From claude-patent-creator-standalone
Searches EPC articles/rules, EPO Guidelines for Examination, and PCT rules for European/international patent law research, including USPTO/MPEP comparisons.
npx claudepluginhub robthepcguy/claude-patent-creator --plugin claude-patent-creator-standaloneThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Hybrid RAG search across the European Patent Convention (EPC), EPO Guidelines for Examination, and PCT Rules for patent law research.
Analyzes patent applications for EPO compliance with Art. 84 EPC (claims clarity, support, two-part form), Art. 83 EPC (sufficiency of disclosure), and Rules 42-49 EPC (formalities like description, drawings, abstract).
Guides structured prior art searches using Espacenet: CQL query construction, abstract triage, full-text keyword search, paginated claim reading, family expansion, report generation. For patent novelty and invalidation.
Searches patents, academic papers, products, and open source for prior art to assess novelty/obviousness, challenge validity, support FTO, or document defensive publications.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Hybrid RAG search across the European Patent Convention (EPC), EPO Guidelines for Examination, and PCT Rules for patent law research.
Invoke this skill when users ask to:
Provides legal research across European and international patent law:
EPC Search (European Patent Convention):
EPO Guidelines Search (Guidelines for Examination):
PCT Rules Search (Patent Cooperation Treaty):
Cross-Jurisdiction Comparison:
MCP Tools Available:
search_patent_law - Search EPC, EPO Guidelines, PCT rules with jurisdiction parametersearch_mpep - Search MPEP/35 USC/37 CFR for comparisonWhen this skill is invoked:
Determine jurisdiction:
Execute search:
EPC/EPO Guidelines search:
results = search_patent_law(
query="claim clarity requirements",
jurisdiction="EPO",
top_k=5
)
PCT rules search:
results = search_patent_law(
query="unity of invention",
jurisdiction="PCT",
top_k=5
)
Cross-jurisdiction comparison:
epo_results = search_patent_law(query="sufficiency of disclosure", jurisdiction="EPO")
us_results = search_mpep(query="enablement requirement")
Present results:
| Article | Topic | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 52 | Patentable inventions | What can be patented |
| Art. 52(2) | Exclusions | Discoveries, theories, programs "as such" |
| Art. 53 | Exceptions | Morality, plant/animal varieties, medical methods |
| Art. 54 | Novelty | Absolute novelty, no grace period |
| Art. 55 | Non-prejudicial disclosures | 6-month grace for abuse or exhibitions |
| Art. 56 | Inventive step | Problem-solution approach |
| Art. 57 | Industrial applicability | Capable of industrial application |
| Article/Rule | Topic | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 78 | Requirements | What an EP application must contain |
| Art. 83 | Disclosure | Sufficiency of disclosure |
| Art. 84 | Claims | Clarity, conciseness, support |
| Rule 42 | Description | Content and form of description |
| Rule 43 | Claims | Two-part form, numbering, categories |
| Rule 46 | Drawings | Form and content requirements |
| Rule 47 | Abstract | Max 150 words, figure designation |
| Article | Topic | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 90 | Formalities examination | Initial formality check |
| Art. 92 | European search | Search report |
| Art. 94 | Substantive examination | Examination on request |
| Art. 97 | Grant/refusal | Decision on application |
| Art. 99 | Opposition | 9-month opposition period |
| Rule | Topic | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 4 | The request | Form PCT/RO/101 contents |
| Rule 5 | The description | Required sections and order |
| Rule 6 | The claims | Numbering, form, categories |
| Rule 8 | The abstract | Max 150 words, figure |
| Rule 11 | Physical requirements | Paper, margins, fonts |
| Rule 12 | Language | Accepted languages |
| Rule | Topic | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 13 | Unity of invention | Single general inventive concept |
| Rule 33 | Relevant prior art | ISA search scope |
| Rule 39 | Subject matter not searched | Excluded from ISA search |
| Rule 43bis | International search report | Written opinion of ISA |
| Rule | Topic | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 49 | Physical requirements | National phase format |
| Rule 49.6 | Translation | Language requirements |
| Rule 51bis | Certain national requirements | National law compliance |
Part A: Formalities Examination
├── Chapter I: Checking the application on filing
├── Chapter II: Filing and examination for formalities
├── Chapter III: Special cases (divisionals, PCT)
└── Chapter IV: Designation of inventor
Part F: The Patent Application
├── Chapter I: Description
├── Chapter II: Claims (MOST COMMONLY SEARCHED)
│ ├── F-IV, 2: Independent claims
│ ├── F-IV, 3: Two-part form
│ ├── F-IV, 4: Clarity
│ ├── F-IV, 6: Support by description
│ └── F-IV, 7: Dependent claims
├── Chapter III: Sufficiency of disclosure
├── Chapter V: Abstract
└── Chapter VI: Drawings
Part G: Patentability
├── Chapter I: Excluded subject matter
├── Chapter II: Non-technical subject matter
├── Chapter III: Novelty
├── Chapter V: Non-prejudicial disclosures
├── Chapter VI: Inventive step (problem-solution)
└── Chapter VII: Inventive step (combinability)
Present search results as:
EPC/EPO LEGAL RESEARCH RESULTS
=================================
Query: "claim clarity requirements"
Jurisdiction: EPO (EPC + Guidelines)
[1] Art. 84 EPC - The Claims
"The claims shall define the matter for which protection
is sought. They shall be clear, concise and be supported
by the description."
EPO Guidelines F-IV, 4 - Clarity
"Each claim should be read giving the words the meaning
and scope which they normally have in the relevant art..."
Key Points:
- Claims must be clear on their own (not by reference to spec)
- Technical terms given their normal meaning in the art
- Relative terms need objective reference point
- Functional features must be verifiable
[2] Rule 43(1) EPC - Form and content of claims
"...shall contain: (a) a statement indicating the designation
of the subject-matter and those technical features necessary
for the definition... (preamble); and (b) a characterising
portion preceded by 'characterised in that'..."
EPO Guidelines F-IV, 3.2 - Two-part form
"Independent claims should normally be in the two-part form..."
---
Related MPEP Comparison:
- MPEP 2173: Claims Must Particularly Point Out and Distinctly Claim
- 35 USC 112(b): Equivalent US clarity requirement
- Key difference: EPO applies stricter objective clarity standard
| EPO (EPC) | USPTO (35 USC) | PCT |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 54 (Novelty) | 35 USC 102 | Art. 33(2) |
| Art. 56 (Inventive step) | 35 USC 103 | Art. 33(3) |
| Art. 83 (Sufficiency) | 35 USC 112(a) Enablement | Rule 5.1(a)(v) |
| Art. 84 (Clarity) | 35 USC 112(b) | Rule 6.1 |
| Art. 84 (Support) | 35 USC 112(a) Written desc. | Rule 6.1 |
| Rule 42 (Description) | MPEP 608 | Rule 5 |
| Rule 43 (Claims) | 37 CFR 1.75 | Rule 6 |
| Rule 47 (Abstract) | 37 CFR 1.72 | Rule 8 |
| Art. 52(2) (Exclusions) | 35 USC 101 | N/A |
| Art. 53(c) (Medical methods) | N/A (allowed in US) | N/A |