Patent Review

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

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

Workflow

Step 1: Gather Patent Context

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

Step 2: Round 1 — Full Examiner Review

Send to REVIEWER_MODEL via spawn_agent with xhigh reasoning:

spawn_agent:
  model: gpt-6-astra
  reasoning_effort: xhigh
  message: |
    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:

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

Step 4: Round 2 — Follow-Up Review

Use send_input with the saved reviewer id from Round 1:

send_input:
  target: [saved reviewer id from Round 1]
  message: |
    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.