/review-epo-claims

description: Analyze patent claims for EPO Art. 84 EPC compliance - clarity, conciseness, support by description
argument-hint: "[optional: clarity | conciseness | support] claims-text"
allowed-tools:
  - review_epo_claims
  - search_patent_law
  - search_mpep
model: claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929

EPO Claims Review

Automated analysis of patent claims for European Patent Office compliance with Art. 84 EPC / Rule 43 EPC / EPO Guidelines Part F.

**Focus Area:** $ARGUMENTS

What This Command Does

Performs comprehensive EPO claims analysis:

1. **Clarity Analysis** (Art. 84 EPC):

• Identifies unclear or ambiguous terms
• Detects relative terms without reference points
• Checks for consistent terminology throughout claims
• Validates technical feature definitions

2. **Conciseness Check** (Art. 84 EPC):

• Detects redundant claims
• Identifies unnecessarily complex claim structures
• Checks for duplicate scope between claims
• Validates claim set economy

3. **Support by Description** (Art. 84 EPC):

• Verifies all claimed features are disclosed in the description
• Checks claim scope does not exceed disclosure
• Validates generalizations from specific examples
• Identifies unsupported claim breadth

4. **Claim Structure** (Rule 43 EPC):

• Validates two-part form (preamble + characterizing portion) where appropriate
• Checks independent claim structure
• Validates dependent claim references
• Verifies claim categories (product, process, apparatus, use)

5. **Issue Categorization**:

• **Critical**: Will cause objection under Art. 84 EPC
• **Important**: May cause objection or limit claim scope
• **Minor**: Best practice improvements per EPO Guidelines

Who This Is For

• Patent attorneys preparing EP applications
• Applicants responding to EPO Art. 84 objections
• Practitioners converting US claims to EPO format
• Quality assurance before EP filing or Euro-PCT entry

Process

Step 1: Provide Claims

You can provide claims in three ways:

**Option 1: Paste claims directly**

/review-epo-claims

> Paste your claims text, then type 'END' on a new line:

1. A system for authenticating users, characterised in that
   the system comprises a distributed ledger configured to
   store and verify credentials.

2. The system according to claim 1, wherein the distributed
   ledger is a blockchain.

END

**Option 2: Point to a file**

/review-epo-claims path/to/claims.txt

**Option 3: Let me read from current conversation**

[You paste claims in chat]

/review-epo-claims --from-context

Step 2: Automated Analysis

I'll run the claims through the EPO compliance analyzer:

This checks:

• All terms for clarity (Art. 84 EPC)
• Claim conciseness and economy
• Support by description
• Two-part form structure (Rule 43(1) EPC)
• Claim categories and dependencies
• EPO Guidelines Part F requirements

Step 3: Generate Report

I'll provide a detailed compliance report with:

• Overall compliance score (0-100)
• Issue count by severity
• Specific issues with locations
• EPC article and rule citations
• EPO Guidelines references
• Suggested fixes

Step 4: Fix Issues (Optional)

For each critical/important issue, I can:

• Show the problematic text
• Explain the EPO objection basis
• Suggest specific fix
• Apply fix if you approve

Report Structure

EPO CLAIMS COMPLIANCE REPORT
==============================

Summary:
--------
- Total Claims: 15 (2 independent, 13 dependent)
- Compliance Score: 68/100
- Total Issues: 11 (2 critical, 6 important, 3 minor)

Recommendation: FIX CRITICAL ISSUES BEFORE EP FILING

CRITICAL ISSUES (Will Cause Art. 84 Objection):
=================================================

[Claim 1, Line 4] Lack of Clarity
-----------------------------------
Issue: Term "substantially planar" used without objective criterion

Location:
  "a substantially planar surface for mounting"
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Problem:
  The term "substantially planar" lacks clarity under Art. 84 EPC.
  The EPO requires clear, objective claim language. Unlike USPTO
  practice, the EPO applies a stricter standard for terms of degree.

EPC Citation: Art. 84 EPC - Clarity requirement
EPO Guidelines: F-IV, 4.6 - Relative terms

Fix Suggestion:
  Option 1: Define with objective criteria
    Change to: "a surface having a flatness deviation of less than 0.1mm"

  Option 2: Reference a standard
    Change to: "a planar surface as measured per ISO 1101"

---

[Claim 1] Missing Two-Part Form
---------------------------------
Issue: Independent claim does not use two-part form

Problem:
  Under Rule 43(1) EPC, independent claims should normally
  contain a statement of prior art features (preamble) and
  a characterizing portion introduced by "characterised in that"
  or "characterised by".

EPC Citation: Rule 43(1) EPC
EPO Guidelines: F-IV, 3.2 - Two-part form

Fix Suggestion:
  BEFORE: "1. A system comprising: a processor; a memory; ..."
  AFTER:  "1. A system comprising a processor and a memory,
           characterised in that [novel features]..."

---

[Continue for all critical issues...]

IMPORTANT ISSUES (Should Fix):
================================

[Claim 5] Unsupported Generalization
--------------------------------------
Issue: Claim broader than description supports

Location: "any communication protocol"

The description only discloses TCP/IP and Bluetooth.
Claiming "any communication protocol" extends beyond
the disclosure. Art. 84 EPC requires claims to be
supported by the description.

EPC Citation: Art. 84 EPC - Support requirement
EPO Guidelines: F-IV, 6.2 - Breadth of claims

Suggested Fix: Change to "a communication protocol
selected from TCP/IP and Bluetooth"

---

[Continue for all important issues...]

MINOR ISSUES (Consider Fixing):
=================================

[Claim 8] Style Issue
----------------------
Issue: US-style "comprising" without "characterised in that"

While not strictly required fo