patent-reviewer

name	patent-reviewer
description	Expert system for reviewing utility patent applications against USPTO MPEP guidelines.

Patent Creator Skill

Comprehensive patent creation system with USPTO MPEP, prior art databases, and USPTO API for complete patent application analysis.

When to Use

Review patent applications for USPTO compliance, analyze claims/specifications/formalities, integrate prior art, get USPTO guidance, assist with patent drafting.

Quick Review Commands

/full-review              # Complete parallel review
/review-claims            # 35 USC 112b compliance
/review-specification     # 35 USC 112a compliance
/review-formalities       # MPEP 608 compliance
/create-patent            # New patent application

Available MCP Tools

MPEP & Regulations

• search_mpep - Search MPEP, 35 USC, 37 CFR
• get_mpep_section - Get complete MPEP section by number

Patent Search

• search_patents_bigquery - Search 76M+ patents
• get_patent_bigquery - Get full patent details
• search_patents_by_cpc_bigquery - Search by CPC classification

Patent Analysis

• review_patent_claims - Analyze claims for 35 USC 112(b)
• review_specification - Check specification support (112a)
• check_formalities - Verify MPEP 608 compliance

Diagram Generation

• render_diagram - Create diagrams from DOT code
• create_flowchart - Generate patent-style flowcharts
• create_block_diagram - Create system block diagrams
• add_diagram_references - Add reference numbers

Review Workflows

Complete Patent Creation Review (/full-review)

Runs all analyzers in parallel for comprehensive analysis:

Output:

• All compliance issues across components
• Severity ratings (critical/important/minor)
• Specific MPEP citations
• Actionable fix recommendations
• Prioritized remediation plan

Claims-Only Review (/review-claims)

35 USC 112(b) Compliance:

• Antecedent basis
• Definiteness
• Claim structure
• Subjective terms
• Means-plus-function compliance

Specification Review (/review-specification)

35 USC 112(a) Requirements:

• Written description
• Enablement
• Best mode
• Claim support

Formalities Check (/review-formalities)

MPEP 608 Compliance:

• Abstract (50-150 words)
• Title (<=500 characters)
• Drawing references
• Required sections

Patent Creation Workflow (/create-patent)

Complete 6-phase patent drafting (55-80 minutes):

1. Discovery (10-15 min) - Gather invention details
2. Technology Analysis (5 min) - Assess patentability (101, 102, 103)
3. Specification Drafting (15-20 min) - Background, summary, detailed description
4. Claims Drafting (10-15 min) - Independent + dependent claims
5. Diagrams & Abstract (10-15 min) - Block diagrams, flowcharts, abstract
6. Automatic Validation (5-10 min) - Runs /full-review, provides fixes

Output: USPTO-ready filing package with diagrams

MPEP Research

# General search
search_mpep("claim definiteness 112(b)", top_k=5)

# Filtered by source
search_mpep("enablement", source_filter="35_USC")
search_mpep("abstract", source_filter="MPEP")

# Get specific section
get_mpep_section("2173")  # Claim definiteness

Common MPEP Sections

Section	Topic
608	Formalities (abstract, title, drawings)
2100	Patentability requirements
2163	Guidelines for 35 USC 112(a)
2173	Claim definiteness (35 USC 112(b))

Prior Art Integration

# BigQuery search (76M+ patents)
search_patents_bigquery(
    query="neural network training",
    country="US",
    start_year=2020,
    limit=20
)

# CPC classification search
search_patents_by_cpc_bigquery(cpc_code="G06N3", limit=50)

Integrate findings:

1. Cite in Background section
2. Emphasize distinctions in Summary
3. Explain advantages in Detailed Description
4. Draft claims to avoid/distinguish
5. List in IDS

Best Practices

Before Review:

• Prepare complete application
• Run /full-review
• Address critical issues first

During Review:

• Focus on critical issues (antecedent basis, claim support, definiteness)
• Use MPEP citations
• Iterate until compliant

After Review:

• Document compliance
• Final /full-review validation
• Prepare filing package

Common Review Findings

Critical (Must Fix):

• Missing antecedent basis
• Claim elements unsupported
• Abstract exceeds 150 words
• Indefinite language

Important (Should Fix):

• Subjective terms without criteria
• Weak enablement
• Inconsistent terminology

Minor (Optional):

• Add example embodiments
• Strengthen best mode
• Improve claim scope

Quick Reference

Key Compliance Checks

Requirement	Citation	Tool
Antecedent basis	35 USC 112(b)	review_patent_claims
Written description	35 USC 112(a)	review_specification
Enablement	35 USC 112(a)	review_specification
Abstract length	MPEP 608.01(b)	check_formalities
Title format	MPEP 606	check_formalities