Pre-Exam 2023 (part 3): cleaning utensils

Saturday, March 18, 2023
Pre-Exam 2023 (part 3): cleaning utensils - our answers

The first claims part was about cleaning utensils, in particular cleaning cloths.

Our answers to this first claims analysis part are given below. We have numbered the questions and statements for easy reference in the discussion.

During the exam, candidates had access to the EPO Legal Text pages, so including the Guidelines. Access was to the live versions, so to the versions in force on 17 March 2023 (so not the version of 31.10.2022 acc REE/IPEE).

Candidates could access the exam in all languages, English, French and German.

In the claims analysis parts (as in the legal parts), the order of the four statements of each of the questions was randomized, i.e., it was different for different candidates.

In view of the randomized order, we provide the questions and statements together with our answers. If you check your answers with ours, note that the order of the questions and of the four statements from a single question may be different!!!

Please feel invited to comment!

The exam had a mix of common and less-common claims analysis topics.

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 18-03-2022 18:03"), whereas using your real name or a nickname 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.

Note: the other claims part is discussed in another blog post: here; the legal part is discussed in another blog post: here; first impressions and general comments can be posted here.

We look forward to your comments!

Nico & Roel

Question 11

Claim set I

I.1. Cleaning utensil comprising:
a first layer comprising a sponge material;
a second layer comprising fibres.

I.2. Cleaning utensil according to claim I.1, wherein the cleaning utensil is a cleaning cloth and the sponge material comprises a synthetic sponge.

I.3. Cleaning utensil according to claim I.1, wherein the fibres comprise polypropylene.

I.4. Cleaning utensil according to claim I.1, wherein the cleaning utensil is a cleaning cloth and the second layer comprises fibres having loops or upstanding ends.

I.5. Cleaning utensil according to claim I.1, wherein the cleaning utensil is a cleaning cloth and a first portion of the fibres of the second layer is woven to form a web and a second portion of the fibres of the second layer has upstanding ends or loops protruding upwardly from the web.

I.6. Cleaning utensil according to claim I.5, further comprising a reinforcement layer arranged between the first layer and the second layer.

I.7. Cleaning utensil according to claim I.1, wherein the second layer comprises a first portion of fibres having a first weight and a second portion of fibres having a second weight, wherein the first weight is equal to or less than 25 decitex and the second weight is at least 100 decitex.

Assume that the claim set I was filed with the above description of the invention. For each of the statements, indicate whether the statement is true (T) or false (F):

11.1 Claim I.4 is disclosed in the application as filed.

T – as the application as filed is description, claims and drawings, if claims are filed on the filing date

Claim I.4 when written out reads:

I.4. Cleaning utensil comprising:
a first layer comprising a sponge material;
a second layer comprising fibres,
wherein the cleaning utensil is a cleaning cloth and the second layer comprises fibres having loops or upstanding ends.

11.2 Claim I.1 covers the third embodiment.

T - Covers as in: the third embodiment falls within the scope of claim I.1

11.3 Claim I.1 covers the second embodiment.

T - Covers as in: the second embodiment falls within the scope of claim I.1

11.4 Claim I.3 covers all alternatives of the first embodiment.

F - According to [008], also polyamide, polyester or a combination of these polymers may be used

Claim I.3 when written out reads:

I.3. Cleaning utensil comprising:
a first layer comprising a sponge material;
a second layer comprising fibres,
wherein the fibres comprise polypropylene.

Question 12

Assume that the claim set I was filed after the description and drawings in response to a communication under Rule 58 EPC. For each of the statements, indicate whether the statement is true (T) or false (F):

12.1 Claim I.4 meets the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

F - The nearest support is the third embodiment in [005] (and Fig, 3) but the claim is an intermediate generalization with respect to this embodiment, at least for the reason that the claim fails to specify that (part of) the fibers of the second layer are woven to form a web.

Claim I.4 when written out reads:

12.2 Claim I.5 meets the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

T – Fig. 3 embodiment [005]

Note: [008] lists a number of materials for the third embodiment while claim I.5 fails to specify any of these materials, but this omission could be argued to satisfy the intermediate generalisation test / golden standard.

Claim I.5 when written out reads:

I.5. Cleaning utensil comprising:
a first layer comprising a sponge material;
a second layer comprising fibres,
wherein the cleaning utensil is a cleaning cloth and a first portion of the fibres of the second layer is woven to form a web and a second portion of the fibres of the second layer has upstanding ends or loops protruding upwardly from the web.

12.3 Claim I.6 meets the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

F – seems to be an (undisclosed) combination of the second and third embodiment

Claim I.6 when written out reads:

I.6. Cleaning utensil comprising:
a first layer comprising a sponge material;
a second layer comprising fibres,
a reinforcement layer arranged between the first layer and the second layer [feature of claim I.6],
wherein the cleaning utensil is a cleaning cloth and a first portion of the fibres of the second layer is woven to form a web and a second portion of the fibres of the second layer has upstanding ends or loops protruding upwardly from the web [feature of claim I.5].

12.4 Claim I.1 meets the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

F – Too broad, for example not limited to a cleaning cloth and generalized to any fiber arrangement,

Comment: the question tests Art.123(2) in context of late-filed claims – GL H-IV 2.2.4., and shows very clearly that late-filed claims have the risk to have a serious Art. 123(2) problem, preventing any generalization which would be possible is the claims would have been filed together with the other application documents.

Question 13

For each of the statements, indicate whether the statement is true (T) or false (F):

13.1 The subject-matter of claim I.7 is novel over D1.

F – D1 discloses the layers and the respective weights ('20' is '25 or less' and '150' is 'at least 100')

Claim I.7 when written out reads:

I.7. Cleaning utensil comprising:
a first layer comprising a sponge material;
a second layer comprising fibres,
wherein the second layer comprises a first portion of fibres having a first weight and a second portion of fibres having a second weight, wherein the first weight is equal to or less than 25 decitex and the second weight is at least 100 decitex

13.2 The subject-matter of claim I.1 is novel over D1.

F – D1 discloses the layers: sponge layer 12 and fibre layer 11 / 13

13.3 The subject-matter of claim I.4 is novel over D1.

T – D1 has no loops and no upstanding ends

Note: as “up” refers to an orientation and no reference plane is explicitly defined, one could argue that the ends of 11 and 12 in Fig. 1 are “upstanding ends” (rotate the figure by 90 degrees). However, it seems a reasonable interpretation that “upstanding” is meant to be relative to the second layer.

Claim I.4 when written out reads:

13.4 The subject-matter of claim I.3 is novel over D1.

F – See 13.2, D1 also discloses polypropylene in layer 13

Claim I.3 when written out reads:

I.3. Cleaning utensil comprising:
a first layer comprising a sponge material;
a second layer comprising fibres,
wherein the fibres comprise polypropylene.

Question 14

Claim II. 1 corresponds to claim I.1 amended to include the features of claim I.5:

II.1 Cleaning utensil comprising:

Note: So embodiment 3

Claim III. 1 corresponds to claims I.1 amended to include the features of claim I.5, I.7 and the additional features of the mass of the fibres disclosed in the description:

Note: I.5 and I.7 were each single-dependent on I.1.

III.1 Cleaning utensil comprising:

a first layer comprising a sponge material;
a second layer comprising fibres,
wherein the cleaning utensil is a cleaning cloth and a first portion of the fibres of the second layer is woven to form a web and a second portion of the fibres of the second layer has upstanding ends or loops protruding upwardly from the web,
wherein the second layer comprises a first portion of fibres having a first weight and a second portion of fibres having a second weight, wherein the first weight is equal to or less than 25 decitex and the second weight is at least 100 decitex,
wherein the first portion of fibres make up 65% to 75% of the total mass of the fibres and the second portion fibres make up 25% to 35% of the total mass of fibres.

For each of the statements, indicate whether the statement is true (T) or false (F):

14.1 Using the problem-solution approach applied to the subject-matter of claim II.1an objective technical problem can be formulated as how to provide a more abrasive cleaning action.

T – Assuming D1 is the CPA (not given in statement), the difference is the 'loops or upstanding ends', [005] “The loops 9 and upstanding ends 8 provide more abrasive cleaning of a surface and also capture dirt removed from the surface thus improving the cleaning efficiency.”, i.e., an effect of the difference is as the effect of providing more abrasive cleaning.

We considered whether F could also be argued, as the second effect “also capture dirt removed from the surface thus improving the cleaning efficiency” is not reflected in the proposed OTP. However, the statement says “an” OTP rather than “the” OTP, so we consider the correct answer T: it is a valid OTP although not maximally ambitious (to refer to wording from the Boards).

14.2 Using the problem-solution approach applied to the subject-matter of claim II.1, an objective technical problem can be formulated as how to improve the cleaning action of a layer comprising fibres.

T – Assuming D1 is the CPA (not given in statement), the difference is the 'loops or upstanding ends', [005] “The loops 9 and upstanding ends 8 provide more abrasive cleaning of a surface and also capture dirt removed from the surface thus improving the cleaning efficiency.”, i.e., an(other) effect of the difference is improving the cleaning efficiency, and this effect is attributed to the layers with the fibers.

Note that the reference to the fibres in the OTP is not a pointer to the solution (D1 also has fibres) so also an acceptable formulation.

F can also be argued as the cleaning efficiency is attributed to the cleaning cloth as a whole and not to the layer comprising the fibers, but this seems overly strict.

14.3 An objective technical problem solved by the subject-matter of claim I.2 over D1 can be formulated as how to provide a material for releasing water into the first layer to increase the cleaning efficiency.

F – no effects are given that relate to the use of , specifically, a synthetic sponge

Note that this statement does not relate to II.1 or III.1, but to I.2 (Note: Probably a typo as the statement refers to claim I.2, but considering claim I.2: F, as the effect of releasing water into the first layer is provided by the reinforcement layer (see [004]) but which is not part of claim I.2.)

Claim I.2 reads:

I.2. Cleaning utensil comprising:
a first layer comprising a sponge material;
a second layer comprising fibres.
wherein the cleaning utensil is a cleaning cloth and the sponge material comprises a synthetic sponge.

14.4 A valid argument that the cleaning utensil of claim III.1 involves an inventive step is that the claimed ranges of the fibre portions are not obvious from D1 since D1 gives the skilled person no hint at a technical advantage associated with a larger portion of lighter fibres so that the skilled person would not increase the portion of the lighter fibres to more than the maximum 64% disclosed in D1.

F – as D1 does not give any advantage or disadvantage, the skilled person will contemplate check what happens at the end of the listed range and just over it. There is no teaching away in D1 that would lead him away from going just outside the listed range.

T could also be argued as, even though certainly not a sole/sufficient argument, but D1 indeed doesn't give any of such hints, which is (one factor) in support of inventive step, and hence could be consider “a” valid argument (which needs further arguments to support inventive step).

Note: the wording “a valid argument” has been used more often in Pre-Exam questions and leads more often to discussions as to what it means. If it can be any argument that can be part of a complete reasoning, then many arguments would be “valid arguments” even if not at all critical.

It is tempting to say T – application seems to give it in [006] : “lighter fibres ensure sufficient flexibility of the cloth when cleaning non-planar surfaces.”, but it does not attribute a specific advantage of 65% or more, so this does not seem a valid conclusion.

Question 15

Assume that the claim set I was filed with the above description of the invention. For each of the statements, indicate whether the statement is true (T) or false (F):

15.1 Claim I.1, amended during examination proceedings as follows (amendments are underlined), meets the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC:

Cleaning utensil comprising:
a first layer comprising a sponge material;
a second layer comprising fibres; and
a reinforcement layer arranged between the first layer and the second layer, wherein the reinforcement layer comprises a sponge material.

F – reinforcement comprising a sponge is only disclosed as “a sponge material which has a higher water absorption capacity than the material of the lower sponge layer 3 and the upper textile layer 2” – so the higher water absorption capacity of the sponge layer needs to be in as well.

15.2 Claim I.7, amended during examination proceedings in such a way that it is dependent on claim I.5, meets the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC.

So, this relates to a claim having all features of claims I.1 + I.5 + I.7.

T – Claim I.5 corresponds to the third embodiment of [005] and the subject matter of claim I.7 is taken from [006] and [007] which according to the first sentence applies to third embodiment.

15.3 Claim I.2, amended during examination proceedings as follows (amendments are underlined), meets the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC:
Cleaning utensil according to claim I.1, wherein the cleaning utensil is a cleaning cloth and the sponge material comprises a synthetic or a natural sponge.

F – Support for 'natural' sponge material is provided by [008] last sentence but this refers to the embodiments which all have 'woven' fibres which are omitted from claim I.2 -> intermediate generalization.

Also, [008] only refers to the first, second and third embodiments, and not to any cleaning cloth having a first layer comprising a sponge material and a second layer comprising fibres, as the claim does.

15.4 Claim I.3, amended during examination proceedings as follows (amendments are underlined), meets the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC:
Cleaning utensil according to claim I.1, wherein the fibres comprise ~~polypropylene~~ a polymer.

F – The application as filed only provides support for a list of specific polymers, see [008], and not for 'a polymer' (genus).

We look forward to your comments! (Please use your name or a nickname)

Annex – Pre-printables for Part 3 (copied from the pdf; added 19/3)

EUROPEAN QUALIFYING EXAMINATION 2023

Pre-examination

Documents for part 3

* Description of the application
* Document D1

Description of the application

Cleaning utensil

[001] The present invention relates to a cleaning utensil, in particular a cleaning cloth.

[002] Cleaning utensils such as cloths, mops and brushes may be used to clean many
types of surface. Different types of cleaning utensils may be more effective depending on
the type and amount of dirt which has to be removed from the surface.

[003] Figure 1 illustrates a first embodiment of a cleaning cloth 1 which comprises an
upper layer 2 and a lower layer 3. The lower layer 3 is made of a sponge material and the
upper layer 2 is made of fibres 4 that are woven to form a textile. The lower layer 3 may be
used to distribute water and cleaning solution over a surface in order to wet and soften the
dirt which has to be removed. The textile surface of the upper layer 2 is stiffer than the
sponge surface of the lower layer 3 and provides a more abrasive cleaning of the surface
to better remove dirt from the surface. The sponge surface of the lower layer 3 may also
be used to remove dirt loosened from the surface by the textile surface of the upper
layer 2. The cleaning cloth 1, therefore, includes two different types of cleaning surface
which can be used for different cleaning actions for an improved cleaning effect.

[004] Figure 2 illustrates a second embodiment of the cleaning cloth 1 that additionally
includes a reinforcement layer 5 that is positioned between the lower sponge layer 3 and
the upper layer 2 of woven fibres 4 forming the textile. The reinforcement layer 5 provides
an additional mechanical reinforcement of the cleaning cloth 1 which is useful when using
the cloth 1 to clean large surfaces. In some embodiments, the reinforcement layer 5
comprises a sponge material which has a higher water absorption capacity than the
material of the lower sponge layer 3 and the upper textile layer 2. For example, the sponge
material of the reinforcement layer 5 may include a higher degree of porosity which
enables it to store a larger amount of water. Thus, the sponge material of the
reinforcement layer 5 can release water to the upper and lower layers 2, 3 to prevent the
upper and lower layers 2, 3 from becoming too dry. This release of water into the upper
and lower layers 2, 3 improves the cleaning action of the cleaning cloth 1.

]005] Figure 3 illustrates a third embodiment of the cleaning cloth 1 illustrated in Figure 1
which includes a different arrangement of the fibres 4 of the upper layer 2. The lower
layer 3 includes the sponge material. In this third embodiment, a first portion of the fibres 4
is woven to form a web 7 and a second portion of the fibres 4 has upstanding ends 8 or
loops 9 protruding upwardly from the web 7. The loops 9 and upstanding ends 8 provide
more abrasive cleaning of a surface and also capture dirt removed from the surface thus
improving the cleaning efficiency.

[006] The fibres 4 of the upper layer 2 of each of the first, second and third embodiments
may preferably comprise two portions that include fibres of different weights in order to
enhance the cleaning effect. The heavier fibres provide an enhanced mechanical cleaning
action by virtue of their stiffness and the lighter fibres ensure sufficient flexibility of the cloth
when cleaning non-planar surfaces. If used in the third embodiment, the lighter fibres are
used to provide the web 7 and the heavier fibres are used to form the upstanding ends 8
and loops 9 protruding from the face of the web 7.

[007] Preferably, the fibres 4 of the first portion have a weight equal to or less than 25
decitex and the fibres 4 of the second portion have a weight of at least 100 decitex. The
weight of the fibre refers to the mass per unit length, which is measured in decitex (grams
per 10 000 m). The lighter fibres of the first portion make up 65% to 75% of the total mass
of the fibres and the heavier fibres of the second portion make up 25% to 35% of the total
mass of fibres.

[008] In each of the first, second and third embodiments, the fibres 4 comprise one of the
following polymers: a polypropylene, a polyamide, a polyester or a combination of these
polymers. The sponge material of the first, second and third embodiments may be a
natural sponge or a synthetic sponge.

Drawings of the application

(click on the image for a larger view)

Assume that the following document D1 is prior art under Article 54(2) EPC.

Document D1: Cleaning cloth

[001] Figure 1 illustrates a cleaning cloth 10. The cleaning cloth 10 comprises a first
layer 11 comprising fibres woven to form a textile, a second layer 12 comprising a natural
sponge material and a third layer 13 comprising fibres woven to form a textile. The second
layer 12 is arranged between the first layer 11 and the third layer 13 such that the sponge
material is held in a pouch formed of woven fibres. In some embodiments, the fibres of
both the first layer 11 and the third layer 13 comprise polypropylene with an antibacterial
coating.

[002] The fibres of each of the first and third layers 11, 13 comprise two portions having
different weights in order to improve the cleaning action. The fibres of the first portion have
a weight of 20 to 35 decitex and the fibres of the second portion have a weight of at
least 150 decitex. The weight of the fibre refers to the mass per unit length, which is
measured in decitex (grams per 10 000 m). The lighter fibres make up 54% to 64% of the
total mass of the fibres and the heavier fibres make up 36% to 46% of the total mass of
fibres.

[003] The sponge material of the second layer 12 has a greater water absorption capacity
than the outer textile layers 11, 13 and can release water into the outer textile
layers 11, 13 in use to increase the cleaning efficiency of the cleaning cloth 10.

Drawing Document D1

(click on the image for a larger view)

Comments

Ira18 March 2023 at 15:34
Hi, I've noticed a small type regarding the answer of question 11.3. To say, it would have to be corrected as "T - Covers as in: the second embodiment falls within the scope of claim I.1" and not "third embodiment". But thank you for your effort and such as prompt upload!
ReplyDelete
Replies
Rachael18 March 2023 at 15:47
Thanks! I had two answers different to yours:
1. I put F for Q14.1 as I felt it used hindsight - I think there was a question similar to this on the pre-EQE online course where the answer was 'F' for the OTP simply being a rephrasing of the technical effect of the distinguishing feature. I believe the wording of the OTP in the question matched the effect disclosed in the description word for word (as it does in Q14.1).
2. I put F for Q15.2 as the feature of I.7 (the first and second weights) is disclosed in [007] which also states that (non-optionally) the lighter fibres of the first portion make up 65% to 75% of the total mass of the fibres and the heavier fibres make up... etc etc. so I thought it would be an intermediate generalisation.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anna Varone18 March 2023 at 16:44
Why is “claim I.1 Covers ” be read as “the embodiment falls within the scope of claim I.1”?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Marcel18 March 2023 at 17:05
With regards to 15.2:
according to paragraph [006], last sentence, it seems to be mandatory for the third embodiment („claim I.5“) that the „light fibres“ are used for forming the web and the „heavy fibres“ are used for the loops protruding upwardly from the web … For this reason I thought said amendment would violate Art. 123 (2) EPC.
ReplyDelete
Replies
LP18 March 2023 at 17:10
I put F for Q14.1 as i considered the abrasive action more as a technical effect and a i put T for Q14.4 since D1 actually gives no hints in considering onter ranges.
ReplyDelete
Replies
LP18 March 2023 at 17:19
I do not understand why Q20.2 is F. Claim II.3 does not allow to carry out the invention.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous18 March 2023 at 17:31
Thank you for putting these up. I found the claim analysis sections unclear overall relative to most previous years. So have other trainees that I have spoken to in person. I will also leave a comment in the post relating to section 4 (which I found to be the most unclear).

I would like to call for the following questions to be neutralized:

12.4 Claim I.1 meets the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.
I would argue this could be considered true even though it is broad. For example, in [003], it is stated that "the cleaning cloth, therefore, includes two different types of cleaning surface which can be used for different cleaning actions for an improved cleaning effect". This suggests that the technical effect of having an improved cleaning effect is achieved by virtue of the cloth having two different types of cleaning surface. Claim I.1 discloses two different types of cleaning surface (sponge and fibres) and therefore arguably the essential features.

15.2 Claim I.7, amended during examination proceedings in such a way that it is dependent on claim I.5, meets the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC.

This could be considered an intermediate generalisation.

15.3 Claim I.2, amended during examination proceedings as follows (amendments are underlined), meets the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC:
Cleaning utensil according to claim I.1, wherein the cleaning utensil is a cleaning cloth and the sponge material comprises a synthetic or a natural sponge.

Similarly to 12.4, in [003], it is stated that "the cleaning cloth, therefore, includes two different types of cleaning surface which can be used for different cleaning actions for an improved cleaning effect". This suggests that the technical effect of having an improved cleaning effect is achieved by virtue of the cloth having two different types of cleaning surface. Claim I.1 discloses two different types of cleaning surface (sponge and fibres).

Three embodiments are described and in [008], it is noted that "The first, second and third embodiments may be a natural sponge or a synthetic sponge". Therefore, the claim comprises the features required to produce the technical effect of "having an improved cleaning effect" and there is no intermediate generalisation.

Further comments:

14.2 Using the problem-solution approach applied to the subject-matter of claim II.1, an objective technical problem can be formulated as how to improve the cleaning action of a layer comprising fibres.

I would say the answer to this question is almost certainly true due to “The loops 9 and upstanding ends 8 provide more abrasive cleaning of a surface and also capture dirt removed from the surface thus improving the cleaning efficiency.” in [005].

14.4 A valid argument that the cleaning utensil of claim III.1 involves an inventive step is that the claimed ranges of the fibre portions are not obvious from D1 since D1 gives the skilled person no hint at a technical advantage associated with a larger portion of lighter fibres so that the skilled person would not increase the portion of the lighter fibres to more than the maximum 64% disclosed in D1.

I would say the answer to this question is almost certainly false for the same reasons as provided by DP above.

ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous18 March 2023 at 19:09
For question 14.2 I would have argued that the description of D1 (when assuming D1 as CPA) discloses a cleaning cloth, whereas the fibers of the first and third layer comprise each two different portions of fibres with different weights to improve the cleaning action [002, first sentence]. Claim II.1 does not disclose this feature, but instead the looped and upstanding end fibers. Thus, both D1 and the subject matter of claim II.1 provide a cleaning cloth with improved cleaning function. It could not be assessed which one provides the better cleaning function, indicating that this cannot be the OTP.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous18 March 2023 at 19:45
The following has already been posted in First-Impressions, but I wanted to mention it again because it was extremely confusing to me.
Regarding Q12:
The German version says: "Die untere Schicht 3 besteht aus einem Schwammmaterial, und die obere Schicht 2 besteht aus Fasern 4, ...". However, the claim says "umfasst". Consequently, 123(2) is not satisfied and consequently none of the claims satisfies 123(2).
Thanks, SE
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous18 March 2023 at 20:06
For 15.4 - doesn't the word "comprise" in [008] mean that the list is non-limiting? That any of the genus polymer can be used?
Or do the words "one of the following" limit it to the four in the list only?
Thanks, E.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Stein18 March 2023 at 20:39
Thanks for the analysis. I had False for each of the sub-questions 12, as they fail to disclose the fibres being polymers. Regarding Q12.2 you indeed indicate that "[008] lists a number of materials for the third embodiment while claim I.5 fails to specify any of these materials, but this omission could be argued to satisfy the intermediate generalisation test / golden standard." Why would that be, please?

I checked the Guidelines, Example 1 under H V 3.2.1. There, omitting a feature that was always mentioned in connection with other features was only allowed because alternatives were mentioned for the omitted feature. For this question, the description explicitly mentions that for each embodiment, the fibres comprise one of a list of polymers. No alternative is mentioned. So I'm not sure how it could be allowed to omit this feature.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Matthias18 March 2023 at 20:47
Regarding Q12.2: I think it is possible to argue that the subject matter of claim I.5 has NOT been originally disclosed for the following reason: Claim I.5, due to the back-reference to claim I.1, relates to a cleaning utensil COMPRISING a first layer [...] and a second layer [...]. That means, a third, fourth, etc. layer can also be present. However, since the features of claim I.5 relate to the third embodiment, and this embodiment has only TWO layers, the subject matter of claim I.5 extends beyond what is disclosed directly and unambiguously in the application as originally filed. In other words, a cleaning cloth with (a) a first layer comprising a sponge material, (b) a second layer comprising fibres, wherein a first portion of the fibres of the second layer is woven to form a web and a second portion of the fibres of the second layer has upstanding ends or loops protruding upwardly from the web, and (c) FURTHER layers beyond the first and second layer is NOT originally disclosed.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Matthias18 March 2023 at 21:19
Regarding Q14.4: Applying the could-would-approach for the assessment of inventive step, there is enough reason to consider this statement as "true" in my view. With respect to the could-would-apporach, the guidelines say (G-VII, 5.3):
"[...] In other words, the point is not whether the skilled person could have arrived at the invention by adapting or modifying the closest prior art but whether the skilled person would have done so because the prior art provided motivation to do so in the expectation of some improvement or advantage (see T 2/83)."
Keeping this in mind, one can argue that the skilled person would have to deviate from the teaching of D1 when increasing the portion of lighter fibres to more than 64 %. However, since he cannot expect any improvement or advantage from this, he would refrain from doing so, such that the subject matter of claim III.1 involves an inventive step.
In my opinion, this is at least "a valid argument".
ReplyDelete
Replies
Roel van Woudenberg19 March 2023 at 16:44
We have added the Description of the application, Document D1 and the Figures as an Annex to the end of the blog post.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Basti20 March 2023 at 11:36
Regarding 15.3: Wouldn't you consider the amendment an allowable intermediate generalization?

GL H-V 3.2.1:
When a feature is taken from a particular embodiment and added to the claim, it has to be established that:
– the feature is not related or inextricably linked to the other features of that embodiment and
– the overall disclosure justifies the generalising isolation of the feature and its introduction into the claim.

The disclosure of allowing for a better absorption is not linked to being a natural sponge or not. Additionally, the natural sponge does not interact or is linked to the "woven" aspect of the fibers. It merely serves as a reinforcement. I would argue that this is an allowable IG
ReplyDelete
Replies
Roel van Woudenberg20 March 2023 at 14:19
If you are interested whether an AI would have passed this Pre-Exam: we have asked ChatGPT to give its answers: see:
http://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2023/03/chatgtp-4-finds-pre-exam-legal-part.html
and
http://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2023/03/chatgtp-4s-attempt-at-parts-3-4-of-pre.html

Sander, Nico, Roel
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous22 March 2023 at 09:13
After thinking about this part for some time, it seems to me as if there is in fact a contradiction in the German version (has already been mentioned, just to have it posted here clearly once more):

par [003]: Die untere Schicht 3 BESTEHT aus einem
Schwammmaterial

par [005]: Die untere Schicht 3 ENTHÄLT das Schwammmaterial

That alone makes all 123(2) questions incredibly ambiguous imo.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous23 March 2023 at 12:20
Q.12.3 Claim I.6 meets the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.
I would argue that is T

The reinforcement layer is arranged between the first layer and the second layer.
Although Fig. 2 shows the second embodiment, there is no reason for which the the reinforcement layer is prevented from being also included in the third embodiment. In particular, par. [005], referred to the third embodiment, specifies the arrangement of the (top part of the) upper layer 2, which improves the clining efficiency, while it is silent about the bottom part of the upper layer 2. A skilled person would understand that those features (arrangement of upper layer and reinforcement layer) can be combined without any effort as they refer to two different structural aspects and solve two different problems
ReplyDelete
Replies
Roel van Woudenberg8 May 2023 at 16:18
The Examiner's Report is out!

No statements were neutralized in this part 3.

Note that the sequence of the statements in the questions in the Examiner's Report is different from ours.

The Examiner's Report gives as answer to 14.4:

14.4 A valid argument that the cleaning utensil of claim III.1 involves an inventive step is that the claimed ranges of the fibre portions are not obvious from D1 since D1 gives the skilled person no hint at a technical advantage associated with a larger portion of lighter fibres so that the skilled person would not increase the portion of the lighter fibres to more than the maximum 64% disclosed in D1.
TRUE: Indeed, D1 does not disclose any technical effect associated with respect to the amount of the lighter fibres in its cleaning cloth. Thus, in the present case this is one example of a valid argument to support the inventive step of claim III.1

We noted that TRUE could also be argued, but our main answer was FALSE (see blog post); statement 14.4 was not neutralized.
Apart from this statement 14.4, our answers and those in the Examiner's Report agree.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Roel van Woudenberg10 May 2023 at 20:29
I have just been informed by several candidates that the results are out!

Congratulations to all that passed! 🥂🍾💐
ReplyDelete
Replies
FS11 May 2023 at 15:32
Thanks Roel and all!
I finally failed with 68 (I calculated 69) points. Does anyone plan to appeal against Q18.3 and/or Q14.4?
Since I answered according to the deltapatents solution, a neutralization of one of these would turn my result into PASS.
I am not sure if I will appeal but if here are more candidates we should connect for collecting good arguments? In fact, there are already many good points in this blogpost.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Bernard17 May 2023 at 10:02
Hello everyone, yes i am interested in appealing and dividing the costs.
In fact i have just posted this under Part 1:

Hello Roel,
I am very interested in appealing the solutions of the Examiner related to the questions Delta Patents have identified as neutralizable. These would account for at leat 10 points! I would like to communicate with you privately.

Please post here your email address so that others would also connect privately with you.

I hope other people would join the appeal before the expiry of the one-month appeal period, to divide the costs, because i wont be able to cover them on my own.

Thank You and kind regards,
Bernard
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

EQE Pre-Exam Blog team