Back to Details

patent-review

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Patent Examiner Review via Codex MCP (xhigh reasoning)

通过Codex MCP进行Patent Examiner审查（xhigh推理）

Get a multi-round patent examiner review of the patent application based on: $ARGUMENTS
Adapted from 
/research-review
. The reviewer persona is a patent examiner, not a paper reviewer.
基于**$ARGUMENTS**，对专利申请进行多轮patent examiner审查。
改编自
/research-review
。审查者角色为patent examiner，而非论文审稿人。

Constants

常量

  • 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
  • REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-5.4
    — 通过Codex MCP使用的模型
  • REVIEW_ROUNDS = 2
    — 审查轮次数量
  • EXAMINER_PERSONA = "patent-examiner"
    — GPT-5.4角色

Prerequisites

前提条件

  • Codex MCP Server configured:
    bash
    claude mcp add codex -s user -- codex mcp-server
  • 已配置Codex MCP服务器：
    bash
    claude mcp add codex -s user -- codex mcp-server

Inputs

输入

  1. patent/CLAIMS.md
    — all drafted claims
  2. patent/specification/
    — all specification sections
  3. patent/figures/numeral_index.md
    — reference numeral mapping
  4. patent/PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md
    — known prior art
  5. patent/INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md
    — invention structure
  1. patent/CLAIMS.md
    — 所有已起草的patent claims
  2. patent/specification/
    — 所有specification章节
  3. patent/figures/numeral_index.md
    — 参考数字映射表
  4. patent/PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md
    — 已知现有技术
  5. patent/INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md
    — 发明结构说明

Workflow

工作流程

Step 1: Gather Patent Context

步骤1：收集专利上下文

Before calling the external reviewer, compile a comprehensive briefing:
  1. Read all claims (independent + dependent)
  2. Read specification sections (at least summary and detailed description)
  3. Read prior art report for context
  4. Identify: core inventive concept, claim scope, known prior art, target jurisdiction
调用外部审查者之前，编译一份全面的简报：
  1. 阅读所有权利要求（独立权利要求+从属权利要求）
  2. 阅读specification章节（至少包括摘要和详细描述）
  3. 阅读现有技术报告以了解背景
  4. 确定：核心发明构思、权利要求范围、已知现有技术、目标管辖区域

Step 2: Round 1 — Full Examiner Review

步骤2：第一轮——全面审查员审查

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.
通过
mcp__codex__codex
将内容发送至
REVIEWER_MODEL
，并启用xhigh推理：
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)

步骤3：实施修正（第一轮）

Based on the examiner's office action:
  1. CRITICAL issues (102 rejection, 112 indefiniteness, missing enablement):
    • Must be fixed before proceeding
    • Amend claims or add specification support
  2. MAJOR issues (103 obviousness, weak claim scope, missing support):
    • Should be fixed or argued
    • Consider claim amendments or specification additions
  3. 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
根据审查员的审查意见：
  1. 关键问题（102条款驳回、112条款不明确、缺乏可实施性）：
    • 必须在进入下一阶段前修正
    • 修改权利要求或补充specification支持内容
  2. 主要问题（103条款显而易见性、权利要求范围薄弱、缺乏支持）：
    • 应修正或进行抗辩
    • 考虑修改权利要求或补充specification内容
  3. 次要问题（语言质量、数字一致性、格式）：
    • 如有时间则修正
    • 在输出中记录以便后续清理
对于每项修正：
  • 展示具体变更内容（旧权利要求 -> 新权利要求）
  • 说明该修正如何解决审查员的关注点

Step 4: Round 2 — Follow-Up Review

步骤4：第二轮——跟进审查

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?
使用第一轮的threadId通过
mcp__codex__codex
发起请求：
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

步骤5：生成改进报告

Write 
patent/PATENT_REVIEW.md
:
markdown
undefined
撰写
patent/PATENT_REVIEW.md
：
markdown
undefined

Patent Review Report

Patent Review Report

Application Summary

Application Summary

[Title, claims count, jurisdiction]
[Title, claims count, jurisdiction]

Review Round 1

Review Round 1

Office Action Summary

Office Action Summary

[Key findings from examiner]
[Key findings from examiner]

Issues Found

Issues Found

#TypeSeverityClaim/SectionIssueCitationFix Applied
1ClarityCRITICALClaim 3Indefinite term "rapid"112(b)Defined in spec
2NoveltyMAJORClaim 1Ref X anticipates element C102Amended claim
#TypeSeverityClaim/SectionIssueCitationFix Applied
1ClarityCRITICALClaim 3Indefinite term "rapid"112(b)Defined in spec
2NoveltyMAJORClaim 1Ref X anticipates element C102Amended claim

Score After Round 1: [X]/10

Score After Round 1: [X]/10

Review Round 2

Review Round 2

Follow-Up Assessment

Follow-Up Assessment

[Are previous rejections overcome?]
[Are previous rejections overcome?]

Remaining Issues

Remaining Issues

[Any issues still outstanding]
[Any issues still outstanding]

Score After Round 2: [X]/10

Score After Round 2: [X]/10

Recommendations

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
undefined
[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
undefined

Key Rules

关键规则

  • 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.
  • 审查者角色必须为patent examiner，而非论文审稿人或学术评审。
  • 始终使用
    model_reasoning_effort: "xhigh"
    以获取最大分析深度。
  • 在进入下一阶段前解决关键和主要问题。
  • 在审查报告中记录所有变更以便追溯。
  • 如果第二轮后专利性评分低于5/10，建议在提交前进行重大修改。
  • 本审查仅为咨询性质——实际审查流程可能有所不同。