Get the FREE Ultimate OpenClaw Setup Guide →

patent-claims-analyzer

Scanned
npx machina-cli add skill RobThePCGuy/Claude-Patent-Creator/patent-claims-analyzer --openclaw
Files (1)
SKILL.md
4.6 KB

Patent Claims Analyzer Skill

Automated analysis of patent claims for USPTO compliance with 35 USC 112(b) requirements.

When to Use

Invoke this skill when users ask to:

  • Review patent claims for definiteness
  • Check antecedent basis in claims
  • Analyze claim structure
  • Find claim drafting issues
  • Validate claims before filing
  • Fix USPTO office action issues related to claims

What This Skill Does

Performs comprehensive automated analysis:

  1. Antecedent Basis Checking:

    • Finds terms used without prior introduction
    • Detects missing "a/an" before first use
    • Identifies improper "said/the" before first use
    • Tracks term references across claims
  2. Definiteness Analysis (35 USC 112(b)):

    • Identifies subjective/indefinite terms
    • Detects relative terms without reference
    • Finds ambiguous claim language
    • Checks for clear claim boundaries
  3. Claim Structure Validation:

    • Parses independent vs. dependent claims
    • Validates claim dependencies
    • Checks claim numbering
    • Identifies claim type (method, system, etc.)
  4. Issue Categorization:

    • Critical: Must fix before filing
    • Important: May cause rejection
    • Minor: Best practice improvements

Required Data

This skill uses the automated claims analyzer from: Location: ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/python\claims_analyzer.py

How to Use

When this skill is invoked:

  1. Load the claims analyzer:

    import sys
    sys.path.insert(0, os.path.join(os.environ.get('CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT', '.'), 'python'))
    from python.claims_analyzer import ClaimsAnalyzer
    
    analyzer = ClaimsAnalyzer()
    
  2. Analyze claims:

    claims_text = """
    1. A system comprising:
        a processor;
        a memory; and
        said processor configured to...
    """
    
    results = analyzer.analyze_claims(claims_text)
    
  3. Present analysis:

    • Show compliance score (0-100)
    • List issues by severity (critical, important, minor)
    • Provide MPEP citations for each issue
    • Suggest specific fixes

Analysis Output Structure

{
    "claim_count": 20,
    "independent_count": 3,
    "dependent_count": 17,
    "compliance_score": 85,  # 0-100
    "total_issues": 12,
    "critical_issues": 2,
    "important_issues": 7,
    "minor_issues": 3,
    "issues": [
        {
            "category": "antecedent_basis",
            "severity": "critical",
            "claim_number": 1,
            "term": "said processor",
            "description": "Term 'processor' used with 'said' before first introduction",
            "mpep_cite": "MPEP 2173.05(e)",
            "suggestion": "Change 'said processor' to 'the processor' or introduce with 'a processor' first"
        },
        # ... more issues
    ]
}

Common Issues Detected

  1. Antecedent Basis Errors:

    • Using "said/the" before "a/an" introduction
    • Terms appearing in dependent claims not in parent
    • Missing antecedent in claim body
  2. Definiteness Issues:

    • Subjective terms: "substantially", "about", "approximately"
    • Relative terms: "large", "small", "thin"
    • Ambiguous language: "and/or", "optionally"
  3. Structure Issues:

    • Means-plus-function without adequate structure
    • Improper claim dependencies
    • Missing preamble or transition

Presentation Format

Present analysis as:

CLAIMS ANALYSIS REPORT
======================

Summary:
- Total Claims: 20 (3 independent, 17 dependent)
- Compliance Score: 85/100
- Issues Found: 12 (2 critical, 7 important, 3 minor)

CRITICAL ISSUES (Must Fix):

[Claim 1] Antecedent Basis Error
  Issue: Term 'processor' used with 'said' before introduction
  Location: "said processor configured to..."
  MPEP: 2173.05(e)
  Fix: Change to 'the processor' or introduce with 'a processor' first

[Claim 5] Indefinite Term
  Issue: Subjective term 'substantially' without definition
  Location: "substantially similar to..."
  MPEP: 2173.05(b)
  Fix: Define 'substantially' in specification or use objective criteria

IMPORTANT ISSUES:
...

MINOR ISSUES:
...

Integration with MPEP

For each issue, the skill can:

  1. Search MPEP for relevant guidance
  2. Provide specific MPEP section citations
  3. Show examiner guidance on similar issues
  4. Suggest fixes based on USPTO practice

Tools Available

  • Read: To load claims from files
  • Bash: To run Python analyzer
  • Write: To save analysis reports

Source

git clone https://github.com/RobThePCGuy/Claude-Patent-Creator/blob/main/skills/patent-claims-analyzer/SKILL.mdView on GitHub

Overview

This skill automates analysis of patent claims to ensure USPTO 112(b) compliance, focusing on antecedent basis, definiteness, and claim structure. It identifies missing antecedents, indefinite terms, improper dependencies, and drafting issues to help applicants fix problems before filing.

How This Skill Works

Load the automated claims analyzer from CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT, feed the claims text to analyzer.analyze_claims, and receive a structured results object with a compliance score and categorized issues. It surfaces critical, important, and minor issues along with MPEP citations and concrete fixes.

When to Use It

  • Review claim definiteness and clarity
  • Check antecedent basis and initial introductions
  • Analyze claim structure and dependencies
  • Identify drafting issues before filing
  • Prepare for USPTO office action responses

Quick Start

  1. Step 1: Load the analyzer from CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT and instantiate ClaimsAnalyzer
  2. Step 2: Provide claims_text and call analyzer.analyze_claims(claims_text)
  3. Step 3: Review the output: compliance_score, issues by severity, and fixes

Best Practices

  • Analyze the full claims set to catch cross-claim dependencies
  • Prioritize critical issues and fix antecedent basis first
  • Validate independent claims and correct numbering
  • Use MPEP citations for suggested fixes
  • Re-run analysis after edits to verify improvements

Example Use Cases

  • Detect 'said processor' used before introduction of 'processor'
  • Flag relative terms like 'large' or 'small' without explicit reference
  • Identify missing 'a' or 'an' before first use of a term
  • Differentiate method vs system claims and ensure proper structure
  • Resolve defective claim dependencies across dependent claims

Frequently Asked Questions

Add this skill to your agents
Sponsor this space

Reach thousands of developers