patent-examiner_skill

Overview

This skill is an autonomous patent examination agent that simulates a USPTO examiner to identify likely office-action issues before filing. It analyzes applications against 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and 112, and produces actionable findings and suggested amendments. The output is formatted as a simulated office action plus prosecution recommendations to help inventors and attorneys prepare stronger filings.

How this skill works

I ingest the full application (specification, claims, abstract, figures, and any prior art disclosures) and run a multi-step examination workflow. I perform formalities checks, apply the Alice/Mayo test for § 101, conduct structured prior-art searches and claim charts for § 102, perform obviousness combinations for § 103, and assess written description, enablement, and definiteness under § 112. The agent then drafts a simulated office action with rejections, claim-specific analyses, and concrete amendment and prosecution strategies.

When to use it

• Before filing a first patent application to identify high-risk issues
• Prior to filing a continuation, divisional, or amendment to anticipate examiner objections
• When preparing an application draft for attorney review to reduce prosecution rounds
• To screen third-party inventions or competitor filings for potential validity risks
• As a training tool for inventors and paralegals to learn common rejection patterns

Best practices

• Provide complete application materials: full spec, all claims, figures, and any known prior art
• Include inventor disclosures and development background to improve written description analysis
• Specify technical field and preferred embodiments to enable targeted prior-art classification
• Review suggested amendments with a registered patent practitioner before filing
• Use the agent iteratively after amendments to validate responses to proposed rejections

Example use cases

• Generate a simulated office action identifying likely § 101 abstract-idea issues and proposed claim language to add technical improvements
• Produce claim charts and at least five relevant prior-art references with anticipation/obviousness reasoning
• Detect vague claim terms and propose precise definitions or numerical ranges to cure § 112(b) indefiniteness
• Assess whether the specification enables the full claim scope and recommend additional embodiments or working examples
• Create a prosecution strategy report estimating rounds of office actions and prioritized next steps