From claude-patent-creator-standalone
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).
npx claudepluginhub robthepcguy/claude-patent-creator --plugin claude-patent-creator-standaloneThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Automated analysis of patent applications for European Patent Office compliance under the European Patent Convention (EPC).
Searches EPC articles/rules, EPO Guidelines for Examination, and PCT rules for European/international patent law research, including USPTO/MPEP comparisons.
Conducts Freedom-to-Operate (FTO) patent claim analysis using Espacenet tools to identify in-force patents, map claims to product features, check legal status, and produce structured risk assessments.
Analyzes patent documents for infringement assessment, technical feature extraction, protection scope comparison, stability evaluation, FTO analysis, and value assessment. Useful for claims analysis, multi-patent comparison, and IP strategy.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
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: