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-5.5 — Model used via Codex MCPREVIEW_ROUNDS = 2 — Number of review roundsEXAMINER_PERSONA = "patent-examiner" — GPT-5.4 persona
Prerequisites
Inputs
patent/CLAIMS.md — all drafted claimspatent/specification/ — all specification sectionspatent/figures/numeral_index.md — reference numeral mappingpatent/PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md — known prior artpatent/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:
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 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?
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.
