EPO Guidelines 2018 Changes

See also my detailed overview of the changes in the EPO Guidelines (with more comments).
(via Google Drive, you can print it, download it and edit it e.g. in MS Word).

EPO plain overview of all changes: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines2018/e/m.htm

Substantive new changes (according to EPO)

GL part with link	EPO Summary	Key sentence (added by this blogger)
F‑IV, 4.13	Clarifications regarding interpretation of claims comprising expressions like "Apparatus for ...", "Method for ...	in the case of a "method of manufacture", i.e. a claim directed to a method for manufacturing a product, the fact that the method results in the product is to be treated as an integral method step (this was unclear in the GL2017).
F‑IV, 4.14 F‑IV, 4.14.1 F‑IV, 4.14.2	New section clarifying interpretation of claims defined by reference to (use with) another entity	For a claim for "a cylinder head for an engine”: the cylinder head must be suitable to be mounted in the engine described in the claim, but the features of the engine do not limit the subject-matter of the claim per se
F‑IV, 4.21	Clarified how the terms “comprising”, “consisting of” and “consisting essentially of” are construed in a claim	Regarding Art. 123(2), "comprising" does not provide per se an implicit basis for either "consisting of" or "consisting essentially of"
F‑IV, 4.4	Clarified practice regarding the use of general statements, "spirit of invention”, claim-like clauses	claim-like clauses appended at the end of the description must also be deleted prior to grant
F‑IV, 4.6.1 F‑IV, 4.6.2	New sections explaining how relative terms need to be construed and when an objection of clarity may be raised	if a relative term (such as “ thin”) is used by the applicant as the only feature to distinguish the subject-matter of a claim from the prior art, the use of this term is objected to under Art. 84 unless the term has a well-recognised meaning in the particular art, e.g. "high-frequency" in relation to an amplifier. in most cases, a relative term is simply not limiting the extension of the subject-matter of a claim.
F‑IV, 4.7.1 F‑IV, 4.7.2	New sections explaining how the term “about” and similar terms need to be construed and when an objection of clarity may be raised	If no error margins are specified in the application, the expression "about 200 °C" is interpreted as having the same round-off as "200 °C". When terms such as "substantially" or "approximately" are applied to a structural unit of an apparatus (e.g. "a tray plate with a substantially circular circumference"), the expression containing the term "substantially" or "approximately" will be interpreted as a technical feature being produced within the technical tolerance of the method used to manufacture it
F‑IV, 4.9	Reorganized section so to indicate how optional features need to be construed and when an objection of clarity may be raised	Optional features, i.e. features preceded by expressions such as "preferably", "for example", "such as" or "more particularly" are allowed if they do not introduce ambiguity. the wording "the solution is heated up to between 65 and 85 °C, particularly to 90 °C" does not fulfil the requirements of Art. 84 because the temperature after the term "particularly" contradicts the range before it.
F‑IV, 4.12 G‑II, 5.2 G‑II, 5.3	Clarified practice that if a technical feature of a claimed plant or animal might be the result of either a technical intervention or of an essentially biological process, a disclaimer is necessary to delimit the claimed subject matter to the technically produced product	If a technical feature of a claimed plant or animal, e.g. a single nucleotide exchange in the genome, might be the result of either a technical intervention (e.g. directed mutagenesis) or an essentially biological process (a natural allele), a disclaimer is necessary
H‑V, 3.1	Clarified practice regarding replacement or removal of features from a claim (“essentiality test”)	The three-step test is maintained, but the GL add that: even if the above criteria are met, the division must still ensure that the amendment by replacing or removing a feature from a claim satisfies the requirements of Art. 123(2) as they also have been set out in G 3/89 and G 11/91, referred to in G 2/10 as "the gold standard"
H‑V, 4.1	Amended in view of G 1/16	The undisclosed disclaimer (which inevitably quantitatively reduces the original technical teaching) may not qualitatively change the original technical teaching in the sense that the applicant's or patent proprietor's position with regard to other requirements for patentability is improved.

Further changes (minor according to EPO, important in my view)

GL part with link	EPO Summary	Key sentence
D‑V, 4	Clarification regarding the assessment of sufficiency of disclosure	The skilled person wishing to implement the claimed invention reads the claims in a technically sensible manner. An objection of insufficient disclosure of the invention is therefore not to be based on embodiments that are meaningless and not consistent with the teaching of the application as a whole (see T 521/12).
G‑IV, 9	Clarified practice related to assessing disclosure of a prior art document comprising errors	If the skilled person immediately sees that the document has an error, but identifies more than one possible correction, the disclosure of the passage containing the error is disregarded.
G‑VII, 5.1	Clarification regarding applying the problem-solution approach starting from different prior art documents	However, applying the problem-solution approach from different starting points, e.g. from different prior-art documents, is only required if it has been convincingly shown that these documents are equally valid springboards. In particular in opposition proceedings the structure of the problem-solution approach is not that of a forum where the opponent can freely develop as many inventive step attacks as he wishes in the hope that one of said attacks has the chance of succeeding (T 320/15, Reasons 1.1.2).

Completely rewritten chapter about lack of unity of invention

The revised unity discussion introduces a new two-step test – first, any common technical features of the claimed inventions are identified, and then these common technical features are examined to see if any of them are ‘special’ technical features.

The new test is a distinct shift from the current (=old) practice where examiners start with identifying any ‘special’ technical features of each invention, before determining whether there is a technical relationship between the inventions and whether this relationship involves these ‘special’ technical features. (Summary by Laurence Lai, at Kluwer Patent Blog)

F‑V, 1	New introductory section explaining why the requirement of non-unity is present in the EPC and the general principles.	This requirement of unity is further justified by the principle of equal treatment of applicants: any applicant is entitled to the same rendered service against the paid fees, i.e. one search/examination against one search/examination fee.
F‑V, 2 F‑V, 2.1	New sections explaining the substantive assessment of unity of invention	Therefore a substantive assessment of unity of invention requires:  (1) determining, in the light of the application as a whole, the subject-matter that is common to the claims directed to the different claimed inventions, i.e. the technical features of these claims that are the same and/or corresponding, (2) examining whether any of this common matter is special within the meaning of Rule 44(1).
F‑V, 2.2 F‑V, 2.2.2 F‑V, 2.2.2.1 F‑V, 2.2.2.2 F‑V, 2.2.2.3 F‑V, 2.2.2.4	Examples are added to illustrate the interpretation of the requirements of Rule 44(1) in particular situations. Sections are reorganised.	When the Markush grouping is for alternatives of chemical compounds, they should be regarded as being of a similar nature where: (i) all alternatives have a common property or activity, and (ii) a common structure is present, i.e. a significant structural element is shared by all of the alternatives, or all alternatives belong to a recognised class of chemical compounds in the art to which the invention pertains.
F‑V, 4 F‑V, 4.1 F‑V, 4.2 F‑V, 4.2.1	New and amended sections defining non-unity a priori and a posteriori	Unity a priori: if on closer examination, in view of the information contained in the description and the common general knowledge of the skilled person, it is evident that different independent claims solve different problems, then several inventive general concepts are present in the application contrary to the requirements of Art. 82. For unity  a posteriori , the Examiner assesses the "Remaining claims" which are the claims that still appear to be new and non-obvious after this assessment. If common matter is identified [in these remaining claims] and, in the light of the prior art at hand, comprises any same or corresponding technical features that appear to contribute to the achievement of at least one new technical effect in a non-obvious way, then these features define a technical relationship between the remaining claims in the sense of Rule 44(1), and the requirements of unity of invention are fulfilled [for these remaining claims].
F‑V, 6 F‑V, 6.1 F‑V, 6.2	New sections explaining the procedure in case of lack of unity during search	The consideration of the requirement of unity of invention is always made with a view to giving the applicant fair treatment and the invitation to pay additional fees is made only in clear cases. The applicant is never invited to pay an additional search fee for claimed inventions that are neither novel nor possess inventive step over the prior art at hand.

F‑V, 3	Clarifications regarding the assessment of Rule 43(2) and Art. 82	“The express reference to Art. 82 in Rule 43(2) makes clear that the requirement for unity of invention must still be met.”
F‑V, 4.4	Clarifications regarding determination of the invention first mentioned in the claims
F‑V, 5	Clarifications regarding the assessment of non-unity for dependent claims

Rewritten sections about software inventions

Part	EPO Summary	Illustrative sentence
F‑IV, 3.9.3	New section clarifying practice for assessing inventions realised in a distributed computing environment	For distributed computer implemented inventions, the claim set may comprise claims directed to each entity of the distributed system and/or to the overall system and the corresponding methods.
G‑II, 3.3	The section has been redrafted to clarify the assessment of claims comprising mathematical methods	Merely specifying the technical nature of the data or parameters of the mathematical method may not be sufficient to define an invention in the sense ofArt. 52(1), as the resulting method may still fall under the excluded category of methods for performing mental acts as such
G‑II, 3.3.1	New section about the field of artificial intelligence and machine learning were inserted in order to better define the criteria for their patentability	Such [machine learning] computational models and algorithms are per se of an abstract mathematical nature, irrespective of whether they can be "trained" based on training data.
G‑II, 3.3.2	New section about the assessment of claims directed to methods of simulation, design or modelling	the simulation of non-technical processes, such as a marketing campaign, an administrative scheme for transportation of goods or determining a schedule for agents in a call centre, does not represent a technical purpose.
G‑II, 3.5.1	New section introduced to clarify the assessment of claims comprising schemes, rules methods for performing mental acts	Where a claim defining a method for performing mental acts as such is limited by specifying that the method is carried out by a computer, not only the use of a computer but also the steps carried out by the computer themselves may make a technical contribution if they are based on technical considerations and serve a technical purpose.
G‑II, 3.5.2	New section introduced to clarify the assessment of claims comprising schemes, rules methods for playing games	Inventive step of a claim comprising a mix of game rules and technical features is examined in accordance with the problem-solution approach for mixed-type inventions as set out under G-VII, 5.4. As a principle, inventive step cannot be established by the game rules themselves, irrespective of how original they may be, or by their mere automation.
G‑II, 3.5.3	New section introduced to clarify the assessment of claims comprising schemes, rules methods for doing business	In the case of claims directed to a technical implementation of a business method, a modification to the underlying business method aimed at circumventing a technical problem, rather than addressing this problem in an inherently technical way, is not considered to make a technical contribution over the prior art. In the context of an automation of a business method, effects which are inherent in the business method do not qualify as technical effects
G‑II, 3.6	Redrafted section to clarify practice for assessment of claims to programs for computers	Numerous changes
G‑II, 3.6.1	New section providing examples of further technical effects produced by a computer program	Numerous changes
G‑II, 3.6.2	New section about information modelling, activity of programming and programming languages	specifications of a modelling language, the structure of an information modelling process (e.g. use of a template) or the maintenance of models likewise have no technical character
G‑II, 3.6.3	Section is redrafted to incorporate case law about the assessment of claims comprising features related to data retrieval, formats and structures (renumbered from G‑II, 3.7.2 to G‑II, 3.6.3)	When assessing data structures and data formats, a distinction is made between functional data and cognitive data (T 1194/97). Functional data serve to control the operation of a device processing the data. They inherently comprise, or reflect, corresponding technical features of the device. Cognitive data, on the other hand, are those data whose content and meaning are only relevant to human users. Functional data contribute to producing a technical effect whereas cognitive data do not.

In the detailed overview  you can also find an overview of all the GL changes which are updates in view of law changes over the course of 2017, and of all the minor amendments.