claims-drafting

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Claims Drafting: The Core Patent Skill

专利权利要求撰写：专利核心技能

Draft patent claims based on: $ARGUMENTS

This is the most critical skill in the patent pipeline. Claims define the legal scope of protection -- everything else (specification, figures, abstract) exists to support and enable the claims.

根据**$ARGUMENTS**撰写专利权利要求

这是专利流程中最关键的技能。权利要求定义了法律保护范围——其他所有内容（说明书、附图、摘要）都是为了支持和实现权利要求而存在的。

Constants

常量

```
REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-5.4
```
— External examiner for claim quality review
```
MAX_CLAIM_REVISION_ROUNDS = 3
```
— Maximum revision iterations
```
CLAIM_STYLE = "auto"
```
—
```
US
```
(Jepson or open),
```
EP
```
(two-part mandatory),
```
CN
```
(two-part),
```
auto
```
(detect from jurisdiction)
```
MIN_INDEPENDENT_CLAIMS = 2
```
— Typically method + system. For utility model (实用新型): apparatus/device only, NO method claims.
```
MAX_TOTAL_CLAIMS = 20
```
— Practical limit (USPTO includes 20 in base fee)
```
PATENT_TYPE = "invention"
```
—
```
invention
```
(发明专利) or
```
utility_model
```
(实用新型, apparatus claims only)

```
REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-5.4
```
— 用于权利要求质量审核的外部审查员模型
```
MAX_CLAIM_REVISION_ROUNDS = 3
```
— 最大修订迭代次数
```
CLAIM_STYLE = "auto"
```
—
```
US
```
（Jepson式或开放式）、
```
EP
```
（强制两段式）、
```
CN
```
（两段式）、
```
auto
```
（根据辖区自动检测）
```
MIN_INDEPENDENT_CLAIMS = 2
```
— 通常为方法+系统。对于实用新型：仅包含装置/设备权利要求，无方法权利要求。
```
MAX_TOTAL_CLAIMS = 20
```
— 实际限制（USPTO基础费用包含20项权利要求）
```
PATENT_TYPE = "invention"
```
—
```
invention
```
（发明专利）或
```
utility_model
```
（实用新型，仅包含装置权利要求）

Inputs

输入

```
patent/INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md
```
— structured invention with core/supporting/optional features
```
patent/PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md
```
— prior art to avoid
```
patent/NOVELTY_ASSESSMENT.md
```
— novelty analysis with suggested amendments
Target jurisdiction from invention disclosure or
```
$ARGUMENTS
```

```
patent/INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md
```
— 包含核心/辅助/可选特征的结构化发明披露文档
```
patent/PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md
```
— 需要规避的现有技术文档
```
patent/NOVELTY_ASSESSMENT.md
```
— 包含建议修改方案的新颖性分析文档
来自发明披露文档或
```
$ARGUMENTS
```
的目标辖区信息

Shared References

共享参考资料

Load

../shared-references/patent-writing-principles.md

for claim drafting principles, antecedent basis rules, and common pitfalls. Load

../shared-references/patent-format-cn.md

for CN claim format (其特征在于). Load

../shared-references/patent-format-us.md

for US claim format (comprising, means-plus-function). Load

../shared-references/patent-format-ep.md

for EP two-part form (characterised in that).

加载

../shared-references/patent-writing-principles.md

获取权利要求撰写原则、先行基础规则和常见误区。加载

../shared-references/patent-format-cn.md

获取CN权利要求格式（其特征在于）。加载

../shared-references/patent-format-us.md

获取US权利要求格式（comprising、means-plus-function）。加载

../shared-references/patent-format-ep.md

获取EP两段式格式（characterised in that）。

Workflow

工作流程

Step 1: Determine Claim Style and Patent Type

步骤1：确定权利要求风格和专利类型

Based on patent type and jurisdiction:

If
PATENT_TYPE = utility_model
(实用新型):

CN jurisdiction ONLY
Apparatus/device claims ONLY — no method, no product-by-process
```
MIN_INDEPENDENT_CLAIMS = 1
```
(single apparatus claim is sufficient)
Claim format: "1. 一种[主题]，其特征在于，包括：[组件描述]。"

Based on target jurisdiction:

Jurisdiction	Claim Style	Characterising Phrase	Preamble Format
CN	Two-part (两部式)	其特征在于	一种...的方法/装置，包括：
US	Open (preferred)	comprising	A method for..., comprising:
EP	Two-part (mandatory)	characterised in that	A method for..., comprising [known], characterised in that [inventive]
ALL	Draft CN + US + EP	All of the above	All of the above

根据专利类型和辖区：

如果
PATENT_TYPE = utility_model
（实用新型）：

仅限CN辖区
仅包含装置/设备权利要求——无方法权利要求，无产品-by-方法权利要求
```
MIN_INDEPENDENT_CLAIMS = 1
```
（单个装置权利要求即可）
权利要求格式："1. 一种[主题]，其特征在于，包括：[组件描述]。"

根据目标辖区：

辖区	权利要求风格	特征化短语	前序部分格式
CN	两段式	其特征在于	一种...的方法/装置，包括：
US	开放式（首选）	comprising	A method for..., comprising:
EP	两段式（强制）	characterised in that	A method for..., comprising [已知特征], characterised in that [发明特征]
ALL	同时撰写CN + US + EP格式	以上所有	以上所有

Step 2: Draft Independent Claims

步骤2：撰写独立权利要求

CRITICAL — Claims numbering (CN format):

Claims must be numbered 1, 2, 3, ... continuously without gaps
Independent and dependent claims are INTERMIXED in final numbering
Do NOT group independent claims separately from dependent claims
Example correct: Claim 1 (independent, product), Claim 2 (depends on 1), Claim 3 (depends on 1), Claim 4 (independent, method), Claim 5 (depends on 4)...
Example WRONG: Claim 1 (independent), Claim 5 (independent), Claim 8 (independent), then Claim 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 as dependents

CRITICAL — No empirical content in claims:

Claims describe ONLY structural features or method steps
Do NOT include signal characteristics, detection principles, measurement results
WRONG: "产生负脉冲信号" / "谐振频率下降" — these are results, not features
RIGHT: "所述开口谐振环的开口处形成用于检测通过流体中颗粒物的间隙传感区域"

For each claim category identified in INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md:

Method Claim (broadest):

Start with preamble identifying the category and purpose
List the core inventive features (from the "Core Inventive Concept" section)
Include enough known features for context (but not more than necessary)
Use open transition ("comprising" / "包括")
Each element should be separated by semicolons or on separate lines
Apply jurisdiction-specific format:
- CN: 前序部分 + "其特征在于" + 特征部分
- US: Preamble + "comprising:" + elements
- EP: Preamble + known features + "characterised in that" + inventive features

System/Apparatus Claim:

Mirror the method claim in structural form
Each method step becomes a "module configured to..." or "component for..."
Same hierarchy of known vs. inventive features

Quality checks for each independent claim:

Single sentence (US/EP) or properly structured (CN)
Antecedent basis: "a" first, "the" thereafter for each element
No relative terms without definition
No result-to-be-achieved limitations
Transitional phrase is appropriate (open preferred)
Preamble does not import unnecessary limitations
Each element is necessary for patentability
Claim scope is broadest defensible over prior art

关键——权利要求编号（CN格式）：

权利要求必须连续编号为1、2、3……无间隔
独立权利要求和从属权利要求在最终编号中混合排列
不得将独立权利要求与从属权利要求分开分组
正确示例：权利要求1（独立，产品）、权利要求2（从属1）、权利要求3（从属1）、权利要求4（独立，方法）、权利要求5（从属4）……
错误示例：权利要求1（独立）、权利要求5（独立）、权利要求8（独立），然后是权利要求2、3、4、6、7、9、10作为从属权利要求

关键——权利要求中不得包含经验性内容：

权利要求仅描述结构特征或方法步骤
不得包含信号特征、检测原理、测量结果
错误示例："产生负脉冲信号" / "谐振频率下降"——这些是结果，不是特征
正确示例："所述开口谐振环的开口处形成用于检测通过流体中颗粒物的间隙传感区域"

针对

INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md

中确定的每个权利要求类别：

方法权利要求（最宽泛）：

以前序部分开头，明确类别和目的
列出核心发明特征（来自“核心发明概念”部分）
包含足够的已知特征作为上下文（但无需过多）
使用开放式过渡词（"comprising" / "包括"）
每个元素用分号分隔或单独成行
应用辖区特定格式：
- CN：前序部分 + "其特征在于" + 特征部分
- US：前序部分 + "comprising:" + 元素
- EP：前序部分 + 已知特征 + "characterised in that" + 发明特征

系统/装置权利要求：

以结构形式对应方法权利要求
每个方法步骤对应“被配置为……的模块”或“用于……的组件”
遵循相同的已知特征与发明特征层级

每个独立权利要求的质量检查：

单句（US/EP）或结构规范（CN）
先行基础：首次提及用"a"，后续用"the"指代每个元素
无未定义的相对术语
无待实现的结果限制
过渡短语恰当（首选开放式）
前序部分未引入不必要的限制
每个元素对专利性都是必要的
权利要求范围是现有技术下可辩护的最宽泛范围

Step 3: Draft Dependent Claims

步骤3：撰写从属权利要求

For each independent claim, draft 5-10 dependent claims that:

Narrow the core inventive features: Specific implementations, parameters, ranges
Cover preferred embodiments: Features from the specification's detailed description
Provide fallback positions: If the independent claim is rejected, these narrower claims may survive
Cover alternatives: Different ways to achieve the same inventive result

Dependent claim format:

CN: "根据权利要求X所述的[主题]，其特征在于，所述[特征]具体为..."
US: "The [method/system] of claim X, wherein the [element] comprises [limitation]."
EP: "The [method/system] according to claim X, characterised in that [limitation]."

Rules for dependent claims:

Each must add at least one meaningful limitation
Must reference a prior claim by number
Must not merely repeat the parent claim
Should not be cumulative (each claim should be independently useful as a fallback)
Multiple dependent claims (US: only "or" references, not "and")

针对每个独立权利要求，撰写5-10项从属权利要求，需满足：

缩小核心发明特征：具体实现方式、参数、范围
覆盖优选实施例：来自说明书详细描述的特征
提供备选方案：如果独立权利要求被驳回，这些较窄的权利要求可能保留有效性
覆盖替代方案：实现相同发明效果的不同方式

从属权利要求格式：

CN："根据权利要求X所述的[主题]，其特征在于，所述[特征]具体为..."
US："The [method/system] of claim X, wherein the [element] comprises [limitation]."
EP："The [method/system] according to claim X, characterised in that [limitation]."

从属权利要求规则：

每项必须至少添加一个有意义的限制
必须通过编号引用先前的权利要求
不得仅重复母权利要求的内容
不应重复冗余（每项权利要求应作为独立的备选方案有用）
多项从属权利要求（US：仅允许"或"引用，不允许"和"引用）

Step 4: Claim-to-Specification Mapping

步骤4：权利要求与说明书映射

Create a preliminary mapping to verify enablement:

Claim Element	Must be described in specification	Reference numeral
[element 1]	Yes/No	[numeral]
[element 2]	Yes/No	[numeral]

If any element lacks specification support, add it to the specification requirements.

创建初步映射以验证可实施性：

权利要求元素	必须在说明书中描述	参考编号
[元素1]	是/否	[编号]
[元素2]	是/否	[编号]

如果任何元素缺乏说明书支持，将其添加到说明书要求中。

Step 5: Cross-Model Examiner Review

步骤5：跨模型审查员审核

Call

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].
    Review the following patent claims for quality and patentability.

    CLAIMS: [all claims]

    PRIOR ART: [prior art references from PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md]

    INVENTION: [summary from INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md]

    Analyze each claim for:
    1. Clarity (35 USC 112(b) / Art 84 EPC): Are terms definite?
    2. Written description support: Does the spec support all claim scope?
    3. Anticipation (102/Art 54): Would any single reference anticipate?
    4. Obviousness (103/Art 56): Would any combination render obvious?
    5. Claim scope: Are independent claims broad enough to be valuable?
    6. Dependent claims: Do they provide meaningful fallback positions?
    7. Antecedent basis: Any issues with "a"/"the" usage?
    8. Indefinite terms: Any functional/result language issues?

    For each issue found, provide:
    - The specific claim number and element
    - The problem (cite statute/rule)
    - A suggested fix

    Provide an overall PATENTABILITY SCORE: 1-10.

通过

mcp__codex__codex

调用

REVIEWER_MODEL

，并使用xhigh推理级别：

mcp__codex__codex:
  config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
  prompt: |
    You are a senior patent examiner at the [USPTO/CNIPA/EPO].
    Review the following patent claims for quality and patentability.

    CLAIMS: [all claims]

    PRIOR ART: [prior art references from PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md]

    INVENTION: [summary from INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md]

    Analyze each claim for:
    1. Clarity (35 USC 112(b) / Art 84 EPC): Are terms definite?
    2. Written description support: Does the spec support all claim scope?
    3. Anticipation (102/Art 54): Would any single reference anticipate?
    4. Obviousness (103/Art 56): Would any combination render obvious?
    5. Claim scope: Are independent claims broad enough to be valuable?
    6. Dependent claims: Do they provide meaningful fallback positions?
    7. Antecedent basis: Any issues with "a"/"the" usage?
    8. Indefinite terms: Any functional/result language issues?

    For each issue found, provide:
    - The specific claim number and element
    - The problem (cite statute/rule)
    - A suggested fix

    Provide an overall PATENTABILITY SCORE: 1-10.

Step 6: Revision Loop

步骤6：修订循环

If the examiner review identifies issues:

Address all CRITICAL issues (anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness)
Address MAJOR issues (scope too narrow, missing support, weak fallbacks)
Consider MINOR issues (antecedent basis, formatting)
Re-submit to examiner for round 2 (use
```
mcp__codex__codex
```
with threadId)
Repeat up to
```
MAX_CLAIM_REVISION_ROUNDS
```
times

如果审查员审核发现问题：

解决所有关键问题（现有技术抵触、显而易见性、不确定性）
解决主要问题（范围过窄、缺乏支持、备选方案薄弱）
考虑次要问题（先行基础、格式）
提交给审查员进行第二轮审核（使用
```
mcp__codex__codex
```
并携带threadId）
重复最多
```
MAX_CLAIM_REVISION_ROUNDS
```
次

Step 7: Output

步骤7：输出

Write

patent/CLAIMS.md

markdown

undefined

写入

patent/CLAIMS.md

：

markdown

undefined

Patent Claims

Independent Claims

Claim 1 — Method

[formatted claim text]

[格式化的权利要求文本]

Claim X — System/Apparatus

[formatted claim text]

[格式化的权利要求文本]

Dependent Claims

Claim 2 (depends on 1)

[formatted claim text]

[格式化的权利要求文本]

Claim 3 (depends on 1)

[formatted claim text] ...

[格式化的权利要求文本] ...

Claims Summary Table

Claim	Type	Depends On	Key Limitation	Prior Art Avoidance
1	Method	—	[core inventive features]	[what makes it novel over prior art]
2	Method	1	[narrowing]	[additional distinguishing]
X	System	—	[mirrors claim 1]	[same as claim 1]
...

Claim	Type	Depends On	Key Limitation	Prior Art Avoidance
1	Method	—	[核心发明特征]	[使其区别于现有技术的要点]
2	Method	1	[缩小范围的特征]	[额外的区别点]
X	System	—	[对应权利要求1的特征]	[与权利要求1相同]
...

Examiner Review Summary

[Key findings and how they were addressed]

undefined

[关键发现及处理方式]

undefined

Key Rules

核心规则

Claims are the single most important part of the patent. Everything else supports them.
Draft independent claims first, then dependent claims.
Independent claims must be broadest defensible scope over prior art -- not broader, not narrower.
Each dependent claim should be independently useful as a fallback position.
Antecedent basis is mandatory: "a processor" first, "the processor" thereafter.
Use "comprising" (open) unless there is a specific reason for "consisting of" (closed).
Never include result-to-be-achieved language in claims ("configured to achieve high accuracy").
Never fabricate claim language -- every element must come from the actual invention.
If drafting for ALL jurisdictions, produce separate claim sets for CN, US, and EP.
If
```
mcp__codex__codex
```
is not available, skip cross-model examiner review and note it in the output.

权利要求是专利中最重要的部分，其他所有内容都为其提供支持。
先撰写独立权利要求，再撰写从属权利要求。
独立权利要求必须是现有技术下可辩护的最宽泛范围——不能过宽，也不能过窄。
每项从属权利要求应作为独立的备选方案有用。
先行基础是强制性的：首次提及用"a processor"，后续用"the processor"指代。
除非有特定理由使用"consisting of"（封闭式），否则使用"comprising"（开放式）。
权利要求中绝不能包含待实现结果的表述（如"被配置为实现高精度"）。
绝不能编造权利要求语言——每个元素必须来自实际发明。
如果为所有辖区撰写，需分别生成CN、US和EP的权利要求集。
如果
```
mcp__codex__codex
```
不可用，跳过跨模型审查员审核并在输出中注明。