Automated analysis of patent applications for EPO compliance with Art. 84 EPC (claims clarity/support), Art. 83 EPC (sufficiency of disclosure), and Rules 42-49 EPC (formalities)
Automated analysis of patent applications for European Patent Office compliance under the European Patent Convention (EPC).
Invoke this skill when users ask to:
Performs comprehensive EPO-focused analysis:
Claims Analysis (Art. 84 EPC):
Sufficiency of Disclosure (Art. 83 EPC):
Formalities (Rules 42-49 EPC):
Issue Categorization:
This skill uses the EPO compliance analyzers and the EPC/EPO Guidelines search:
MCP Tools Available:
review_epo_claims - Art. 84 EPC compliance checkingreview_epo_specification - Art. 83 EPC sufficiency analysischeck_epo_formalities - Rules 42-49 EPC formalitiessearch_patent_law - Search EPC, EPO Guidelines, PCT rulesWhen this skill is invoked:
Determine analysis scope:
Run appropriate analyzers:
Present analysis:
{
"jurisdiction": "EPO",
"claim_count": 15,
"independent_count": 2,
"dependent_count": 13,
"compliance_score": 72,
"total_issues": 8,
"critical_issues": 2,
"important_issues": 4,
"minor_issues": 2,
"issues": [
{
"category": "clarity",
"severity": "critical",
"claim_number": 1,
"term": "substantially",
"description": "Term 'substantially' lacks objective definition under Art. 84 EPC",
"epc_cite": "Art. 84 EPC",
"guidelines_cite": "EPO Guidelines F-IV, 4.6",
"suggestion": "Replace with objective criterion or remove"
},
{
"category": "two_part_form",
"severity": "important",
"claim_number": 1,
"description": "Independent claim not in two-part form per Rule 43(1) EPC",
"epc_cite": "Rule 43(1) EPC",
"guidelines_cite": "EPO Guidelines F-IV, 3.2",
"suggestion": "Restructure: preamble + 'characterised in that' + novel features"
}
]
}
Clarity Issues (Art. 84 EPC):
Support Issues (Art. 84 EPC):
Sufficiency Issues (Art. 83 EPC):
Formality Issues (Rules 42-49 EPC):
Present analysis as:
EPO COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS REPORT
================================
Jurisdiction: European Patent Office (EPC)
Analysis Date: [Date]
Summary:
- Total Claims: 15 (2 independent, 13 dependent)
- Compliance Score: 72/100
- Issues Found: 8 (2 critical, 4 important, 2 minor)
CLAIMS ANALYSIS (Art. 84 EPC):
Clarity:
[Claim 1] CRITICAL - "substantially uniform" lacks objective definition
Art. 84 EPC / EPO Guidelines F-IV, 4.6
Fix: Define with measurable criterion (e.g., "within 5% deviation")
Support:
[Claim 3] IMPORTANT - "any wireless protocol" exceeds disclosure
Art. 84 EPC / EPO Guidelines F-IV, 6.2
Fix: Limit to disclosed protocols (Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, NFC)
Two-Part Form:
[Claim 1] IMPORTANT - Not in two-part form
Rule 43(1) EPC / EPO Guidelines F-IV, 3.2
Fix: Identify closest prior art, split into known + novel features
SUFFICIENCY ANALYSIS (Art. 83 EPC):
[PASS] At least one embodiment fully described
[WARN] Claims 8-10 cover embodiment not exemplified
Art. 83 EPC / EPO Guidelines F-III, 3
Consider: Add working example for thermal processing variant
FORMALITIES (Rules 42-49 EPC):
[PASS] Description sections in correct order (Rule 42)
[FAIL] Abstract: 167 words (max 150) (Rule 47)
[PASS] Drawings: no text, proper margins (Rule 46)
[FAIL] No figure designated for abstract (Rule 47(2)(b))
| Aspect | USPTO (35 USC) | EPO (EPC) |
|---|---|---|
| Claim clarity | Reasonable certainty (112(b)) | Strict objective clarity (Art. 84) |
| Claim form | Open format | Two-part form preferred (Rule 43) |
| Support | Written description (112(a)) | Supported by description (Art. 84) |
| Enablement | Enable POSITA (112(a)) | Sufficiency of disclosure (Art. 83) |
| Best mode | Required (112(a)) | Not required |
| Terms of degree | Allowed with spec support | Must have objective reference |
| Software | Patent-eligible if technical | Must show "further technical effect" |
| Medical methods | Allowed | Excluded (Art. 53(c)) |
| Novelty | 102 (1-year grace period) | Art. 54 (absolute novelty, no grace period) |
| Obviousness | 103 (obvious to POSITA) | Art. 56 (inventive step, problem-solution) |
For each issue, the skill can: