Our solution for Paper C 2024 - Wireless charging pad
The paper C
of this year 2024 was about wireless charging of cars.
Our solution in short. Our full solution is after the break.
Claim 1:
Added subject matter
Lack of novelty over A2 (priority publication Art. 54(2), A2 Art. 54(3))
Lack of inventive step over A3+A5
Claim 2:
Lack of novelty over A2 (priority publication Art. 54(2), A2 Art. 54(3))
Claim 3:
Lack of inventive step A2 Prio Pub. + A4
Claim 4:
Lack of novelty over A5
Claim 5:
Lack of novelty over A7
Lack of novelty over Model Q evidenced by A6
Claim 6:
Lack of inventive step over A6 ‘Model P’ and A5
Claim 7:
Lack of inventive step over A6 ‘Model P’ and A5, evidence provided by A7
We had some discussion on whether A5.4 (this notation also being used elsewhere and referring to A5 [4]) enables a novelty attack on claim 5. As the signal of the pressure sensors decides on the charging, it seems that all features are disclosed. A processing unit would be implicit as any unit that processes a signal may be called a processing unit. Nevertheless, this is attack seems too much of a stretch and was probably not the intention.
Claim 7 is
another claim that we had some discussion about. The reference to pricing
suggests that maybe an attack exploiting non-technicality might be possible. To
follow this idea, one might take model Q as the closest prior art, and argue
that it is already adapted to charge based on a signal. One would then argue
that using a signal to represent pricing is a non-technical difference which
may be ignored.
Unfortunately,
this attack is not possible, since the model Q is not suited for wireless charging
which is required by claim 7. The comments under A6 make clear that the model Q
cannot be adapted to wireless charging either. This makes any line of attack against claim 7 starting from model Q impossible.
A second
reservation we have about this argument, is that it is not altogether clear whether
reference to price automatically makes a feature non-technical. Engineers are often
charged with problems related to price, e.g., to make a device cheaper, and the
solutions they find are typically technical. Also in this case, high energy
price reflects a busy electrical network, so the feature of claim 7 contributes
to reducing congestion on the electrical network.
The alternative
option is to take model P as the closest prior art and focus on the RFC
standard. This has the advantage that price related charging is actually
disclosed, mooting a discussion about its technicality. This line of attack
would require one to argue that it is implicit from A6 that model P is adapted
to the RFC standard. We are not sure that A6 really clears this bar. Although
model Q was the first model to have the standard, it might also have
been the last—in other words, it is not inevitable that model P has the RFC standard.
An alternative would be to accept that the standard is a distinguishing feature and
introduce the standard via inventive step. This approach is also a bit dodgy
since the obvious D2 document A7, is 54(3). The combining document would have
to be the model Q. On balance we took the first approach, arguing that it is
implicit that the model P has support for the standard.
Finally, we give our regards to Ms. Molly Dorsett Pauley. She must have quite a reputation as an opposition specialist after her successful oppositions in 2015 and 2021.
We look forward to your comments!
Comments are welcome in any official EPO language, not just English. So, comments in German and French are also very welcome!
Please do not post your comments anonymously - it is allowed, but it makes responding more difficult and rather clumsy ("Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Anonymous of 15-03-2023 22:23"), 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.
PART 1
Opposition
is filed against EP patent EP 3 831 740 B1
Opposition fee is paid through online fee payment
All claims are opposed
Grounds include inventive step, novelty, added matter, see further the
arguments
Representative: Ms. Pauley, Todiet Kwiscus LLC
Signature: /* Pauley */
Claim 1.
Added subject matter.
Claim 1 was
amended after filing by adding the feature : the magnetic material comprising
amorphous CoFeNi at 10 - 30% and nanocrystalline FeCuSiB at 20 - 40% by weight
of the magnetic material.
This
feature was disclosed in the priority documents, but support must come from the
application as filed, A.123(2).
The
application as filed discloses in A1.12-13 the combination of a range of
FeCuSiB at 30 - 40% and CoFeNi at 10%-20%. This does not support the amendment
to claim 1. This combination of ranges protects against corrosion and provides
mechanical stability. They are functionally related and these two ranges cannot
be separated.
The
application as filed discloses in A1.14 an alternate combination of a range of
FeCuSiB at 20 - 30% and CoFeNi at 20%-30%. Claim 2 as filed discloses the same
ranges. This does not support the amendment to claim 1. This combination of
ranges provides mechanical stability. They are functionally related and these
two ranges cannot be separated.
These two
alternate embodiments cannot be combined. Accordingly, claim 1 has added
subject matter.
Claim 1 may
be regarded as a generic or-claim having three parts: 1) the range of A1.12-13,
2) the range of claim 2, 3) the range of claim 1 minus ranges 1) and 2). We
need not concern us with the third part as it is added matter.
We will
refer to part 1) as claim 1f, that is claim 1 limited to the ranges FeCuSiB 30
- 40% and CoFeNi 10%-20%.
Claim 1f is
supported by the application as filed A1.12-13.
Since claim
1f is a subset of claim 1, any attack on claim 1f implies an attack on claim 1
as well.
Effective dates
Claim 1 was amended during prosecution, this amendment is added matter, see the
attack above. No date will be assigned.
Claim 1f,
this part of claim 1 is supported by text included in the earliest priority
document, and gets the earliest priority date (25.05.2020).
Claim 2
First application issue
A1 claims
priority from patent applications NO20200113 and NO20200355, but patent
application EP19732000.1, A6’s priority document is the first application for
art. 87(1), because:
- A6’s priority document must have
the same applicant as A6, i.e., Mute&Mercer Corp. This is the same A1’s
applicant.
- The filing date of EP19732000.1
lies before the filing date of A1’s earliest priority,
- Y discloses the subject matter of
claim 2 (see novelty attack below)
- The possible exception of Art.
87(4) does not apply since it was used as priority document for A2.
Since A1
does not claim priority from EP19732000, but should have, Claim 2 is not
entitled to priority and gets the filing date, Art. 87(1) and (4).
Claim 1f is
not disclosed in A2, so no first application issue arises for this part of
Claim 1.
Claim 3
Claim 3 is
not disclosed in the priority documents. Supporting paragraphs a1.15 and a1.17
were also not part of the priority document. So Claim 3 gets the filing date.
Conclusion on effective dates:
Claim 1:no date since added matter
Claim 1f: 14.03.2020
Claim 2: 25.07.2020 since full priority loss
Claim 3: 25.07.2020
List of evidence
A2’s priority (EP19732000.1) is published on 23.07.2020. This is before
filing date so 54(2) for claims 2,3
A2 is a EP patent
application, filed before the earliest priority, and published after so, 54(3)
for claims with valid priority: 54(3) for claim 1f
It is
noted that A2 is 54(3) for all claims, but as we already have 54(2) prior art
with the same document, this makes no difference.
A3
published before earliest priority so 54(2) for all claims
A4 published
on 22.07.2020 before the effective date of claim 2,3: 54(2) for claim 2,3
A4 is EP and filed before earlies priority (3.01.2020), published after so
54(3) for claims 1f
Annex 5
(A5) is an Advertising brochure. It was Distributed with Lawn & Order,
Journal for Xtreme Gardening, vol. 01/2020, 13 Dec. 2019
Accordingly it was public at least by 13.12.2019 before earliest priority of
a1. so 54(2) for all claims.
Summary
A2 : 54(3)
for claim 1f
A2: 54(2)
for claims 2,3
A3: 54(2)
for claim 1f, 2, 3
A4: 54(3)
for claim 1f
A4: 54(2) for claim 2,3
A5: 54(2)
for claims 1f, 2, 3
Note A2
the 54(3) and A2 the 54(2) are technically not the same document, although they
have identical content.
There are no attacks under art. 54(3)
Attacks
under art. 54(2)
Claim 1f
(FeCuSiB 30 - 40% AND CoFeNi 10%-20%)
Available
documents: A3, A5
Inventive
step: A3+A5.
A3 is the
CPA because it is from the field of Charging pads suitable for charging a car
(A3 title). This is the same purpose of the claim (claim 1 preamble, A1 title). Moreover, A3 discloses two coils side by side in a similar
arrangement as claim 1.
A3 anticipates the features of Claim 1 as follows:
Charging
pad:
A3 para 4: “charging
pad”
a first coil (131) and a second coil (132), A3.9: "a first solenoid
with its windings is created and next to it a second solenoid with its
windings. This is a double-O solenoid."
we know from A4 [3], cited as evidence, that "A solenoid consists of a
conductive trace with several concentric windings." This matches the
definition of a coil in A1.5, a coil is "is a conductive trace with
several concentric windings". So A3 discloses a first coil and a second
coil.
both for
resonant wireless charging,
A3.9: “the shape of the wire path is chosen such that the two solenoids are
tuned to the intended charging frequency.” Following A1.6, if a coil has
"a layout such that it is tuned to the charging frequency" then it is
" coil for resonant wireless charging", so this part is disclosed in
A3.
the first coil and the second coil being arranged side by side,
The two
solenoid of A3 as "next to" each other, A3.9
a first
layer (135) made of a magnetic material,
A3.7: "blank 332",
the blank
is made of
A3.5: “the polymer is TP.190, a thermoplastic with a melting point of 190°C. It
is combined with grains made from alloys such as CoFeNi, FeCuSiB or NbSiBCo.
Such alloys are magnetic”
Blank 322
is a layer, see A3 fig. 2, and it is made of magnetic material.
wherein the first coil and the second coil have been placed on a first
surface of the first
layer and the first layer has been treated so that the first coil and the
second coil have
sunk into the first layer,
This is a product by process claim (see Guidelines F-IV, 4.12). It is
sufficient to find a method that will give the same result as the claimed
process steps.
A3.8: “A wire feeder 334 behind the heater head lays the conductive wire 335
into the
liquified area. (...) In this manner a first solenoid with its windings is
created and next to it a second solenoid with its windings.”
So, the first coil and the second coil have been placed on a first surface of
the first
layer. Blank 322 is heated ("heater head 333 which locally heats the blank
to a
temperature above the melting point of the polymer to create a liquified area
336.") so it is treated. The coils sink into the layer since: “As the
robot arm moves forward, the polymer re-solidifies over the wire.”
Thus a product is obtained by a process that falls under the scope of the
claim.
the magnetic material comprising amorphous CoFeNi
A3.5: It is
combined with grains made from alloys such as CoFeNi, FeCuSiB or NbSiBCo.
which is "amorphous", according to A3.6
A3 discloses amorphous CoFeNi
and
nanocrystalline FeCuSiB at 30 - 40% by weight of the magnetic material. ( Note the restricted ranges)
A3 also discloses nanocrystalline FeCuSiB
Although in A3.5-6, amorphous FeCuSiB used, A3.11 explains to treat amorphous
FeCuSiB to so that they “contain crystal cells measuring between 150 nanometers
and 300 nanometers.”
According
to A2.5, cited as evidence “Nanocrystalline alloys … are characterised by
having crystal cells smaller than 1 micrometre.” Since 300 nanometers is below
1 micrometre, the FeCuSiB of A2 is nanocrystalline.
A3.11
discloses to use nanocrystalline FeCuSiB in a range of 32 to 38% by weight of
the blank. Both endpoints anticipate the range 30 - 40%.
Accordingly
the distinguishing feature the range of CoFeNi: the magnetic material
comprising amorphous CoFeNi at 10 - 20%
Effects:
A1.13: “For such a composite the use of at least 10% amorphous CoFeNi by weight
of the
material has the surprising effect of preventing oxidation of FeCuSiB.”
Accordingly, prevention of oxidation is obtained.
The OTP is:
how to prevent of oxidation in a charging pad. This problem is recognized in
the CPA, A3.10
The skilled person would read A5 as it relates to the problem of charging
mobile equipment (A5.2), in this case a robot mower. The technology of A5 is
relevant to cars since it is licensed therefrom.
A5 recites:
A5.3: “a protective magnetic material consisting of TP.190 at 52% by weight and
nanocrystalline FeCuSiB and amorphous CoFeNi at a ratio of 2:1.”
So the non TP.190 part is 48%. So FeCuSiB part is 48*2/3 = 32 % and CoFeNi part
is at 48* 1/3 = 16%
These points
anticipate the claimed range.
The skilled
person has an incentive to apply this teaching since A5 discloses that
protection against corrosion is obtained A5.2, A5.4. Note that corrosion and
oxidation are the same A1[12].
The skilled
person would take the charging pad of A3 but change the amounts of nanocrystalline
FeCuSiB and amorphous CoFeNi to a ratio of ratio of 2:1 of 48%. That is 32% and
16%.
Not that
both A3 and A5 use the same polymer TP.190; both A3 and A5 use the same amount
of nanocrystalline FeCuSiB (32%). So adapting to the ratio of A5 is expected to
work in A3.
Claim 2
Annex 2's priority doc (EP19732000.1) published on 23.07.2020 is 54(2) for
this claim. It discloses claim 2 in A2.2-4. So claim 2 is not novel.
It is
noted that claim 2 is also not novel using A2 as a 54(3) document.
Claim 3
Inventive step
A2+A4. We refer to Annex 2's priority doc (EP19732000.1).
A2 is the closest
prior art because it lies in the field of charging pads (A2 title), it may be
used to charge cars (A2.1). Moreover, it discloses a magnetizable concrete (
see below).
A2 anticipates the following features of Claim 3
Charging pad comprising:
a first coil (131) and a second coil (132), both for resonant wireless
charging,
the first coil and the second coil being arranged side by side, and
See paragraphs A2.2
A2 anticipates
a first
layer (135) made of magnetisable concrete ;
since it recites
A2[6]: “In an aspect of the invention, the magnetic material has a density of
at least
2000 kg/m³ and comprises cement and magnetic particles.”
According
to A1[15]: “In an embodiment of the invention, the magnetic material is magnetizable
concrete. This is magnetic material comprising cement and having a density of
at least 2000 kg/m³.”
So A2.6
discloses in magnetisable concrete
A2 anticipates
the charging pad further comprising a second layer (136) arranged next to
the first layer.
Since A2 recites
A2[7]: “The charging pad may comprise a second layer 136 next to the first
layer.”
The distinguishing feature is that the: second layer (136) is made of an
electrically conductive material.
For the
effect of this feature:
A1.19: Within such a second layer neutralising currents, known as eddy currents,
are created which locally cancel the unwanted radiation.
The OTP is: How to locally cancel the unwanted radiation in a charging pad.
This is needed for regulations A1.18. So the skilled person would in any case
be motivated to solve this problem. This problem is recognized by A2.8.
The skilled
person would read A4 because it relates to a solenoid with active shielding (i.e.
coils), A4, title; A4 further refers to high power wireless charging pads, such
as those needed for charging cars; and to preventive measures against unwanted
electromagnetic fields.
A4 recites
A4.7: For
instance, it is well known that wireless charging pads benefit from having a metal
sheet close to the solenoid as a layer of the charging pad. During operation,
eddy currents are created within the metal sheet.
Metal is an
example of an electrically conductive material, A1.19.
A metal sheet is an example of a second layer. So A4 discloses a second layer
(136) made of an electrically conductive material. It is arranged next to the
solenoids, which are part of a first layer.
The skilled
person has an incentive since
A4.7-8: “ During operation, eddy currents are created within the metal sheet. The
unwanted radiation is thereby locally neutralised.”
And so A4
is likely to solve the OTP.
The skilled
person will take the configuration of A2, but make the second sheet out of
metal.
The
charging configuration using coils is similar to the CPA, so the skilled person
will expect it to be compatible. Furthermore, A4.8, "Irrespective of the
exact configuration of the solenoid or the materials in the charging pad",
so the skilled person will expect this to work.
This novelty attack on claim 2, is also a novelty attack on the corresponding part of claim 1.
PART 2
Effective
dates
First
application issue: None of claims 4-7 are disclosed in A2. So no priority loss
Claims 4 and
5 are both recited in priority document N'355. Resonant sensing or signals are
not disclosed in N’113, that is paras 1-13 nor its claims. So claims 4 and 5
get the N'355 date: 25.5.20.
Claim 6 is
recited in the filing. Para 27 discloses that a signal from the detection unit
is provided to the processing unit. But this para is not in the priority
documents. So Claim 6 gets the filing date: 25.07.20
Claim 7 is
recited in the filing. Para 33 discloses the use of price. But this para is not
in the priority docs. So Claim 7 gets the filing date: 25.07.20
List of
evidence
A3 and A5 are published before the earliest priority and are 54(2) against all claims.
A2 and A7 are EP patent applications, both filed before the earliest priority, and published after. These are 54(3) against all claims
A2’s priority document is published on 23.07.20
and is Art. 54(2) prior art for claims 6 and 7
A4 is published 22.07.20. Before the filing
date so 54(2) for claims 6, 7
A4 is an EP patent applications, filed before
the earliest priority, and published after the priorities. This is 54(3)
against claims that have a priority date: 54(3) against claims 4, 5
A6 is transcription in Annex 6 of a podcast E-Mobility, on BBCee Radio9 with Walt Edge and Dan Shen. We also provide a Screenshot downloaded and printed 2024-03-14, 07:42:18. See A6 page 4. The screenshot proves that E-Mobility is a show presented by Walt Edge (@waltedge) and Dan Shen (@danshen) and broadcast by BBCee Radio9 in London, UK. The producer is Ann Pear.
The podcast was broadcast 30 May 2020, 16:00.
See A6.1 and the screenshot.
A digital copy of the podcast can be downloaded
from:
https://www.podcloud.com/BBC9/programmes/b07dx75g/20200430.ogg
A podcast is part of the state of the art under
art. 54(2) epc since it was made available to the public by broadcasting.
Accordingly, the content of the podcast as
described in the transcript is public from 30 May 2020. This makes it 54(2) for
claims with the filing date, i.e., claims 6, 7
A6 also provides evidence of the sale of a
Model Q, between 2015-2017, and an update in 2018. The sales were unconditional
and the updates was received by owners of the model Q, so both are part of the
state of the art. 2018 is before the earliest priority. So Model Q and the
update are 54(2) for all claims.
Summary:
A2: 54(3)
claims 4, 5
A2’s
priority document: 54(2) claims 6, 7
A3: 54(2)
all claims
A4: 54(3)
claim 4, 5
A4: 54(2)
claims 6, 7
A6: 54(2)
claims 6, 7
A6 (as
evidence of model Q and update) : 54(2) all claims
A7: 54(3)
all claims
Attacks
under art. 54(3)
Claim 5
lacks novelty under 54(3) against A7.
A7 anticipates
Method
for controlling a charging system to selectively charge a battery of an
electric vehicle,
A7.6 : “charging
terminal” for charging a car.
This is a
charging system. The charging terminal is for charging the battery of a car.
(A7.7 last line, it is implicit that the battery is part of the car). The charging
terminal is an example of a charging system as it charges a battery.
A car is an
example of a vehicle, A2.1. Since it has a battery, it is an electric vehicle.
The
charging is selective, A7.9, shows charging can be triggered or not by the
microprocessor of the terminal.
the
method comprising the following steps executed by a processing unit included in
the charging system:
A7.7: Such
charging terminals contain a programmable microprocessor
A
programmable microprocessor is an example of a processing unit, A1[32]. The
charging terminals is a charging system.
-
receiving a signal,
A7.8: “Most
importantly, such charging terminals also have mobile data connectivity which enables
them to continuously receive signals indicating the price of electricity.”
Signals
indicating the price of electricity are an example of a signal
-
deciding, based on the received signal, whether the battery should be charged
or not,
A7.9: “If
the price of electricity drops below a first value which can be set by the
user, the microprocessor may trigger charging. If the price of electricity
rises above a second value which can also be set by the user, the
microprocessor may interrupt charging.”
The microprocessor
decides based on the received signal to trigger charging, that is whether to
charge or not.
- if it
is decided that the battery should not be charged, causing an electrical
connection outside the vehicle to be inactive.
A7.7: “They
also contain power switches which enable or disable the electrical connection
to the electricity grid. Any skilled person in the field knows that for safety
reasons any cable plugged into the charging terminal should be kept free from
electrical tension unless the battery is being charged.”
The
terminal of A7 is also for plug-socket charging, A7.6. Thus the cable is kept
free from electrical tension while plugged in, but not charged. Since an
electrical connection to the grid is disabled when not charging, an electrical
connection is caused to be inactive. This is a connection between charge cable
and grid, which is outside the car.
Attacks
under art. 54(2)
Claim 4
Documents:
A3, A5, A6 as evidence of disclosures before (25.5.20)
Claim 4 is
not novel 54(2) over document A5
A5
discloses
Charging
system for charging a battery,
A5
discloses a robot mower called ORBIT, A5.1. The ORBIT has a "system for
resonant wireless charging", A5.2. It is implicit from this and A5.13 that
the ORBIT has a battery. Indeed, the charging happens in case of low battery
charge. Thus, the ORBIT is an example of a charging system since it can charge
a battery (its own battery).
the
charging system comprising: a processing unit (152),
A5.7 and
fig.2 disclose a microprocessor which is an example of a processing unit, A1.32.
a first
coil (151) for resonant wireless charging, and
The ORBIT has
a
A5.2: “a
system for resonant wireless charging”
It
comprises a coil, see
A5.7: “the
coils in the charging pads”
A coil is
furthermore implicit in wireless charging, A1.4. See also A4 [3]: known
charging pads comprise a solenoid 411. So a solenoid is implicit in a charging
pad, this is an example of a coil.
a
detection circuit comprising a plurality of second coils (153a, 153b, 153c) for
resonant sensing,
A5.5
recites a resonant sensing system (RSS), which has an excitation solenoid, A5.9,
and a probing solenoid, A5.10.
A solenoid
is an example of a coil.
See A4.3: A
solenoid consists of a conductive trace with several concentric windings, which
is a coil, A1.5.
Two coils
are a plurality of coils.
said
detection circuit being configured to:
- create
a sensing field with a first of said second coils,
A4.9: “The
RSS works by continuously sending an excitation current into an excitation
solenoid tuned to 500 kHz to generate a nearby electromagnetic sensing field.”
Thus, the
excitation solenoid is a first of said second coils. An electromagnetic sensing
field is an example of a sensing field.
- probe
said sensing field with a second of said second coils,
A5.10: “A
probing solenoid is mounted in proximity to the excitation solenoid and is also
tuned to 500 kHz. The probing solenoid continuously picks up the sensing field
“
Thus, the
probing solenoid is a second of said second coils. Picking up the sensing field
is an example of probing the sensing field.
- obtain
a signal representative of the sensing field, and
A5.10: “...
creates a detection current which reacts to any changes in the sensing field.”
A detection
current is an example of a signal. The detection current reacts to changes in
the sensing field and thus represents it.
-
provide said signal to the processing unit.
A5.7: “Downstream
of the sensing system (see Fig. 2) the detection current (signal) is
continuously measured by a sampling circuit and forwarded as a signal to a
microprocessor (processing unit).”
Although
A1's description intents to use the resonant sensing to detect interruptions to
charging, and A4 to driving. Claim 4 is not limited to this. Accordingly. Claim
4 is not novel.
Claim 5
Lack of
novelty over the 2018 update of the Model Q (evidence provided by A6):
The 2018
update of the Model Q anticipates:
Method
for controlling a charging system to selectively charge a battery of an
electric vehicle
see below
the
method comprising the following steps executed by a processing unit included in
the charging system:
A6.8:
"That’s one of the many functions of model Q’s battery control system,
which is software that runs on the onboard computer".
According
to A1.32, the car's on-board computer is an example of a processing unit. The
following steps are performed by the on-board computer and thus executed as a
method by the on-board computer.
receiving
a signal
A6.9:
"Model Q has a heat sensor inside the battery which sends the temperature
as a signal to the battery control system",
deciding,
based on the received signal, whether the battery should be charged or not
A6.10:
"The 2018 update enabled the battery control system to take over the
decision-making. It checks if the temperature is in a range deemed acceptable
for battery charging.")
if it is
decided that the battery should not be charged, causing an electrical
connection outside the vehicle to be inactive
A6 .11:
"If it’s not, the battery control system decides that charging shouldn’t
start or, if it’s already begun, that it should be stopped".
Claim 5
thus lacks novelty over the model Q in the 2018 update.
Claim 6
Lack of
inventive step: A6 (model P) + A5
A6
describes the model P. This is the closest prior art because it is an electric
vehicle for selective wireless charging, A6.2, A6.18
Claim 6
refers back to claim 5, and uses a charging system according to claim 4
A6 anticipates
the following Claim 4 features
Charging
system for charging a battery,
A6.2:
“Model P will be their first electric car (…) it will also feature exciting
advances for wirelessly charging the battery”
A6 [3]:
"Model P has a car charging pad"
A charging
pad is an example of a charging system
Thus the
model P has a charging system to charge its battery
the
charging system comprising:
a
processing unit (152),
A6.18: The
model P has an "on-board computer". This is an example of a
processing unit, A1.32
a first
coil (151) for resonant wireless charging, and
A6.3: “Model
P has a car charging pad with a double-O solenoid.”
A solenoid
is a coil. Furthermore,
A3.2 (cited
as evidence): “Recently it has been proposed to replace the single solenoid of
a charging pad with a double-O solenoid. Admittedly, such a structure has
drawbacks: it can be used only for resonant wireless charging”
Since a
double-O solenoid can only be used for resonant wireless charging, it is
implicit that double-O solenoid of A6 is suitable for resonant wireless
charging.
a
detection circuit,
A6.15: “Model
P is equipped with an infrared sensor which monitors the thermal signature in
the charging area.”
The
infrared sensor is a detection circuit, as it detects things, in particular
cats, A6.14
- obtain
a signal representative of the sensing field, and
-
provide said signal to the processing unit.
A6.15: “The
sensor’s output current is sampled at the input of the on-board computer,
meaning that the strength of the thermal signature is available as a signal
which can be processed”
sensor’s
output current is an example of a signal. The field where the sensor operates
is a sensing field. The sensor’s output current is sampled at the input of the
on-board computer; thus it must be provided to it.
Features
of Claim 5
Method
for controlling a charging system to selectively charge a battery of an
electric vehicle, the method comprising the following steps executed by a
processing unit included in the charging system:
See above.
-
receiving a signal,
The
sensor’s output current is the signal, it is received at the onboard computer,
which is a processing unit.
-
deciding, based on the received signal, whether the battery should be charged
or not,
A6.16: “The
on-board computer detects any changes which are strong enough to mean that your
cat might have moved into the charging area.”
Thus the
received signal is processed
A6.18: “Model
P’s on-board computer can have all the power switches change from on to off or
vice versa: the power switches connecting the car charging pad to the battery
and also the power switches within the charging terminal which feeds electrical
energy into the ground charging pad. This means the electromagnetic charging
field can be switched off entirely, giving complete protection from inadvertent
field exposure. If the charging is switched off, the battery is not charged.”
So a decision
is made based on the signal.
- if it
is decided that the battery should not be charged, causing an electrical
connection outside the vehicle to be inactive.
A6.18: “the
power switches change from on to off or vice versa: (...) the power switches
within the charging terminal which feeds electrical energy into the ground
charging pad.”
the power
switches within the charging terminal are outside of the vehicle (car). If they
are switched off, they are inactive.
Features
of Claim 6
Method
according to claim 5, the charging system being the charging system according to
claim 4, wherein the received signal is
- the
signal provided to the processing unit by the detection circuit.
The signal
used, is the signal from the infrared detection circuit.
A6 does not
disclose:
a detection
circuit comprising a plurality of second coils (153a, 153b, 153c) for resonant
sensing,
said
detection circuit being configured to:
- create a
sensing field with a first of said second coils,
- probe
said sensing field with a second of said second coils,
Instead, A6
uses an infrared sensor which monitors the thermal signature in the charging
area, with its signal being provided to the on-board computer
The effect
of these differences according to A1.24: detect whether a foreign object enters
the charging area. In particular, an animal or a human body part, or a metal
object such as a beer can, A1.28.
Judging
from A6.19-20 The existing sensor may miss some situations. Thus the OTP is,
how to improve detection whether a foreign object enters the charging area in a
method for controlling a charging system.
Closest
prior art A6 also recognizes that its thermal sensor is insufficiently
reliable, e.g., not being able to detect a beer can rolling into the charging
area, A6 [19], [20]
The skilled
person would consult A5 since it relates to wireless resonant charging, A5.2,
using technology from cars, A5.1. Moreover, the problem of detection is
discussed in a5.5-12.
A5 discloses
the missing features, see the novelty attack on claim 4 based on A5 above.
Furthermore,
A5 teaches that a decision can be made based on the detection
A5.13:
“Once an obstacle is detected the microprocessor instructs the robot to turn
and go in a different direction.”
A skilled
person would have an incentive.
A5.12:
Resonant sensing has several advantages. Pets are reliably detected because a
living body strongly distorts the sensing field. Resonant sensing also reliably
detects metal objects, so it will protect your mower’s blades.
Thus the
problem of A3, that some objects are not detected, e.g., a cat or a beer can,
(a6.19, a6.14) is reduced. This happens because no reliance is on the ambient temperature.
The skilled
person would thus replace the infrared detection of A6 with the Resonant
detection A5.
This is
possible because the system of A5 is modular, so the RSS can easily be taken
out and incorporated elsewhere, A5.8.
Furthermore,
there is no risk of impacting the charging.
A5.12: “The
RSS operates at 500 kHz, while the coils in the charging pads have a layout so
that they are tuned to the charging frequency of 85 kHz.”
This means there is no risk of harmful
interference. According to A1.24 being tuned to different frequencies is enough
for this.
The
technology of A5 is "from automotive manufactures", see A5.1, which
indicates that the resonant sensing system should work in an electric vehicle
and thus in the Model P.
Finally,
A6.20:
“Software updates are easier but OS-corp’s engineers often also propose
hardware upgrades as long as they don’t require any changes to the car’s body”
So the Model
P may easily update its hardware or software
Claim 7
Lack of
inventive step over A6 'Model P' and A5,
Model P, as
evidenced in A6, is the closest prior art since the onboard computer of the
Model P, which is an electric vehicle, is capable of selectively charging the
battery of the Model P.
For the
disclosure of A6 in view of the method claim 5 and the system claim 4, see the
attack on claim 6, also starting from model P.
A6 implies
that the Model P is compatible with the standard RFC-7511-x.
A6.6: “So,
OS-corp sold their model Q between 2015 and 2017. It was the first to be
compatible with the then newly introduced standard RFC-7511-x.”
The model P
is a later model of OS-corp, A6.2. Since, model Q was the first to be
compatible with RFC-7511-x, this implies that the later model P is also
compatible with RFC-7511-x
Indeed, the
Model P has "the usual wireless data connection for software updates and
receiving all kinds of data", see A6 [2].
Since model
P is compatible with the standard RFC-7511-x, it is already adapted for
price-dependent charging, and therefore has the additional functionality of
claim 7.
The feature
of claim 7 is disclosed in A7.6-10, in particular:
A7.8:
“Most importantly, such charging terminals also have mobile data connectivity
which enables them to continuously receive signals indicating the price of
electricity. If the price of electricity drops below a first value which can be
set by the user, the microprocessor may trigger charging. If the price of
electricity rises above a second value which can also be set by the user, the
microprocessor may interrupt charging.”
Since model
P is compatible with the RFC-7511-x standard. Thus, the onboard computer of the
Model P can selectively charge the battery based on the price of electricity
when connected to a charging terminal also adhering to the RFC-7511-x standard.
The remaining distinguishing features are the same as for claim 6, we
refer to the attack on claim 6 for a discussion of their obviousness in view of
A5
Thank you very much!
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with it!
In addition to claim 7
DeleteI think it's also possible to say the signal being a price signal does not contribute to the technical solution since the cognitive content of the signal only depends on the business interest of the user (evidenced in A7)
Therefore, it can not be taken in to account when assessing inventive step but can only be used as constraints in the objective technical problem.
This is what I did as well.
DeleteThanks for the solution.
ReplyDeleteHow does c4 work with A5 for novelty. I felt like A5 showed charger and a robot, that are obviously intended work together.
But it are two different devices.
Why would ghe skilled person replace the pressure pad with the RSS system?
It's why I went over IS of a2 and A5. But admittedly, that IS also didn't have a strong incentive.
Maybe I over thought it, but I spend too much time on C4 and the exam would have been a lot easier with a novelty attack.
The first part went well, hopefully I scored enough in total for 50
Claim 4 only defines there is a detection unit, not mentioning where the detection system is located. The detection system does not need to be inside the charging coils.
DeleteIn addtion , claim 4 only define receive the detection signal, no need for the processing unit to react on the signal
Thanks for the response!
DeleteShould definitely read better if I need to resit
Is it just me or your claim 1f has added matter? A1§13 allows an amendment of 10 to less than 20% and not 10 to 20%. If the amendment is 10 to less than 20%, A2 and A2P1 will both be prior art for novelty and would destroy the novelty of claim 1 because A2 and A2P1 discloses a point value of 20%, which the skilled person would interpret as 19.5 to 20.4 (see Guidelines G-VI.7.1 and T 175/97).
ReplyDeleteI guess they mean [10-20%[
Deleteyes, thats what we consider
DeleteThank you for providing your answers. My line of thinking was similar, but due to time pressuire I made some mistakes in the paper. Any idea how the marks would be distributed between the claims. Thanks
ReplyDelete"Also in this case, high energy price reflects a busy electrical network, so the feature of claim 7 contributes to reducing congestion on the electrical network."
ReplyDeleteI don't think that is necessarily true; high (and low) prices reflect an imbalance between demand and supply. High prices may thus well mean it is cloudy and not windy, leading to a shortage on the supply side, rather than to network congestion.
"Claim 7 is another claim that we had some discussion about. The reference to pricing suggests that maybe an attack exploiting non-technicality might be possible. To follow this idea, one might take model Q as the closest prior art, and argue that it is already adapted to charge based on a signal. One would then argue that using a signal to represent pricing is a non-technical difference which may be ignored."
Yes, this was basically my solution, with the observation that the resonant sensing system is not linked to the charging system/method, and that therefore a partial problem approach may be used.
"Unfortunately, this attack is not possible, since the model Q is not suited for wireless charging which is required by claim 7. The comments under A6 make clear that the model Q cannot be adapted to wireless charging either. This makes any line of attack against claim 7 starting from model Q impossible."
I agree that that the comment is an indication that model Q is perhaps not structurally closest, but I don't think the comment means that it would be impossible to redesign model Q. The commenter was asking about upgrading an existing car, not designing a new one. I argued that model P showed that it was possible to use wireless charging for a car, and the same was indicated by Annex 5 (licensing car technology, I think). Annex 5 also provided a motivation to implement wireless charging. "It is a lot of work" is not really an argument against inventive step.
My problem with using model P was that I felt there was no indication that it used the relevant standard (even though it was sort of implied). Of course, updating a standard is probably much easier than updating a charging system. In the end I just thought departing from model Q felt more natural.
Thank you very much for this. It seems that after all I have not done as badly as I'd first feared. Once again - your support is hugely appreciated.
ReplyDeleteClaim 5 requires an electrical connection outside the vehicle to be made inactive. I felt that the only real disclosure was in model P which indicated that the power switch in the charging terminal (component outside vehicle) can be switched off. Therefore I went for an inventive step attack starting from model Q and incorporating therein the software of model P
ReplyDeleteFor the 'outside the vehicle' aspect in claim 5, I used Annex 7, par. [7] as evidence for CGK that the electrical connection to the grid should be switched off in the charging terminal, and that that is possible with the RFC-7511-x standard (Annex 7, par. [6]; this standard is used by Model Q according to Annex 6, par. [6]).
DeleteI did the same, inventive step attack + general knowledge, evidence by A7. I hope it doesn’t get 0 points if something else was expected, because it is still a strong attack in my view
Delete10 attack, 12 if you include both the A54(2)/(3) attacks for c1-c3.
ReplyDeleteSpent and 1hr in part 1 working out effective dates.
Absolute nightmare paper.
Surely the examining board did not expect a candidate to write 10-12 attacks? I hope these 10-12 are a total of possible attacks, and that only 1 attack per claim was expected (with additional attacks giving extra points). It's impossible to write 10-12 attacks in this tight time frame, being under stress and having to deal with other stuffs (reading, analysing, effective dates, etc). Am I wrong in thinking this way?
DeleteJust checked that 2023 and 2022 had 7 attacks in the examiner's report. So I would guess that this is the same ratio this year, 7 claims = 7 attacks
Deleteclaim 3 description §9 -§10, and FIG 3 - FIG .4, were in
ReplyDeletethe priority documents. Claim 3 is also entitled to priority date of
you wrote dates wrong, earliest is 14th.
ReplyDeleteClaim 1f, this part of claim 1 is supported by text included in the earliest priority document, and gets the earliest priority date (25.05.2020).
14th?
ReplyDeletewrong:
Claims 5 was in the claims of priority (NO55) but not in the description of the NO55.
§30 description of the A1 related to claim 5, was not in the priority
so f.d.
Thanks for the solution ! I wonder how long it took DP without stress and with a very short analysis of the effective dates to write the solution. And in view of the number of attacks, I wonder how many points could be allocated to each fo these attacks ?
ReplyDeleteClaim 7: comment
ReplyDeletewhy you can take comments?
It can be wrong, fake, not the real author, ...
Unfortunately, this attack is not possible, since the model Q is not suited for wireless charging which is required by claim 7. The comments under A6 make clear that the model Q cannot be adapted to wireless charging either. This makes any line of attack against claim 7 starting from model Q impossible.
so, you should attack based on infor in the A6 without comments
I can't see why you wouldn't argue that claim 7 lacks an inventive step in view of A6-model P + A5 for essentially the same reasons as claim 6 and arguing the signal representing energy price is non-technical? Am I missing something?
ReplyDeleteSame here, susceptible technical effect cannot be take into account.
DeleteAlthough it may help to control the flow of electricity network (didn't see the one), this is only susceptible but not specified
I went along that line too. But just saying it's not technical is not enough. You have to put the non-technical aim in your OTP and then show how the skilled person would solve it. A reference to the (public) standard described in A7 and implemented in the Model P vehicle will be needed, which then leads to substantially the same attack.
DeleteThe DeltaPatents analysis for claim 7 seems to argue that model P is adapted for selective charging based on price information, and that hence model P discloses a method of selective charging based on price information (which is the subject-matter of claim 7):
Delete"Since model P is compatible with the standard RFC-7511-x, it is already adapted for price-dependent charging, and therefore has the additional functionality of claim 7."
I am not sure that is a valid argument.
Besides, Annex 7, par. [7]-[9] only disclose the microprocessor of the *charging terminal* being enabled to receive a signal indicating the price of electricity, and selectively charge based on that price information. Although a wireless link with the car (either model Q or P) is disclosed, it is not directly and unambiguously disclosed that the on-board computer of the car is configured to receive the price signal and to act on that.
So, I now think that it may have been intended to use the car's on-board computer as the processing unit receiving the SSR signal, and the charging terminal's microprocessor as the processing unit deciding on the selective charging (wherein Annex 7 would have to be used as evidence of the charging terminal disclosed in Annex 6).
@Gerben indeed, A7 seems to refer to the charging terminal. In the attack, one would thus probably need to argue that the claim's charging system is anticipated by the combination of the charging terminal and the charging functionality of the car (which should be allowable - the term 'system' allows such a distributed implementation). Our attack in the post above doesn't address this complexity.
DeleteI have a question regarding the novelty attack against claim 5: In my view, A6 (Q model) does not disclose directly an unambiguously the a switch „outside of the vehicle“ is actuated to stop the charging, but only that the system decides to stop (somehow). It is however general knowledge that for security reasons the switches have to be turned off (see A7). Due to this, I made an inventive step attack using A6 + general knowledge, evidenced by A7 instead of a novelty attack, because general knowledge may not be used to close gaps regarding disclosure. Anyone else did this or thinks it is a valid point?
ReplyDeleteMy concept is that outside electrical connection doesn't need to be wireless, the plug-socket charging is also an electrical connection outside the vehicle and stop it = inactivated outside electrical connection
DeleteYes, but charging could also be stopped by interrupting the electrical connection within the car, i.e. between the receiving plate and the battery
DeleteI mean, there is no electricity from outside to the car = outside electrical connection is interrupted
DeleteRegarding claim 1 (fallback option): I see that A3 can be considered CPA and A3 + A5 is a strong attack. However, the other way round, i.e. A5 + A3 is basically equally strong. In this case, the distinguishing feature is „2 coils instead of 1 coil with reverse windings“ and this is obvious from A3 stating somewhere in the beginning that 1 coil with reverse windings can be replaced easily by 2 coils. Then, since the attack is successful, A5 also qualifies as CPA (case law of BoA), and we have the situation that A3 and A5 are both valid CPAs. I wrote down both attacks in the exam because the client said that it is extremely important for them that claim 1 is destroyed. Anyone else did this or thinks it is a valid point?
ReplyDeleteA3[02] mentions some drawback of doubles. Thus the motivation is not that strong. I think
DeleteDouble-O
Deleteyes, but these drawbacks do not relate to wireless resonant charging
DeleteRegarding claim 6, the steps must mandatorily be carried out on a system of claim 4. Only A5 discloses such a system for a battery which is not for a vehicle but could be (A5[1]). In my opinion, A5 could be taken as prior art and combined with A6-P based on the technical effect of A1[29] disclosed in A6 in relation with the missing feature.
ReplyDeleteAlso chose A5 as CPA for the reason that it discloses already the system + all method steps except 1 missing feature. Maybe both attacks are valid, A5 + model P and model P + A5.
DeleteThe lawn mower is a vehicle. Further, the claim does not specify that the battery is in the vehicle but only that it is suitable for a vehicle
DeleteI actually also understood the Client´s letter to mean that they downloaded the digital copy of the podcast on April 30, 2020 from the podcloud (which is mentioned in A6, Abs. 1 as well). I thought that this was the reason why the client explicitly stated: "We also have a digital copy of the podcast downloaded from https://www.podcloud.com/BBC9/programmes/b07dx75g/20200430.ogg". The link seemed to indcate April 30, 2020 as download date.
DeleteWith regard to the COMVIK-approach to the inventive step attack on claim 6. I took A1, Abs. 29 to mean that the decision making step of claim 5 (and thereofre claim 6+5) is non-technical in nature and does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. A1, Abs. 29: "The processing unit continuously receives and continuously evaluates the measurement value. This enables automation of the mental act of deciding whether the battery should be charged or not. However, this does not yet solve the technical problem of inadvertent field exposure in the charging area." So long story short: I also used the COMVIK approach for the attack on claim 6.
It is True that A1 Last paragraphs contain hints (several times referring to mental act automatization) to attack IS of claims 5-7 on the basis of non contribution to IS of non Technical features, thus one has to base this approach on lack of IS and not on lack of Technical character (the method being implemented by a computer)
DeleteI did the same, and started from A5 as CPA in combination with A6.
DeleteDeltapatents, why would this not be an alternative solition?
And if not, how many point might one get?
with all the due respect, I cannot understand the attack of novelty against claim 4. the orbit robot does not have a charging system with a detection unit, but those are separated inside the same robot. the detection unit is not part of the charging system, so a charging system does not COMPRISE the detection unit.
ReplyDeleteI rather opted for a art. 56 attack based only on A5.
It's because the charging system and the detection unit are completely separate in claim 4 too. The claimed detection unit has no functional limitation.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTanks a lot for your model solution.
ReplyDeleteI wondered whether the COMVIK approach might have been applicable to the inventive step attack on claim 6?
I also wondered whether the podcast A6 was not already available via the cloud on April 30. I thought the link in the client's letter indicated this and A6 also stated that the podcast would be abailable via the cloud.
I had the same thought about A6: My understanding is that the podcast was recorded, uploaded to the cloud, and then also broadcasted on the radio (A6, Abs. 1) The Client mentions that they are in posession of a digital version of the podcast, which they downloaded from the cloud and the given link contains April 30, 2020 as download date. When assuming that the whole podcast including Model P was available on April 30, Model P could be used instead of Model Q in the novelty attack on claim 5. Model P seems to be clearly novelty destroying.
DeleteWhat have you done/thought about the date in the download link of A6?
If this is true the whole exam is ridiculous. I am sure somewhere in the annexes was a hint that the host of the podcast mixed up Q and P. So in reality you had to switch all information for P and Q. But then again somewhere else for sure was a hint that there never has been model P or Q but instead Z and X…
DeletePart 2 was just unclear and allowing very broad interpretations.
ReplyDelete1.A pressure on an on/off switch or on a screen is obviously a signal.
2.If it is transmitted to a computer wich controls the activation of connexions, the computer obviously decides to activate or desactivate the connexions
3. A lawn mower is obviously a vehicle since it is designed to carry the blades which nobody wants to move by hand
In this view there were plenty of valuable possible attacks
In addition to the preceding comment : 4. Claim 6 has a double aim : charging a vehicle battery and commanding the system of claim 4. For choosing CPa, there is no very clear reason to give priority to one or the other of the aims due to the very confuskng wording of this claim
ReplyDeleteHow were the candidates supposed to write this down in 3+3 hours ? The legal part of C1 took so much time, allowing not enough time for the 2 expected IS attacks. The 3 novelty attacks in C2 needed also a long time if one wanted to fully explain every détails of it, allowing so little time for the 2 IS attacks on C6 and C7...
ReplyDeleteI have German as my mother tongue and still was not able to find all attacks in time (no Attack IS for claim 1 fallback position and only one novelty attack with A6(Q) vs. claim 5.) And of course my attacks are far less detailed compared to the ones from Delta…. I wonder what it is like if you are not a native speaker. How can you have a fair chance of passing such an exam?
DeleteI could not agree more with you. My mother tongue is portuguese and I felt some how lost in so many hints and information. But forgetting the language, I think all of you are right, to many issues to deal in the general parts, crazy priorities, a lot of tricky dates, and even the invention was more dificult to deal, I don't know about you but the first parte for me it was somehow ok, I didin't do the Attack IS for claim 1 fallback position, I did not have the time. But Part 2, for me was a rollercoast of detection!! I was kind of lost in claim 4, missi a lot of time and pass to claims 5, 6 and 7, 4 was the last and I did a IS A5+A3... I don't know, I need a 50!!! Congrats to all of us that went to this C 2024, we will see it in the books of training in the future!!! Ha a great weekend :)
ReplyDeleteWhy does claim 7 not lack of novelty over A7?
ReplyDeleteBecause A7 does not disclose the system of claim 4. Claim 7 refers to the method applied to the system of A4 with the additional feature of the price information...
DeleteDoes the reference to claim 4 not just change the method to be suitable for use with the system of claim 4? Wouldn't A7 still be able to be used with a system according to claim 4?
DeleteThis novelty test is valid for a product claim, not for a method. If you use this test of "suitable for" to demostrate the lack of novelty of a method claim, you'll probably grab no mark for it. You could use such an arguments to demostrate lack of inventive step of the method claim (given that both the method and the system are non novel in view of 54(2) prior art but, as they expect PSA, you ll probably get only à few of the available marks.
DeleteWould it be still possible to earn some marks even though it is different attack than expected by the Examiner?
ReplyDeleteFor example, what do you think about the following cases?
Claim 4 - Lack of inventive step (A6+A5)
Claim 6 - Lack of inventive step (A6+A3)
Claim 7 - Lack of novelty (A7. Art. 54(3))
I don't see from the Examiner's report that they still gives some mark for the different way of attack. But does that mean the other attacks get 0 points?
For claim 4 it seems that a novelty attack was expected, based on a 54(2) doc (namely A5). Your IS attack will grab no mark, you just lost time on it. For claim 7, A7 does not disclose the system of claim 4, it cannot destroy the novelty of claim 7 (since claim 7 contains all the feature of claim 4). Only the beginning of your attack on claim 6 could attract mark, if A6 is considered to be PTO and you have written argument about that.
DeleteClaim 4: 0 mark
DeleteClaim 6: 1 mark
Claim 7: 0 mark.
Dear all, I made three mistakes in attacks:
ReplyDelete- I did not attack Claim 1 for lacking inventive step.
- I attack Claim 6 for inventive step over A6 ‘Model Q’ (not Model P) and A5.
- I attack Claim 7 for lack of inventive step over A6 ‘Model Q’ (not Model P) and A5 and A7.
Will I pass the paper C with the three failures above. I understand that inventive step attacks attract more marks. I made these three failures which are all inventive step attacks. I overlooked the model P so my answer went so wrong in Claims 6 and 7. I feel so sad about my overlook of model P, which led to a big difference from the model solution.
You need 45 or 50 points, depending on your situation. There were so many attacks in this exam, plus the effective date + prior art section, that I think it should be very doable to pass also with the missing/false attacks, especially if your correct attacks and the effective date + prior art sections are detailed enough to gain most of the available marks. Not every attack needs to be correct to pass!
DeleteJohanna you're an Angel. I think your answer will make him have a good week-end in the end.
DeleteThank you for your elaboration. I would have viewed claim 7 differently in the Model Q context. The Model Q device cannot be easily adapted. Viewed ex-post, the comment is probably a good indication of this. However, claim 7 also claims a “method according to claim 5, in which the charging system is the charging system according to claim 4, in which the received signal is representative of the price of the electrical energy to be used for charging the battery.”
ReplyDeleteThe charging system of claim 4 is disclosed by A5. Claim 5 discloses a method for controlling a charging system, which is known from the Model Q. Model Q is compatible with the RFC-7511-x standard, which is suitable for both wired and wireless charging.
I would have understood the situation to mean that the Model Q device cannot be easily adapted. However, the person skilled in the art can very well apply the teaching regarding the method for operating the Model Q to the device according to A5. No structural measures are required on Model Q, as the method is simply applied to another device (charging system) that already has the necessary structure. Claim 5 does not refer to a special device (charging system), so it can be assumed that this method of control is not easily applicable to other devices. This is also evident from paragraph 6 of the A6, where it says that the Model Q was not yet designed for wireless line transmission but was already designed for wireless data transmission. This shows that these two measures are independent of each other. Since the charging system is not further defined in claim 5, a routine activity is to apply the control method to a specific charging system.
In summary, my assessment would be that the combination A6 + A5 works, but the device must correspond to that of A5 and the Model Q should not be used for defining the device (charging system).
The problem-solution approach would also lead to this, since the distinguishing features would be those that enable contactless power supply. The person skilled in the art would therefore use the device from A5 to carry out the method steps according to A6 (Model Q).
The price issue could then be solved using the COMVIK approach.
In my opinion, that would also make sense from an examination perspective. The COMVIK approach is used exactly to the extent that it is stated in the guidelines, without the need for in-depth knowledge of computer-implemented inventions.
Hi Matthias, I agree with you that a skilled person would combine A5 with the Model Q of Claim 6. It is a simple combination and can be adapted to each other. Your analysis makes sense and I think you can also appeal if the examiner deduct your mark.
Delete@Matthias, interesting line of attack, we just discussed this but our concern would be that claim 7 is limited (through claim 5) to charging an electric vehicle and A5 (robot mower) probably does not match the definition of an electric vehicle.
Delete@Nico Cordes, @Lio thank you for your answer! I really appreciate that you took the time reading my statement and commenting it!
DeleteSince A5 [1] states “… Although a robot mower is not a car we’ve put the latest technology from automotive manufacturers and other high-tech companies into our latest model”. I argued (something like) that the person skilled in the art looking for way to apply the method for controlling a charging system to a contactless power supply would read A5 since it deals with contactless power supply as stated in [2] (system for resonant wireless charging) and would apply it for cars because of [1].
I have also used A5 as CPA, since I looked up the word "Vehicle" in my Cassell Dictionary during the exam: "n. any kind of carriage or conveyance for use on land, having wheels or runners".
DeleteBased on this definition, i assumed that the robot of A5 could also be interpreted as a vehicle, since it carries rechargeable/replaceable batteries (+ oiling/cleaning kit, + extra blades, etc.), hence being ANY kind of carriage for use on land having wheels!
The difficult partial first application problem in C and D in the same way in the same EQe sitting? Strange choice… the usual design principles in the D paper is that individual D1 questions are independent from eachother and do not test the same legal principle, and the D2 is designed such that going wrong with one specific discussion / one legal topic has hardly any knock-on effect on the rest of the paper - couldn’t one expect that these design principles also apply w.r.t. the various papers of the EQE in one specific year/sitting, esp as far as relating to difficult legal principles?
ReplyDeleteThe difficulty with the legal aspects of paper C1 was that you have to realise and deal with many things (effective date of C1 as filed and C2, intervals, patentee back up C1 with a different effective date than C1 as filed, A2 priority doc being 54(2) prior art for C2 and C3, but only 54(3) for the optimal amended C1 and non-novelty destroying , thus making necessary a IS attack over this amended C1)when one usually knows that he cannot spend so much time on the legal aspects of paper C... so you'd probably miss something and would probably end up not doing one of the 2 expected IS attacks...
Deleteyes, it was strange.
DeleteAfter that, one could expect a more simple legal part on C2, but again the A6 reference was kind of tricky and not seing well some of its implication could lead candidates to miss one of the expected novelty attacks. And even the last 2 expected IS attacks were not easy to deal with in the last hour of such a marathon...
ReplyDeleteNot to mention that when you miss an expected attack, you usually lose time doing another attack that will be probably with nothing. A triple punishment here.
DeleteI attacked claim 4 with A5.
ReplyDeleteI also attacked claim 5 with A5, as you have also considered. In my view, the only step of the claim I wasn't sure about was "deciding" by the system, because we were not told if the robot decides not to drive into the charging station based on the information the there is an object. But it's logical to assume that it doesn't.
If claim 4 and 5 are both not novel over A5, surely claim 6 also can't be.
I used A5 for almost every claim.. It was stage but I would stand by it. The claims were super general/broad, especially 5 and 6.
Dear deltapatents,
ReplyDeleteWith regards to claim 6 I have taken the same approach as some other fellow candidates here; started from A5 as CPA, and combined it with model P of A6.
Do you believe this combination to be completely wrong?
Could I get any points for this attack?
Yes, it is completely wrong. 0 Marks
Delete@Exam Div (Marker 1) - Please keep the discussion civil and avoid misleading comments (even though they may be made in jest).
DeleteHello, about the mistake of fig of A7? Do you think that the examanination board gives some marks to candidates?
ReplyDeleteYes, we just had a discussion to add 10 Mark to all candidates of C 2024
DeletePlease keep the discussion civil and avoid misleading comments (even though they may be made in jest).
DeleteIs there a reason why Exam Div (Marker 1) needs to be so arrogant??
DeleteArguing inventive step in claim 7 based on RFC-7511-x is quite the stretch to me. First you have the argument concerning wether the standard is at all implied the model P. There is no reference whatsoever to the fact that OS-corp generally copies over well accepted features for future models.
ReplyDeleteBut even if you accept the premise that the model P implies the standard, you have the following quote from A1 [33] about the effect of using price as signal: "This provides a solution to the problem of reducing costs". So the applicant itself describes the problem as "reducing costs", which to me means that the effect is purely financially motivated. Thus if you follow COMVIK, you wouldn't proceed to the could/would part of the argument but would have to exit and simply recited the non-technicality of the feature in and of itself and also that it does not contribute to any further technical effect. Using the congestion of the grid may certainly be a technical effect but this effect may not be relied uppon according to G2/21: "A patent applicant or proprietor may rely upon a technical effect for inventive step if the skilled person, having the common general knowledge in mind, and based on the application as originally filed, would derive said effect as being encompassed by the technical teaching and embodied by the same originally disclosed invention". There is no other effect mentioned concerning the price signal so the proprietor may only rely on the financial effect.
To me, there can only be the COMVIK attack on claim 7.
The Guidelines describe how to apply what we call the 'COMVIK approach' in https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guidelines-epc/2022/g_vii_5_4.html. Because the price-dependent charging requires some actual configuration of the charge control system, this looks like option (iii)(c), wherein you need to include the non-technical aim in your OTP (see also G‑VII, 5.4.1).
DeleteFor me the OTP would then be something like "How to adapt the Model P charging system and provide price-dependent charging?". The public RFC-7511-x standard, evidenced by A7 provides a known and obvious solution to this OTP.
It may not be completely clear if A6 discloses that the Model P already uses this standard (it probably does, but this may not be directly derivable from A6), but in view of A6[2] (the usual wireless data connection for software updates) and A6[20] (software updates are easier), it would be a minor workshop modification to implement the RFC-7511x standard that they already used in their previous model.
Certainly not an easy argument, but not all parts of all attacks need to be easy. You only need 45/50 marks. I'm sure that any attack that discusses the (non-)technical character of the missing feature and uses the RFC-7511x standard from A7, without ignoring that it is only a 54(3) document, will receive a majority of the available marks.
But (iii) c) wouldn't be applicable because (iii) c) requires that the differentiating feature contributes to the technical character (i.e., acquires technical character based on the rest of the claim). If you do PLA step by step, you end up with this:
DeleteThe feature in question is "using price as indicator" (it's the only differentiating feature over the P-model). The effect is "charging can be inhibited if the price is higher than a predetermined value" (A1 [33]). The problem to be solved is "reducing costs" (A1 [33]). Now you're at the point where the differentiating feature does not contribute to a technical goal but only a non-technical one. You also have no other differentiating features thus the objective problem can only be formulated in terms of a non technical problem. Hence the non-technical differentiating feature can not be used in limiting an otherwise technical problem.
Thus (iii) c) is not applicable as this requires the differentiating feature to acquire technical character. In this case, the feature doesn't acquire technical character and (iii) b) is applicable.
Just realized you also had the other features from the detector as differentiating, so it seems you are right here.
DeleteGlad that claim 7 was expecting another fully reasoned-4th Inventive step attack rather than the 'no technical features' route.
ReplyDeleteWas worried for a moment that the paper wasn't difficult enough as it is...
I would say that the fact there were 4 expected IS attacks was not the problem, the problem that each of these 4 were kind of hidden. For example A3+A5 against C1: if you did not take the time to consider the patentee's possible answer to your opposition and cut the claim as he would probably do during the course of the opposition then you would not see that one.
DeleteGeneral comment to the Deltapatents team; how eould you rank this paper compared to papers of the previous years?
ReplyDeleteBased on your experience, how do you think they will mark the paper?