and so have to have different thicknesses
DeleteDoes this work for Claim 1:
ReplyDeleteA product for dishwashing (1) for controlled release comprising at least three components enclosed in individual pouches (2,3,4) wherein a first pouch (2) has a thickness of 20MicroM, a second pouch (3) has a thickness of 30 and a third pouch has a thickness of 50, the pouches being made of PVA film, arranged such that the pouches are sealed and connected.
Does anybody know when the examiner's report is issued?
ReplyDeleteIs "different components" essential feature? According to Ex. Report it is not, which makes me fail:(
ReplyDeleteMe too.
DeleteI went with no they don't have to be different since you may want to release the same component just at more than one time
DeleteI am looking forward to DeltaPatents comments since they are some differences with examiner's and DP model solution. Thanks
ReplyDeleteWill there be a way to analyse the data on the basis of who would have normally sate the chem paper versus the mechanical paper? I somehow pulled 86 in A (passed but much less well in B!), with a biotech background and I guess it kinda seemed pretty familiar to me - but I wonder how it looked from a more mechanical background?
ReplyDeletei believe that DP claim is the right one. The feature "wherein the thickness of the film of a pouch is designed to release the component from the pouch during a selected dishwashing cycle." is needed for both achiving an effect and for inventive step compared to D2.
ReplyDeleteclaim 1 of the Examiners differs from D2 only in the fact of using different thicknesses. However this is NOT INVENTIVE and has NO EFFECT.
claim 1 of the Examiners covers any possible choice of the thikness between 10 and 50. However, this has no effect! For exmaple, claim 1 of the Examiners covers the case where thickness of the first putch is 10,1 and the thickness of the other poutch is 10,15. This however would not have the effect mentioned in the disclosure!!!!!
and in addition claim 1 is hinted by D2:
HINT1: "Each tablet is packaged in a protective pouch. The pouches of
two adjacent tablets are connected to each other."
HINT2: "We believe that the choice of a polymer film having a lower
thickness will achieve the required water solubility."
Hint1 actually even anticipates the feature of claim 1.
Hint2 hints at the variation of the thickness.
in addition, in the report it is stated: "This claim should solve the problem of releasing dishwashing components at different steps of a dishwashing cycle."
Deletehowever as mentioned above the thickensess 10,1 and 10,1005 (covred by claim 1) would disssolve in the same step of the cycle!!! and thus the problem is not solved!!!!!!
surely "wherein the thickness of the film of a pouch is designed to release the component from the pouch during a selected dishwashing cycle." is inherent in the fact that they have different thicknesses - nothing else is required. and any difference in thickness would result in the two components being released at even slightly different times, which may be required in some circumstances. to me it's not about protecting just what the client says is useful, but other things he doesn't know might be useful, but which are still novel and inventive. for instance it might be useful to have a burst of a particular agent, and then another burst of the same agent 5 minutes later - still in the same "step" of the cycle, and the same actual dishwashing product - but still advantageous.
DeleteD2 from what I remember has a solid tablet with differnet layers, in a pouch of a single thickness. D2 suggests reducing the thickness of this single layer that surrounds the multicomponent tablet, so the whole tablet can just be thrown in the washer. it does not suggest a single dishwasher composition comprising different thicknesses of the material. from what I remember - I may be totally off, apologies if so.
"to me it's not about protecting just what the client says is useful, but other things he doesn't know might be useful,"
Deleteyes, I agree. But as I understood it by doing so you did not follow the "game" of the exam as you have to restrict the claim to what is disclosed (nothing extra). The effect wanted is " releasing dishwashing components at DIFFERENT steps of a dishwashing cycle". Claim 1 covers cases that does not solve such problem and thus it is NOT ALLOWED.
In addition, they have mentioned "It was also not necessary that the thicknesses of all films are different. Only two need to be different." THIS IS NO WHERE DISCLOSED in the letter!!!!
5marks are deduced if you don't do it!
This is really frustrting that we get rejected because of wrong assumptions!!!
For this bit - "It was also not necessary that the thicknesses of all films are different. Only two need to be different." THIS IS NO WHERE DISCLOSED in the letter!!!!
DeleteIf the inventive concept is that components can be released at different times, then it is inventive if only 2 components are released at different times. If the dishwasher product had three compartments, it is still inventive if compartment A releases first, and then B and C, which I guess in this circumstance are likely to have different components, release at the same time..and so there only needs to be two different thicknesses to be novel and inventive.
I thought the "game" was to be as broad as possible without lacking novelty or inventive step
but the "game" also indicates that claim 1 has to solve the problem or has an effect as specified in the letter.
Deletethe claim does not solve the problem of the exam!!
Assume we have three pouches, two of them have the same thickness and the third has different thickness. This would result in two different components being released in the same step, which is not the effect wanted in the letter!
please note that "different components" is also necessary for the effect to be achieved. The claim of the Examiners does not specify that different components are involved which adds another to the issues mentioned above.
following your logic we would always find way to broaden the claim (on my own) and still be inventive. However, this is not wanted as it would make the correction of the exam difficult...
adding letter says "components to be dissolved at the right time during a dishwashing cycle".
DeleteHowever, claim 1 of the Examiners covers the case where compositions are the same, which means one pouch DOES NOT release at the right time!!!
in summary I believe that claim 1 suggested in the report is not solving the problem of the letter. Unfortunately we lost a lot of marks taking such a claim as reference!!!
This would result in two different components being released in the same step, which is not the effect wanted in the letter!
ReplyDeleteWhere does it say this? Paragraph 7 says that it may comprise other things like salt.. It doesnt say that these other things have to be released on their own.
Para 5,detergent is released in the main wash. Para 22, 2 detergents are released presumably both in the main wash but at different times, but both in the same "step". Therefore 2 pouches both with detergents
to:
Delete"
Where does it say this?"
par 16: "we package the DIFFERENT components of a dishwashing composition into pouches made from films of different thicknesses. The resulting product can be designed to release each component at the right time during the dishwashing cycle".
par 22 does not say that first and second detergents re same. To the contrary: par 21 says "A DIFFERENT dishwashing component was placed onto each film: a first detergent was placed onto the PVA film hav
ing a thickness of 20 μm, a second detergent.."
But it doesnt say that the release of 2 doesn't components in the same step "is not wanted"
DeleteThe comments on the method claims are interesting.
ReplyDeleteCan anybody understand why including heat sealing (instead of sealing) is punished (minus 5 marks). The advantage of the rolling method is clearly set out - "We believe that this difference is due to the fact that less heat sealing is required".
No other type of sealing is disclosed anywhere in the letter. D2 discloses heat sealing only.
Also if you wrote the method(s) as two independent claims and included heat sealing in both does this mean you lose 10 marks for essentially the same mistake?
Oops. I misread the examiner's report. It is stated that adding "joining the pouches together by heat sealing" is punished.
DeleteI suspect using "heat sealing" instead of "sealing" in the method claim was not punished.
They always says do not get smart, and do not use yourmknowledge, use only what is in the paper, and then everything is opposite. it is a shame...
ReplyDeleteClaim 1 of the report is actually too broad and covers cases that have non-technical sense in view of the letter. Here are examples covered by claim 1:
ReplyDeleteUse case 1: two pouches having both rinse aids. In this case the rinse aid is released in main –wash and drying steps! Is this what the letter aims for!!! Where?
Use case 2: three pouches, where two of them have the same film thickness. The two that have the same thickness one comprises rise aid and the other detergent. According to claim 1, the rise aid and the detergent will both released in the same step e.g. final rinse cycle! Is this what the letter aims for!!!
The two use cases come from the fact that the “different components” is excluded from claim 1 and from the fact that not all pouches have different film thicknesses. If you correctly added these two features in claim 1 they would deduce 10 MARKS. Is this fair?
I agree. The letter does not support the broadening of these two elements. We are not supposed to broaden wishes of the client without good bases in the EQE papers, especially if this encompasses cases which do not work according to what the client disclosed. 10 marks deduction for these "alleged" mistakes seem quite harsh, in my opinion.
DeleteIs there any chance that the Exam Committee review his position?
Now, I'm really wondering how to do in the Paper A of next year! broaden compared to the client's letter or not !?
Finally, is DELTA PATENTS still following this blog? It would be interesting to have their view on these aspects?
Btw, I work in Mechanics and the A papers in Mechanics where quite strict in not broadening if this is not supported by the letter of the client, in my opinion.
Delete"Use case 1: two pouches having both rinse aids. In this case the rinse aid is released in main –wash and drying steps! Is this what the letter aims for!!! Where?"
ReplyDeletewhere does it say that if the thing has 2 different thicknesses it causes release in two different actual stages of the cycle? Example 2 I think has release of two detergents - it does not say that one detergent was released in the wash cycle and one released in the rinse cycle? clear teaching that the agent can effectively be the same, i.e. both a detergent (even if one is harsh and one is mild).
Re case 2 - if two pouches have the same thickness they do not have to be filled with incompatible agents such as a rinse aid and detergent..how about a rinse aid and salt? or some other agent which may be required to be released at the same time as another agent?
I was told to write the claim then take out all non-essential features (provided it is novel/inventive). the only features needed to make it novel and inventive are at least two pouches of different thicknesses. whatever else is stuck onto these two pouches is irrelevant.
To this “where does it say that if the thing has 2 different thicknesses it causes release in two different actual stages of the cycle? “
DeleteActually the invention concerns the release of different components at different POINTS IN TIME (i.e. right time). Indeed these points in time may belong to the same step (PS: “step” is defined in par 5). However, still two different thicknesses release the component at the respective points in time.
Claim1 goes beyond what the letter says namely releasing different components at respective points in time. For the following reasons:
1. Use case 1 indicates that the same component can be released twice in different points in time. However, in view of the letter this is not wanted.
2. Use case 2 indicates that different components can be released at the same point in time.
To this “Example 2 I think has release of two detergents - it does not say that one detergent was released in the wash cycle and one released in the rinse cycle? clear teaching that the agent can effectively be the same, i.e. both a detergent (even if one is harsh and one is mild)”
See above, the problem solved by the invention is to the release of different components at different POINTS IN TIME (right time). For example, the claim does not exclude two pouches each having the “first detergent” of Example 2. This would result in the first detergent being released at different points of time (even of the same cycle), which is not wanted.
In addition Example 2 states that the first and second detergents are different (par 21). Par 21 “A DIFFERENT dishwashing component was placed onto each film: a first detergent was placed onto the PVA film having a thickness of 20 μm, a second detergent….”
To this “ if two pouches have the same thickness they do not have to be filled with incompatible agents such as a rinse aid and detergent..how about a rinse aid and salt? or some other agent which may be required to be released at the same time as another agent?”
I agree, but the claim does not exclude the fact that the two pouches can be filed with different components. Your statement even indicates that the claim is also not clear under Art 84 EPC!!
Again, the claim of the report does not solve the problem of releasing different components at different points in time. How you can be inventive, if from the start you don’t solve the problem.
In my opinion the proposed claim has serious issues that should not happen at this level.
Without the following features, the claim is unjustifiably too broad:
1. Different components
2. All the pouches have different film thickness
3. The functional feature “wherein the thickness of the film of a pouch is designed such that..”. Without the functional feature the claim covers also random thicknesses which would not solve the above problem which is also recognized by the Examiners as the problem for the present A paper.
I agree completely.
Delete@Unknown July 7, 12:32 pm: "I was told to write the claim then take out all non-essential features (provided it is novel/inventive)."
You forget that Art.84 should also be taken into account.
In the present paper A, as nicely explained herein above by Anonymous 7 July, 1:02pm.
In addition, it does not seem that the Exam Committee discussed at all the functional feature "such that.." in the Exam Report. This is surprising as many candidates, including Delta Patent (!), used this approach. Functional features were often used in Paper A for Mechanics.
In the present paper A, it seems essential, as explained above by Anonymous July 7, 1:02pm.
It appears from the examiner report that your claim would lose 25 marks leaving only 7 available (plus 3 for having this feature as a dependent claim?). Seems incredibly harsh, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI have a biotech background and don't tend to use functional features. If the thing has two different thicknesses, then it is inherent that it is going to dissolve at different times. Why does that then need stating in the claims?
ReplyDeletein my view this has nothing to do with EM or CH...
DeleteClaim 1 of the report covers ANY thinkesses. For example thicknesses like: 10, 10.00001. With those thicknesses some of the compoenents will be released at the WRONG time. However, the aim of the letter is to relelase each of the componenets at the RIGHT TIME. For that you need to provide specific thicknesses. Claim 1 however does not and provides any possible thickness including the ones that lead to the release at the wrong time.
the letter does not say that we want you to cover the reelase of any component at any time!
I don't follow..the claim requires a thickness of 10-50 - client says has to be below 50 to be released during the cycle, and above 10 otherwise its too thin. so not ANY thickness.
DeleteMaybe it comes down to your interpretation of "different thickness" - I don't think anyone under a reasonable interpretation would consider 10 and 10.000001 to be different thicknesses.
the claim requires ANY thickness between 10 to 50 (ok, say 10.1 and 10.2 the problem is the same as above).
DeleteThe client also refers to only SPECIFIC thicknesses between 10 to 50 i.e. those that lead us to the right release of the components.
thus the claim has to list specific thicknesses between 10 to 50 and not any thickness between 10 to 50. For that you can for example use the functional feature saying that your thicknesses are the ones that lead to the right time release etc.
without that, the claim is broadening the subject matter of the letter which is not in line with rules I have learned!
unfortunately many people are gointg to resit the Exam because of loosing marks (10 at least) caused by this "too broad" claim.
Also, am I missing something re Art 84 "The claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought. They shall be clear and concise and be supported by the description."
ReplyDeletethere is, as yet, no description. that is up to us to draft.
@Unknown:
ReplyDeleteI don't know why you're supporting so much the solution of the Exam report except if you're part of the Exam Committee. If this is the case, it is nice to see that you're involved in such discussions. Thanks.
Anyway, I'd just like to point out that the discussion we have is not only based on the considerations of some candidates but also on the claim proposed by Delta Patents, i.e. recognised patent professionals.
On another aspect, I was also surprised to see that the process claim was attributed so many points. In previous Mechanics A paper, this was generally not the case.
All in all, I end up with the feeling that the Exam Committee did not take into account the fact that the common A paper was new and it could have been a bit more comprehensive and less strict. It seems that this was the case for the Exam Committee of the B paper but certainly not for the A paper, which has even more fails than the C paper!
It would not harm if the A paper committee would recognise that it was too strict and if it would award a few extra points to everybody. 5 points would be nice ;) (just saying / dreaming!!) ;)
I'm not necessarily supporting the examiners answer, only in that my answer was very similar and I was just trying to remmeber and explain my thinking behind how I ended up with a very similar answer. I do see everyone's point and we all have different backgrounds and experiences. My comments re chem v mech is that for me writing it how I did felt quite like just drafting in real life, work out what the Inv concept is and extrapolate out as far as you can, even if the inv hasn't necessarily said oh it would be good if we can protect x. I'm finding inventors don't often know what's good for them and don't think of all the things they could /should try and get.
DeleteHaving said that for paper B, I passed but much less well and I felt I struggled with that one.
And PS if I was in the exam committee and had any powers I'd love to sprinkle extra marks about!
Hi, I failed A by far (34!) but please, let shed light on me.. The claim from the Examiner report is not clear:
ReplyDeleteDishwashing product (1) comprising dishwashing components packaged into at least two pouches (2, 3, 4) made from polyvinyl alcohol film having a thickness of from 10 μm to 50 μm, wherein at least two of the pouches (2, 3, 4) have a different film thickness to each other.
When you read that, the feature "at least two pouches" is not part of the claimed dishwashing product.
I don't follow - the product comprises at least two pouches (with dish washing components packaged into them).
DeleteI would rather understand such product when the claim is drafted as such:
DeleteDishwashing product (1) comprising dishwashing components and at least two pouches (2, 3, 4) made from polyvinyl alcohol film having a thickness of from 10 μm to 50 μm , said dishwashing components being packaged into said at least two pouches (2, 3, 4), wherein at least two of the pouches (2, 3, 4) have a different film thickness to each other.
Now, the claim clearly means that the product comprises at least two pouches. Moreover, there is no characterizing portion.
I know I have failed, but for me this claim suggested in the Examiner'report should not be allowed, strictly speaking.
What strikes me is that this new paper A was probably drafted by someone from chemistry. The examiner report has few pages (as with previous chemistry exam reports) whereas the exam report in Mechanics was 30-35 pages (in 2016 and 2015). In addition, the dependent claims bring very few points (in 2016, there were 40 points for the dependent claims in the Mechanics area).
ReplyDeleteThis is really frustrating that the exam committee did not take into account these aspects and that it aligned almost completly the new paper A exam on the layout of the chemistry paper.
I prepared mainly the exam based on Mechanics previous papers and the so-called mock exam but clearly, this was not such a good idea.
For a new paper, I would also have expected a bit more explanations. 11 pages for the exam report must be a record !
Anyway, we can't appeal as the fee is so high and it seems that DP or other people in a position to discuss with the committee are just absent from this forum. :(
"A method of performing a dishwashing cycle comprising a step of releasing the claimed product in a dishwasher" attracted only 1 out of 2 marks for the use claim.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone understand the reasons in the examiner report? I struggle with two points:
ReplyDeletea) the 25 points reduction for an independent claim directed to different stuff in the different pouches should be because this claim does not solve the problem constructed for a claim directed to different foil thickness.
I learned to construct the problem from the effects of the features which are new with respect to the closets prior art. Is this not valid here?
B) heat-sealing is seen as unnecessary limitation.
Did anyone find a hint to any other method for closing the pouches?
And a last point following to the discussion above about the inventiveness of the claim directed to the different composition: where does a person skilled in the art finds a motivation for splitting up D1s tabs? D1 teaches the combination of different layers. Neither D1 nor D2 give in my opinion any hint on how to increase the flexibility in the choice of compositions combined in a tab.
Thanks a lot for your idea's. I really want to understand what I did wrong.
Suse
Hello Suse...
DeleteI have the same problem with the feature "film having for each pouch a different thickness". Omission was penalized with 25 pts reduction.
From the above comments I understand that one can argue that a claim without this feature (but comprising all the others) would be too broad and would therefore contravene Article 84. This would however depend on the disclosure in the description.
Such a claim encompasses the client´s invention when it has different pouch thicknesses. Further, the client praises a product having only different compositions in different pouches, but not yet different thicknesses, as"a very versatile product" in paragraph [15]. Also, as you write, the claim without "film having for each pouch a different thickness" is new and seems inventive with respect to D1 and D2. As a paper in mechanics it seems to me that the evaluation would have been the other way round: having the feature "film having for each pouch a different thickness" in the claim would have excluded one of the client´s embodiment from protection and would have been heavily penalized.
From a mechanic´s perspective, this evaluation is a bit frustrating...
Hi Suse,
DeleteI made mistake you mentioned in point a) as well.
I think that the problem the Examiners have with just claiming different compositions in different pouches is that it covers embodiments in which components that could have simply been pressed together then put in a common pouch are instead put in different pouches of the same thickness, which would have no technical effect (so the objective technical problem would just be "to provide an alternative").
I'm a bit frustrated by this analysis too, as the problem of "keeping the compositions separate until the washing cycle starts" is always solved by a claim to different compositions in different pouches. Sometimes it is not useful to have solved this problem (for example if both components are solid and could have been put in a common pouch), but the same apples to the claim the Examiners wrote as it covers a dishwashing tablet that releases components at very similar times or in an order that would not be beneficial (I think this has been discussed above in quite a lot of detail!).
I'd be interested to know what anyone else thinks.
Cheers,
Alex
Hi Alex and Suse,
ReplyDeleteI interpreted the "versatile" in the client's letter as the technical effect of "different products in different pouches". Maybe this was giving too much interpretation to the letter?
Even if the components could be pressed together, the fact that they do not have to be aggregated into a single unit allows more "freedom to design" the washing product (?)
Then, the technical problem would be more elaborate than just to provide an alternative. But I also understand, as Alex argues, that this is probably the problem the examiners have with this claim. This would however only lead to a claim being not inventive, and in earlier exams this was never penalized with such a heavy point reduction.
Best wishes,
Nils
I also did this. What threw me was the comment in the paper " We would like the claims to cover, as far as possible, everything that is described in this letter".
DeleteI had a claim 1 with different components in different pouches (novel and arguably inventive for exactly the reasons you point out i.e. "versatile") and a dependent claim 2 to the different thickness feature. In the summary of invention I clearly set out the technical effects of each. I understand it's not what the examiner had in mind but also I would argue it's not a bad claim set?
What was the purpose of including the comment about "versatile" and having an embodiment (different components in different pouches) that isn't covered by their claim 1?
Is there any chance that the evaluation of this A-exam of 2017 is changed? Or that additional points will be awarded? It seems that the current evaluation is particularly unfair for people with a mechanics background. The argument in the examiner's report being "does not work if it does not have different thicknesses" seems very artificial to me.
ReplyDeleteThere are, in my opinion, only 2 possibilities:
Delete1. file an appeal
2. file a complaint (online form at epo.org)
In both cases, the chances that this results in a change of the A paper grades is thin!