March 03, 2026 Our provisional answers to F 2026 – Part 2

This year the invention in the part 2 case of the F paper had a lot more body than in the 2025 paper. The invention was about reinforcement of concrete, in order to make it better suited to withstand tensile forces. While in the prior art steel-base reinforcement structures were used, the invention proposes to use fibres instead. The first thing that caught my eye was that we are presented with a significant number of different embodiments. Also there is quite some information in the paper about definitions (what something is or is not) and even a non-working embodiment.

 

After we received the questions and printable documents from some of you (thanks!!!), Sander and I sat down to do the paper. Below you’ll find what we came up with. Please note that this is just our take on the questions, and that our answers and considerations may deviate from the official ones.

 

Q1: Are all items D1 – D4 considered as being comprised in the state of the art under the EPC? 

YES

The filing date of the application is 12 February 2026. So, according to art. 54(2) EPC, everything made available to the public before that date is comprised in the state of the art.

D1: video published on internet platform on  31 Dec 2025 -> yes, publicly available before filing date

D2: US application published 1980 -> yes

D3: EP application published 2023 -> yes

D4: history book from 1960’s about ancient construction methods -> yes

Note that the question is not about the relevance of the contents of D1-D4 for any of the claims as filed.

 

Q2:The subject-matter of claim 1 as originally filed is novel over the prior art D1 – D4

D1: does not disclose “reinforcement structure embedded in matrix” -> so claim 1 is novel

D2: does not disclose “reinforcement structure comprising fibres” -> so claim 1 is novel

Note: see the final sentence of page 1 of the description: “Steel rods are not fibres”

D3: all features disclosed, claim 1 is not novel

D4: all features disclosed, claim 1 is not novel

Note: straw is natural fibre, see the last paragraph of page 1 of the description: “Many natural substances are fibres such as cotton, wool or straw fibres”. So, the straw of D4 contains fibres.

Q3:The subject-matter of claim 2 as originally filed is novel over the prior art D1 – D4

Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, so we have to consider the features of both claim 1 and claim 2 in combination with each other.

 

D1: claim 2 is novel in view of D1 because claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and claim 1 is novel in view of D1.

D2: claim 2 is novel in view of D2 because claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and claim 1 is novel in view of D2.

D3:

- D3 discloses all features of claim 1 (see Q2).

- D3 says in the first sentence “a textile-reinforced concrete construction element for buildings comprises a woven fabric as a reinforcement structure.”

The 4^th paragraph of page 2 of the description (I would have loved it if the paragraphs were simply numbered…): “In a preferred embodiment, the reinforcement structure is a textile structure made of the fibres. A textile structure is a two-dimensional sheet-like structure made of fibre materials. Such structures are also called fabrics.”-> so the feature that the reinforcement structure is a textile structure comprising the fibres is also disclosed in D3.

- But then the feature that “the matrix comprises a mineral aggregate and cement. D3 discloses concrete. According to the second paragraph of page 1 of the description: “Concrete is a well-known construction material which is much appreciated for its durability. It is a composite material comprising a mineral aggregate, such as gravel or sand, and a binder, which is normally cement”. So, concrete can have a binder that is not cement, which means that cement is not an implicit feature (as it is not inevitable). So, however obvious it may be to have cement as the binder, it is not as such disclosed in D3.

So, D3 does not disclose all features of claim 2 . So, claim 2 is novel in view of D3.

 

D4 does not disclose the matrix comprises a mineral aggregate and cement (instead it discloses clay), and the reinforcement structure is a textile structure comprising the fibres. (instead it discloses loose straw fibres and A collection of loose fibres is not a textile -> see 4^th par. page 2 description). So claim 2 is novel in view of D4.

Q4: The subject-matter of claims 3 to 5 as originally filed is novel over the prior art D3

Claim 3:

- Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2, D3 does not disclose all features of claim 2 (see Q3),

So, claim 3 is novel in view of D3.

 

Claim 4:

- Claim 4 is dependent on claim 3, D3 does not discloses all features of claim 3 (see above)

- D3 discloses fabric coated with epoxy resin, fabric made of glass fibres. So D3 discloses fibres coated with epoxy resin, but that’s not relevant because it does not disclose all features of claim 3.

So, claim 4 is novel in view of D3.

 

Claim 5:

- Claim 5 is dependent on claim 3 or claim 4; claim 4 is dependent on claim 3. So claim 5 + claim 3 is the broadest version of claim 5, so that’s the one to evaluate.

- D3 does not discloses all features of claim 3 (see above)

- in addition, non-crimp fabric is not disclosed in D3

So, claim 5 is novel in view of D3.

 

Q5:The subject-matter of claim 6 as originally filed is novel over the prior art D1 – D4

D1: we had some internal discussion on this one. D1 clearly discloses the following features

- “construction element comprising concrete” -> yes, concrete blocks

- “..further comprises a textile structure”-> yes, the carpet

But does D1 disclose a building? The video only shows a room. I’ve read D1 a couple of times before answering this question, but it really just says “room”. As per our later internal discussion (including not just Sander and myself) we came to the conclusion that you cannot have room with a carpet in and ready for putting wallpaper up if you don’t have a building. That would make the building implicit in the disclosure of D1, as it is inevitable to have a building if you want to do what’s done in the video.

Therefore, out conclusion is that claim 6 is not novel in view of D1.

 

D2: claim 6 is novel, because there is no textile structure disclosed in D2

D3: claim 6 is not novel, as clearly all features are disclosed (including the building)

D4: claim 6 is novel, as D4 does not disclose concrete, and also no textile (only loose fibres)

 

Q6: Closest prior art for claim 5?

D3: same technical field and most features in common

 

Q7: Amended set of claims does not comply with Art. 84 because:

1. “In a building” renders claim 1 unclear -> true (GL F-IV, 4.15 (i))

2. Ultra-high molecular weight renders claim 2 unclear ->false, is this refers to a well known material so “ultra-high molecular weight” has a well recognised meaning in the art (GL F-IV, 4.6)

3. Woven fabric is product-by-process which is not allowable under 84 -> false, product-by-process claims are not by definition unallowable

4. Claims 1 and 3 contradict each other -> true, woven and non-crimp are alternatives, see final paragraph of page 2 of the description. Note that the claims say “textile structure is”, not “textile structure comprises”. The textile structure cannot be woven and non-crimp at the same time

 

Q8: Amended claim 7 is dependent on amended claim 4?

No, because not all features of claim 4 are present in amended claim 7

Note that this question is kind of similar to the question that was neutralised last year. However, I think in the current case the situation is rather clear.

 

Q9: Do claims 1 – 3 meet the requirements of Art. 123(2):

Claim 1: No. While the application as filed does disclose a textile structure that is present in a building, and that the textile structure can be a woven fabric, there is not disclosure of such a textile structure without the matrix.

Look at the penultimate paragraph of page 1 of the description of the application as filed, which says: “It is essential for the invention that the known steel reinforcement structure be replaced by a reinforcement structure comprising fibres and that the reinforcement structure be embedded in the matrix.” This is also reflected by claim 1 as filed.

So, you cannot leave out the feature of the matrix, this violates the first criterion of the essentiality test (removal or replacement of a feature, GL H-V, 3.1).

Note that this is not an intermediate generalisation! Intermediate generalisation is extracting a specific feature in isolation from an originally disclosed combination of features and using it to delimit claimed subject-matter (first lines of GL H-V, 3.2.1). In this case, the claim has been broadened, not limited.

 

Claim 2: No, as this amendment has same problem as claim 1.

Claim 3: No, as this amendment has same problem as claim 1. In addition, there is no disclosure of woven fabric that is a non-crimp fabric. Woven and non-crimp are presented as alternatives. And claims say “textile structure is”, not “textile structure comprises”

 

We found this a bit of a strange question, as all three claims seem to violate Art. 123(2) EPC for the same reason.

 

Q10: Amended claims 4-7 meet the requirements of Art. 123(2)? :

NOTE: I changed our initial answer with respect to amended claim 6!

Amended claim 4: Yes. Basis is claims 1+ 2 +3 as filed (minus the optional feature of claim 3 as filed)

Amended claim 5: Yes. Basis  is claims 1+2 +3 as filed (including the optional feature of claim 3 as filed)

Amended claim 6: No, the second paragraph of page 2 of the description talks about adding the coating tin order to protect the glass against the alkaline environment. There’s no disclosure of the bonding effect in the description. The bonding effect is also not implicitly disclosed (=inevitable) because according to D3 you need a certain thickness to achieve the binding effect and that thickness is not provided in the invention. Therefore the bonding effect not directly an unambiguously derivable from the application as filed and cannot be put it in the claim.

Amended claim 7: This was again one that required some internal discussion, but in the end we decided that this amended claim complies with Art. 123(2) EPC, so we are of the opinion that the answer is yes.

It was however a bit of a puzzle. The claims as filed only give direct basis for the glass fibres, not for carbon. The final three paragraphs of the description, which talks about the textile structure do not explicitly mention the materials of the fibres.

In the first paragraph of page 2 of the description, carbon and glass seem to be presented as alternatives, but there is no clear indication that you can simply swap glass for carbon in all embodiments. So, saying that it is disclosed that you can simply replace the glass fibres in the claims as filed by the carbon fibres seems a bit bold.

We came to the conclusion that there is basis for amended claim 7 is as follows: when you look at the disclosure of the description as a whole, the combination of features of claim 4 is disclosed. Then, the fourth paragraph of page 2 of the description starts with “In a preferred embodiment, the reinforcement structure is a textile structure made of the fibres.” The only fibres that are mentioned before that are useable in for high tensile strength applications are glass and carbon. From this we concluded that “the fibres” must refer to “glass or carbon”. Therewith, the description as filed discloses all features of amended claim 7.

 

Q11: Amended claim 1 novel over D1-D4?

Note: this felt a bit tricky because amended claim 1 is not clear. But in he end the building was not the feature that the answer hinged upon.
D1: claim 1 is not novel in view of D1, because the carpet is a woven fabric

D2: claim 1 is novel in view of D2, because D2 does not disclose a textile structure

D3: not novel

D4: novel

 

Q12: Amended claims 5-7 novel in view of D3?

Am. Claim 5: novel, no disclosure of alkali-resistant in D3

Am claim 6: novel, in view of the dependencies of amended claim 6, the broadest version of amended claim 6 is the combination of claims 4 + 6, And D3 does not disclose the cement. See Q3.

Am claim 7: novel, no carbon fibres disclosed in D3

 

Q13: The applicant considers filing another amended independent claim with the following wording:

A construction element for a building, the construction element comprising:
a reinforcement structure comprising carbon fibres and glass fibres, and
a matrix, wherein
the reinforcement structure is embedded in the matrix.
Would such an amended claim be allowed by the examining division?

No – because this claim would violate Art. 123(2)/ The application as filed does not disclose the combination of glass + carbon, see first paragraph of page 2 of the description: “are either carbon fibres or glass fibres”

Note: I found this a bit of confusing question. Would this claim be filed in addition to other claims? If so, what is the question aiming at? R. 43(2)- issues? Conciseness? In the end it didn’t matter because there is a clear violation of Art. 123(2) EPC but the question got me a bit confused as it didn’t seem to give a clear indication in which direction to think.

 

Q14: The applicant may expect that the subject-matter of amended claim 2 was covered by search performed during the search phase?

No, not unitary with claim 1 as filed, and seems to be related to a non-working embodiment. In addition, it is broader than claim 1 as filed.

 

Q15: The applicant may expect that the subject-matter of amended claim 5 was covered by search performed during the search phase?

Yes, part of dependent claim, unitary with claim 1 (same invention)