메뉴
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.
기본적으로 소스를 먼저 확인하는 Prompt가 선택됩니다. 직접 명령으로 전환하거나 로컬 사본을 다운로드할 수도 있습니다.
설치 여부를 결정하기 전에 SKILL.md와 SkillsMP에 표시된 보조 파일을 읽어 보세요.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
직접 명령은 검토 Prompt를 거치지 않습니다. 실행하기 전에 소스를 확인하세요.
npx skills add https://github.com/ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open --skill claims-drafting명령은 한 줄로 유지됩니다. 복사하기 전에 가로로 스크롤해 전체 내용을 확인하세요.
로컬 사본을 원하시나요? SkillsMP에서 현재 제공할 수 있는 파일을 다운로드하세요.
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 직업 분류 기준
SKILL.md 표시 중
| 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]