On the oneness of subordinate claims.

If the claim 1-5 you posted is a filed patent application, there seems to be no small formal problem. And if this patent is written by an agency, the agent who wrote the instructions should study hard. .....

If it's an examination question, it's too strange. The judgment of oneness has nothing to do with comparing documents, right? .......

So I feel that the whole problem seems unclear. I can only guess that this is a patent application, and I have received the official notice of examination opinions, and I will give the following answer. Please forgive me if there is any mistake.

First of all, Claim 1 has defined that the composite material consists of A, B, C and D, but Claim 2 of the dependent claim refers to Claim 1, saying that the composite material consists of A, B, C and E, which leads to the conflict between the dependent claim and the independent claim.

As claimed in claim 3.

In addition, the problem of oneness should be reflected in claim 4 and claim 5, but claim 4 has the same formal problem as claim 5. Dependent claim 4 refers to claim 1, and the main protection object of claim 1 is "composite material", but the protection object of claim 4 is "film made of composite material", with one protection subject being material and the other being film. ....

There are other formal problems, and this case needs to be rearranged. ....