epo-patent-analyzer - Claude MCP Skill

# EPO Patent Analyzer Skill

Automated analysis of patent applications for European Patent Office compliance under the European Patent Convention (EPC).

## When to Use

Invoke this skill when users ask to:
- Review patent claims for EPO Art. 84 compliance
- Check sufficiency of disclosure under Art. 83 EPC
- Analyze EPO formalities under Rules 42-49 EPC
- Convert USPTO-style claims to EPO two-part form
- Prepare for EPO examination or respond to EPO communications
- Validate applications before EP filing or Euro-PCT entry

## What This Skill Does

Performs comprehensive EPO-focused analysis:

1. **Claims Analysis** (Art. 84 EPC):
   - Clarity: identifies unclear or ambiguous terms
   - Conciseness: detects redundant or overlapping claims
   - Support: verifies all claims are supported by description
   - Two-part form (Rule 43(1) EPC): checks preamble + "characterised in that"
   - Claim categories: product, process, apparatus, use
   - Excluded subject matter: Art. 52(2) and Art. 53 EPC

2. **Sufficiency of Disclosure** (Art. 83 EPC):
   - Reproducibility: can a person skilled in the art reproduce the invention?
   - Breadth of claims vs disclosure: is the full scope enabled?
   - Essential technical features: all present and described?
   - Working examples: at least one concrete embodiment?

3. **Formalities** (Rules 42-49 EPC):
   - Description format (Rule 42): required sections in correct order
   - Claims form (Rule 43): two-part form, numbering, references
   - Drawings (Rule 46): margins, no text, reference signs
   - Abstract (Rule 47): max 150 words, figure designation
   - Physical requirements: A4, margins, fonts

4. **Issue Categorization**:
   - **Critical**: Will cause objection under EPC
   - **Important**: May cause objection or limit scope
   - **Minor**: Best practice per EPO Guidelines

## Required Data

This skill uses the EPO compliance analyzers and the EPC/EPO Guidelines search:

**MCP Tools Available**:
- `review_epo_claims` - Art. 84 EPC compliance checking
- `review_epo_specification` - Art. 83 EPC sufficiency analysis
- `check_epo_formalities` - Rules 42-49 EPC formalities
- `search_patent_law` - Search EPC, EPO Guidelines, PCT rules

## How to Use

When this skill is invoked:

1. **Determine analysis scope**:
   - Full application review (claims + description + formalities)
   - Claims-only review (Art. 84 EPC)
   - Sufficiency-only review (Art. 83 EPC)
   - Formalities-only review (Rules 42-49 EPC)

2. **Run appropriate analyzers**:
   - For claims: check clarity, conciseness, support, two-part form
   - For sufficiency: check reproducibility, scope vs disclosure, examples
   - For formalities: check all Rules 42-49 requirements

3. **Present analysis**:
   - Show compliance score (0-100)
   - List issues by severity (critical, important, minor)
   - Provide EPC article/rule citations for each issue
   - Reference EPO Guidelines sections
   - Suggest specific fixes

## Analysis Output Structure

```python
{
    "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"
        }
    ]
}
```

## Common EPO Issues Detected

1. **Clarity Issues (Art. 84 EPC)**:
   - Relative terms without objective reference
   - Inconsistent terminology between claims and description
   - Functional features not clearly defined
   - "Means for" language without clear structural support

2. **Support Issues (Art. 84 EPC)**:
   - Claims broader than description discloses
   - Unsupported generalizations from specific examples
   - Missing essential technical features
   - Claim scope exceeding experimental evidence

3. **Sufficiency Issues (Art. 83 EPC)**:
   - Insufficient detail for reproduction
   - Claims too broad relative to examples
   - Missing critical parameters or conditions
   - Undue burden on skilled person

4. **Formality Issues (Rules 42-49 EPC)**:
   - Missing required description sections
   - Abstract exceeding 150 words
   - Text in drawings
   - Claims not in two-part form

## Presentation Format

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))
```

## Key EPO vs USPTO Differences

| 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) |

## Integration with EPC Search

For each issue, the skill can:
1. Search EPC provisions and EPO Guidelines for relevant guidance
2. Provide specific article, rule, and Guidelines section citations
3. Show EPO Board of Appeal case law on similar issues
4. Suggest fixes based on EPO prosecution practice

## Tools Available

- **Read**: To load application from files
- **Bash**: To run EPO compliance analyzers
- **Write**: To save analysis reports