patent-review

Get an external patent examiner review of a patent application. Use when user says "专利审查", "patent review", "审查意见", "examiner review", or wants critical feedback on patent claims and specification.

Quality

83%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

Pending

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Patent Examiner Review via Codex MCP (xhigh reasoning)

Get a multi-round patent examiner review of the patent application based on: $ARGUMENTS

Adapted from /research-review. The reviewer persona is a patent examiner, not a paper reviewer.

Constants

REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-5.4 — Model used via Codex MCP
REVIEW_ROUNDS = 2 — Number of review rounds
EXAMINER_PERSONA = "patent-examiner" — GPT-5.4 persona

Prerequisites

Codex MCP Server configured:
```
claude mcp add codex -s user -- codex mcp-server
```

Inputs

patent/CLAIMS.md — all drafted claims
patent/specification/ — all specification sections
patent/figures/numeral_index.md — reference numeral mapping
patent/PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md — known prior art
patent/INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md — invention structure

Workflow

Step 1: Gather Patent Context

Before calling the external reviewer, compile a comprehensive briefing:

Read all claims (independent + dependent)
Read specification sections (at least summary and detailed description)
Read prior art report for context
Identify: core inventive concept, claim scope, known prior art, target jurisdiction

Step 2: Round 1 — Full Examiner Review

Send to REVIEWER_MODEL via mcp__codex__codex with xhigh reasoning:

mcp__codex__codex:
  config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
  prompt: |
    You are a senior patent examiner at the [USPTO/CNIPA/EPO].
    Examine this patent application and issue a detailed office action.

    CLAIMS:
    [all claims]

    SPECIFICATION SUMMARY:
    [key sections: title, technical field, background, summary, abstract]

    PRIOR ART KNOWN:
    [prior art references]

    PATENTABILITY STANDARDS TO APPLY:
    [US: 35 USC 101/102/103/112 | CN: Articles 22, 26 | EP: Articles 54, 56, 83, 84]

    Please issue an office action covering:

    1. CLAIM CLARITY (112(b)/Art 84):
       - Are all terms definite?
       - Any indefinite functional language?
       - Antecedent basis issues?

    2. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION (112(a)/Art 83 first para):
       - Does the spec support ALL claim scope?
       - Any claim elements without spec support?

    3. ENABLEMENT (112(a)/Art 83):
       - Can a POSITA practice the invention?
       - Any missing algorithm/structure for functional claims?

    4. NOVELTY (102/Art 54):
       - Would any known reference anticipate any claim?
       - Identify the closest single reference.

    5. NON-OBVIOUSNESS (103/Art 56):
       - Would any combination render claims obvious?
       - What is the motivation to combine?

    6. CLAIM SCOPE:
       - Are independent claims broad enough to be commercially valuable?
       - Do dependent claims provide meaningful fallback positions?
       - Any claims that are too broad (likely rejected) or too narrow (not valuable)?

    7. SPECIFICATION QUALITY:
       - Language issues (subjective terms, relative terms, result-to-be-achieved)
       - Reference numeral consistency
       - Missing embodiments

    Format your response as a formal office action with:
    - GROUNDS OF REJECTION for each issue (cite statute)
    - SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS for each issue
    - OVERALL PATENTABILITY SCORE: 1-10

    Be rigorous and specific. This is a real examination.

Step 3: Implement Fixes (Round 1)

Based on the examiner's office action:

CRITICAL issues (102 rejection, 112 indefiniteness, missing enablement):
- Must be fixed before proceeding
- Amend claims or add specification support
MAJOR issues (103 obviousness, weak claim scope, missing support):
- Should be fixed or argued
- Consider claim amendments or specification additions
MINOR issues (language quality, numeral consistency, formatting):
- Fix if time permits
- Document in output for later cleanup

For each fix:

Show the specific change (old claim -> new claim)
Explain how the fix addresses the examiner's concern

Step 4: Round 2 — Follow-Up Review

Use mcp__codex__codex with the threadId from Round 1:

mcp__codex__codex:
  threadId: [from Round 1]
  prompt: |
    Here is the revised patent application after addressing your office action.

    CHANGES MADE:
    [list of all changes with rationale]

    REVISED CLAIMS:
    [updated claims]

    REVISED SPECIFICATION EXCERPTS:
    [changed sections]

    Please re-examine:
    1. Are the previous rejections overcome?
    2. Are there new issues introduced by the amendments?
    3. What is the updated patentability score?
    4. Any remaining grounds for rejection?

Step 5: Generate Improvement Report

Write patent/PATENT_REVIEW.md:

## Patent Review Report

### Application Summary
[Title, claims count, jurisdiction]

### Review Round 1
#### Office Action Summary
[Key findings from examiner]

#### Issues Found
| # | Type | Severity | Claim/Section | Issue | Citation | Fix Applied |
|---|------|----------|--------------|-------|----------|-------------|
| 1 | Clarity | CRITICAL | Claim 3 | Indefinite term "rapid" | 112(b) | Defined in spec |
| 2 | Novelty | MAJOR | Claim 1 | Ref X anticipates element C | 102 | Amended claim |

#### Score After Round 1: [X]/10

### Review Round 2
#### Follow-Up Assessment
[Are previous rejections overcome?]

#### Remaining Issues
[Any issues still outstanding]

#### Score After Round 2: [X]/10

### Recommendations
[Final recommendations before proceeding to jurisdiction formatting]
- [ ] All CRITICAL issues resolved
- [ ] All MAJOR issues resolved or argued
- [ ] Specification supports all claim amendments
- [ ] Ready for jurisdiction formatting

Key Rules

The reviewer persona must be a patent examiner, not a paper reviewer or academic.
Always use model_reasoning_effort: "xhigh" for maximum analysis depth.
Address CRITICAL and MAJOR issues before proceeding to the next phase.
Document all changes in the review report for traceability.
If the patentability score is below 5/10 after Round 2, recommend significant rework before filing.
The review is advisory -- actual prosecution may proceed differently.

Repository: wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep
Commit: 2028ac4

Last updated: 1 day ago
Created: 1 day ago

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.