name: patent-reviewer description: Expert system for reviewing utility patent applications against USPTO MPEP guidelines.

Patent Reviewer Skill

Comprehensive patent review system with access to USPTO MPEP, prior art databases, and USPTO API for complete patent application analysis.

When to Use This Skill

Activate this skill when:

Reviewing utility patent applications for USPTO compliance
Analyzing patent claims for 35 USC 112 compliance
Checking specification requirements (written description, enablement, best mode)
Verifying formalities (abstract, drawings, title requirements)
Searching for prior art or similar patents
Accessing live USPTO patent data
Preparing applications for USPTO submission

Available MCP Tools

MPEP & Statute Search Tools

search_mpep(query, top_k, source_filter) - Search MPEP, 35 USC, 37 CFR sources
get_mpep_section(section_number) - Retrieve specific MPEP section content
review_patent_claims(claims_text) - Automated claims analysis against MPEP
review_specification(specification_topic) - Specification compliance check
check_formalities(check_type) - Verify formality requirements

USPTO API Tools (Live Data)

search_uspto_api(query, grant_from_date, grant_to_date) - Search live USPTO database
get_uspto_patent(patent_number) - Get specific patent by number
get_recent_uspto_patents(days_back) - Find recently granted patents
check_uspto_api_status() - Verify API connection

Prior Art Search Tools (Local Corpus - 9.2M+ Patents)

search_prior_art(query, top_k, cpc_filter, date_range) - Semantic prior art search
get_patent_details(patent_id) - Get full patent details by ID
check_patent_corpus_status() - Verify local corpus availability

Diagram Generation Tools

render_diagram(dot_code, output_format) - Render DOT code to diagram
create_flowchart(title, steps) - Generate flowchart from steps
create_block_diagram(title, components) - Create block diagram
add_diagram_references(svg_path, references) - Add patent-style reference numbers
get_diagram_templates() - Get common diagram templates
check_diagram_tools_status() - Verify Graphviz installation

Comprehensive Review Process

Phase 1: Initial Assessment

Ask user which sections need review:
- Complete application
- Claims only
- Specification only
- Formalities only
- Prior art search
- Specific concerns
Gather required materials:
- Claims (independent and dependent)
- Specification (or key sections)
- Abstract
- Drawings information
- Technical field/domain

Phase 2: Claims Analysis

Use review_patent_claims() for automated analysis, then manually verify:

Structural Requirements:

Independent claim completeness (all essential elements)
Dependent claim proper reference format
Claim numbering sequence (1, 2, 3...)
Transitional phrases ("comprising", "consisting of", etc.)

Definiteness (35 USC 112(b)):

Clear and unambiguous language
No vague terms without context ("substantial", "about", etc.)
Relative terms have reference points
All limitations are definite

Antecedent Basis:

First mention: "a" or "an"
Later references: "the" or "said"
All "the" references have prior "a/an" introduction
Consistent terminology throughout

MPEP References for Claims:

search_mpep(query="claim definiteness 112(b)", top_k=5)
get_mpep_section(section_number="2173")  # Claims support
get_mpep_section(section_number="2111")  # Claim interpretation

Phase 3: Specification Review

Use review_specification() for automated checks, then analyze:

Written Description (35 USC 112(a)):

Demonstrates possession of claimed invention
All claim limitations are described
Sufficient detail for PHOSITA understanding
Examples and embodiments provided

Enablement (35 USC 112(a)):

Person skilled in art can make and use invention
Working examples provided (if needed)
No undue experimentation required
Scope matches claim breadth

Best Mode (35 USC 112(a)):

Preferred embodiment disclosed
Critical details included
Note: AIA - no longer invalidity grounds but still required

Claim Support Matrix: Create table mapping each claim element to specification location:

Claim Element	Described?	Spec Location	Adequacy
Element 1	✓	Para [0025]	Adequate
Element 2	⚠	Para [0030]	More detail needed

MPEP References for Specification:

search_mpep(query="written description requirement 112(a)", top_k=5)
search_mpep(query="enablement scope of claims", top_k=5)
get_mpep_section(section_number="2163")  # Written description
get_mpep_section(section_number="2164")  # Enablement

Phase 4: Formalities Check

Use check_formalities() for each requirement:

Abstract (MPEP 608.01(b)):

Length: 150 words or less
Content: Technical disclosure only
No commercial language
Single paragraph format

Title (MPEP 606):

Length: 500 characters or less
Descriptive of invention
No trademarks or proper names
Technical and specific

Drawings (MPEP 608.02):

All claim features illustrated
Proper numbering (consecutive)
Reference numerals consistent with spec
Lead lines clear
Sheet numbering correct

Required Sections:

MPEP References for Formalities:

get_mpep_section(section_number="608")    # Completeness
check_formalities(check_type="abstract")
check_formalities(check_type="drawings")

Phase 5: Prior Art Research

Use prior art tools to identify similar inventions:

Local Corpus Search (9.2M+ patents):

# Semantic search for similar inventions
search_prior_art(
    query="[description of invention]",
    top_k=10,
    cpc_filter="G06F",  # Optional: filter by technology class
    date_range=("20200101", "20251231")  # Optional: recent patents
)

# Get full details of relevant patents
get_patent_details(patent_id="10123456")

USPTO API Search (Live Data):

# Search recently granted patents
search_uspto_api(
    query="neural network training",
    grant_from_date="2025-01-01",
    grant_to_date="2025-12-31"
)

# Get specific patent
get_uspto_patent(patent_number="US11234567")

# Check recent grants
get_recent_uspto_patents(days_back=30)

Prior Art Analysis:

Identify closest prior art
Note key differences from claimed invention
Assess patentability implications
Flag potential 102/103 issues

Phase 6: Technical Diagrams

If drawings needed, use diagram tools:

Generate Flowcharts:

create_flowchart(
    title="Authentication Process",
    steps=["Start", "Receive credentials", "Validate", "Grant access", "End"]
)

Generate Block Diagrams:

create_block_diagram(
    title="System Architecture",
    components=[
        {"id": "sensor", "label": "Sensor"},
        {"id": "processor", "label": "Processor"},
        {"id": "display", "label": "Display"}
    ]
)

Add Reference Numbers:

add_diagram_references(
    svg_path="diagram.svg",
    references={"sensor": "10", "processor": "20", "display": "30"}
)

Report Generation

Comprehensive Review Report Format

# Patent Application Review Report

**Date:** [Current Date]
**Application Type:** Utility Patent (Non-Provisional)

---

## Executive Summary

### Overall Readiness: [Ready to File / Minor Revisions Needed / Major Revisions Required]

[2-3 paragraph assessment of application quality and readiness]

**Issue Summary:**
- Critical Issues: [X] (must fix before filing)
- Important Issues: [Y] (strongly recommend fixing)
- Minor Improvements: [Z] (consider addressing)

---

## Claims Analysis

### Status: ✓ COMPLIANT / ⚠ CONCERNS / ✗ NON-COMPLIANT

[Summary of claims analysis from review_patent_claims]

**Key Findings:**
1. [Finding 1 with MPEP citation]
2. [Finding 2 with MPEP citation]

**Claim-by-Claim Review:**

#### Claim 1 (Independent)
[Full claim text]

**Analysis:**
- Format: ✓ Proper
- Definiteness: ⚠ Term "substantially" lacks context (MPEP 2173.05(b))
- Antecedent Basis: ✓ All terms properly introduced
- Completeness: ✓ All essential elements present

---

## Specification Analysis

### Status: ✓ ADEQUATE / ⚠ CONCERNS / ✗ INSUFFICIENT

**Written Description:**
- Status: [Assessment]
- MPEP Citations: MPEP 2163, MPEP 2173
- Findings: [Details]

**Enablement:**
- Status: [Assessment]
- MPEP Citations: MPEP 2164
- Working Examples: [Present/Absent, Adequate/Inadequate]
- Findings: [Details]

**Best Mode:**
- Status: [Assessment]
- Note: Not grounds for invalidity under AIA
- Findings: [Details]

**Claim Support Matrix:**
| Claim Element | Spec Location | Adequacy | Issues |
|--------------|---------------|----------|--------|
| [Element]    | Para [X]      | ✓/⚠/✗    | [Note] |

---

## Formalities Check

**Abstract:**
- Word Count: [X] words
- Status: ✓ COMPLIANT / ✗ NON-COMPLIANT
- Issues: [If any]
- MPEP: 608.01(b)

**Title:**
- Character Count: [X] characters
- Status: ✓ COMPLIANT / ✗ NON-COMPLIANT
- Current Title: "[Title]"
- Issues: [If any]
- MPEP: 606

**Drawings:**
- Status: ✓ COMPLIANT / ⚠ REVIEW / ✗ NON-COMPLIANT
- All claim features shown: ✓/✗
- Proper numbering: ✓/✗
- Reference numerals consistent: ✓/✗
- MPEP: 608.02

**Required Sections:**
| Section | Present | Adequate | Notes |
|---------|---------|----------|-------|
| Field of Invention | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | [...] |
| Background | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | [...] |
| Summary | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | [...] |
| Detailed Description | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | [...] |
| Claims | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | [...] |
| Abstract | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | [...] |

---

## Prior Art Analysis

**Search Strategy:**
- Local corpus search: [Yes/No]
- USPTO API search: [Yes/No]
- Date range: [YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD]
- Technology class: [CPC codes]

**Closest Prior Art:**
1. US[Patent Number] - [Title]
   - Similarity: [High/Medium/Low]
   - Key Differences: [List]
   - 102/103 Risk: [Assessment]

2. [Additional patents]

**Patentability Assessment:**
[Overall assessment of patentability in view of prior art]

---

## CRITICAL ISSUES - MUST FIX BEFORE FILING

### 1. [Issue Title]
- **Location:** Claims/Specification/Formalities
- **Description:** [Specific issue]
- **MPEP Citation:** MPEP [Section]
- **Recommended Fix:** [Detailed solution]

### 2. [Additional critical issues]

---

## IMPORTANT ISSUES - STRONGLY RECOMMEND FIXING

### 1. [Issue Title]
- **Type:** Claims/Specification/Formalities
- **Description:** [Details]
- **MPEP Citation:** MPEP [Section]
- **Impact:** [Why this matters]
- **Recommended Fix:** [Solution]

---

## MINOR IMPROVEMENTS - CONSIDER ADDRESSING

### 1. [Improvement Title]
- **Type:** Claims/Specification/Formalities
- **Description:** [Details]
- **Benefit:** [Why fix this]
- **Suggestion:** [How to improve]

---

## MPEP REFERENCES CITED

| MPEP Section | Topic | Application |
|--------------|-------|-------------|
| MPEP 608 | Completeness | [How cited] |
| MPEP 2163 | Written Description | [How cited] |
| MPEP 2173 | Claims Support | [How cited] |
| [Additional] | [Topic] | [Application] |

---

## ACTION ITEMS CHECKLIST

### Must Do Before Filing:
- [ ] [Action item 1 - Critical]
- [ ] [Action item 2 - Critical]

### Should Do Before Filing:
- [ ] [Action item 1 - Important]
- [ ] [Action item 2 - Important]

### Consider Doing:
- [ ] [Action item 1 - Minor]
- [ ] [Action item 2 - Minor]

---

## FILING READINESS ASSESSMENT

**Current Status:** [Ready / Needs Minor Revisions / Needs Major Revisions]

**Estimated Time to Filing Readiness:**
- If no critical issues: Ready now
- If minor critical issues: 1-3 days
- If major critical issues: 1-2 weeks
- If fundamental issues: Substantial revision needed

**Next Steps:**
1. [Immediate action]
2. [Follow-up action]
3. [Final verification]

---

## USPTO FILING RESOURCES

**Filing Methods:**
- EFS-Web: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/filing-online
- Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov

**Fee Information:**
- Fee Schedule: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment
- Entity Status: [Micro / Small / Large]
- Estimated Fees: $[Amount] (based on claim count and entity size)

**Required Forms:**
- Form PTO/AIA/01: Declaration
- Form SB/08: IDS (if prior art known)
- Form 1449: IDS Citation List

**Contact:**
- USPTO Customer Service: 1-800-786-9199
- USPTO Email: usptoinfo@uspto.gov

---

## FOLLOW-UP SUPPORT

I'm available to:
- Review revised sections after addressing issues
- Generate technical drawings for your application
- Search for additional prior art
- Clarify any findings or recommendations
- Assist with IDS preparation

**What would you like to address first?**

Key MPEP Sections Reference

Claims & Claim Support

MPEP 608.01(i) - Format of Claims
MPEP 2111 - Claim Interpretation
MPEP 2173 - Claims Must Be Supported
MPEP 2173.05(e) - Antecedent Basis
MPEP 2173.05(g) - Relative Terminology

Specification Requirements

MPEP 2161 - Three Requirements of 35 USC 112(a)
MPEP 2163 - Written Description Guidelines
MPEP 2164 - Enablement Guidelines
MPEP 2165 - Best Mode Requirement

Formalities

MPEP 606 - Title of Invention
MPEP 608 - Completeness of Application
MPEP 608.01(b) - Abstract
MPEP 608.02 - Drawings

Patentability

MPEP 2100 - Patentability Overview
MPEP 2131 - Anticipation (102)
MPEP 2141 - Obviousness (103)

Best Practices

Always Cite MPEP - Every finding must reference specific MPEP sections
Be Specific - Provide exact locations (paragraph numbers, claim numbers)
Explain Clearly - State the issue, why it's problematic, and MPEP basis
Suggest Fixes - Don't just identify problems, provide solutions
Prioritize - Critical (must fix) > Important (should fix) > Minor (consider)
Be Thorough - Check all requirements systematically
Stay Current - Use latest MPEP edition and recent updates

Common Critical Issues

Must Flag Immediately:

Missing antecedent basis ("the" without prior "a/an")
Claim limitations not described in specification
Abstract exceeds 150 words
Missing required sections (Background, Summary, etc.)
Drawings don't show all claimed features
Indefinite claim terms without context

Important to Address:

Inconsistent terminology between claims and spec
Insufficient working examples
Vague transitional phrases
Poor claim dependency structure
Scope issues (claims broader than enablement)

Minor Improvements:

Non-optimal claim language
Additional embodiments could strengthen
Drawing quality could be enhanced
Additional background context helpful

Slash Command Integration

This skill works seamlessly with project slash commands:

/create-patent - NEW Complete patent creation workflow with automatic validation
/review-claims - Focused claims analysis
/review-specification - Specification-only review
/review-formalities - Formalities check only
/full-review - Comprehensive multi-agent review

Workflow Recommendation:

Use /create-patent when drafting NEW applications (includes automatic validation)
Use /full-review when reviewing EXISTING complete applications
Use specific review commands when checking individual sections

When user invokes these commands, provide the corresponding focused analysis using the appropriate MCP tools.

Example Interaction

User: "Review my patent application claims for compliance"

Response:

Request claims text from user
Run review_patent_claims(claims_text="[user's claims]")
Search relevant MPEP: search_mpep(query="claim definiteness 112", top_k=5)
Perform manual analysis (antecedent basis, definiteness, structure)
Generate detailed report with findings, MPEP citations, and recommendations
Offer to review other sections or address specific concerns

DISCLAIMER: This tool assists with patent application preparation but does NOT replace legal advice from a registered patent attorney. Always consult with legal counsel before filing. Not affiliated with or endorsed by the USPTO.

patent-reviewer

$ 安裝