メニュー
Draft patent claims for an invention. Use when user says "撰写权利要求", "draft claims", "写权利要求书", "claim drafting", or wants to create patent claims. The core skill of the patent pipeline.
デフォルトでは、最初にソースを確認する Prompt が選択されています。直接コマンドに切り替えるか、ローカルコピーをダウンロードすることもできます。
インストールを決める前に、SKILL.md と SkillsMP に表示されている付属ファイルをお読みください。
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
直接コマンドでは確認用 Prompt が省略されます。実行前にソースを確認してください。
npx skills add https://github.com/ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open --skill claims-draftingコマンドは1行のまま表示されます。コピー前に横へスクロールして全体を確認してください。
ローカルで確認しますか？SkillsMP が現在取得できるファイルをダウンロードできます。
Use when retrieving arbitration institutional rules (ICC, LCIA, SCC, SIAC, HKIAC, VIAC, МКАС/МАК при ТПП України, UNCITRAL) — fetching current version, verifying redaction applicable to the date of arbitration agreement, constructing URLs for official rule texts
Use when choosing the Polish legal regime for letters, requests, applications, complaints, petitions, public-information requests, KPA filings, PPSA complaints, RODO access requests, registry extracts, court-file access, tax/ZUS/cudzoziemcy/USC procedures, or professional lawyer letters. Prevents mixing UDIP, KPA, PPSA, RODO, registry, special-procedure, and advocate/radca letter regimes.
Use when preparing applications for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Poland, applications for setting aside arbitral awards under KPC art. 1205–1211, or opposing such applications — mapping Article V of the 1958 New York Convention to art. 1214–1215 of the Polish KPC, identifying grounds for refusal, structuring public policy arguments
SOC 職業分類に基づく
SKILL.md を表示中
| name | claims-drafting |
| title | Claims Drafting: The Core Patent Skill |
| description | Draft patent claims for an invention. Use when user says "撰写权利要求", "draft claims", "写权利要求书", "claim drafting", or wants to create patent claims. The core skill of the patent pipeline. |
| author | wanshuiyin |
| author_url | https://github.com/wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep/tree/main/skills/skills-codex/claims-drafting |
| license | MIT |
| version | 0.1.0 |
| execution_mode | open |
| jurisdiction | general |
| practice | ip |
| language | en |
Draft patent claims based on: $ARGUMENTS
This is the most critical skill in the patent pipeline. Claims define the legal scope of protection -- everything else (specification, figures, abstract) exists to support and enable the claims.
REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-5.5 — External examiner for claim quality reviewMAX_CLAIM_REVISION_ROUNDS = 3 — Maximum revision iterationsCLAIM_STYLE = "auto" — US (Jepson or open), EP (two-part mandatory), CN (two-part), auto (detect from jurisdiction)MIN_INDEPENDENT_CLAIMS = 2 — Typically method + system. For utility model (实用新型): apparatus/device only, NO method claims.MAX_TOTAL_CLAIMS = 20 — Practical limit (USPTO includes 20 in base fee)PATENT_TYPE = "invention" — invention (发明专利) or utility_model (实用新型, apparatus claims only)patent/INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md — structured invention with core/supporting/optional featurespatent/PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md — prior art to avoidpatent/NOVELTY_ASSESSMENT.md — novelty analysis with suggested amendments$ARGUMENTSLoad ../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).
Based on patent type and jurisdiction:
If PATENT_TYPE = utility_model (实用新型):
MIN_INDEPENDENT_CLAIMS = 1 (single apparatus claim is sufficient)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 |
CRITICAL — Claims numbering (CN format):
CRITICAL — No empirical content in claims:
For each claim category identified in INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md:
Method Claim (broadest):
System/Apparatus Claim:
Quality checks for each independent claim:
For each independent claim, draft 5-10 dependent claims that:
Dependent claim format:
Rules for dependent claims:
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.
Start the examiner review with a dedicated Codex reviewer agent at xhigh reasoning:
spawn_agent:
model: gpt-5.5
reasoning_effort: xhigh
message: |
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.
If the examiner review identifies issues:
send_input using the saved reviewer idMAX_CLAIM_REVISION_ROUNDS timessend_input:
target: [saved reviewer id from Step 5]
message: |
Here is the revised claim set after addressing the previous office action.
Revised claims:
[full revised claims]
Focus only on unresolved or newly introduced issues.
Write patent/CLAIMS.md:
## Patent Claims
### Independent Claims
#### Claim 1 — Method
[formatted claim text]
#### Claim X — System/Apparatus
[formatted claim text]
### Dependent Claims
#### Claim 2 (depends on 1)
[formatted claim text]
#### Claim 3 (depends on 1)
[formatted claim text]
...
### 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] |
...
### Examiner Review Summary
[Key findings and how they were addressed]