S
serQuality Report 2022
Annex to the Annual Review

Executive summary
As the patent granting authority for Europe, established by the signing of theEuropean Patent Convention (EPC) in October 1973, the EPO has always given
top priority to providing patent applicants and the European public with highquality patents and patent services that deliver the highest levels of legal certainty
and predictability. Our highly qualified and motivated staff take great pride in thequality and importance of their work – supporting the innovation that will help theworld achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
This focus on quality is fundamental to our mission, but it is not a journey that weundertake alone. The users of the patent system also have a central role to play
– not only in helping us define what we mean by quality service, but also inassessing that quality and identifying areas where both we and they can improve
the patent granting process (PGP). It is a joint responsibility built on trust anddialogue.
The EPO underlined its user-centric approach to quality in 2022 with the launchof its Patent Quality Charter. An objective of the EPO's Strategic Plan 2023, thisCharter had been in development since 2019 and is the product of collaboration
between industry, European Patent Organisation member states and our staff. It
was drafted with input from and in full consultation with all PGP stakeholders. It
recognises the vital importance of high-quality patents for industry and underlines
the EPO's commitment to excellence at every stage of the PGP.
But what does that commitment to excellence mean in terms of our products andservices? At its heart this commitment has focused on providing applicants withthe most complete and accurate search and written opinion on patentability within
six months for first filings. This product, which not only identifies potentiallyrelevant prior art but also gives an indication of patentability, is unique amongst
leading patent offices. Providing this service within six months gives applicants
the information they need to take informed decisions about future investment intheir invention. At the examination stage our aim is to provide thorough andconsistent examination in line with the EPC. Ensuring the timeliness of theexamination process brings greater legal certainty for competitors and society.
Our extensive dialogue with users in 2022 confirmed that our prioritisation ofthese two areas is right. Of course, there are always aspects where applicants
will have different views from us – for example the relative importance of grant
timeliness, elements of claim drafting or interpretation of the EPC. Before acting
on these views, it is essential that the EPO listens to the full range of opinions on
a particular issue and discusses them in fora such as our Standing Advisory
Committee.
It is equally important that, when areas for improvement are identified, we aretransparent in our reporting. In response to feedback from our users, this Quality
Report 2022 takes a different approach from previous reports. In it we set out ingreater detail how quality is built into everything that we do, how we measurequality in many different ways and the tools we have at our disposal to help us
achieve our goal of excellence. We also provide our results and the steps we took
in 2022 to act on the areas for improvement. The main areas of action in 2022
are set out in detail in this report.
Some of our key achievements were:
epo.org | 2
























recruiting and retaining staff – our staff are the cornerstone of EPO quality
and we are fortunate to be able to attract and retain the very best talent; in2022, 77 highly qualified examiners joined the EPO, of whom 64% have a
PhD and 57% have industry or private-sector experience, and staff turnoverincluding retirements was 3.02%
agreeing with our users on a common definition of patent quality – publishing
the Patent Quality Charter
increasing the routes for applicants to provide feedback on our services –with a new confidential Ombuds service and a new customer feedback
mechanism
assessing quality together – with the first-ever Stakeholder Quality
Assurance Panels on grant, which brought together European patent
attorneys and our staff
achieving strong performance in our independent user satisfaction survey –the results of the 2021/2022 cycle were published in 2022
the new 2022/2023 survey results have been available since May 2023. They
showed that the percentage of applicants rating our services as "neither
good nor poor", good or very good was 94% for search, 93% for examination
and 87% for opposition. The results of this new survey will now be analysedand findings will be fed into new quality initiatives
increasing the scope and number of our internal quality audits – 25% morefiles were audited, and five new criteria were introduced to cover the search
opinionfurther exploring direct dialogue between quality auditors and divisions as ameans of efficient feedback – helping us to identify how we can improvesearch, written opinions and examination
expanding our prior-art databases and increasing the power of our search
tools
improving the completeness and accuracy of searches and written opinions– by piloting an active search division concept involving the search division
chair and continuing to encourage examiners to suggest how applicants may
overcome objections
improving the thoroughness of examination – including by launching an inhouse-developed tool to assist the examining division in assessing potential
added subject-matter
improving consistency – reorganising our examiners into eight technology
communities, expanding our communities of practice and developing a new
harmonisation dashboard
improving opposition – including by enhancing videoconferencing
capabilities, for example by adding private breakout room functionalities
allowing parties to deliberate confidentiallyIn addition to the report itself there is an annex on the EPO's grant rate. Theseand other statistics are sometimes used as a proxy for quality. We do not see thegrant rate as an indicator of a patent office's quality as it is heavily influenced by
the quality of applications filed. A pre-searched, carefully drafted application with
an appropriate scope has a much higher likelihood of proceeding to grant. Indeed
an analysis of our grant rate shows that some applicants have a 100% grant rate,whilst others are at 16%.
Another dedicated annex to this report provides the results from our Stakeholder
Quality Assurance Panels (SQAPs) on grant. The panels agreed that therequirements of the EPC were largely met but that dialogue between theexaminer and the applicant could be improved. This exercise proved to be very
epo.org | 3

popular with our users and with staff too. Responding to their feedback, the scopeand number of the panels will be extended. The SQAPs are becoming an
increasingly important method for us to assess and discuss quality with ourapplicants based on factual observations related to real cases.
In response to user feedback, this Quality Report is the most comprehensive the
EPO has ever published. We hope that it provides all our stakeholders with amore complete view of the steps we take to ensure that we strengthen our
reputation for quality and continuously improve

epo.org | 4

Contents
Executive summary

2

1.

The foundations of EPO quality

6

1.1

A solid legal framework6

1.2

The expertise of our staff

7

2.

A shared understanding of quality

13

3.

Assessing quality together

14

3.1

Assessing quality with our staff

14

3.2

Assessing quality with our users

16

3.3

Certified quality management system

23

4.

Enabling quality

24

4.1

The world's most extensive prior-art collection

24

4.2

A world-leading classification scheme

26

4.3

State-of-the-art tools

28

5.

Improving quality at every stage of the PGP

31

5.1

Classification

31

5.2

Search33

5.3

Examination

44

5.4

Opposition

56

5.5

Formalities

60

6.

Conclusions and outlook for 2023

63

Annex 1

Grant rates and additional post-grant statistics

66

Annex 2

Stakeholder Quality Assurance Panels (SQAP) 2022 Report71

1.

Stakeholder Quality Assurance Panels (SQAPs)

71

2.

SQAP findings on grants

74

3.

Key take aways

78

4.

EPO follow-up on SQAPs

78

5.

Improving and developing the SQAP approach79

epo.org | 5

1.

The foundations of EPO quality

1.1

A solid legal framework

As we celebrate 50 years of the European Patent Convention (EPC), it is worth
taking stock of this remarkable legal text and the value it has brought toapplicants, industry, innovation and European society. For half a century, theEPC has boosted competitiveness in Europe and enhanced its attractiveness toinvestors because it is a clear, coherent and consistent legal text that ensureslegal certainty and predictability in the area of patent law. Moreover, it establisheda framework under which patents granted by the EPO today can have a uniform
scope of protection in up to 39 member states, one extension state and four
validation states – covering an area with some 700 million inhabitants.
Figure 1: Uniform scope of protection in up to 44 countries with a population of some 700
million inhabitants

Source: EPO

Substantive patent quality and service quality are at the core of the EPC. It
provides a solid legal foundation for every stage of the patent granting process.
The search division, as set out in Article 18 EPC, is responsible for carrying out
a complete and accurate search. Uniquely, search reports from the EPO not only
highlight any relevant prior art, but also come with a detailed written opinion on
the patentability of the invention. Delivered within six months for first filings, thesetwo documents provide applicants with a fast indication of their application's
novelty and substantive patentability, enabling them to take timely business andinvestment decisions about their invention.
Under the EPC, the examining division is then responsible for conducting
substantive examination. This division, another unique feature amongst theworld's largest patent offices, brings together three highly qualified technicalexperts, allowing them to make a detailed, rigorous and accurate assessment of
the application with respect to the requirements of the EPC. The EPC stipulates
that all three must make an assessment before an application is granted or
refused. Given the increasing technical complexity of applications – anapplication now often covers a multitude of technologies – this feature of threetechnical experts allows the EPO to bring together the right examiners fromdifferent technical fields to assess patentability. In addition the EPC provides that,when required, the examining division may be supplemented with additional legal
expertise.
epo.org | 6

As a further quality assurance measure, the EPC guarantees the right for
applicants to be heard. The EPC also grants competitors the right to fileobservations and the right to oppose granted patents, present evidence and beheard.
Oral proceedings, whether in examination or opposition, take place before threemember divisions. To increase objectivity and quality, the chair and first memberof an opposition division are always drawn from a central pool of highly
experienced examiners with relevant technical and procedural experience. In
most cases the majority of an opposition division's members are not selectedfrom the examining division which originally granted the opposed patent.
Additionally, under Article 19 EPC, an opposition division's chair may not havebeen a member of the original examination division. In both examination andopposition proceedings there is a right to appeal any decision before the EPO's
independent Boards of Appeal.
But a legal framework must also adapt to change, and the EPC has demonstrated
its flexibility since 1973. Together with the developments of Boards of Appeal
case law and of our Guidelines for Examination, the EPC evolves, taking into
account user feedback: as a result in 2022, we further improved the review cycleof the EPC and PCT-EPO Guidelines for Examination. The 125 comments
received during the public user consultation were discussed with user delegatesin May, with about 70% being taken on board. At a second meeting in October, afurther discussion took place to review the 87 comments received from user
associations on the first draft of the 2023 Guidelines..
Ultimately, the EPC is the foundation of a sustainable European patent system –one that supports global innovation and enhances legal certainty for those who
invest in research in Europe. It has also fostered the growth and success of the
EPO – an organisation that places quality at the heart of everything it does.
Pursuing this strong focus on quality and recognising the importance of highquality patents is not only in the interest of the public and essential for industry. It
also supports worldwide innovation as we all strive to achieve the United Nations
Sustainable Development Goals.

1.2

The expertise of our staff

The EPO has always recognised the vital importance of its highly qualified anddedicated staff to its quality and success. Not only do we recruit the mosttechnically competent people; we also support them with the very best training inpatent law and procedures. Through training and knowledge sharing, we ensure
their patent knowledge and technical skills remain up to date throughout theircareers. Given the rapid pace of technological change we support them, where
necessary, to reskill and move into a different technical area.

Recruiting the very best
The EPO is an attractive employer. We therefore can, and do, hire the best. In
2022, 77 highly qualified examiners were recruited out of a total of 4 527 external
candidates; 64% of them have a PhD and 57% have industry or private-sector
experience. In 2023, we envisage the recruitment of some 100 examiners. We
therefore met our recruitment target in 2022, and we are on track to meet our2023 target.
epo.org | 7

As with any organisation, however, we sometimes identify suitable candidates
than we cannot immediately recruit. A pipeline of more than 200 suitable
candidates has therefore been created. This is helping reduce hiring times fornewcomers joining us in 2023. It also helps us remain flexible as our recruitment
needs change, ensuring we have sufficient staff to perform our core tasks.
Suitable candidates in the pipeline have been offered basic training in IP,
supporting them to start their career at the EPO from a more advanced level ofknowledge and accelerating their onboarding.
Our desire to broaden and diversify our talent is reflected in our new PanEuropean Seal Young Professionals Programme , which was launched on 1 July
2022. Designed to foster the development of a new generation of IP professionals
and to strengthen tomorrow's European Patent Network, it offers young
graduates unprecedented learning opportunities in IP. What used to be a oneyear traineeship has been extended into a first-employment experience of up to
three years. The 2022 intake consisted of 127 young professionals of 25
nationalities, 61% of whom were women. Young professionals are active in
virtually all areas of the EPO. They receive an intensive training and development
plan focused on IP, language and business skills. Each one also benefits fromclose guidance and tutoring from an experienced EPO staff member.
Not only do we recruit the best talent, but we also have a very high retention rate.
This has a significant, positive impact on quality because the experience andknowledge built up over a long career stay within the EPO. They can be used to
improve quality and passed on to new colleagues. Overall staff turnover(including retirees) continues to be extremely low, at 3.02%.

epo.org | 8

Figure 2: Statistics on 2022 examiner newcomers

Source: EPO

Structured initial training programme
To ensure that new examiners have the required in-depth skills to perform theircomplex tasks to the required high standard, the initial training programme at the
EPO is pivotal. The newcomers' academy has been developed over recent
decades. It is constantly amended and improved based on feedback from each
edition and to respond to individual needs and changes in technology .
Newcomers benefit from 45.5 classroom training days spread over two years,
during which they are introduced to all the skills and tools they need to perform
work of the highest quality on their own files. Additionally, during their first two
years at the EPO each newcomer works closely with one or more coaches, whoare experienced examiners. In an improvement in 2022, these coaches allunderwent refresher training on effective coaching and undertook a selfepo.org | 9

assessment. They were interviewed to assess their suitability as coaches, theirknowledge of patent law, practice and tools and their technical expertise. Throughthis coaching, as well as mentoring and work within examining divisions and theirteam, new examiners quickly bring their skills up to the desired level and aharmonised approach is ensured.

Continuous learning and development
We continue to invest in the professional development of our staff after
recruitment and initial training, and continuous learning is a key part of every staff
member's career at the EPO. Line managers play an important role in guiding
assessment of their staff's skills and supporting their continuous development. In
2021 we introduced a skills framework for formalities officers and in 2022 one for
examiners. In a further step to improve quality, in 2022 we also introduced arequirement for all examiners and formalities officers to have an individual
development plan, to be agreed on and tracked with their line manager. Ideally,
the learning journey of EPO staff consists of classroom courses on technical,
legal or personal/soft skills (accounting for 10% of learning), complemented bypeer-to-peer knowledge sharing (20%) and on-the-job learning (70%). Thishighlights the immense importance we place on learning by collaboration. We
have also increased the range of easily accessible courses on offer for bothformalities officers and examiner communities in view of the European patentadministration certification and the European qualifying examination. They have
proven to be a highly successful way of sharing and gaining knowledge.

Keeping up to date with changes in technology, the law andtools
In-depth understanding of a technical area is a prerequisite for high-quality searchand examination. But technology is constantly changing. We therefore support
examiners in staying up to date with the latest developments in their technicalfield. Technical training material used by instructors and trainees for EPO Talent
Academy (classroom) courses can be accessed via a dedicated TechnicalTraining Portal. This portal also provides a curated selection of supplementarytraining materials from other sources and direct links to the relevant legal
background, all grouped by topic. We also intend to strengthen contacts between
the innovation ecosystem we serve and our staff. For 2023, alongside the regularmeetings with applicants, we have scheduled lectures from industry andacademia on the latest technological developments.
Legal training ensures that staff are always up to date on the applicable legal
framework, as well as on our users' IP strategy. In 2023 our main user
associations, the epi and BusinessEurope, will give lectures to our staff on themost recent developments.
Training on tools is also important and in recent years has been an area of focus
as the digitalisation of our processes and the development of specialised tools
have accelerated.
EPO staff members have access to a comprehensive online learning portal witha wide range of learning opportunities that reflect the diversity of the technicaland legal expertise underpinning the EPO's work. There are excellent andepo.org | 10

bespoke courses for different jobs and common skills, as well as on general
topics which support staff development.
Figure 3: The EPO's internal online learning portal, iLearn

Source: EPO

Knowledge sharing
The EPO is a knowledge-based learning organisation, and the adoption anddissemination of knowledge management best practices is therefore highly
important. One pillar of knowledge management is our Continuous Knowledge
Transfer (CKT) activity where experts share expertise with peers. These are
generally small and local events tailored to the specific needs of a unit and canaddress a wide range of day-to-day operational issues. In 2022, there were 519
such events, attracting nearly 20 000 participants.
Another CKT activity is the Tip of the Day. Colleagues submit tips, which are thenvalidated by experts before being published on the intranet homepage, as wellas on Infopoint screens around the EPO. Thousands of tips of the day have been
published since this initiative was launched, making a substantial difference to
how colleagues work.
In another development in 2022, and reflecting the increasingly online nature of
our interactions, we established iLearn days, which have quickly become an
important hub for knowledge sharing. Organised by colleagues for colleagues,
these online presentations and discussions cover practical matters related to thequality of examiners' daily work – for example writing clear communications,
epo.org | 11

dealing with added subject-matter, correcting minutes and decisions and bestpractices when using IT tools.
Figure 4: iLearn event 2022

Source: EPO

Under the EPO's Strategic Plan 2023, an EPO-wide ecosystem of communities
of practice has been set up, taking the many pre-existing groups and networks
as a starting point. These communities aim to help staff exchange knowledge on
key topics, such as practice concerning computer-implemented inventions; keep
up to date with the latest technological developments; and improve consistencyof practice. Following a review of these groups, efforts in 2022 focused on
initiating new communities where necessary, and taking the existing groups tothe next level by transforming them into cross-departmental communities.
Consistency of practice is covered in detail later in this report.
Technical workshops also provide a great opportunity for knowledge sharing.
These workshops focus on transversal technologies and provide insight into how
teams work together. Presented by EPO experts from different technical fields
using case examples, they are designed to raise awareness of best practices andexplore how different ways of working can improve quality and harmonisation.
It is sometimes difficult to keep track of so many initiatives. To do so, a dedicatedspace was created on the intranet. Known as the Eco Store, 1 it brings together
collaboration methods which have been proven to help improve quality,
effectiveness and engagement. Examiners and formalities officers can find over
40 one-pagers, presentations and videos describing each collaboration method.
At an active programme of lectures examiners can learn from members andchairpersons of the Boards of Appeal and from national judges about the most
relevant recent developments in case law. Particular attention is paid to topics
offering the greatest potential for learning and for improving the quality ofdecisions in examination and opposition. In 2022 three such lectures were given.

Reskilling and retraining
With technology constantly developing, we sometimes need to retrain and reskill
our staff. This requires careful balancing to meet both current and future needs.
Staffing also needs to be balanced against the efficiencies gained from improved
and upcoming tools. By carefully monitoring staffing levels and workload across1

ECo stands for "enhancing collaboration".

epo.org | 12

all technical fields, we aim to have the staff we need in each area to be effective
in delivering the high-quality and timely products and services our users require.
Staff rotation happens on a voluntary basis between neighbouring technical fields
and/or based on previous professional experience and interest. Of course, allexaminers who change fields are given appropriate training and support.
Dedicated learning programmes are developed as needed for each examiner.
They combine on-the-job training from experienced colleagues with, where
necessary, dedicated reskilling. Since 2020, 205 examiners have moved to aclosely neighbouring field of technology.
Our formalities officers have also seen huge changes in the way they work, withdigitalisation transforming their role and duties. In parallel to the development of
the formalities officer skills framework, different formalities teams have been
exploring how they can best support examiners in providing high-quality products
and services. Following the first-ever European patent administration certificationin 2022 (see section 5.5.3), in 2023 we will evaluate these explorations to identify
where our formalities colleagues add most value to the patent grant process.

2.

A shared understanding of quality

Quality is hard to define, is often difficult to assess and may be subject to manydifferent interpretations. It is therefore important to have a shared understandingof what quality means, for both our staff and our users; to have a number ofdifferent measures of quality; and where possible to assess quality together. In
the context of the EPO's Strategic Plan 2023, and to address the first of thesepoints and establish a common understanding of quality, the EPO worked withusers, staff and member states to develop a Patent Quality Charter.
This new Charter entered into force on 1 October 2022. It has at its heart ourcommitment to excellence – and fully recognises the importance and value ofhigh-quality patents to industry and society, and their contribution to the United
Nations Sustainable Development Goals and a safer, smarter and moresustainable world. It sets out the shared responsibility of the EPO and industry indelivering high-quality patents and services that foster innovation,competitiveness and economic growth. The Charter replaces the Quality Policy,
which had been in place since 2013, reflecting the EPO's current and futureneeds and our users' expectations on quality.
The Charter refers to the delivery of high-quality patents and services based ona solid legal framework and the expertise of our staff. It goes on to recognise that
our stakeholders rely on us for timely delivery and the highest levels of legal
certainty, predictability and consistency. It reaffirms that we are committed to
excellence at all stages of the patent grant process and promote quality
ownership among all stakeholders. It closes by referring to our commitment totaking actions that lead to higher user satisfaction and increased confidence inthe European patent system.
The purpose of the Charter, and the three years of work from industry, European
Patent Organisation member states and our staff that went into it, was for us all
to agree what is important for quality and then to focus on working together on
assessing and improving it. In this way, we can collaboratively improve quality,
increase legal certainty and enhance confidence in the patent system.

epo.org | 13

The Patent Quality Charter is conceived as the touchstone of quality for both the
EPO and its stakeholders, and how we will work together on quality can bevisualised as five pillars as illustrated below.
Figure 5: Summary of the EPO's Patent Quality Charter

Source: EPO

3.

Assessing quality together

We have developed a comprehensive set of mechanisms that allow us to assess
our quality, identify where we need to do better and, where possible, correct
errors before search and examination products are sent to applicants. We assess
quality at every stage of our processes, together with our staff and in close
dialogue with our users. This provides us with a wealth of information and data,
capturing feedback on our quality from many different perspectives.
Figure 6: Quality assessment mechanisms at the EPO

Source: EPO

3.1

Assessing quality with our staff

3.1.1

Quality assurance in our operational teams

At the heart of EPO quality is the examining division. It ensures that all proposals
for grant and all refusals are checked and signed by three technically qualified
examiners and conducts oral proceedings in examination. Similarly, opposition
epo.org | 14

divisions comprise three examiners, at least two of whom were not members of
the examining division that granted the opposed patent.
As part of our operational quality control, all outgoing actions are routed throughthe relevant line manager. In addition, the reasons for any corrections madebecause of consultation within the examining division or arising from line manager
checks are recorded in our systems, giving us an excellent overview of room for
improvement. Directors together with senior experts also actively support
harmonisation of practice across the various teams in their units.
In the course of 2022, operational quality control in opposition was further
improved. In-process sample checks are now performed on both summonses
and decisions based on a refined checklist. They are carried out by opposition
directors and a limited number of quality experts with extensive opposition
experience. Opposition directors decide the basis for sampling , which can beadapted to focus on specific areas. They also check files from each other's
opposition directorates to ensure harmonisation across opposition. In addition, in
November 2022 the concept of Opposition Quality Round Tables was launched.
Held once per quarter, these bring together opposition directors, a group of
experienced opposition chairs and representatives from Principal Directorate
Quality and Practice Harmonisation and the Talent Academy. The purpose is tohave an exchange on general quality observations and agree on how to convert
these into specific quality initiatives and learning points.
In the formalities area, key parts of the various processes and products arechecked based on continuous bi-weekly sampling. Sampled files are checked byknowledgeable quality officers and any findings validated by senior quality
experts. Formalities officers are given detailed feedback on any deficiencies
found, to foster learning and continuous improvement.
Figure 7: Key components of assessing quality in our operational teams

Source: EPO

3.1.2

Directorate Quality Audit

In addition to the in-process checks conducted on every file, Directorate Quality
Audit – which is independent of our operational teams – audits the quality ofclassification, search, examination and opposition work, as well as the work offormalities officers. This ensures regular and independent evaluation of how thedivisions and formalities officers are applying the regulations. The findings areused for continuous quality improvement of our products and services. Between
2018 and 2022, Directorate Quality Audit increased its capacity, more thandoubling the number of audits performed annually and expanding checks to cover
the written opinion.
epo.org | 15

The random sampling of search products and proposals for grant takes place inprocess, and the audit workflow is now integrated into the operational electronic
workflow, Patent Workbench, so that any corrective actions can be taken before
the products are despatched.
Quality audits are conducted by qualified and trained auditors. With 336
operational teams across 8 technology communities, each search andexamination auditor must cover a broad range of applications. In the past, thisled to disagreements between the expert examiner divisions and the auditors inaround 10% of cases. In 2020 we introduced face-to-face meetings to increase
the effectiveness of the feedback in such disputed cases. These informal
discussions on the specific findings concerning patentability, added subjectmatter, clarity and other quality improvements enable divisions to receive direct
feedback on their work and provide opportunities for learning and knowledge
exchange for auditors and divisions alike. As a result, the agreement rate is now
above 99% of audited files in search and 96% in examination, giving us highconfidence in the accuracy of audit findings.
The EPO has audited the quality of its search products since 2007, checking thatthe most relevant prior art is cited in search reports. As very high levels ofconformity (over 96%) were measured over several years, there was little room
for improvement. The audit has therefore been extended to cover five additional
aspects centred on the written opinion. This will give assurance that the search
product is also providing a complete and correct interpretation of the prior art,
clearly communicating the potential patentability of claims.

3.2

Assessing quality with our users

The EPO devotes significant resources to dialogue with users on quality andother topics and to finding out what improvements they would like to see in thepatent granting process. A significant proportion of our quality improvement
actions are based on user input, underlining the value of the feedback we receive
through numerous channels. Over years of assessing user feedback, we havefound that concrete examples provide the best basis for further analysis of any
issues raised. We therefore encourage users, if possible, to provide such
evidence whenever they wish to highlight areas where they feel improvement isrequired.

3.2.1

User satisfaction surveys

The EPO has conducted comprehensive, independent user satisfaction surveys
for many years. The results are used for continuous improvement of products andservices throughout the patent granting process. The results of the 2020/21
survey were published on the EPO website 2 in 2022, confirming the very highuser satisfaction with all services provided by EPO.
On 1 September 2022, we launched the latest series of surveys, which ran until
April 2023. These in-depth surveys were conducted by telephone and webform

2

epo.org/service-support/contact-us/surveys.html

epo.org | 16

on the EPO's behalf by our independent, external service provider. Interviews
were held in Chinese, English, French, German, Japanese and Korean.
The results confirm very high user satisfaction levels and show that thepercentage of applicants rating our services as "neither good nor poor", "good"or "very good" was 94% for search, 93% for examination and 87% for opposition.
The replies are being further analysed to define quality improvement actions, tobe implemented where appropriate throughout 2023. The results are available inthis report and more detailed data will be made available to the public during thesecond half of 2023.

3.2.2

Customer enquiries

Customer enquiries are also a valuable source of information. If we see changes
in the volume of enquiries or trends in the questions being asked, these can help
us to identify a potential process or quality issue. To improve our analysis andhandling of customer enquiries, at the beginning of 2022 we fully rolled out a newcustomer service management (CSM) system to handle all customer enquiries,
complaints and feedback. In total, 65 164 cases were successfully handled in
2022, down from over 70 000 in 2021.
Figure 8: Incoming enquiries since introduction of the new CSM

Source: EPO

Almost half the enquiry cases were submitted by email, followed by phone andthen contact webform. The EPO managed to resolve 95.8% of all cases in 2022
(94.8% in 2021) within the set internal time limits (16 business hours, 5 days or
20 days depending on the enquiry), in line with our target of 95%. Many cases
are resolved directly by the EPO's First Line Customer Enquiries Unit (1LCEU).
Thanks to ongoing training efforts throughout 2022, the share of cases resolved
by 1LCEU went up from about 28% to 30%. The other enquiries, which forexample related to patent applications or needed more specific procedural or tool
expertise, are assigned by 1LCEU to the respective units across the EPO for
resolution.
The EPO also has a team of key account managers. They provide direct support
to the EPO's top users, who include IP professionals from across the spectrum,
i.e. staff of companies filing directly at the EPO, patent attorneys, paralegals andIP support staff. In 2022 these key account managers supported over 500
epo.org | 17

European and non-European accounts. They also proactively create cases in the
CSM system when they interact with customers.
After closure of a case, customers receive an email with an invitation to give
feedback on how we handled their enquiry. Between March and December 2022,
we received almost 5 500 such customer sentiment replies. Overall satisfaction
was positive – ≥7 on a 1-10 scale – in 94.2% of enquiry cases, and the share ofcustomer sentiment questionnaires with only positive answers was 89.1%. All
customer sentiment feedback is systematically forwarded to the case handler andall negative feedback (≤6 on a 1-10 scale) is followed up.

3.2.3

Complaints and our new feedback channel

The EPO offers an official online channel to complain or provide feedback. 3 Since
the introduction of our new CSM system, which was first piloted at the end of2021, users can choose in the webform between the categories "Complaint" and"Feedback". As a rule, when a complaint relates to a specific application or
patent, a copy of the complaint form and our reply are included in the public partof the file. However, the principles governing exclusion from file inspection also
apply to complaints. This means that parts which could be prejudicial to thelegitimate personal or economic interests of a natural or legal person can be
excluded from file inspection at their request or by us on our own initiative. 4
Feedback is not included in the public part of the file, even if it relates to a specificapplication or patent.
Despite examiners issuing some 507 000 actions in 2022, a total of 265
complaints and feedback cases were filed, slightly down from 275 in 2021.

3
4

epo.org/complaints
new.epo.org/en/complaintsfeedback

epo.org | 18

Figure 9: Complaints and feedback cases

Source: EPO

All complaints are thoroughly analysed, usually in consultation with theoperational units concerned. In 86% of cases in 2022, complainants received adetailed reply within 20 days. There was a slight decline in complaints in the
search and examination area from 113 in 2021 to 98 in 2022. 65 of these 98
complaints were considered justified or partially justified and in 38 of these cases
they resulted in corrective action. In the area of online tools, we saw an increasein complaints from 15 in 2021 to 33 in 2022, with 79% of the complaints being
justified or partially justified.
About half of the complaints originated from professional representatives and
67% of these were justified or partially justified. Of the other half, 24% came fromindividuals acting without the support of a patent attorney and 21% fromcompanies.

3.2.4

Ombuds Office

In another development that responds to requests from industry and its
representatives, the EPO consulted on and then launched a new Ombuds Officein April 2022. Available to anyone, it provides an informal and confidential service
which resolves difficulties in dealings with the EPO, getting stalled procedures
back on track through dialogue. It is independent of formal processes and does
not address matters concerning the Boards of Appeal. Lessons learnt from cases
help the EPO further develop its integrated management system for continuous
improvement in the consistency and predictability of service delivery.
In 2022, the Ombuds Office received 47 cases. By the end of the year, 43 ofthese cases had been successfully concluded with 4 still in progress. Twentyepo.org | 19

three cases related to information needs, 12 to the completeness of records and
10 to stakeholder relationships. Two cases were not categorised.

3.2.5

Meetings with our applicants

We have a large variety of applicants, from micro, small and medium-sizedenterprises and individual applicants to universities, research centres and large
multinationals. We invest heavily in capturing their diverse perspectives on
quality.
Meetings with our applicants are a valuable forum for discussing strategic andoperational topics, filing strategies, new technologies and future plans. They havealso enabled detailed discussions on EPO quality, consistency and timeliness,
as well as how the quality of incoming applications can be improved.
In 2022, the EPO met with user associations on 30 different occasions, including
nine meetings within the framework of the Standing Advisory Committee before
the EPO (see section 3.2.6) and seven with non-European user associations.
We also organised 17 meetings of our senior management teams with key
applicants. These applicants were responsible for 14 760 applications filed with
us in 2021. With some of these applicants, technical-level follow-up meetings
were organised, allowing us to go into more detail in areas such as artificial
intelligence and the requirement to adapt the description following amendments
to the claims.
Overall, 363 non-EPO and 442 EPO participants attended meetings withapplicants. The majority of these meetings took advantage of digital means ofinteraction, taking place entirely online. Two meetings were organised in a hybrid
format, with some of the participants on site and others attending via video call.
Figure 10: Meetings with key applicants in 2021 and 2022

Source: EPO

In addition to meeting with larger applicants, the EPO also reaches out to small
and medium-sized enterprises, recognising that small companies and smallerepo.org | 20

volume patent applicants make up a large share of the European economy andits economic potential. As part of efforts to support these applicants, an event
was organised that aimed to better inform participants about the European patent
system and EPO products and services. It attracted 91 participants from 42
countries. In all meetings with applicants , it was clear that different users had
differing needs, independent of their size or technological sector.
We also held 37 technical meetings between examiners and applicants. Prepandemic, these were held on site at the applicant's premises. Since thepandemic, these technical meetings have been conducted exclusively byvideoconference. They provide an excellent opportunity for exchange between
examiners and applicants where both parties can learn from each other.

User Day
The 2022 User Day attracted a record number of 4 500 viewers, and wasattended by representatives from industry, patent law firms, the general public,
small and medium-sized enterprises and research institutes. The event gave
updates on a wide range of EPO topics and featured lively panel discussions on
the Unitary Patent, quality and timeliness, the eight technology communities andnew approaches to environmental sustainability.
Figure 11: 2022 User Day

Source: EPO

EPO experts updated users on the latest developments in the EPO's digital user
services, including MyEPO Portfolio, which was launched in June 2022, andOnline Filing 2.0. External speakers from industry, patent law firms and small andmedium-sized enterprises were part of most of the panel discussions andbreakout sessions.

3.2.6

The Standing Advisory Committee before the EPO

The Standing Advisory Committee before the EPO (SACEPO) is the EPO's main
advisory body and consulted on all major issues relating to the development of
the European patent system. Five working parties have been set up to address
particular areas:e-Patent Process
epo.org | 21






Guidelines
Quality
Rules
Patent Documentation and Information

The Working Party on Quality is our primary means for consulting users on quality
and a forum to foster a common understanding of quality between the EPO andEuropean patent system users. Since 2020, membership has been expanded to
now comprise 75 user representatives, who provide broad representation ofindustry, the patent profession and public research institutions. They come from42 countries across four geographical areas of the world and represent all fieldsof technology. Meeting twice per year, the working party is given detailed updates
on EPO performance and new initiatives, and members raise areas for discussion
concerning substantive quality improvement. In 2022, there were also exchanges
on improving SACEPO as a forum for dialogue between the EPO and users,
detailed discussions on areas for improvement of substantive quality and an open
Q&A session in which EPO experts answered questions raised by working party
members.
Issues that affect quality or the perception of quality are sometimes raised in theother SACEPO working parties too. For example, 28 user representatives from
Europe, China, Japan, Korea and the USA meet each year in the framework of
the Working Party on e-Patent-Process to exchange with the EPO on the digitaltransformation of the patent grant process and advances in online services. In
recent meetings (in 2022 and 2023), focus has been on features of the new online
user engagement programme, in particular user area access, My EPO portfolio,
electronic priority documents, digital grant certificates, as well as
decommissioning of faxes and the introduction of alternatives to the existingsmart card technology. Also issues concerning oral proceedings byvideoconference, developments in Online Filing 2.0 and Central Fee Payment
have been explored in detail within this SACEPO Working Party. Similar topics
were discussed at the epi's Online Communication Committee meeting
In 2022, the review cycle for the EPC and PCT-EPO Guidelines took place asplanned. The 125 comments received during the public user consultation on the2022 Guidelines were discussed with user delegates in May, with about 70%
being taken on board. At a second meeting in October, a further discussion took
place to review the 87 comments received from user associations on the first draftof the 2023 Guidelines. The 2023 EPC and PCT-EPO Guidelines entered into
force on 1 March 2023.

3.2.7

Stakeholder Quality Assurance Panels

The Stakeholder Quality Assurance Panels (SQAPs), which report to the
SACEPO Working Party on Quality, bring together expert user representatives toperform an in-depth review of selected EPO files. In this way they provide filespecific feedback and place users at the heart of quality assessment at the EPO.
In a new development in October 2022, the SQAPs performed the first-ever joint
assessment involving both EPO experts and European patent attorneys. The six
panels, covering all eight of the EPO's technology communities, brought together
12 European patent attorneys and 18 examiner team managers, senior experts
and quality auditors from the EPO. The focus was on grant. The panels looked at
EPC requirements, amendments proposed by the examining division at grant
epo.org | 22

stage and adaptation of the description, presenting their findings to the SACEPOWorking Party on Quality in November 2022. They identified areas ofconvergence and divergence in interpretation, highlighted areas of good practiceand signalled areas for learning and improvement. For the full report on the 2022
SQAPs, see Annex 2.

3.3

Certified quality management system

Our various in-process quality checks and assessment procedures need to besupported by an effective quality management system. As part of the EPO's
Strategic Plan 2023, it has implemented a comprehensive integrated
management system. Part of this is our fully certified quality management system.
It reflects our commitment to providing patent system users with the highestquality products and services, to creating the optimal working environment for our
staff and to achieving operational excellence.
Our quality management system provides a framework for success, requiring us
to define who does what, eliminate skills gaps and communicate with all staff onquality. It requires us to monitor, measure, analyse and evaluate the effectivenessof our quality actions. By doing so, we see how well we are doing and where weneed to improve. The input we gather from the various channels mentioned aboveis routinely analysed and cross-referenced and is often complemented by internalstudies and fact-finding efforts. Findings can give rise to various types of actions.
One such action is quality initiatives, which are a central part of our formal
improvement cycle in which we trigger, define, review and document
improvement actions.
Each year in November, the President hosts a meeting to take stock of the EPO's
quality performance that year. At this meeting, the President endorses objectives
for the coming year along with a Quality Action Plan, which is subsequently
published internally so that all staff are aligned on where the EPO's quality
priorities lie in the year ahead.
Once the objectives and Quality Action Plan have been set, the objectives arecascaded down, adapted so that each staff member and manager receives
quality objectives that are relevant and actionable for them and their unit.
Progress towards achieving the objectives is reviewed in regular meetings
throughout the year.
In 2022, review meetings between the Chief Operating Officer and each
operational team focused on local actions taken by team managers in thefollowing areas:









feedback loops and harmonisation
proper functioning of the divisions
line managers' role in quality
pre-classification and file routingclassificationstrong search and valuable written opinion
consultation, feedback and collaboration
implementation of the 2022 Quality Action Plan

epo.org | 23

4.

Enabling quality

The EPC, together with the technical and legal expertise of our staff, provides thefoundations for our quality service. As outlined above, our commitment andshared understanding of quality, the continuous assessment of quality from many
perspectives, meeting and listening to our users and the actions we take as aresult are also key elements. But in addition to these there are many otheraspects that support our pursuit of excellence at every step of the patent grant
process. These include ensuring access to complete and up-to-date prior art;
providing examiners with the very best search and translation tools; getting theright file to the right examiner and the right division at the right time; and ensuringthat every examiner and formalities officer has access to the most up-to-date andaccurate guidance and case law. Alongside the expertise of our staff, these tools
play an increasingly important role in providing the highest quality and meeting
our quality goals.

4.1

The world's most extensive prior-art collection

EPO patent examiners have access to the world's most extensive prior-art
collection, with billions of technical records. We are constantly adding to thiscollection and in October 2022 passed the milestone of 140 million patentpublications from around the world. These publications date back to 1782.
Currently, we have 82 million patent families in our databases, representing 146
million patent publications. This includes 57 million patent families containing 70
million publications of Asian origin (from China, Japan and Korea).
In 2022 the EPO's patent documentation collection grew by eight million
publications.

4.1.1

Non-patent literature

The EPO's non-patent literature collections are also extensive and provide theresources necessary for comprehensive and complete search reports. This isbecause non-patent literature, such as articles in scientific journals and standards
for telecommunications, is an essential source of prior art in many technical fields.
The volume of non-patent literature varies by technology. In 2022, non-patent
literature made the highest contribution to total citations in pure and appliedorganic chemistry, reflecting the need to search scientific articles in these fields.
Our non-patent literature database counted no less than 114 million groups 5,
including 37 million full-text documents, up from 33.5 million in 2021.
Our collection contains over 444 000 English-language abstracts and summaries
of traditional knowledge documents originally published in India, China andKorea.

5
The term "group" is used to avoid double counting of non-patent literature articles; an article might
appear in one or more abstract databases, but we count only one record. A "group" therefore
represents the original article and all published references to the same article (which come fromdifferent sources).

epo.org | 24

Bilateral co-operation between the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) andthe EPO began in 2016. It has resulted in the integration of the full text ofpublished applications and grants from the CPVO in the EPO's prior-art
collection. This valuable source of information keeps growing and today contains
over 13 900 records. It enables EPO examiners to provide even more legal
certainty to applicants seeking protection for plant-related inventions.

Standards documentation
Standards documentation forms part of our non-patent literature collection. It
ensures the compatibility and interoperability of components, products andservices and promotes the dissemination of new technologies. In other words, it
constitutes a central pillar of the modern knowledge economy. In 2022, the EPO's
collection of standards-related documents grew to 4.6 million, up from 4.4 million
in 2021.
Unless confidential, all documentation used when developing a standard forms
part of the prior art. The EPO has signed agreements with a number of standarddeveloping organisations (SDOs) to ensure that the relevant standards
documentation can be used in the patent granting process. EPO patentexaminers currently have access to comprehensive literature collections fromseveral SDOs, including:















3rd Generation Partnership Project
3rd Generation Partnership Project 2
European Telecommunications Standards InstituteInternational Telecommunication Union
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standards Association
International Electrotechnical Commission
Association of Radio Industries and Business
Internet Engineering Task Force
Digital Video Broadcasting Project
Standards for M2M and the Internet of Things
Open Mobile AllianceVideo Technology
International. Assoc. for Cryptologic Research
Joint Photographic Expert Group Std

In addition to the final standards issued by SDOs, the EPO's databases include
technical disclosures submitted during the standardisation process. As well as
renewing existing agreements with SDOs, the EPO signed a new agreement with
the International Standards Organisation in 2021 .

epo.org | 25

The EPO's prior art collection at a glance









4.2

Patent documents from 106 countries
82 million patent families, representing 146 million publications
Complete collection from Japan, China and Korea (57 million patent families
representing 73 million publications, all available as full text in English)
114 million non-patent literature groups in house,
Access to 10 000 academic and technical journals
4.6 million standards documents
444 000 traditional knowledge documents
13 900 Community Plant Variety Office documents

A world-leading classification scheme

Finding the most relevant prior art is vital for the quality of patent search. An
effective classification system structures prior art using well-defined concepts ina way that is language-independent, making searches more efficient.
Following years of preparation, the EPO and the United States Patent andTrademark Office (USPTO) launched the Cooperative Patent Classification(CPC) on 1 January 2013. The CPC is a common refined classification scheme
based on the EPO's ECLA (European patent classification scheme, which wasused prior to 2013.
In 2022, five further offices adopted the CPC as their internal classification
system: Peru, Belgium, Monaco, Italy and Luxembourg. At the end of 2022, theCPC community stood at 37 offices, 21 of these being European Patent
Organisation member states.
Also in 2022, the Polish Patent Office started exchanging CPC data with the EPO.
The EPO and the USPTO held their annual CPC meetings for CPC offices andindustry users. The CPC was presented at several outreach events such as
Search Matters and Patent Knowledge Week. The EPO and the China National
Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) signed a new CPC agreement andwork plan.

epo.org | 26

Figure 12: Adoption of the CPC worldwide and by EPO member states 6

Source: EPO

Several CPC training courses were held over the course of the year in cooperation with the European Patent Academy. These included online collective
training events open to all CPC offices, dedicated CPC field-specific training

The EPO classifies vast amounts of patent prior art into the CPC including that of Germany withinfour months of their publication.
6

epo.org | 27

sessions for the CNIPA and general and advanced CPC training for all examinersof the Moroccan Office of Industrial and Commercial Property. These training
sessions allowed for direct online interaction between EPO experts andexaminers at CPC offices.
Between 2020 and 2022, seven rounds of bilateral technical meetings covering
330 classification harmonisation projects were organised between the EPO andthe USPTO. These meetings aimed to establish common ground on classification
practices, clarify the scope of classification groups and work on CPC definitions.
To date, 258 CPC subclasses out of a total of 650 have been covered. This, inturn, has revealed opportunities to improve the scheme and definitions, leading
to a total of 100 CPC revision projects.

4.3

State-of-the-art tools

Modern, effective tools are a prerequisite for quality end-products. In 2022 the
EPO therefore continuously invested in developing new and improved IT
solutions enabling our examiners to deliver the products our users need.
In recent years, digitalisation of our workflows and processes has greatly
accelerated. Our in-house tool developers work closely with examiners to provide
them with innovative new tools. These tools empower us to deliver the right fileto the right person at the right time and to find the best prior art most effectively.
The tools also provide plausibility checks throughout the examination process toprevent errors and improve quality. Patent Workbench enables our examining
divisions to continue to work closely together regardless of location.
Figure 13: Overview of EPO tools

Source: EPO

epo.org | 28

4.3.1

Classification tools

Under the EPO's pre-classification process, new filings are pre-classified into one
of 1 400 broad technical fields and then sent to the relevant group of examiners.
This is key to ensuring that the right file reaches the right examiner and examining
division. In Q2 2022, our internal pre-classification engine based on artificial
intelligence took over this task for EP and PCT applications in all three official
languages. It has improved the internal distribution accuracy of these applications
to above 90%. Cases of high complexity are pre-classified by a group ofparatechnicals specialised in classification.
The bulk of classification work done at the EPO is driven by newly publishedpatent documents, which either lack CPC classification symbols or containsymbols that need to be confirmed by the EPO to meet our high quality levels. A
new classification tool has been integrated into our search platform ANSERA toenable examiners to classify applications and prior art more efficiently. An
artificial intelligence assistance functionality that suggests CPC classification
symbols was included in Q4. These developments provide opportunities not justfor better quality and consistency in classification but also for greater efficiency in
EPO examiners' work.
The CPC and International Patent Classification schemes are routinely updated
and refined to keep up with technological developments. . The EPO and USPTO
tackle this by releasing a new CPC scheme four times a year: in 2022, newversions of the CPC scheme were released in January, February, May andAugust. Following these scheme revisions, the documents in the old classificationgroups need to be reclassified into the new schemes. The reclassification workfor our core collection is entrusted with the EPO and USPTO, while other CPC
offices are asked to reclassify their unique documents.

4.3.2

The right file to the right examiner

In the interests of quality, it is also important to ensure that each patentapplication reaches the team with the expertise in the corresponding technicalarea. Following pre-classification, files go through a technical acceptanceprocess where a technical expert allocates them to the appropriate team. A new
Digital File Allocation (DFA) tool was piloted in 2022 ahead of release to all
directorates during the second half of February 2023. DFA is a fully digital system
for allocating work to examiners, with functionality facilitating the best technicalmatch between a file and an examiner and the examining division. Given theincreasing technical complexity of applications – often an application covers
multiple areas of technology – DFA will help us ensure quality by getting the rightfile to the right examiner and division at the right time.

4.3.3

Digital File Repository

In August 2022, Digital File Repository (DFR) became the single central
repository used by examiners and formalities officers. Boards of Appeal members
have also used it since 1 February 2023. It replaced the previous Dossier
Inspection tool, providing a modern tool integrated with other tools used by EPO
staff such as Patent Workbench. All the features in the previous tool are available
in DFR along with many others needed for the new digital working environment,
including options for making annotations that can then be shared for collaborative
epo.org | 29

work and accessibility via mobile devices. More than a mere archive, it provides
access to all the legal documents for patent applications and integrates
procedural data and documentation as well as citations. DFR also offers adocument viewer, making it possible to view multiple documents side by side,facilitating paperless working.

4.3.4

Cutting-edge search tools

Our search tools are designed in house by teams of IT specialists working
together with examiners. There has been a strong focus on further development
and improvement of these tools as part of our digital transformation.
ANSERA is the EPO's main search tool and retrieves close to 80% of all
documents, the remainder coming from specialist search services (e.g. forchemistry). New features were introduced in 2022, including an extended top-up
search functionality to assist, for example, with the identification of national priorrights relevant in the context of the Unitary Patent (see section 5.2.3). ANSERA
now also supports classification tasks (see section 5.1.3 ).
One of the features subject to major improvements in 2022 was ANSERAPreSearch, which is automatically launched when the search examiner opens anapplication for the first time. It automatically retrieves a list of documents most
likely to be cited by the examiner based on available information such as theapplicant's name and classification; the prior art found is presented with an
optimised ranking. ANSERA PreSearch can now perform multilingual information
retrieval: applications in French and German are searched in their filing language
and in English.

4.3.5

Search and examination tools

In addition to ANSERA, EPO examiners have a variety of tools available tosupport them in their search and examination work. The most frequently used
include the following.
Patent Workbench is the task management interface for all examiners,
formalities officers and line managers. It is one of the most important
breakthroughs in the digitalisation of the patent granting process as it enables
collaborative working regardless of where the members of the division arelocated. It also enables all work in the patent grant area to be processed digitallyand without paper. When an examiner despatches a search or grant product, it
is stored in Patent Workbench until it receives the appropriate clearance by themembers of the examining division, the first examiner's line manager andformalities officers. If errors are detected, the product is sent back to the firstexaminer via the tool for revision.
EPO Translate is the single point of access to all the machine translation engines
available at the EPO. It can translate between 56 languages, of which French,
German, Dutch, Italian, Chinese, and Japanese are available for confidential
translations.
Added-Matter Check is an application developed by examiners to help
examiners analyse amendments submitted by the applicant during theexamination process. It supports the identification of amendments and suggests
a basis in the application as originally filed.

epo.org | 30

A-Topup is the ANSERA-based tool providing top-up search functions which
examiners use to ensure that the latest pertinent prior art is assessed during
examination. A similar check is performed before the first examiner drafts theintention to grant a patent.
The Empower Learning Inspiration and Sharing tool (ELIS) is an intelligent
knowledge-based aggregator available in Patent Workbench. It provides directaccess to legal texts, to learning and training materials, to tool support such as
manuals and to experts who can provide information on specific topics such as
Asian prior art. In 2022, we further improved the search functionality of ourinternal legal text databases and formalities instructions (Fil d'Ariane). Our Single
Legal Source now regularly receives over 3 000 unique visitors per month.

5.

Improving quality at every stage of the PGP

The EPO prides itself on delivering the highest standard of quality at every stageof the patent granting process. As described above, we gather data, informationand feedback from a wide variety of sources, both internal to the EPO andexternal. This knowledge, representing a spectrum of diverse perspectives,
highlights areas where we excel and also areas where we can do more to improve
quality. In this section we look at how we perform according to quality indicators
for the different stages of the procedure. We highlight the areas where we arestrong, areas where there are opportunities to improve further and the actions weare taking to drive improvements.

5.1

Classification

5.1.1

Metrics: classification

MetricTarget2022

Performance
2022

Open classification "visits"≤5 000

6 550

Applications fully classified on publication

80%

79%

Quality audit: classification

95%

95%*

*± 2% confidence interval

The EPO invests vast resources to classify a significant portion of the world's
documentation in addition to patent applications filed at the EPO. It classifies
documentation within four months of its publication. In this way, we can ensurethat important documentation can be retrieved in the search process, increasing
the quality of our searches.
In 2022, the EPO identified some 819 281 documents for classification, of which
813 317 were fully classified by the end of the year. The workload in this importantarea is strictly monitored and we set an ambitious target of a maximum of 5 000
open visits (i.e. expected classification actions) . At the end of 2022, we had 6
550 such visits pending.
We also aim for patent applications to be fully classified on publication. In 2022,
97 276 documents were classified using the Cooperative Patent Classification(CPC). This means that 79% of applications published in 2022 were fully
epo.org | 31

classified on publication, just below our 80% target. Further classifications arethen added to our databases after publication.
A team of 12 classification auditors with extensive experience perform an annual
audit of classification quality. It monitors both the completeness of classification("allocation approach") and its quality for search ("retrievability score"). A sampleof 480 documents classified in the first six months of 2022 was collected at the
beginning of July.
For 2022, the "allocation approach" result showed 95% completeness, meetingthe target of 95%, with a confidence interval of ±2%. The retrievability score was
92% with a confidence interval of ±3%. In other words, classification quality
slightly improved compared with 2021 and remained high.
Figure 14: Six-year overview of classification audit results

Source: EPO

5.1.2

What our findings tell us: classification

Where we excel

Where we can improve further

Priority actions 2022

Working with the United States
Patent and Trademark Office on
the CPC, the EPO is a world
leader in classification.

Despite challenging volumes ofincoming prior art, there was agood performance on timely
classification of prior art.
However the target was justmissed – this is an opportunity
for improvement in 2023.

Explore artificial intelligencebased classification andreclassification.

Audit results indicateclassification quality remains
very high.
Zero reclassification backlog.

Classification is very resourceintensive – we should explore
further use of new artificial
intelligence tools to supportclassification and reclassification.
This would help keep backlogs
low while maintaining highquality.
epo.org | 32

5.1.3

Actions in 2022: classification

When CPC changes, documents classified in the old CPC groups need to be
moved into the new CPC groups. This is called "reclassification". In 2022 we
implemented an artificial intelligence (AI)-based reclassification tool. Following afield-specific learning phase based on a training set of intellectually classified
documents it allows accurate automatic reclassification of families of documents.
This tool was used to support the intellectual reclassification of 74 546 families(published patent and non-patent literature) to full CPC standards. Selected
reclassification projects were partially handled using AI, which resulted in 3 598
families being automatically reclassified in 2022, saving 13 days of intellectual
reclassification work whilst keeping the same quality level. When usedsystematically, the AI tool is expected to automatically reclassify 25% of
documents. In 2022, most of the reclassification work was still executed byexternal contractors. Together, these actions resulted in the document
reclassification backlog reaching zero for the first time ever. This is highly
beneficial for the entire CPC community as the CPC collections remain fully up
to date.
The EPO is also looking into using AI in the main classification process. Someinitial pilots have shown positive results to be further explored in 2023 (seesection 4.3.1).

5.2

SearchThe EPO is recognised as providing world-class search quality, as evidenced by
the growing number of national patent offices in Europe which entrust theirnational procedure search work to the EPO. By the end of 2022, the EPO hadsigned working agreements on search co-operation with 16 of its member states.
In 2022, a total of 28 947 national searches were carried out by the EPO,
representing an increase of 6% compared to 2021. In addition, the EPO performs
international type searches under Art 15 (5)PCT (without a written opinion) for
three member states.
In addition to the 44 countries in which EPO patents can be validated, there arean additional 42 countries where, through a reinforced partnership or Patent
Prosecution Highway agreement, corresponding EPO search and examination
results are reused in the national/regional phase.
We also have 29% of the total International Searching Authority (ISA) market,
with many choosing the EPO over other ISAs for the high quality of our searches
and written opinions. This is clearly a sign of trust and confidence in the qualityof services we provide.

epo.org | 33

5.2.1

Metrics: search

MetricTarget2022

Performance
2022

Quality audit: search (% of files with no findings)

85%

82.6%*

Search timeliness (% on time)

90%

89.3%

Overall user satisfaction survey result (% of positiveor "neither good nor poor" responses)

n/a

94%

*± 2.5% confidence interval

Our goal at the search stage is to deliver complete searches and comprehensive
written opinions in a consistent, harmonised manner. We have a target of 85% offiles with no findings; in 2022 we achieved 82.6%. Our rigorous quality audit
process has been redesigned to identify further areas for improvement in written
opinions. The detail of the findings and our approach is set out below.
For searches and written opinions to be useful for applicants, our target is todeliver the two products within six months for first filings. In an improvement in
2022, we reduced the target for international first filing searches and searches forour national offices from nine months to eight months, responding to feedback
from our users. In addition to providing applicants with valuable decision-making
tools, the documents found during search and the approach taken in the written
opinion lay the basis for future examination.

A consistent approach to non-standard searches
In some cases, a search report, the declaration replacing it or an incomplete orpartial search report will indicate that the subject of the search was restricted, andwhich claims have or have not been searched. 7 Although such instances canreflect incoming application quality (and can vary in frequency between
applicants), the frequency of non-unity objections at the search stage hasremained static since 2018.
Figure 15: Percentage of search reports with a non-unity objection (by year of search)

Source: EPO

Under Rules 62 and 63 EPC, if there are multiple independent claims in the same
category or it is impossible to carry out a meaningful search regarding the stateof the art on the basis of all or some of the subject-matter claimed, an examiner
may invite the applicant to file, within a period of two months, a statement7

epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/b_x_8.htm

epo.org | 34

indicating the subject-matter to be searched. Such invitations were issued for
1.37% of searches in 2022, compared to 1.31% in 2021.
The percentage of EPO searches which are incomplete (i.e. where a meaningful
search is not possible for one or more of the claims, in part or in full) has remained
consistently around 1.5% since 2014 and was only 1.56% in 2022. Moreover, in
only 0.08% of 2022 searches, a meaningful search could not be performed at all.
Figure 16: Percentage of search reports declared incomplete for one or more claims (byyear of search)

Source: EPO

Large volumes of relevant prior art identified
Due to our strong focus on getting it right from the start, we see a large volumeof relevant prior art cited at the search stage. In 2022, 84.5% of EPO search
reports identified at least one document that was prejudicial to the novelty or
inventive step of one or more of the application's claims. 8 Only 14.7% of searches
contained only A-category citations, meaning that no documents prejudicial tonovelty or inventive step were found during the search. Our search reports haveremained remarkably consistent in citing these large volumes of relevant citations
over the years.
Figure 17: Searches with at least one relevant citation and searches with only A-category
citations

Source: EPO

Searches with at least one relevant citation are search reports with citations of categories X, Y andE as well as citations where X and Y categories are combined with another category. Searches with
A citations only are search reports with at least one A-category citation and no XYE-category citation.
Other search reports are mainly "no searches" and Euro-PCT bis with no additional citations in the
supplementary search report.
8

epo.org | 35

Diversity of prior art in EPO search reports
The EPO has continued to invest in the availability of Asian prior art to its
examiners. These efforts continue to pay off in terms of search quality. The shareof search reports which include at least one Asian-origin and/or Asian-only patentcitation 9 has increased. Around 48% of our search reports in 2022 included an
Asian-origin patent citation, and around 18% even included an Asian-only XYEcategory patent citation. 10 This trend confirms the increasing impact of citations
from China, Korea and Japan on EPO patent quality and the success of the
EPO's efforts in this area.
Figure 18: Asian prior art in EPO search reports

Source: EPO

In 2022, around 28.7% of EPO search reports contained at least one non-patent
literature citation, up from 27.8% in 2021. In addition, 4.8% of EPO search reports
contained at least one standards document, up from 4.4% in 2021.
86% of the search reports in 2022 with standards citations were issued by nine
directorates in the areas of video coding and transmission, wirelesscommunication, IT security and the internet and internet of things. These nine
directorates issued 39 300 search reports in 2022, which is more than 16% of all
EPO search reports. Around 25% of their search reports in 2022 contained one
or more standards citations.

9
An Asian-origin citation is a patent document either in Chinese, Japanese or Korean or with a priority
document in one of these languages; an Asian-only citation is a Chinese-language, Japaneselanguage or Korean-language patent document that does not have any patent family member in an
EPO language (English, French or German).
10
An XYE-category citation is a document which, in relation to one or more independent claims, is:novelty- or inventive step-destroying when taken alone (X category); inventive step-destroying whencombined with one or more documents of the same category (Y category); a potentially conflicting
patent document regarding the filing or priority date (E category).

epo.org | 36

Figure 19: Number of standards documents cited in EPO search reports and percentage
of EPO search reports containing at least one standards document

Source: EPO

Objections raised in the written opinion
Many objections are raised early in the procedure in the written opinion. 93.2%
of written opinions raise at least one objection.
Some 21% of applicants for EP first filings withdraw their application based on
the search report and written opinion, indicating that informed decisions are taken
based on these products.
Figure 20: Negative search opinions

Negative search opinion rate: ratio of negative search opinions over all EP (incl. E-PCTbis) andPCT Ch. I search opinions in respective year.

Source: EPO

epo.org | 37

Search audit results
In response to user feedback and pursuing continuous improvement, the EPO
has implemented an extended search audit since October 2021. In this audit,
Directorate Quality Audit auditors take an in-depth look at the written opinion in
addition to the search report. As expected, refining the audit criteria to include
five additional criteria focused on written opinions caused a decrease in thepercentage of files with no findings from an all-time high of 96.6% in audit year
2021 (excluding written opinions) to a stable 82.6% (±2.5%) at the end of 2022.
A new bar chart format for reporting search audit results has been developed toprovide more transparency on the type of findings. The impact of the extended
search audit on the 2022 results can be seen clearly, with findings mainly relating
to quality improvements in the written opinion and representing 9.7% audited
files. This is providing us with more information which can be used to improve thisflagship product. Findings relating to clarity are also included under quality
improvements.
Figure 21: Search: quality audit findings

Number of files audited: 2021*: 489; 2022: 891* Prior to October 2021, the audit was limited to the search report and did not include the written
opinion.

Source: EPO

Importantly, only in 5.9% of search reports sampled in 2022 did auditors findmissing or underestimated relevant prior art, which is considered at search to bea key criteria in the assessment of patentability (see the key "Novelty andinventive step"). This is close to the 2021 figure of 4.1%, demonstrating that theoverall very high level of quality of search reports was maintained.
As intended, the increased granularity of the extended search audit has revealed
several opportunities for improvement. The most frequent issue is thecorrectness of objections in the written opinion (9.7% of files in 2022). Often theexaminer has been too strict in raising concerns. Clearly our aim is to provide an
accurate written opinion in which the objections are fully supported by the relevant
legislation and any cited document, and this insight from quality audit now
provides valuable input for future quality improvements.
epo.org | 38

Search timelinessSearch timeliness remained strong in 2022 even in the face of an increasing
workload, resulting in more search reports issued compared to previous years.
Mean search timeliness was 4.9 months. 95% of searches and written opinions(p95) were despatched within 8.6 months. Compared to our search timelinesstarget of 90%, we achieved 89.3% timely search delivery in 2022.
Figure 22: Search timeliness 2016-2022

Source: EPO

User satisfaction survey results – search
Our end-to-end user satisfaction surveys regularly show high levels ofsatisfaction throughout the patent grant process (PGP). The 2022/2023 user
satisfaction survey (USS) results maintained strong satisfaction along the PGP,
with the combined good and very good score ranging from 70% to 85%. The
accompanying services, such as online services and key account management,
scored even higher, with the combined good and very good score ranging from
85% to 96%. This biennial survey had some 7 000 respondents, up almost 1 000
from the 2020/2021 survey.
Figure 23: Summary of 2022/2023 USS results 11

Source: BERENT, EPO

The results of the USS 2022/2023 have been available since May 2023 and will form the basis for2023 quality improvement actions.

11

epo.org | 39

Taking a closer look at the results, we see that the percentage of explicitly
dissatisfied users along the PGP ranged from only 4% to 13%. This means, forinstance, that the percentage of users giving the EPO's search products andservices a positive or neutral score was actually 94% (the figure for examination
was 93%, for final actions and publication 98% and for opposition 87%). Despite
these relatively low levels of dissatisfaction overall, the user satisfaction survey
is a comprehensive tool which allows us to assess various specific aspects of our
products and services and therefore identify where users want us to improve.
The chart below gives a reliable view of how our users rate our searches. Positive
responses were seen for example in the category "the EPO's performance as a
PCT receiving Office" (90% satisfaction rate) and improvements seem warrantedin the category "Explanations about how to overcome the objections" (51%satisfaction rate).
Figure 24: User satisfaction survey results for search and written opinions 12,13,14

Source: BERENT, EPO

SR stands for search report, WO means written opinion.
Arrows indicate statistically significant changes.
14
The results of the USS 2022/2023 have been available since May 2023 and will form the basis for2023 quality improvement actions.
12
13

epo.org | 40

5.2.2

What our findings tell us: search

Where we excel

Where we can improve further

Priority actions 2022

EPO is one of the key offices ofchoice for search

Users ask for morecomprehensive search reports
and written opinions, covering
fallback positions and more
substantiated reasoning for
dependent claims

Objectives set for all examiners
to focus on providing a complete
and comprehensive search
report and written opinion

Search audit shows that themain findings relate to the written
opinion and being too strict ininterpreting the EPC and prior art

Increased involvement of thechairperson at the search stage
to support early alignment of thedivision and quality of the search
product

Users ask for more consistency
in our approach to searching
emerging areas of technology
e.g. applications involving a mixof non-technical and technicalfeaturesCommunities of practice aimed
at promoting harmonisation

Complaints showed PCT Direct
letters were being overlooked byexaminers

Internal process for handling andflagging PCT Direct letters
optimised

Enhancing legal certainty for
future users of the Unitary Patent

Extended top-up searches tosupport Unitary Patentapplications

USS shows that examiners could
provide more explanations on
how to overcome objections

Examiners are regularly
encouraged to explain how
objections can be overcome

High consistency in dealing with
non-standard searches
Strong performance in identifying
large volumes of relevant priorart
A rich diversity of relevant priorart cited
Objections are raised early in theprocedure to enable informed
decision-making
Strong results in search quality
audit
Strong search timeliness
USS shows strong coverage ofindependent claims in the written
opinion

5.2.3

iLearn day focused on AI and
handling of technical and nontechnical features

Actions in 2022: search

In 2021, we took an important decision impacting the completeness of oursearches: to classify important documentation four months after publication
instead of six. At the same time, we delayed searches on first filings to avoid them
being started before four months, thereby aligning the start time to the availabilityof more fully classified documentation. It is still too early to assess these changes'
impacts, but as these files reach examination we should see less prior art being
added in subsequent stages of the procedure.
In response to user feedback that fallback positions are sometimes not sufficiently
addressed in written opinions, examiners and managers have been reminded
and clear objectives set to ensure comprehensive search reports and written
opinions. In line with findings from the user satisfaction survey, examiners arealso encouraged to provide suggestions on how to overcome objections raised.
To understand user perspectives on specific aspects of search quality inparticular fields of technology, several technical workshops were held with

epo.org | 41

leading applicants and EPO technical experts. Topics included the EPO's
approach to artificial intelligence or computer-implemented inventions andadaptation of the description. Further technical workshops are planned for 2023,
with applicants and also with user associations.
To foster a better mutual understanding of the quality of search and written
opinions, the first Stakeholder Quality Assurance Panels on search will take placein 2023.

Top-up searches
In September 2022, the EPO started offering a new cost-free service inpreparation for the Unitary Patent. In addition to the standard top-up searches
performed in examination, special top-up searches are now systematically
performed to find "earlier national rights" and assess their prima facie relevance
before a patent application is granted. This option may be of interest to applicantsin the context of the Unitary Patent since only European patents granted with thesame set of claims for all participating EU Member States are eligible for Unitary
Patent protection (see Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 15). Regular
top-up searches for European and PCT applications as prior art under Articles
54(3) and 153(5) EPC at the end of examination constitute an extra quality checkin the EPO grant procedure.

Active search divisions pilot
Collaboration at the search stage has always been encouraged and routinely
takes place in many forms – for instance by consultation of the chairperson or
another expert or a specialist on a specific aspect of an application, by collective
group consultation to discuss search strategy and in the form of team searchjams.
In response to the need to focus more on the completeness of search and written
opinions, the EPO piloted a more formal engagement of the division at the search
stage by involving the chairperson for every file. For the duration of the pilot(March to September), the searches/written opinions produced by the six pilot
teams were sent to the chairperson for review before sign-off by the line manager.
Although it is difficult to measure the benefits before examination has taken place,
it is expected that search products where the chairperson has been involved areof higher quality, with fewer errors or invalid objections than files where no
consultation or involvement of a second expert has taken place. The approach isalso expected to lead to a smoother and more efficient examination process lateron, due to early alignment of the division at the search stage.
The practice of systematically involving the division at the search stage will be
extended to all teams in 2023. By building the involvement of the chairperson into
our digital workflows and quality assurance processes, we safeguard and further
strengthen the established culture of early collaboration, which has always been
an important factor in ensuring complete and accurate search products.

15

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:361:0001:0008:en:PDF

epo.org | 42

iLearn day on artificial intelligence
Users have requested more consistency in our approach to searching
applications in emerging technologies, in particular those spanning multiple
traditional fields and comprising a mixture of technical and non-technical features.
One measure to address this in 2022 was a dedicated iLearn day with a specificfocus on artificial intelligence (AI) and computer-implemented inventions (CII) in
patent applications. Presentations were given on topics including driving
innovation through CII; the legal framework for CII and its development (EPC,
Guidelines for Examination, G 1/19); how to spot (and how to handle) CII (andwhat to do with them); and examination of AI-based inventions across technicalfields in a collaborative, interdisciplinary manner by means of mixed examining
divisions.

Optimised PCT Direct procedure
PCT Direct is a service where an applicant can bring their application into
conformity in the international phase. This is done by filing a second, adapted
application taking into account objections raised in the search opinion by the
EPO. The amendments are highlighted in a PCT Direct letter.
Figure 25: PCT Direct requests 2018-2022

Source: EPO

From user complaints, the EPO became aware that examiners sometimes did not
acknowledge the PCT Direct letter. Targeted operational quality control
confirmed the issue and detailed analysis identified the root causes:

sub-optimal data transmission from other receiving Offices
low awareness of the procedure among examiners

Thanks to short-term measures including the systematic detection oftransmission errors, flagging these cases to examiners in their tools and targetedtraining, the percentage of correctly processed PCT Direct cases increased from
60% to 85% in 2021.
While this was significantly better, 15% of cases were still being incorrectly
processed and we continued to receive complaints from affected applicants. In
response, we made changes which integrated the PCT Direct procedure in Patent
Workbench (the EPO-internal platform for the patent grant process). This,
combined with individual feedback to examiners and formalities officers, brought
epo.org | 43

the process back on track and, by the end of 2022, 100% of these files were being
correctly processed.

Improved search timelinessOur users have reminded us of the importance of receiving searches and written
opinions on time, i.e. having sufficient time to decide on next steps before expiryof the priority year.
We were told that although timeliness for EP first filings (6 months) was good andgave sufficient time, our timeliness target for PCT first filings (International
Searching Authority searches) and searches for national offices (9 months) was
too slow. In response, we shortened the time for delivery of results to our member
states for national searches and delivery of search results on PCT first filings from
9 to 8 months in 2022, and will shorten it again from 8 to 7 months in 2023. In
2024, we will reduce it by a further month to 6 months, allowing applicants ample
time to decide on next steps during the priority year.

5.3

Examination

5.3.1

Metrics: examination and final actions

MetricTarget2022

Performance
2022

Quality audit: grants (% of files with no findings)

85%

76.6%*

Examination timeliness (% on time)

80%

78.6%

Accelerated examination timeliness (months)

3

2.7

User satisfaction survey result (% of positive or"neither good nor poor")

n/a

93%

* ± 2.9% confidence interval

Our goal at the examination stage is to provide thorough examination reports
which are based on the most relevant prior art and apply the legal provisions in aharmonised and consistent way. Our meetings with users, user associations andour Standing Advisory Committee and the findings reached by the Stakeholder
Quality Assurance Panels tell us that this is of utmost importance to all our
stakeholders too. Directorate Quality Audit's process now provides moregranularity, which is helping us to target specific areas for improvement, as
explained in more detail below.
Timeliness at the examination stage is important not just for applicants but for
third parties and society too. Patent applications which are pending for too long
have been shown to increase uncertainty and costs for competitors and society.

A consistent and thorough approach
Depending on the complexity of an application and the applicant's behaviour, we
may have to issue intermediate communications during the examination phase
before a patent can be granted and published.
epo.org | 44

As shown above, 7% of applications are deemed ready for grant at the search
stage, while figure X (below) shows that another 47% of the patents granted in
2022 were granted as the first action in examination.
This means that a significant proportion of our applicants who amend theirapplications in light of the findings in EPO search reports and search opinions go
on to obtain a patent quickly. In more complex cases, dialogue between
examiners and applicants is necessary, and 22% of 2022 grants required two or
more communications in the substantive examination phase. Although thesemore complex cases certainly have to be thoroughly examined, and about 10%
of final actions in 2022 also involved oral proceedings, it is expected that moredialogue between examining divisions and applicants during the patent granting
process will significantly reduce the number of intermediate communications
needed to reach the right decision. A pilot to explore enhancing this dialogue will
run in 2023. This will improve quality, promote efficiency and benefit our users interms of cost and timeliness.
Figure 26: Number of communications required prior to grant 2018-2022

Status: 1 February 2023.

Source: EPO

In total, EPO examiners issued some 507 000 Office actions in 2022. On average,
they issued 1.63 examination communications prior to grant in 2022 (applications
granted as the first action in examination are excluded). This figure has remained
steady, varying between just 1.60 and 1.65 in the 2018-2022 period.
Figure 27: Average number of intermediate communications per granted application (byyear of grant)

Average number of communications: Arithmetic average of needed intermediate communications
for all non-direct published grants (EPPU02) in respective year.

Source: EPO

epo.org | 45

Grant audit results
In 2022, the number of files for which Directorate Quality Audit (DQA) had no
findings remained at around 76%, with a ±2.9% confidence interval. The target
was 85%.
Following questions from external stakeholders about transparency on thefindings raised by the DQA auditors, a new bar chart has been designed to show
the requested details and to demonstrate the thoroughness of the quality audit.
The findings have been classified according to users' priorities and feedback. The
bar charts show that about 15% of files concern findings related to grounds of
opposition. Files with only findings concerning clarity and sufficient disclosure are
identified separately (5% in 2022).
Figure 28: Grant: quality audit findings

Number of files audited: 2021: 862; 2022: 832
Novelty and inventive step: files with at least one finding under Art. 52-57 EPC raised against an
independent claim
Added subject-matter: files with at least one finding under Art. 123(2) or Art. 76(1) EPC raised
against an independent claim ("novelty and inventive step" files are excluded)
Clarity and insufficient disclosure: files with at least one finding under Art. 84 EPC raised against an
independent claim or a finding under Art. 83 EPC ("novelty and inventive step" and "added subjectmatter" files are excluded)
Quality improvements: all remaining files, i.e. those with only findings raised against a dependentclaim, the description or a drawing.

Source: EPO

In addition to the new audit approach introduced in 2021, which involves direct
feedback and dialogue on the findings with the division responsible for the grant,
the key findings are also discussed at in-depth meetings between DQA, senior
experts and other operational quality stakeholders. Two of these meetings wereorganised in 2022. The findings were discussed and areas for action,
harmonisation or training identified. These discussions provided input for ourquality actions in 2022, for example in the area of added subject-matter, where
we have already seen improvements following targeted actions. This approach is
being reviewed to explore how to further optimise the discussions and improve
epo.org | 46

the impact on quality in DG 1 operations. Further improvements to the audit
dialogue are also planned for 2023.

Examination timelinessExamination timeliness was relatively stable in 2022, following years ofimprovements as the historical backlogs were cleared. The mean duration of theexamination procedure for applications granted in 2022 was 24.3 months. The
timeliness target we set ourselves was for 80% of files to have an intention to
grant after the start of examination, and the result achieved in 2022 was justbelow this, at 78.6%.
Overall end-to-end timeliness (from filing to intention to grant) remained strong,for example 44.2 months from initial filing for European first filings and 37.2
months from formalities done after entry into the regional phase for Euro PCT bis
applications (i.e. where the EPO was not the ISA).
Although the timeliness of our delivery of examination services has improved inrecent years, applicants have commented on a lack of consistency. To address
this, our work has focused on dealing with the oldest files in our examination
stock, and in 2022 this meant pre-2017 files (an improvement of two years over
2021, when we focused on pre-2015 files). At the start of 2022, around 20 000 ofthese files were pending examination, but only around 5 200 were still awaiting
examiner action by the end of the year.
If we look at the time taken until 95% of applications have been processed ("P95figure"), in 2022 we reached this point at 65 months – which is 27 months fasterthan in 2018. Our aim for 2023 is to send 80% of standard grants within 36
months. To prevent unacceptable delays and a growth in the backlog of old files,
we will continue to reduce the numbers of these old files by:
1.
2.

moving the applicable cut-off year ahead by one year to focus on pre-2018
examination requests andkeeping the number of examination files awaiting examiner action for morethan 30 months at around 1 000.

Figure 29: Examination timeliness

Source: EPO

epo.org | 47

The graph below shows the trends in the mean and median averages of the timeneeded until the first action in examination for applications with a request for
accelerated examination (PACE request). 16
Our timeliness for applications with a PACE request has improved strongly overthe last five years. By the end of 2022, the time taken to issue a first action after
receipt of the request had fallen to a mean average of 2.4 months, while theaverage time until a first action in examination for a normal application without a
PACE request is at 13.8 months. 95% of first actions following a PACE request
were completed within 5.7 months (P95 figure).
When EPO response times for further actions following a PACE request are also
taken into consideration, the mean average drops to 2.1 months and the P95
figure falls to 4.4 months.
Figure 30: PACE timeliness

Source: EPO

User satisfaction survey results – examination
The user satisfaction survey (USS) conducted in 2022/2023 gives a reliable viewof how our users rate our substantive examination. Amongst the positive results(very good and good combined), "coverage of independent claims" yielded
overall satisfaction levels of 83%. Satisfaction with timeliness of the examination
procedure stands at 63%, showing that the EPO needs to continue working on
improving in this area.

16

epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/official-journal/2015/11/a93.html

epo.org | 48

Figure 31: USS results for examination services 17, 18

Source: BERENT, EPO

Feedback from meetings with users
The topics users most commonly asked to be put on the agenda of meetings with
the EPO in 2022 were:









Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court
Approach to computer-implemented inventions (CII) / artificial intelligenceStandard essential patents
Informal consultations with examiners
Adaptation of the description
Examiner amendments in R. 71(3) EPC communication
Timeliness – flexible examination
Publication of more detailed statistics.

The key messages from these many meetings with users can be summarised as:






EPO products are of a very high quality standard
For some, quality is more important than timeliness, whereas others stressthe importance of a quick procedure
More interviews/direct interactions with examiners needed to speed up
processing
Users appreciate the clear steer provided in the Guidelines (e.g. on CII)
Consistency of practice and complete and thorough Office actions are
crucial.

Key findings from 2022 Stakeholder Quality Assurance
Panels (SQAPs) on grants
Jointly composed for the very first time of both European patent attorneys and
EPO experts, the SQAPs assessed a selection of granted patents in October
2022. The session focused on the grant stage of the patent grant process andthe panels' key findings can be summarised as follows (see Annex 2 for the fullreport):Technical discussions were of high quality and file-specific.

The results of the USS 2022/2023 have been available since May 2023 and will form the basis for2023 quality improvement actions.
18
Arrows indicate statistically significant changes.
17

epo.org | 49






Strong consensus that the EPC requirements were met, especially in termsof novelty and inventive step.
Clear suggestion that there should be more dialogue between applicants andexamining divisions during examination. This is currently being explored.
Differing views on how the description should be adapted to the amended
claims. This is currently being discussed in more depth.
Desire to improve the SQAP approach and expand it by having more
frequent sessions and covering other procedural stages too. This is due tobe implemented in 2023.

5.3.2

What our findings tell us: examination

Where we excel

Where we can improve further

Priority actions 2022

Feedback from meetings withusers: EPO is the gold standard
in patent quality

Users are largely satisfied with
our quality but feel we can
improve on consistency andharmonisation of our practices inapplying the EPC and the
Guidelines

Several actions aimed specificallyat harmonisation - reorganisation
to bring related technical areas
together, creation ofCommunities of Practice toensure harmonised approach to
specialist topics/applications,development of Practice
Harmonisation dashboard

EPO provides a consistent andthorough approach to
examination
Stable results in grant quality
auditsFurther strengthening the roles
and responsibilities of theexamining division in order to
optimise the functioning of ourunique three-person divisions

Stable results in examination
timeliness
USS shows appreciation for oralproceedings via VICO

Explored a new structure for ourwritten communications tofacilitate an effective granting
process
Learning from Boards of Appeal
decisions
According to feedback, users
would like more consistency inbringing the description intoalignment with amended claims.
They note occasional strictness
in requesting excision of material
from the description.

Completed a study of 1 600 files
in relation to how we adapted thedescription. Adaption ofdescription addressed in SQAP
2022

Grant audit detected an increasein findings related to added
subject-matter

Awareness raising on added
subject-matter, new tool
developed, new job aids for
examiners

USS results show that manyusers want improved examination
timelinessContinue reducing the backlog ofolder files

epo.org | 50

5.3.3

Actions in 2022: examination

Promote increased consistency and practice harmonisation
In response to the clear feedback from our applicants, we took several measures
to increase consistency and further harmonise practice.

Operational area restructured as eight technology
communities
In April 2022, our operational area of over 4 400 examiners and formalities
officers went through its biggest reorganisation since 2018. The previous threesectors were restructured as eight technology communities headed by a single
Chief Operating Officer. Teams from different sites but dealing with similar
technical fields were likewise brought together under a single line manager. The
new technology communities are based on a distilled version of the 14 EU
industrial ecosystems. And they also closely reflect several of the UN Sustainable
Development Goals. By bringing cross-site teams together and also introducing
cross-site examining divisions, we hope to strengthen both the quality andconsistency of practice in applying the EPC.
Figure 32: DG 1 technology communities and how they match up with the UN SDGs

Source: United Nations, EPO

As part of the restructuring, a new horizontal Principal Directorate Quality andPractice Harmonisation has been set up to support continuous improvement ofoperational quality and promote harmonisation and consistent practice. It works
closely with Directorate Quality Audit, the operational teams and colleagues from
elsewhere across the EPO on both quality and consistency and supports theoperational area in implementing actions on improvement. A key task for this newteam in 2022 was the tracking of several pilots aimed at improving quality andconsistency.

epo.org | 51

Communities of practice
To ensure that files requiring specialist knowledge or procedures are handledconsistently, cross-cutting communities of practice have been set up to provide
all examiners with the information needed regardless of the operational unit they
are in. For example, since aspects of emerging technologies such as AI can arise
in many different technical areas, a network of Computer Implemented Inventions(CII) experts is on hand to advise on these matters and so help ensure aharmonised approach is taken across all our teams throughout the procedurefrom search to the decision. Besides this CII network, other examples of thesecommunities of practice include the ones set up for AI/machine learning, additive
manufacturing and formalities, and 2023 will see them joined by a new community
centred around patent case law.

Practice harmonisation dashboard
Our applicants provided specific examples of where our practice sometimes
varied between teams and sites. In order to best support action in this area wewanted to provide our team managers and examiners with the best data. As also
envisaged in the Strategic Plan 2023, we therefore worked in 2022 on harnessing
the latest developments in data mining technology to develop new ways ofgaining insights into how we work. These include a text mining tool based on
artificial intelligence which has so far enabled us to analyse over 2 million
communications issued by the EPO and so provided us with an enormous
amount of data about the objections we raise in them.
This data has been visualised and made available to examining staff andmanagers in the form of a new practice harmonisation dashboard. Teams andindividual examiners can compare their rates of raising various objections withthe rates of their immediate peers or of teams working in neighbouring technicalareas. While no direct conclusions about quality or harmonisation can be drawn
from this data as such, it provides us with valuable insights which trigger
conversations about why objections rates vary between different individuals or
different teams within a similar technical area. This helps us uncover inconsistentpractice and improve harmonisation.
The dashboard shows the rates of objections raised under Articles 54, 56, 76, 83,
84 and 123 EPC. It also shows the number of search citations, A-only searches,
non-unity objections, Rules 62 and 63 EPC (CLAR) invitations and Asiancitations. For examination, it gives numbers for direct grants, telephone
communications, actions in examination, summonses to oral proceedings andrefusals.
As an example, the figure below shows an anonymised section of the dashboard
giving the rates at which examiners in a team raised novelty objections in
European search opinions (ESOPs) and during substantive examination. As
expected, the rate of raising novelty objections is lower in the examination phasethan during the search phase, reflecting the impact of amendments made byapplicants. The idea is that easy access to this information in the dashboard willprompt conversations around best practices, why certain teams or individuals are
outliers, and whether there is a need for harmonisation or other corrective
measures. The tool may also identify apparent outliers due to other factors
unrelated to harmonisation, such as extended leave.
epo.org | 52

Figure 33: Screenshot from the harmonisation dashboard comparing a selected
examiner team with the whole directorate

Source: EPO

Quality of incoming applications – quality at source
The technology behind the dashboard described above also allows us to compile
applicant-specific data showing the rates of objections for their applications. By
sharing this type of information with our users in our one-to-one meetings, we canhelp them explore why the rates of objections raised under the different articles
may vary. What we have observed so far is that, even within specific technicalfields, there is a significant variation in the number of objections raised in files
coming from different applicants – in all likelihood reflecting their different
approaches to drafting, prosecution and strategy. If an applicant sees that theyreceive many more objections of a certain type than their peers, they may think
about whether they could take any action to prevent these objections and so
experience a smoother examination process with us. As an example, the figure
below shows the relative frequency of examiner objections made in European
search opinions and communications for a group of applicants all filing within
related technical fields.
Figure 34: Rates of objections under selected EPC articles for a group of applicants
active in similar technical fields

This chart compares the frequency of novelty, inventive step, clarity and added subject matter in a
subset of search opinions and communications of EP applications from Applicant X, where text
mining was possible, with 7 other companies filing applications in similar technical fields. Population
sizes are shown in the bar chart, applications date from 2016 – 2021.

Source: EPO

epo.org | 53

Adaptation of the description
In response to user feedback that our approach to adapting the description to theamended claims is inconsistent, we took several steps to address this. Between
March to December 2022, a group of senior experts performed a study of 1 600
files drawn from all technical areas. Results and recommendations for each area
were shared with the relevant directorates and teams. Targeted actions are now
being taken where appropriate.
During 2022, following two specific decisions of the Boards of Appeal, there wereintensive discussions about the EPO's practice and working instructions on
adapting the description. Several comments on this were received from users
during the online consultation on the Guidelines and these were discussed withthe members of SACEPO Working Party on Guidelines at two meetings. As aresult, the wording of Part F-IV, 4.3, of the Guidelines was revised to clarify thepractice and the new version was published in the 2023 edition of the Guidelines.
As yet another response to the concerns raised by our users in relation toadapting the description, the point was also addressed by the Stakeholder Quality
Assurance Panels (SQAPs) at their session in October 2022 (see Annex 2 formore details).
In addition, a public conference held in June 2022 included a panel discussion
among national judges and chairs of EPO boards of appeal to allow for a broader
exchange of views on the issue. The judges on the panel argued for adapting thedescription to the amended claims at the prosecution stage, referring to court
cases they knew of where the lack of adaptation had led to a loss of rights.
Although in February 2023, it is worth mentioning that the EPO took part in a
conference organised by UNION-IP, at which the EPO explained its practice andthe legal basis for it. In the discussion, the judges appointed to the Unified Patent
Court who were also there stressed the EPO's duty to see to it that the description
is adapted to the amended claims.
In 2022 the EPO continued to follow the case law of the Boards of Appeal on thematter.

Optimising added matter checks – progress made but more to
be doneQuality audits on grants have highlighted issues with added subject-matter. As aconsequence, a pilot was run to optimise the process of carrying out checks foradded subject-matter already in place within the examining divisions.
An "Added-Matter Check" tool was developed in house to assist the divisions inassessing whether there is any added subject-matter. It highlights the differences
between the application documents as originally filed and the latest ones on fileby comparing the different sets of claims, including those of family members. It
can even find the possible basis for filed amendments, enabling the examiner tocompare it with the basis provided by the applicant.
The teams involved in piloting the tool received training in using it and then tested
it extensively from March to September 2022 in close collaboration with thedevelopers. The feedback from these teams is that for many applications the toolis effective in prompting examiners to look at potential issues of added subjectepo.org | 54

matter in the application and so reduces the likelihood of overlooking one. Their
feedback also provided our IT developers with valuable input for future
development of the tool, in particular for use on more complex applications andfor certain technical areas.
The pilot also provided the teams with an opportunity to evaluate their current
practices when carrying out added matter checks and the formats and tools used
to document these checks to assist the division members and line managers invalidating them. It is particularly important to optimise and align these practices
in view of the recent digitalisation of all documents and workflows in the patent
granting process. This work with the pilot teams helped to improve the processes
and develop new job aids which have now been made available to all examiners
to support them in carrying out systematic and complete added-matter checks.
These actions to optimise added subject-matter checks are having an impact:
DQA's grant audit findings in this area fell from 7.7% in the second quarter of2022 to 5.9% in the fourth quarter.

Further strengthening of roles within the examining division
In 2022 a study was undertaken with a group of pilot teams to evaluate the roleeach member plays within an examining division and the roles played by teammanagers and senior experts in helping the divisions to deliver high-quality
products. This led to further strengthening and harmonisation of the various roles
and responsibilities, in particular the role of the chairperson. The study also
highlighted the importance of regularly reviewing and documenting roles andresponsibilities within each team so that everyone playing a part in the patent
granting process knows what their responsibilities are in their particular role andthat it is clear to all who is validating what aspects of the work. The processes
which were optimised as a result of the pilot study have since been applied to all
operational directorates and will contribute to further improvements in the work
delivered by our examining teams.

Improving the structure of our communications
Effective dialogue between examining divisions and applicants and theirrepresentatives is key to a smooth examination process. This dialogue takes
place in several different forms, including telephone conversations and oralproceedings.
However, as things stand, it is for the most part still in writing, i.e. in the form ofcommunications issued by the EPO and the applicants' replies to them. It istherefore very important that our written communications are of the highest quality
to ensure there is a mutual understanding of how patentability has beenassessed, any objections raised, the reasons for them and the options available
to the applicant to overcome them.
In order to further promote consistency and completeness of our written
communications, a group of five pilot teams trialled a new common structure forthe communications we issue for European patent applications. The
communication template was structured around a specified set of headings
arranged in an order designed to be logical and helpful for both the writer and thereader.
epo.org | 55

Feedback was gathered from the examiners who drafted their communications
using the proposed structure and from members of the examining divisions, line
managers and representatives who read these communications.
Some examiners reported that the structure guided their thinking and prompted
them to carry out the analysis mentioned in the various headings and so helped
to ensure communications were complete. Line managers reported that the more
uniform structure made the communications easier to understand and review forcompleteness and accuracy. Representatives who received communications
drafted according to the piloted common structure also gave positive feedback
and said they would like to see the EPO use such a common structure for its
communications as organising the content in this standardised way would
facilitate navigating, understanding and replying to them. Based on feedback
from this pilot, use of the common structure will be further expanded in 2023.

Learning from the Boards of Appeal
To improve harmonisation between the decisions of examination divisions andthe decisions of the Boards of Appeal, the case law monitoring group, consistingof experts from the operational area and Directorate Patent Law and Procedures,provides examiners with resources to support them in becoming familiar with theBoards' most relevant cases. These resources include reports on relevant
decisions of the technical boards of appeal and seminars within the framework of
the Continuous Knowledge Transfer activities.
Four lectures by the Boards of Appeal were organised in 2022 as part of theiLearn day series, e.g. on added subject matter (Article 123(2) EPC), decision G
1/21, oral proceedings by videoconference and late submissions in opposition.
As envisaged in the Strategic Plan 2023, the EPO is using data mining to develop
new metrics which can be used to provide feedback on board decisions andpromote learning.

5.4

Opposition

5.4.1

Metrics: opposition

Metric
Opposition timeliness (% on time)
Time from summons to oral proceedings (averagemonths)
Opposition stock
User satisfaction survey result (% of positive or"neither good nor poor" responses)

Target2022

Performance
2022

50%

44.1%

8

7.7

5 000

4 346

n/a

87%

The EPO's aim in its opposition procedure is to act with the utmost impartialityand deliver legally valid decisions on time. Each case is dealt with by an
opposition division composed of three highly experienced examiners, who can bejoined by a legal member when required.
epo.org | 56

Opposition audit results
Besides its audits of classification, search and grant products every year,
Directorate Quality Audit (DQA) audits opposition when so mandated by the
President. In 2022, 100 opposition decisions and procedures were audited, of
which 12 files had findings identifying potential improvements, mostly in thedrafting of the decisions and management of proceedings. This total of 12
decisions with findings can be seen as a slight improvement in quality comparedwith 2018 results, when the total number of files with findings was 14 out of 90
decisions.

Opposition timeliness
The outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic meant that many oral proceedings in
opposition scheduled for 2020 had to be postponed to 2021. The need to reduce
the opposition backlog then led to a temporary decline in opposition timeliness in
2021 and 2022. However, by early 2022 already, the backlog had been cleared,
returning to a steady state of 4 346 oppositions in stock by the end of the year.
As we processed the backlog, timeliness – which is based on a rolling 12-month
figure ‒ gradually started to improve, with a mean processing time of 19.6 months
achieved for standard files by the end of 2022.
Figure 35: Opposition timeliness

Source: EPO

Videoconferencing technology has also given us the flexibility to assign the mosttechnically qualified examiners to an opposition division, regardless of theirlocation, which is another strong enabler for quality and timeliness.

User satisfaction survey – opposition
The user satisfaction survey (USS) gives a reliable view of how our users rate
opposition. High satisfaction levels were noted in the areas of "fair treatment" with
79% stating that performance was very good or good in this respect. With regard
to duration of the procedure, a 54% satisfaction rate was recorded.

epo.org | 57

Figure 36: USS results for the EPO opposition procedure 19,20

Source: BERENT, EPO

In 2022, we carried out a survey focusing on oral proceedings byvideoconferencing (VICO) and received 342 user responses. The results arereflected in the final report on the pilot project for oral proceedings 21 in opposition
by VICO. Over 77% of respondents found oral proceedings by VICO to be "good"or "very good", which is more than in the consultation conducted in September
2021. The President of the EPO therefore decided in November 2022 22 that VICO
should become the default format for oral proceedings in opposition from 1
January 2023.
Figure 37: Overall satisfaction with oral proceedings in opposition by VICO

Source: EPO

A clear concern for all parties was that moving away from an in-person format
would have an impact on the outcome of oral proceedings in opposition.
However, the historical trend shows that there has always been some variationin the proportion of patents revoked, amended or upheld (roughly one-third each).
Fluctuations observed in 2020 and 2021 were mostly down to the fact that only a

The results of the USS 2022/2023 have been available since May 2023 and will form the basis for2023 quality improvement actions.
20
Arrows indicate statistically significant changes.
19

21

https://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/244ECC79678379E0C12588FB004E65D8/$File/oral_proceedings_in_opposition_by_videoconferencepilot_project_final_report_november_2022_en.pdf
22
Official Journal 11/22.

epo.org | 58

limited number of cases (i.e. the most straightforward) were finalised in 2020
because participation in the VICO pilot was initially voluntary. The variations
therefore appeared to depend more on the parties' strategies than on the formatof oral proceedings or the quality delivered by the opposition division. For more
information, see Annex 1.

5.4.2

What our findings tell us: opposition

Where we excel

Where we can improve further

Priority actions 2022

Increasing user satisfaction with
opposition oral proceedings by
VICO

User experience with online oralproceedings can be further
improved

Training for opposition divisions
with a special focus on dealing
effectively with the new format oforal proceedings by VICO

Oral proceedings by VICO offer
increased transparency andaccess to justice

Further improvements introduced
to the format of online oralproceedings, e.g. digital
whiteboards, breakout rooms,
additional audio channels tofacilitate simultaneous translation

Very strong quality audit results
for sampled opposition files
Opposition timeliness steadily
improving following the pandemic

Dedicated iLearn day on
opposition
Opposition backlogs accumulated
due to postponement ofproceedings during the pandemic
should be reduced

5.4.3

Continue reducing backlogs
accumulated during the
pandemic

Actions in 2022: opposition

Improvements to oral proceedings by VICO in 2022
Opposition proceedings are traditionally dealt with by our most experienced
examiners. In 2022, considerable efforts were made to enable them, andespecially chairpersons, to further develop their skills, especially in terms ofdealing effectively with the new VICO format of oral proceedings. Training
materials and guidance documents were specially developed to address, forexample, general aspects of oral proceedings via Zoom of interest to all
opposition division members, including legal members; specific procedures forchairpersons; and taking evidence and hearing witnesses. Building on feedback
received from our users, we also made the following improvements to the format
of online oral proceedings in 2022:

Online digital whiteboards which can be used to share annotations, sketches
and structures, etc. in real time and easily magnify (zoom into) them.
Screen-sharing allowing parties to display documents or slides in support oftheir arguments. This is a better equivalent to the four-colour handwritten
notes on a flip chart used at in-person proceedings.
Private breakout rooms enabling parties to deliberate confidentially. Given
that it is easier to attend oral proceedings by VICO, this means that parties
epo.org | 59

can confer more often, and include international clients or experts who would
not have attended the proceedings in person.
Additional audio channels to support the simultaneous interpretation
provided by parties into languages of EPC member states other than thethree EPO official languages. This was not possible at in-person proceedings
as the room's audio system and interpretation booths were designed only for
the EPO languages.
The chat function, which is an extra feature in VICO, now features a moreintuitive interface that allows for brief written exchanges useful for clarifying
points without interrupting the flow of the oral conversation and so helps toensure a clearer exchange of views between the parties and the opposition
division.
Improved video feeds, making it possible to pin several specific people andso focus on the body language and facial expressions of all these people atthe same time, something which is not possible in face-to-face oralproceedings.







These new online technologies have helped offer improved transparency andaccess to justice, with 20 times more observers attending oral proceedings than
before the pandemic. The online format also allows for simultaneousinterpretation. Taking these advantages, plus the improved sustainability, into
consideration, the President decided that VICOs would be the new gold standard
for oral proceedings in all first-instance proceedings, including opposition, as of2023. 23

iLearn day on opposition
Using our established iLearn platform, we held an iLearn day dedicated to quality
in opposition, featuring topics such as taking evidence (witness hearings andinspections) and handling requests for corrections to minutes and decisions, aswell as a Boards of Appeal lecture on Art. 83 EPC and its relationship with Art.
84 and 56 EPC.

5.5

Formalities

5.5.1

Metrics: formalities

Formalities officers also play an important role in ensuring the quality of our
products and services and so operational quality control (OQC) is in place for thecritical processes in their area. Around 6.5% of the files are sampled and checkedby quality officers. Any finding is validated by senior experts formalities officers,
who also give direct feedback to the formalities team to drive learning.
OQC results in 2022 highlighted scope to improve the quality of our handling of
the formal aspects of our work as a PCT Receiving Office (RO) and PCTInternational Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA). After a successful pilot, thiswork was centralised in three smaller teams of specialised formalities officers

23

Official Journal 11/22.

epo.org | 60

towards the end of 2022 and we expect to see an improvement in the results
during 2023.
Strong collaboration between the formalities teams also led to an improvement in
the timeliness of handling high-priority messages, 24 which reached 94% actioned
within half a day as a result, up from 81% in 2020.

5.5.2

What our findings tell us: formalities

Where we excel

Where we can improve further

Priority actions 2022

Very strong results fromoperation quality control

Users called for a high-quality
paralegal certification

European patent administration
certification (EPAC) initiatedOur operational quality control
highlighted scope to improve thequality of our handling of formal
aspects of PCT Receiving Office(RO) and PCT IPEA

Request for early processing ofentry in the regional phase

Handling of requests for earlyprocessing can be further
improved

Request for further processing

Very timely handling of highpriority messages

5.5.3

Free text communications

Actions in 2022: formalities

European patent administration certification (EPAC)
The European patent administration certification (EPAC) was initiated in
response to users' calls for a high-quality paralegal certification at European level.
It was designed to enable IP paralegals, patent administrators and formalities
officers to demonstrate that they have the required knowledge and skills to deal
independently and autonomously with the procedures associated with the filing,prosecution, grant and maintenance of European and international patentapplications before the EPO, as well as post-grant procedures.
An EPAC Board was nominated in December 2021 with the remit of organisingand managing this new high-quality certification for IP support staff. The Board
began its preparations in January 2022 and, with the support of the EPO's
Business Information Technology and Communication departments and the EQE
secretariat, was able to hold the first ever EPAC exam on 12 December 2022.
The European Patent Academy, in co-operation with DG 1, developed andpublished EPAC related study materials to help candidates prepare for the examand the feedback received on the quality of these materials has been
unanimously positive.
More than 500 candidates from 33 different countries – 23 EPC member statesand 10 non-member states, including the United States, P.R. China, Canada andHigh-priority messages are actions formalities officers are expected to process by the end of thenext business day.
24

epo.org | 61

Mexico – registered to take part in the first edition of the EPAC, showing the highlevel of interest in this certification, and 157 of them passed the exam. The vast
majority of candidates came from industry or a private patent attorney practice(also 85%).
Building on these promising figures we can expect further uptake of the EPAC
among all stakeholders: users, member states' patent office staff and also ourformalities officers. This will contribute to the improvement of our processes andworkflows, and ultimately support the timely delivery of high quality EPO
products. In parallel, the preparation for EPAC will consolidate knowledge andskills and contributing to the personal development of formalities officers.
Figure 38: Facts and figures for 2022 EPAC

Source: EPO

Requests for early processing of entry into the regional phase
Since 2020 we have been aware that requests for early processing of entry into
the regional phase have not always been handled correctly. It is a complex
process, and insufficient instructions on how to deal with it were identified as one
root cause. We provided job aids and interactive refresher training, and theoperational quality control then showed better results. This meant we could close
the formal quality initiative, but this example highlights the need to provide
enough up-to-date training and support that is tailored to the specific situation.

Requests for further processing
Another area where we were able to improve significantly was in handlingrequests for further processing filed where applications had been considered
withdrawn. Formalities officers were invited to attend webinars that were specially
tailored to address the findings from targeted operational quality control. A followup check showed an improvement to just under 95% of requests being handledcorrectly. This illustrates that targeted action based on actual findings tends to bean efficient way of improving quality.

Free-text communications
Integrating the formalities officers' handling of free-text communications into
Patent Workbench has facilitated the use of standard clauses. This is expected
epo.org | 62

to lead to greater harmonisation of these communications and increase theiraccuracy.

6.

Conclusions and outlook for 2023

Quality is at the heart of a sustainable patent system. It is fundamental toinnovation, which stimulates economic growth and propels our society forward. It
is also the single most critical factor behind the success of the EPO and theEuropean patent system and why we today enjoy a world-leading reputation
among our peers and users – not just in Europe but from the Americas to Asia.
This is the EPO's seventh annual Quality Report, outlining our performance inquality and the steps we took to improve it in 2022. In response to feedback fromour users, this edition has been significantly expanded and contains more
information than ever before on our quality targets, metrics, data and activities. It
is also supplemented by two annexes. The first provides even more data on our
grant rates, the opposition procedure and decisions of the Boards of Appeal on
appeals against first-instance refusals of applications and opposition decisions.
For the reasons set out there, we do not see this data as a proxy means ofmeasuring our quality. The grant rate, for example, depends on many factors, notleast the quality of incoming applications and whether they are a first filing or asecond filing that has been through the PCT process. It is not the role of a patentoffice to grant or refuse a certain percentage of applications and a high refusal
rate is not an indicator of quality. A patent office's role is instead is to look at eachand every application and assess it thoroughly, fairly, transparently andconsistently against the criteria of the relevant patent law – in our case the EPC
and the PCT. Meanwhile, the rates and outcomes of oppositions and appeals arealso affected by commercial factors. In the interests of transparency, we havenevertheless opted to publish this data alongside the quality report.
The second annex is a comprehensive report on the EPO's ground-breaking
Stakeholder Quality Assurance Panels (SQAPs) and offers a detailed readoutfrom their session on grants held in 2022. The new approach of having external
and internal experts jointly assess quality and areas for improvement has alreadyprovided us with valuable insights that will shape our quality management
activities in 2023.
Quality is a shared responsibility, and we discuss this important topic with allusers of the patent system in various different ways – in one-to-one meetings,
through representative bodies such as BusinessEurope and the epi, with ourmember states and users at meetings of our Technical and Operational Support
Committee and our Administrative Council and through our Standing Advisory
Committee. We listen carefully each time and take action to improve.
This report focuses on our actions in 2022, but it is only right that we also lookahead to the ones we plan to take in 2023, which will be centred around:

Improving substantive quality of search/written opinions: we will aim toensure our search reports are even more complete and reduce the numberof invalid objections in our written opinions by:– maintaining our high pace in developing custom-designed tools anddigital workflows that empower our staff to continue delivering thehighest quality as the number of applications and the volume of prior art
increase and as the dynamics of collaborative remote working evolve
epo.org | 63

–











building on the "active search divisions" pilot run in 2022 and aimed at
systematically involving the chairperson of the examining division at
search stage– running a pilot on collaborative searching where teams work together atthe early stages of developing a search strategy.
Improving substantive quality in examination: we will aim to makeprogress in this area by:– focusing on assessments of added subject-matter– exploring ‒ in response to suggestions made at the 2022 SQAP session
on grants ‒ a new approach to increasing dialogue between divisions
and applicants at the examination stage.
Increasing harmonisation: we will aim to improve consistency in our
approach to applying the EPC, in particular by:– focusing on areas where practice is already known to diverge, such as
adaptation of the description, computer-implemented inventions andartificial intelligence– identifying and taking action in other areas where consistency can be
improved– making more use of templates to structure our communications– continuing to work towards reducing the overall timeliness of our patent
process with the aim of taking a decision on an application within four
years.
Expanding our learning: we will aim to strengthen our framework forkeeping our skills and technical expertise up to date, sharing knowledge andcontinuous learning by acting on suggestions to:– make talks from members of the epi and BusinessEurope part of ourinitial academy training– intensify exchanges with industry on the latest technologicaldevelopments and increase the number of talks they give in our regulariLearn events– explore with BusinessEurope the value of holding more detailed
technical-level discussions with representatives from our eighttechnology communities (mirroring the annual discussions already held
in a similar format with the epi)
– optimise feedback loops at all levels, i.e. within teams, between teams,
from opposition, from Directorate Quality Audit, from the Boards ofAppeal and from our users.
Continuing our shared journey: we will create more opportunities for us toassess quality together with our users, listen carefully to their input anddiscuss specific examples, in particular by:– increasing the number of SQAP sessions in 2023 from one to three– holding new SQAP sessions focusing on search/written opinions andintermediate communications– holding another session on grant files– increasing the diversity of the panellists to give qualified practitioners
more opportunities to take part– creating a feedback and reporting loop where recommendations andactions initiated following the SQAP sessions are reported back to the
SACEPO Working Party on Quality.
– looking at new types of data and key performance indicators we can use
to measure our quality and track our progress.
Simplifying our process: we believe that, in addition to improving
substantive quality, we can also make quality improvements by simplifying
our processes. Many patent grant processes – both in patent offices and in

epo.org | 64

attorney firms – have remained largely unchanged since the 1800s when thefirst patent offices opened their doors. Paper processes may have been
digitalised, but the underlying approach of forms, fees and successive
rounds of correspondence remains the same. These layers of complexity
present opportunities for procedural errors, misunderstandings, confusion
and missed deadlines that increase costs and do not add to patent quality.
The recently set-up Patent Granting Process Simplification Board is a crossoffice executive committee mandated to analyse procedural practices andworkflows in the patent granting process, identify potential for simplifying
them and propose ways of doing this in line with operational priorities andstrategic goals. Its aim is to help promote digital transformation and ensure
the highest level of operational and procedural convergence in implementing
the procedural changes – ultimately with a view to improving quality andmaking patent procedures more efficient for internal and external users.
Dialogue with users on all fronts, is an essential aspect of our quality policy.
To further strengthen it, we will pilot a digital shared area in 2023. This willallow us to simultaneously work on an application with applicants, paving theway for a true end-to-end digital dialogue reinforcing our solution-oriented
examination practices.
We welcome all feedback from our users, whether it is about quality in general or
specifically about this quality report. If you want to join the conversation on patentquality, or share your views on this report, please contact us at quality@epo.org.

epo.org | 65

Annex 1

Grant rates and additional post-grantstatistics

Grant rates
Many users pay keen attention to the various indicators and other data disclosed
by patent offices. Understandably, some analyse these data sets and attempt tomake inferences about quality from them. Unfortunately, however, false
assumptions about what quality is and how suitable the data sets are for theiranalyses can lead them to the wrong conclusions.
One metric which some see as a proxy for quality in the patent granting process
is the grant rate. But the grant rate is not an indicator of quality. The role of apatent office is to examine the applications submitted to it and to grant those thatcomply with the requirements under the applicable law (nearly always after
amendment) and refuse (after ensuring the right to be heard) those that cannot
be brought into line with the law. Its role is not ‒ and should not be ‒ to grant acertain percentage of applications.
Grant rates are also highly influenced by the quality of the incoming applications.
Where applicants have conducted a diligent pre-search and filed carefully drafted
applications that have a well-defined scope and avoid misleading or inconsistentwording, they will have a much greater chance of obtaining a grant, and this will
result in a high grant rate both for these individual applicants and overall. Grant
rates also depend on applicants' strategies, e.g. whether they withdraw theirapplication after major objections to patentability or agree to a grant withrestricted scope. An analysis of our applicants who file more than 50 applications
per year shows that some of them have a 100% grant rate but that it is as low as
16% for others. Unsurprisingly, the rates of withdrawal after search and the grant
grate also vary depending on the filing route chosen, e.g. filing directly with the
EPO or after proceedings under the PCT or before a national office.
It is also inappropriate to compare grant rates at different patent offices. Firstly,
the incoming files at the various offices differ in terms of the technical fields
covered and whether they are first or second filings. Secondly, different offices
have different procedures which inevitably result in differing grant rates.
Government policy also differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, meaning very low
fees and/or generous subsidies at some offices but not at others. Lastly, different
offices calculate their grant rates in different ways.
That said, the EPO tracks it grant rate using two approaches. The first approach
looks at the share of published grants in all final actions (i.e. the total number ofpublished grants, refusals, withdrawals and deemed withdrawals) in a particular
year. This share increased from 62% in 2018 to 65% in 2022.

epo.org | 66

Figure 39: Grant rates by year of final action

Source: EPO

We noticed this increase as we switched our focus on reducing the backlog ofwork from search to examination. At the same time, we saw ‒ and still see ‒ asignificant drop in the withdrawal rate, which went from 50% in 2015 to 33% in
2021 (meaning some 27 000 applications). There are many possible reasons forthis – e.g. a robust innovation budget or more carefully drafted applications – but
we also believe that the more timely examination now delivered by the EPO
means more patents remain relevant to the applicant. The EPO's rate of refusalof applications has remained constant throughout this period. In contrast to this,the percentage final actions which were withdrawals has declined markedly inrecent years.
As pointed out, this approach to calculating the grant rate is affected by theparticular mix of products delivered in a given year.
Using this first approach, we have a lower grant rate than the USPTO, JPO and
KIPO. As an office with over 80% second filings, we also see a filtering effectbetween the PCT/national phase and entry into the European phase – with 46%
of applications that designate the EPO being dropped before they enter theregional phase.
Figure 40: Grant rate as calculated according to the cohort approach

Source: EPO

The second approach is known as the "cohort" approach and involves tracking
the outcome of applications filed in a particular year. We find that this approachgives us a more accurate figure which is not influenced by variations in the shareof capacity invested in examination each year.
epo.org | 67

As reported in CA/F 5/22, 25 the grant procedure has been completed for 98% of
all applications for a European patent filed up until the end of 2016. For theseapplications, the grant rate was 57%, the refusal rate was 3% and the withdrawal
rate was 40% (15% after search and 25% during examination).
For applications filed during the past five years (i.e. since the beginning of 2017),
41.4% of the procedures have been completed. The outcome for most of the 2017
cohort has therefore not been decided yet, and so the grant rate for this cohort is
not yet meaningful.
The grant rate also varies widely between individual applicants, going from 100%of filed applications granted to 16% of filed applications granted (source: analysisof the outcome of all applications filed by applicants filing over 50 applications per
year with the EPO).
Given that the patent profession is maturing each year, with thousands ofcandidates sitting the European qualifying examination and passing the stringent
hurdles, plus the growing amount of fully classified prior art available throughEPO tools, it would seem normal that the grant rate should increase over time.

Opposition rates and outcomes
There is no direct relationship between the rate of opposition to patents grantedby the examining divisions and the quality of examination. Instead, economic andstrategic considerations tend to be the main driver behind an opposition. The
opposition rate has dropped from a high of 4.7% in 2014 to 2.4% in 2022.
Figure 41: Number of opposed patents and opposition rates for 2013-2022

Opposition rate: ratio of opposed patents over opposable patents (i.e. patents for which the ninemonths period for opposition expired during the respective year)

Source: EPO

As shown in the graph below, the outcome of opposition proceedings has beenhighly consistent over the years in terms of the proportion of patents revoked,
amended or upheld (roughly one-third each).
The fluctuation in the outcome breakdown observed in 2020 and 2021 isbecause, as a result of the pandemic, only a limited number of (the most25

https://www.epo.org/modules/epoweb/acdocument/epoweb2/596/en/CA-F_5-22_en.pdf

epo.org | 68straightforward) cases were finalised in 2020. This caused the revocation figure
to spike at 41% in 2021, before returning to its pre-pandemic level of 33% in 2022.
Figure 42: Opposition outcomes 2015-2022

Source: EPO

Around 40% of opposition decisions are appealed: this figure has remained stable
over the years and is a logical consequence of the fact that some files are highly
contested for commercial and strategic reasons (just 2.5% of grants are opposed,
so 40% of that figure means only a very small share of our total grants areconcerned). An appeal can be filed by the proprietor, one or more opponents oreven both parties.

Outcome of appeals against opposition decisions
The outcome of appeal proceedings following oppositions to patents granted by
the examining division has likewise been highly consistent over the years, with
between 13% and 18% of first-instance decisions being revoked on appeal.
Some variation in outcome is normal and inherent in the review system built into
the EPC. We also need to be very careful when comparing outcomes at different
instances because the setting is different (much more time invested, fresh eyes
looking at the matter, new evidence submitted by the parties) and the requests
decided on are not necessarily the same.
Figure 43: Outcomes of appeals against opposition division decisions

Source: EPO

epo.org | 69

Board of appeal decisions on refusals
The outcome of appeals against refusals issued by the examining divisions has
been remarkably stable over the past few years, with the examining division's
decision being amended in between 17 and 19% of cases.
At the EPO, we strive to apply the EPC fairly, transparently and consistently, andto get it right first time. However, there is always room for interpretation and for
improvement. Sometimes we will be too strict and sometimes not strict enough.
We learn from both and seek to improve.
Figure 44: Outcome of appeals against EPO decisions to refuse an application

Source: EPO

epo.org | 70

Annex 2

Stakeholder Quality Assurance Panels(SQAP) 2022 Report

The Stakeholder Quality Assurance Panels (SQAPs), which report to the
SACEPO Working Party on Quality (WP/Q), bring together patent experts toperform objective in-depth reviews of specific EPO granted files. The approach
places users at the heart of the EPO's quality assessment and the experts' direct
feedback helps work towards a shared understanding of what quality means.
In October 2022, the SQAPs performed the very first joint assessment by EPO
experts and European patent attorneys. The session focused on the grant stageof the patent granting process.
The SQAPs highlighted areas where there was consensus among the panellists,
areas where their views differed, areas where quality was strong and areas where
the EPO could do more to improve quality. They considered that the assessedpatents largely met the EPC requirements. They also stressed the importance ofconsistent practices throughout the lifespan of a file, as well as of complete
searches and comprehensive examination taking account of the applicant's
arguments. Amendments proposed during the grant stage and adaptation of thedescription were points where opinions differed among panellists. The panellists
suggested that increasing dialogue between the examining divisions andapplicants during the patent granting process would lead to a smoother process.
The SQAP process also highlighted the value of having specific files assessedby a panel of experts. Examining patent applications against our legal
requirements involves complex intellectual work and the various experts cansometimes perceive and interpret the same situation differently. This also goesto show why our three person examining divisions are so important.
The joint composition of the SQAPs was very well received by both users and
EPO staff and it resulted in valuable feedback for the EPO. A European patent
attorney on one of the panels said: "Organising SQAPs regularly is essential:
frequent interaction between users and EPO examiners is crucial to continuously
improving quality." An EPO expert added that: "The definition of quality doesn't
end at the doors of the EPO, but goes way beyond. We can only deliver a highquality product by working together with our users." The panel findings confirm
the need for the actions the EPO is taking to enhance dialogue between
examiners and applicants and achieve greater harmonisation of its practices.
The members of the SACEPO WP/Q welcomed the proposal to expand the
SQAP approach by having more frequent sessions that cover all stages of thepatent granting process and involving an even more diverse range of panellists.

1.

Stakeholder Quality Assurance Panels (SQAPs)

Introduction
At the EPO, we believe that quality is a partnership between us and our users.
Dialogue is of paramount importance throughout the patent grant process. Since
2019, the SQAPs have provided a forum for valuable exchanges of views with
our users and helped lead the way to a shared understanding of quality.
epo.org | 71

The SQAP assessments involve a review of specific EPO granted files by various
panels of experts. Each panel prepares a detailed report which is presented anddiscussed in a plenary session of the SACEPO WP/Q.
Until 2022, there were only external European patent attorneys on the panels. In
2019, they focused on novelty and added-subject matter; in 2021, they looked atinventive step and clarity.
From the discussions at these previous SQAP sessions, the EPO gained valuable
feedback on user expectations of quality, which can be summarised as follows:











Complete searches covering all relevant documents, all claims and theessence of the application
More direct interaction with the examining division, including earlier
consultations to clarify points and speed up the process
Complete communications that address all claims and are clear on the fullpotential of the application
Well-reasoned objections avoiding an "over-formalistic" approach to unity,
clarity and added matter
Sound suggestions pointing out how to overcome objections but leavingroom for keeping an open mind
Efficient and correct process for grant (Rule 71(3) EPC), with amendments
to be agreed with the applicant
Patentability criteria consistently applied by examining and opposition
division
Concise, accurate and complete summonses, minutes and decisions
Respect for applicants needing to respond, with appropriate time given tohandle Article 94(3) EPC communications
A robust patent is the outcome of shared responsibility: applicants are in
charge of the application, while examiners ensure transparency towards the
public and that the EPC requirements are met.

These insights were one of the foundations for the EPO Patent Quality Charter,
which came into effect on 1 October 2022. Reflecting our mission, it affirms ourcommitment to achieving excellence by delivering high-quality patents andservices that foster innovation, competitiveness and economic growth and socontribute to a more sustainable world.
Having worked together with our users to define what is important for quality inthe charter, the next step is to assess our products to determine whether thequality expectations are being met and identify opportunities for further
improvement. To ensure a common understanding of what good quality looks likein practice, it is important that we also carry out this assessment together with ourusers. That is why we decided in 2022 to move from an SQAP assessment byexternal European patent attorneys only to one performed jointly by EPO andexternal experts. This way we hoped to gain a deeper understanding of where
our perspectives are the same and where they differ, where high quality isachieved and where we can do more to improve our quality.
Based on our past experience, we are confident that the SQAPs offer a platform
for a new, user-centric and holistic method of assessing quality in the patent
process. By gathering different opinions on a single file from a whole panel ofexperts, we can reach a more nuanced evaluation that complements our existingassessments.
epo.org | 72

Organisation of SQAPs in 2022
In 2022, there were a total of 30 panellists on the SQAPs, including 12 European
patent attorneys and 18 EPO experts (managers of examiner teams, senior
expert examiners and internal quality auditors from Directorate Quality Audit).
Together, they performed the first-ever joint quality assessment of 36 granted
patents. There were six panels, each made up of five experts (two attorneys, one
team manager, one senior expert and one quality auditor) and focusing on adifferent technical field.
Having several experts review the same file brings a diversity of perspectives tothe discussion of quality and interpretation of the EPC. Having panels covering
the EPO's technology communities means that challenges specific to a particulartechnical field can be addressed.
The panellists selected granted files for assessment from a random pool provided
by the EPO and used a questionnaire to structure their discussions and feedback.
In the interests of transparency and to allow for broader participation, SACEPOWP/Q members were also welcome to join as observers. All panellists andobservers signed a non-disclosure agreement.
The discussions focused on the extent to which each granted patent met therequirements of the EPC, on the adaptation of the description and on
amendments proposed by the examining division at the grant stage.
The SQAP assessments are of course merely a collection of opinions expressedon the basis of the information in the public file. They have no implications for theprocedural handling of the file. For the granted patents selected for assessment,
the deadline for filing opposition had already expired.
The SQAP session took place on 27 October 2022 in a professional andconstructive atmosphere, with in-depth and file-specific discussions that
acknowledged both examples of good quality and opportunities for further
improvement. The panellists presented their findings at the 9th meeting of the
SACEPO WP/Q on 24 November 2022.
Figure 45: 2022 SQAP assessment of grants

Source: EPO

epo.org | 73

Feedback on the SQAP format
The SQAP panellists and the members of the SACEPO WP/Q who attended their
discussions as observers provided positive and constructive feedback. The
panellists reported that the discussions had improved their understanding of eachother's perspectives.
The panels selected their files from a random pool. In a couple of cases, theyfound the technical subject-matter to be challenging. Feedback was gathered
through a standardised questionnaire and given through the panels' reports.
Although time-consuming, this was considered helpful in guiding the debates. A
simplified format, possibly using a checklist, was suggested as a way of improving
reporting in the future.
Conflicts of interest were avoided by checking that the patent attorneys did notwork for the proprietor of any of the selected patents. The attorneys proposed aless onerous approach and that they take their personal responsibility for
declaring any conflict of interest. This will be taken on board for future sessions.
SACEPO WP/Q members appreciated the opportunity to observe the panel
discussions and some expressed interest in actively taking part as panellists infuture SQAP sessions. They also much appreciated the presentations of thepanel findings at the SACEPO WP/Q meeting. They welcomed the proposal toexpand the SQAP approach to cover each stage of the patent granting process,to hold sessions more frequently and to increase the diversity of panellists.

2.

SQAP findings on grants

EPC requirements
On the assessment of novelty, inventive step, sufficiency of disclosure, andadded subject-matter, the panels:







Considered the granted applications to meet the EPC requirements in almost
all cases
Emphasised the need for well-supported objections and suggested thatlinking features to their technical effect could help with the assessment of
inventive step
Noted the importance of providing evidence for product-by-process claims
Saw the need for clear objections and careful assessment of independentand dependent claims
Highlighted the use of optional features, inconsistencies in the applicationand claims referring to intermediate products as potential causes of clarity
issues.

Amendments proposed by the division in the Rule 71(3)communication
The panellists had a lively debate on amendments proposed at the grant stage.
The amendments proposed by the division were considered to be clearly
formulated and appropriate in the majority of cases. The majority of substantive
amendments had not been agreed with the applicants in advance.
epo.org | 74

The panels' main findings were:








Examiners should avoid making substantive amendments or rewriting claims
without consulting the applicant and the use of documented telephone/video
conversations to discuss amendments at the grant stage is appreciated.
Deleting passages from the description can alter the claim interpretation.
Applicants should request corrections if they disagree with the amendments
proposed in the R. 71(3) EPC communication.
The granted claims should ideally be based on original claims with featuresfrom dependent claims. If features are added from the description or figures,the applicants must provide justification.
The two-part form is not always suitable: if it is used, the features should beproperly arranged according to the prior art; if not, the description should
mention which features of the independent claim are disclosed by the closest
prior-art document.

Adaptation of description
Most panellists considered the amendments made to adapt the description to theclaims to be appropriate. However, only a small number saw a need to adapt it
for inconsistencies, general statements and claim-like clauses.
The panels' main findings were:











Examiners deleting passages/embodiments is a sensitive topic for applicants
as it can result in non-enabling disclosure objections in post-grant court
proceedings. Deleting passages such as those on the first embodiment risks
excessively limiting the disclosure of the invention.
Amending the description to indicate that "an embodiment is not within thescope of the claims but useful for understanding the invention" or stating that
it is "not according to the invention" is less harmful than deletion. However,such wording could be problematic in some jurisdictions, as it may be seen
as giving up on the subject-matter.
External panellists considered the handling of claim-like clauses to be too
restrictive. They would prefer allowing these clauses to remain where theyfall within the claimed scope, because they often disclose specificembodiments that help to understand the invention. Even the wording "notpart of the claimed invention" could be problematic in post-grant proceedings
as it may be seen in some jurisdictions as implying that subject-matter isgiven up on, affecting the scope of protection under the doctrine ofequivalents. External panellists took the view that applicants should bear the
responsibility for determining which of these clauses, of which there aresometimes many, fall within the claimed scope, and adaptation should be left
to them.
The examining division's amendments should be minimal, and alignment
with amended claims should be decided on a case-by-case. Any alignmentof the description without prior consultation should be minor andstraightforward, while more complicated cases such as amending the claim
wording, changing claim dependencies or deleting whole passages shouldbe left to the representative.
Most panellists agreed that general statements and passages relating to the"spirit of the invention" should be deleted.
On the EPO's practice of acknowledging background art, external panellists
mentioned that the closest prior was not always clearly identified in relation
epo.org | 75

to the preamble of the independent claim, and this could have negative
consequences in other proceedings.

Areas of consensus and areas where views differed
There was consensus among the panels that the following work well:The EPC provides a level playing field for all patent actors.
Granted applications met the EPC requirements in almost all cases.
The EPO's technical assessment was of high quality: relevant documents
were cited and communications were detailed.
Citation of other documents following amendments was appropriate. In a
couple of cases, the original search could have been more complete and so
prevented the need to add prior art during examination. But if the subjectmatter of the independent claim or claims changed significantly, the latercitation of a new, highly relevant document during examination is acceptable.

The panels agreed that examiners should do more on the following
practices:










Examiners could make more use of telephone conversations to discuss
amendments proposed at the grant stage.
Care should be taken to ensure that any proposed changes define
patentable matter. Examiners and applicants alike should use the problemsolution approach appropriately to determine patentability. Once novel andinventive subject-matter has been identified, both applicants and examiners
must carefully ensure fulfilment of all remaining EPC patentability
requirements.
The EPO could be more consistent as regards requiring adaptation of thedescription to granted claims.
There were some clarity and dependency issues in claims. Clarity objections
should be as specific as possible and propose a "way out" by suggesting anamendment the applicant could make to overcome the objection where
possible. Representatives should address the clarity objections in theirreplies and examiners should carefully assess the arguments.
At the grant stage, examiners should avoid making substantive amendments
to the claims without consulting the applicants. It is acceptable for them tomake minimal amendments to the description without prior consent. A
sufficiently detailed explanation of amendments provided by the applicant
could be useful for the public.
Suggestions for the applicant should be clear and complete and should bemade after careful consideration and discussion within the examining
division to ensure the requirements of Art. 84 and 123(2)/76(1) EPC are met.

The panels had differing views on the following:

For some files, there were differences of opinion on whether the claims were
sufficiently clear and, for others, on whether the clarity objection raised had
been necessary.
Essential features: for a few files, there was some discussion about whichfeatures were essential for the invention and possibly missing from theindependent claim.
Amendments proposed at grant stage: views differed on what is a minor
amendment (not needing to be discussed with the applicant) and what is a
epo.org | 76substantive amendment (needing to be discussed with the applicant
beforehand).
Adaptation of the description: there was consensus that the description
should not contradict the claims, but many of the external panellists and
SACEPO WP/Q participants considered the EPO's approach to be (too)strict.

Areas of high quality and opportunities for improvement
The panels highlighted the following as areas of high quality in the files
assessed:

















The examination proceedings were highly efficient and effective, with athorough search done at the search phase and close co-operation between
the applicant and the examining division.
The examining division's technical assessment was focused and efficient,with the applicant providing a detailed and accurate basis for any necessary
amendments.
The cited prior art was relevant in most cases, and the examining division
was responsive to the applicant's arguments, adapting the description at the
grant stage with helpful reasoning.
Good communication between the applicant and the examining division was
key, and amendments had been discussed in telephone consultations.
The examining division's suggestions on how to overcome objections were
helpful and had been made early in the proceedings, helping to make theexamination quicker and more efficient.
The examining division's use of the sentence "does not fall under the scopeof the claims but is useful to understand the invention" instead of deleting anembodiment from the description was appreciated.
The examining division carried out additional searches when necessary, andthe problem-solution-approach was consistently used.
A change of opinion based on solid arguments was seen as positive.
Late citation of highly relevant documents was considered acceptable if thescope of protection had been narrowed.
Consultation was used in cases of doubt, and amendments to the description
were made only for obvious inconsistencies.
The examining division's consistent procedures throughout the life of a file,along with properly drafted communications, resulted in the best outcome.

The panels made the following suggestions for further improvement:









Improve communication and dialogue between applicants and examiners toenhance mutual understanding. Consult applicants more via phone/videoconference.
Discuss relevant prior art early on to promote efficiency
Avoid raising unfounded objections and overinterpreting prior-art disclosures
Applicants should take responsibility for ensuring the quality of theirapplications and follow up on suggestions provided by examiners
Help applicants by providing the basis for amendments, e.g. provide
applicants with a tool for making comparisons
Be vigilant for unallowable intermediate generalisations and excessive
broadness of independent claims
Provide justification for amendments
epo.org | 77









3.







4.

Call applicant before making substantive amendments to claims or changing
scope of claims
Explain why new documents are cited in examination
Both examining division and representatives need the mindset andwillingness to understand each other's arguments and take them into
account
Acknowledge, and give a short explanation, when objections are overcome;be thorough if grantable subject-matter is identified
Indicate passages of description that do not fall under scope of claims
Leave extensive amendments to the description to the applicant.

Key take aways
SQAP technical file-specific discussions were of high quality andconstructive.
Findings show a broad consensus, in particular on novelty and inventive
step.
Clear suggestion that there should be more dialogue between applicants andexamining divisions during examination to promote an efficient and effective
process. This is currently being explored.
Views on how the description should be adapted to the amended claims
differ. This is being discussed in more depth.
Desire to improve the SQAPs and expand it by having more frequentsessions and covering other stages of the procedure too. This is due to be
implemented in 2023.

EPO follow-up on SQAPs

The feedback from the SQAPs has been taken into account in the EPO's quality
actions that are already under way and has also fed into some new actions.
Following feedback from the panels, we will continue to work with users toincrease our understanding of the issues they face when adapting the description.
This dialogue, combined with ongoing harmonisation activities across ouroperational area to promote consistency in our approach, is expected to improvethe user experience in this aspect of our work.
Based on feedback we received from the SQAPs on promoting communicationand dialogue between examining divisions and applicants, we are planning tolaunch a new pilot to explore the benefits of closer dialogue during examination
proceedings.
In 2023 SQAP sessions will be held more frequently and will include new
sessions on search/written opinions and intermediate communications. Thesesessions will help us gain deeper insights into the quality of the search andexamination stages and will supplement the existing SQAP findings on grants.

epo.org | 78

5.

Improving and developing the SQAP approach

Exploring measures for SQAP findings
A baseline SQAP questionnaire surveyed the panellists' opinions before they met
as a panel. This gave a first indication of the degree of convergence or divergencein their views. An overview of each panel's responses was then shared with thepanellists to help them with their in-depth discussions.
Working together with stakeholders, the EPO is exploring possible ways ofvisualising the findings of future SQAPs in terms of the degree to which there isconsensus among the panellists and to which they consider the files assessed tomeet the criteria set for their particular SQAP session. Figure 4 shows one
example of how this could be done.
Figure 46: Overview of SQAP panellists' responses to structured feedback

The results are based on 162 responses of the 36 assessed files and are not statistically relevant.

Source: EPO

Although not statistically relevant, the analysis indicated that using aquestionnaire is helpful in structuring the feedback and has the potential to leadto new quality assessment measures.
The SQAP model takes an innovative approach, with several external andinternal patent experts assessing the public information on the same file. An
analysis looked in more detail at the degree to which the panellists' views on theinterpretation of the main EPC criteria in the assessed files were in line. The
analysis showed that the quality assessment is complex and that even fiveexperts looking at the same file can have differing perceptions and interpretationsof the application of the same legal criterion.

Evolution of the SQAPs
After the success of the session on grants in October 2022, SACEPO provided
positive feedback on the proposal to further expand the SQAPs. The EPO also
consulted with users' associations, especially the epi and BusinessEurope.
Based on this feedback, the approach to the 2023 SQAPs has been developedand improved as follows:

epo.org | 79






More frequent SQAP panels – increased from one session in 2022 to three
sessions in 2023
– New SQAP session on search report/written opinions– New SQAP session on intermediate communications– SQAP session on grants as in 2022
Greater diversity of panellists
Set-up of a mechanism for comprehensive reporting and follow-up on actions
and recommendations.

In the coming years, we plan to add more SQAP sessions that will look in-depth
at other stages of the patent granting process, e.g. oppositions, refusals andprocedural aspects of formalities work.
Each year the panels will present their findings to the autumn meeting of
SACEPO WP/Q. Their full reports will be published with the quality report for thatyear. The discussions and points raised by the SQAPs and SACEPO WP/Q
members will provide the EPO with a basis for taking action. For example, areas
for improvement identified by the panels can be incorporated into the quality
action plan and objectives for the following year. The SACEPO WP/Q will thendiscuss the actions being taken and their impact at its spring meeting, and thiswill close the feedback loop.
In this way the SQAPs will help us reach a common understanding and act as a
new means of measuring of quality.

epo.org | 80