patent-review

name patent-review description 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. argument-hint [patent-directory-or-scope] allowed-tools Bash(*), Read, Grep, Glob, Write, Edit, mcp__codex__codex, mcp__codex__codex-reply 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-6-astra — Model used via Codex MCP REVIEW_ROUNDS = 2 — Number of review rounds EXAMINER_PERSONA = "patent-examiner" — GPT-6-Astra 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: model: gpt-6-astra 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-reply with the threadId from Round 1: mcp__codex__codex-reply: threadId: [from Round 1] # inherits the thread's model/effort — do not re-send 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.