Pre-Exam 2024: first impressions?
To all who sat the Pre-Exam today:
What are your first impressions to this year's (and last) Pre-Exam?
Any general or specific comments?
Were the legal topics well balanced? Was the balance between EPC and PCT right for you? Were recent changes and stable legal provisions tested in the right balance for you? Which of the legal questions did you consider particularly difficult, and which relatively 'easy'?
Were the various aspects of claims analysis well balanced? How did you deal with the situation that only part of the paper (only the prior art) could be printed?
(How) did you use the available online legal texts (EPO legal texts incl Guidelines, EPC Articles and Rules, RFees; PCT Applicant's Guide, PCT Treaty Articles and Rules)?
(How) did you use the available online legal texts (EPO legal texts incl Guidelines, EPC Articles and Rules, RFees; PCT Applicant's Guide, PCT Treaty Articles and Rules)?
What is your expectation of the pass rate and the average score? How many marks do you expect to have scored in the legal part, in the claims analysis, and for the whole paper?
Were you able to finish each of the legal parts of the exam in the 70 minutes available for the appropriate part? And each of the claims analysis parts?
Did you experience any technical difficulties during the exam (despite having taken the technical tests successfully)? Which? How and how fast were they solved? Did you use the search functions? Did you use annotation, sticky notes and other Wiseflow tools?
How did this year's paper compare to the earlier pre-exams w.r.t. the pre-exam as a whole, w.r.t. the legal part and w.r.t. the claims analysis part?
Please be reminded that, if you wish to lodge a complaint pursuant to point I.8. of the Instructions to candidates concerning the conduct of the examination , you must do so at the latest by the end of the day on which the paper concerned takes place, by filling in the dedicated form on the EQE website. The form for the Pre-Exam is thus (only) available on 15.03.2024, 16:10 - 23:59, CET.
The paper and our answers
We aim to give our answers on this blog (legal questions here and claims parts here) after we have received a copy of the paper (printout of your answer and pre-printable documents) and had the opportunity to make the paper. Should you have a copy, please send it to any of our tutors or to training@deltapatents.com.
Our Pre-Exam 2024 blogs will have three separate blogs:
- first impressions with your comments as to first impressions, the Pre-Exam 2024 as a whole, the online EQE platform (this blog), etc
- first and second legal part with our answers to the legal questions 1-10 (here)
- first claims part with our answers to the claims analysis questions 11-15 & second claims part with our answers to the claims analysis questions 16-20 (here)
Please be reminded that you can view your exam answer after the exam, via the eye below the "1. Paper"-icon in the bottom left part of the flow window of the respective flow. (It may not be available immediately after the official end of the respective part of the paper, but only 30-60 minutes later.) Apart from the pre-printable parts, the paper itself cannot be downloaded (but in 2021, 2022 and 2023, the text of the questions and the statements are included in the answer).
Note that the questions (legal part) and 4 statements within a question (all parts) may appear in a different order here than they were in your actual exam, as the exam presents them in a randomized order to you.
We look forward to your comments!
Comments are welcome in any official EPO language, not just English. So, comments in German and French are also very welcome!
Comments are welcome in any official EPO language, not just English. So, comments in German and French are also very welcome!
Please do not post your comments anonymously - it is allowed, but it makes responding more difficult and rather clumsy ("Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Anonymous of 15-03-2024 20:24"), 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.
Please post your comments as to first impressions and general remarks to the Pre-Exam paper as a whole, and to the two parts (legal part and claims analysis) as whole parts to this blog.
Please post substantial questions to specific legal questions to our post with our answers to the legal part and claims analysis related questions to our post with our answers to the claims analysis parts (part 3 & part 4), both available as of the (late) evening of 15 March 2024.
Please post substantial questions to specific legal questions to our post with our answers to the legal part and claims analysis related questions to our post with our answers to the claims analysis parts (part 3 & part 4), both available as of the (late) evening of 15 March 2024.
SHARE:
First impressions are that the legal section was fine - a mixture of similar questions from past papers and new questions. I thought that there were a couple of ambiguous questions.
ReplyDeleteClaims Part 1 was okay - I thought the concept of whether or not combining some of the embodiments was allowed was quite difficult.
Claims Part 2 was difficult - mainly because I am a Mechanical Engineer and this section was devoted to medical use claims which I have not seen in the past papers (at least the recent ones I can remember doing). There seemed to be quite a lot of information in the Description and Prior art that was fairly irrelevant to any of the questions asked (Everything related to the receptors, etc.)
Part 4 claims were not according to Guidelines G-VI, 6.1.5 (Dependent claims pursuant to Art. 54(5)). So, was ambiguous and a struggle. Neutralization?
ReplyDelete2MU
It's a little weird to assess the inventiveness of novel claims that are written inadmissibly, but if you just concentrate on the subject matter of the dependant claim it's not so bad. There were one or two where the subject matter was just a handful of isolated words with no context though which was... odd.
DeleteI have the impression that the reading materials for the claim analysis part are getting longer and our ability of filtering and distinguishing relevant from non relevant info is also tested.
ReplyDeleteIt was funny to read some of lasts years description in the prior art document for part 4...
ReplyDeleteI didn't notice this - if this is the case then please submit a complaint as that seems very confusing.
DeleteYou can find it here under the 'EQE online' tab: https://www.epo.org/en/learning/professional-hub/european-qualifying-examination-eqe
DeleteLegal Part (1 & 2) was ok - enough time with some strange questions.
ReplyDeleteClaims Part was a bit challenging due to the extend and especially because of Part 4 - medical use claims. Furthermore there were strange unrelated paragraphs in the german state of the art documents (D1 and D2) - seems as if they mixed it up with state of the art docs from another pre-exam?
Oh, that's really weird. The English ones didn't, and I don't think the French ones did either. You should definitely file a complaint about that.
Deleteoh jeez... i just can't find this complaint form...
Deletehttps://forms.office.com/pages/responsepage.aspx?id=PW17qF7Ym02HBGrtdqSURNkmJkEpg0dKjz2LkZIu9UhURFZUMlZDSkhGVVpRUlAxRDVMQTVYWVk3VS4u
DeleteYou can find it here under the 'EQE online' tab: https://www.epo.org/en/learning/professional-hub/european-qualifying-examination-eqe
DeleteThere were no issues in D1 or D2 documents of Part 4 in the French version. Definitely worth a complaint.
DeleteAgreed, it was all quite difficult compared with earlier exams and with a few ambiguous questions. Not too comfortable to have cigarette and corona virus inventions too (part 3 & 4). My guess is that the pass rate will be a bit lower than usual.
ReplyDeleteIt was in D1) paragraph after [002] and in D2) paragraph after [003]... Apparently, this was only in the German version (at least not in the English one). In addition, the hint where D1) was published was missing in the German version...
ReplyDeleteare you sure? What would be the consquences of such an error?
DeleteI just saw the errors in the German D1 and D2. They do seem to be related to last year's exam as already mentioned. In 2022 where there were errors in the DE version they neutralized the entire claims part 1, Q's 11-15. But in that case, the error really made an impact on the answering of the questions. In this case, it is clear that these are totally unrelated passages, but still, not really fair to people using the DE version and losing time wondering why they are there.
DeleteYes, I’m not happy about this, the errors in the German version were a waste of time. I hope they realize that and neutralise accordingly.
DeleteWas there an error in Part 4? Correct me if I'm wrong but...
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why the claims analysis question was asking whether a Rule 63 communication would be issued because the claim-set had multiple claims of the same category. Rule 63 communications are an invitation to indicate subject matter to be searched when it is impossible to carry out a meaningful search on the basis of the subject matter claimed. For communications relating to multiple claims of the same category, that's rule 62a, not rule 63.
The reason I'm suspecting a question error here is because it'd be very strange to test knowledge on this during the claims analysis instead of the legal questions?
I agree with you and that's one of the reasons why the correct answer is probably False.
DeleteThere was a similar question in one of the previous Pre-Exams (2022?) where there were multiple independent claims, but it correctly suggested a R.62a invitation.
DeleteI also put down false. But I also have a feeling that they put Rule 63 unintentionally.
DeleteOf course, they could just say even if it was unintentional, candidates should still be expected to look up Rule 63 instead of just assuming... It would be harsh though. If it was in Part 1 or 2, less candidates would have been caught out
There may both invitation, so it could be F or T.
Deletesee https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guidelines-epc/2023/b_viii_5.html says - In certain cases it may be appropriate to send an invitation according to both Rule 63 (see B‑VIII, 3.1) and Rule 62a(1) (see B‑VIII, 4.1). This may be necessary, for example, in cases where clarifying which claim or claims to search under Rule 62a will not necessarily help to clarify what subject-matter to search because the application contains several independent claims in the same category, none or only some of which can be subject to a meaningful search in respect of their entire scope.
I'd say you could interpret as T or F. F, if you stick to Rule 63, T, if you try to make sense of the latter part of the sentence, which obviously does not directly refer to Rule 63, but rather Rule 62a. Hope it gets marked such that both answers are correct...
DeleteI put this as F, too, following the same reasoning.
DeleteSee discussion on the blog for the claims part of Pre-Exam 2024
DeleteC'était plus difficile que les années précédentes, à mon avis. Les parties légales du même niveau, ou un peu plus dures, mais pas significativement. Ce sont les analyses de revendications qui étaient particulières, avec des descriptions beaucoup plus longues et des sujets "réalistes" qui peuvent troubler. Peut-être pour essayer de planter une IA ?
ReplyDeleteI did all the previous years papers, and I agree this year seemed worse. Even in the legal part, the mere length of certain questions or statements was a little surprising, with some "double" questions (Hello, Anna-Frieda, or whatever was she called), not so trivial partial priority issues, etc. For the claim part, I don't remember any paper with five embodiments to assess added matter, and also the biochemical one was just (not so useful) info-dumping in more than one section. Add to this some strangely formulated questions like the electronic cigarette "providing" the liquid solution, I find really hard to estimate how it went. I am hoping at least the model answers from Delta Patent get published soon.
DeleteI also found the partial priority stuff rather difficult compared to previous years. And part 4 was really difficult when you are not used to dealing with medical use claims... I was pretty confused with the mentioning of clinical studies still to be conducted and hypothesized doses etc. Part 1 and 2 also had a lot about PCT and Euro PCT questions...
DeleteYes, it wasn't clear to me in part 4 if just promising to do the antifongic tests was sufficient for having sufficient exposure (art 83). I said no, but I was under the impression that medical patents may have an exemption somehow. Well, we'll see.
DeleteFor me, sufficiency was given only for the antiviral and the antibiotic use. There was a whole paragraph in the description where they specified that the other uses (antifungal and anti-parasitic) weren't tested, and were really difficult to do/predict, etc. In such cases, those uses should not be credible/sufficiently disclosed, as they are inviting to perform a research programme to actually make the invention.
DeleteLike GB, I also did all the previous years papers. The legal part seemed on par, the claims harder. The application and claim amendments were much longer than especially 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023. The length was more on par with some of the earlier years like 2014-2017, but the claim amendments were the most intense I had seen in all the papers. It's possible they will have to neutralize Part 2 claims because of the errors in the DE version of the prior art documents. Good luck everyone!
DeleteIn my opinion there were also mistakes in some German claims of part 3. Some claims seemed to be really bad or I would say wrong translations from English to German. Also one reference sign was wrong. The “quality” of the provided documents and questions seems to be quite poor this year. Taking into account also the already mentioned misplaced parts of text in D2 and D3 documents in German part 4.
ReplyDeleteI also thought the legal part was durable. They even repeated a question or two from previous exams. The first claims part was a bit long and tiring due to the amount of elements and embodiments but it was almost at the level of previous exams. Even a bit similar to the exam with the toothbrush. Regarding the second claims part, though most of the questions were not really difficult, I barely finished them because further medical use was not asked at this extent in previous exams. So 70 mins felt too short for somebody that is not used to it and has never practiced it at work.
ReplyDeleteFor me it was definitely more complex than previous exams. I do not feel that I will reach the passage. Mechanical claim part was especially complex.
ReplyDeleteLegal part was quite OK.
ReplyDeleteClaims part, especially part 4 was quite tricky and challenging.
I do not understand why a candidate needs to go over 14 pages of description.
Anyhow, good luck to all candidates, fingers crossed!
I made 3 dumb mistakes in the legal part. In legal part 2 which I found more complex than legal part 1
ReplyDeleteClaim analysis was OK…. As a chemist it is nice to have for once a medical patent. I understand that may be difficult for mechanical candidates, but it is most often the otherway around.
Also made the mistake with r63 versus r62 As it was a claim related question I just analyzed the provisions or r43 and answered true…..perhaps indeed it can be argued that the claims lacked unity and a notification r63 could be send…
Which mistakes did you make?
DeleteLack of unity would still not be Rule 63, but Rule 64. And…. The questions have all the facts you need for answering (Rule 22(3) IPREE), so if your answer relies on speculative facts the answer cannot be correct.
DeleteI am ashamed to tell…… for intance for further processing for the entry in the Ep phase of a pct application I initially put that this could be done. Then at the end I changed it into false because in the pct rules it is stated that something similar to restitution in integrum should be done…… never change the initial answers is what I learned
ReplyDeleteI also struggled with that one and also answered F...
DeleteEven if restitutio is *alternatively* available for the filing fee and the translation (if needed) if missed in entry, further processing is also available for those. The other acts, except renewal, can only be remedied with further processing. Renewal with Rule 51(2), but did not result in a loss yet of not paid at 31m.
DeleteI had quite a weird technical difficulty at the beginning of the second half when the invigilator(s?) sent a pop-up announcement asking candidates not to click on an answer twice. After I closed the announcement pop-up window, my mouse was constantly followed by three floating post-it notes and I had no possibility of selecting an answer :/ I refreshed the page and re-entered the flow and it was ok again, but I did lose 5min or so and I had to notify the invigilator asking they escalate this to whoever is coding the widgets on the right-hand panel.
ReplyDeleteI had the similar issue in the 3rd part. Notepad option was not working, so I decided to use a sticky note instead. Got three at once, they blocked my screen and I was not able to select the answer. Lost about 5 mins with this, and decided that I should not use sticky note anymore, but it was so much needed later!
DeleteI had the same issue after getting an information message not to double click, actually I am quite sure I did not double click. Unfortunately it took longer than 5 minutes to solve, so I filed a complaint afterwards.
DeleteI am curious to know what delta patents impression are.
ReplyDeleteLegal part more or less the usual level (with the partial priority as an exception), usual type of topics (except partial priority) and -as not usual but happening more often- some ambiguous statements/ statements that are open to multiple interpretation (such as EP-M2-A1 as 54(3) or not; and the FP for “the” missed entry acts).
DeleteClaims parts longer and more difficult than 2014/2019/2021/2022, a bit more difficult than 2023, but shorter and less difficult than the earlier 2015/2016/2017/2018. So, within the wide range when considering all Pre-Exams, but somewhat longer and more difficult than expected based on the pre-exams with two claims parts (as of 2019). Embodiments quite many features, prior art as well - more than 2019 and later, less than 2018 and before. First and second medical use not common and, with the dependent second medical use claims not in the form required by the Guidelines (“for use” in between the “composition/product” and the “according to claim 1”) unclear what they wanted to test (claim not novel because of the incorrect format; or clear enough when looking at the claim as a whole and as easily amendable and then novel); surprisingly many statements were directed to this single legal topic of first/medical use, while it is in real like only relevant for a limited number of candidates.
Overall I found the legal part to be of a similar difficulty to previous years, but the claims analysis part was a bit tougher - mainly due to unfamiliar subject matter and secondly lots more prior art to read through than in previous years (not as much as a UK I&V paper but it felt it was going in that direction a bit...)
ReplyDeleteThe Examiner's Report for Pre-Exam 2024 has just been published (Compendium)!
ReplyDeleteSix (!) individual statements were neutralized
See https://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2024/04/pre-exam-2024-examiners-reprt-is-out.html
I have added the reasoning given in the Examiner's Report for the neutralizations in the blog posts with our answers to the legal parts and to the claims parts.