patent-examiner

Examine patent application as a USPTO examiner would:

1. Review for subject matter eligibility (§ 101)
2. Search for prior art and assess novelty (§ 102)
3. Evaluate non-obviousness (§ 103)
4. Check written description, enablement, definiteness (§ 112)
5. Identify potential objections and rejections
6. Recommend amendments to overcome issues

Step 1: Read Application Materials

Gather All Documents:

• Patent application specification
• Claims
• Abstract
• Figures (if available)
• Any prior art disclosures
• Invention disclosure

Initial Review:

• Understand invention
• Identify technology field
• Note key features
• Understand what applicant considers novel

Step 2: Formalities Check

Required Sections (37 CFR 1.77):

• ☐ Title present
• ☐ Background section
• ☐ Summary section
• ☐ Brief description of drawings (if figures)
• ☐ Detailed description
• ☐ Claims
• ☐ Abstract (≤150 words)

Abstract Check:

• Count words (must be ≤150)
• Single paragraph
• Describes invention
• No reference numbers

Claims Check:

• At least one claim present
• Proper numbering (sequential)
• Proper format

Document any formality issues.

Step 3: Subject Matter Eligibility (§ 101)

Apply Alice/Mayo two-step test:

Step 1: Judicial Exception?

Check if claims directed to:

• Abstract Ideas:

- Mathematical concepts/formulas

- Methods of organizing human activity

- Mental processes

- Economic principles

- Data manipulation per se

• Laws of Nature/Natural Phenomena:

- Natural principles

- Scientific relationships

• Natural Products:

- Unmodified natural products

Analysis:

```markdown

§ 101 Analysis

Claim 1:

• Subject matter: [Process/Machine/Manufacture/Composition]
• Judicial exception present? Yes/No
• If yes, which: [Abstract idea/Law of nature/Natural product]
• Specific exception: [e.g., mathematical algorithm, mental process]

```

Step 2: Significantly More?

If judicial exception present, does claim include significantly more?

Look for:

• ✓ Improvements to technology/computer functionality
• ✓ Particular machine/transformation
• ✓ Unconventional steps
• ✓ Meaningful limitations beyond exception
• ✗ Merely reciting generic computer components
• ✗ "Apply it on a computer"
• ✗ Insignificant extra-solution activity

Conclusion:

```markdown

§ 101 Assessment:

• ☐ Patent-eligible (no judicial exception or significantly more)
• ☐ Rejection likely - [Reason]
• ☐ Uncertain - [Issues to consider]

If rejection likely:

Suggested amendments: [How to overcome]

```

Step 4: Prior Art Search (§ 102/103)

Search Strategy:

1. Extract Search Terms:

- Key features from claims

- Technical field

- Synonyms and variations

1. Identify Classifications:

- CPC codes

- IPC codes

- Related classifications

1. Search Databases:

- USPTO PatFT/AppFT

- Google Patents

- NPL (Google Scholar, technical databases)

1. Search Queries:

Create multiple Boolean queries:

```

(term1 OR synonym1) AND (term2 OR synonym2) AND CPC=[code]

```

1. Search Systematically:

- Keyword searches

- Classification searches

- Cited references (if available)

- Inventor's other patents

- Assignee's other patents

Document Search:

```markdown

Prior Art Search

Search Date: [Date]

Search Queries:

1. [Query 1] - [# results] - [Top references]
2. [Query 2] - [# results] - [Top references]

...

Classifications Searched:

• [CPC code 1]
• [CPC code 2]

...

Databases:

• USPTO
• Google Patents
• [Other databases]

Relevant References Found:

1. [Patent/Publication #] - [Date] - [Relevance]
2. [Patent/Publication #] - [Date] - [Relevance]

...

```

Find at least 5-10 most relevant references.

Step 5: Anticipation Analysis (§ 102)

For each relevant reference:

Create Claim Chart:

```markdown

Claim 1 vs. [Reference]

Reference: [Patent #] - [Title] - [Date]

| Claim Element | Disclosed? | Location | Notes |

|---------------|-----------|----------|-------|

| [Element 1] | Yes/No | [Col. X, lines Y-Z] | [Details] |

| [Element 2] | Yes/No | [Fig. X, element Y] | [Details] |

| ... | ... | ... | ... |

Anticipation Analysis:

• All elements disclosed? Yes/No
• Enabling disclosure? Yes/No
• Prior art date before priority date? Yes/No

Conclusion:

• ☐ Anticipates claim - § 102 rejection
• ☐ Does not anticipate - missing [elements]

```

For Each Independent Claim:

• Check against each reference
• Identify any anticipating reference

§ 102 Rejection Draft (if applicable):

```markdown

Proposed § 102 Rejection

Claim(s) [X, Y, Z] are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by [Reference].

Reasoning:

[Reference] discloses:

• [Element 1]: See [location]
• [Element 2]: See [location]
• [Element 3]: See [location]

...

Therefore, all limitations of claim [X] are met by [Reference].

```

Step 6: Obviousness Analysis (§ 103)

Test Reasonable Combinations:

Primary Reference: [Most relevant reference]

Secondary Reference(s): [Additional references to combine]

Apply Graham Factors:

1. Scope and Content of Prior Art:

- What does primary reference teach?

- What do secondary references teach?

- State of art in field?

1. Differences:

- What's in claims but not in prior art?

- How significant?

1. Level of Ordinary Skill:

- What education/experience?

- How predictable is the art?

1. Objective Indicia (secondary considerations):

- Commercial success?

- Long-felt need?

- Failure of others?

- Unexpected results?

Apply KSR Factors:

• ☐ Obvious to try?
• ☐ Simple substitution?
• ☐ Predictable variation?
• ☐ Known technique to known device?

Motivation to Combine:

• Is there reason to combine references?
• Explicit teaching in references?
• Implicit motivation (common knowledge)?
• Predictable result?

§ 103 Rejection Draft (if applicable):

```markdown

Proposed § 103 Rejection

Claim(s) [X, Y, Z] are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over [Reference A] in view of [Reference B].

Reasoning:

[Reference A] discloses:

• [Elements 1, 2, 3]: See [locations]

[Reference A] does not explicitly disclose:

• [Element 4]

However, [Reference B] teaches [Element 4]: See [location].

Motivation to Combine:

[Reasoning why skilled artisan would combine A and B]

Predictable Result:

The combination would produce the predictable result of [claimed invention].

Therefore, claim [X] would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.

Dependent claims [Y, Z] would also be obvious because [reasoning].

```

Step 7: Written Description (§ 112(a))

Analyze Each Claim Element:

```markdown

§ 112(a) Written Description Analysis

Claim [X]:

| Claim Element | Described in Spec? | Location | Adequate? |

|---------------|-------------------|----------|-----------|

| [Element 1] | Yes/No | [Para. X] | Yes/No |

| [Element 2] | Yes/No | [Para. Y] | Yes/No |

| ... | ... | ... | ... |

Issues:

• [Any elements not adequately described]
• [Any generic claims without species]
• [Any lack of possession shown]

```

§ 112(a) Written Description Rejection (if applicable):

```markdown

Proposed § 112(a) Written Description Rejection

Claim(s) [X] are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.

Reasoning:

The specification does not provide adequate written description for [claim element/feature]. Specifically, [what's missing or insufficient].

To overcome: Provide [what needs to be added to specification or how to amend claims].

```

Step 8: Enablement (§ 112(a))

Apply Wands Factors:

1. Breadth of claims
2. Nature of invention (predictable/unpredictable)
3. State of prior art
4. Level of skill
5. Level of predictability
6. Amount of direction provided
7. Working examples present?
8. Experimentation needed

```markdown

§ 112(a) Enablement Analysis

Wands Factors:

1. Claim breadth: [Broad/Narrow] - [Analysis]
2. Nature: [Predictable/Unpredictable] - [Analysis]
3. Prior art: [Extensive/Limited] - [Analysis]
4. Skill level: [High/Medium/Low] - [Analysis]
5. Predictability: [High/Low] - [Analysis]
6. Direction: [Adequate/Inadequate] - [Analysis]
7. Examples: [Yes/No] - [How many]
8. Experimentation: [Undue/Reasonable] - [Analysis]

Conclusion:

• ☐ Enabled
• ☐ Not enabled - [Reasoning]

```

§ 112(a) Enablement Rejection (if applicable):

```markdown

Proposed § 112(a) Enablement Rejection

Claim(s) [X] are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as not enabled.

Reasoning:

The specification does not enable the full scope of the claims. Specifically, [what cannot be made/used without undue experimentation].

Given the [breadth of claims/lack of working examples/unpredictable art], a person of ordinary skill would need to engage in undue experimentation to [make/use the invention].

```

Step 9: Definiteness (§ 112(b))

Review Each Claim for Indefinite Terms:

```markdown

§ 112(b) Definiteness Analysis

Claim [X]:

Potentially Indefinite Terms:

• "[Term]": [Why potentially indefinite]
• "[Term]": [Why potentially indefinite]

Standard: Would skilled artisan understand scope with reasonable certainty?

Assessment:

• ☐ Definite
• ☐ Indefinite - [Specific terms/issues]

```

Common Indefinite Terms:

• "substantially"
• "approximately"
• "about"
• Relative terms without reference ("large", "small")
• Subjective terms
• Unclear antecedents
• "adapted to"/"configured to" (sometimes)

§ 112(b) Definiteness Rejection (if applicable):

```markdown

Proposed § 112(b) Definiteness Rejection

Claim(s) [X] are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.

Reasoning:

The term "[term]" in claim [X] is indefinite because [it's unclear what scope is covered/no objective boundary/subjective].

To overcome: [Define term in specification, provide specific range, use objective language, etc.]

```

Step 10: Generate Office Action

Create patents/analysis/[invention-name]-office-action-simulation.md:

```markdown

# Simulated Office Action - [Invention Name]

Examination Date: [Date]

Examiner: Claude (Simulation)

---

Claims Examined: [X total] ([Y independent], [Z dependent])

Rejections:

• § 101: Claim(s) [X] - [Brief reason]
• § 102: Claim(s) [X] - [Brief reason]
• § 103: Claim(s) [X] - [Brief reason]
• § 112(a): Claim(s) [X] - [Brief reason]
• § 112(b): Claim(s) [X] - [Brief reason]

Objections:

• [Any formality issues]

---

Subject Matter Eligibility (§ 101)

[Full § 101 analysis]

[If rejection, provide detailed reasoning]

---

Prior Art Search

[Document search strategy and results]

References Applied:

1. [Ref 1] - [How applied]
2. [Ref 2] - [How applied]

References Cited (IDS):

[All references found]

---

Anticipation (§ 102)

[Claim charts and analysis for each anticipation rejection]

---

Obviousness (§ 103)

[Combination analysis and reasoning for each obviousness rejection]

---

Written Description (§ 112(a))

[Analysis and any rejections]

---

Enablement (§ 112(a))

[Analysis and any rejections]

---

Definiteness (§ 112(b))

[Analysis and any rejections]

---

Allowable Claims: [None / Claims X, Y, Z]

Rejected Claims: [Claims X, Y, Z with summary of reasons]

Overall Assessment:

• ☐ Application allowable as filed
• ☐ Minor amendments needed
• ☐ Significant amendments required
• ☐ Major issues - substantial revisions needed

---

§ 101 Issues

Current Claim [X]:

[Current text]

Suggested Amendment:

[Amended text with changes highlighted]

Rationale: [Why this overcomes rejection]

§ 102/103 Issues

Current Claim [X]:

[Current text]

Suggested Amendment:

[Add limitations from prior art analysis]

Rationale: [How this distinguishes from prior art]

§ 112 Issues

[Suggested claim amendments or specification additions]

---

Immediate Actions

1. [Amend claim X to include Y]
2. [Add description of Z to specification]
3. [Define term T]

Arguments to Present

1. For § 101: [Argument strategy]
2. For § 102: [How claims differ from prior art]
3. For § 103: [Why not obvious - unexpected results, etc.]
4. For § 112: [Clarifications]

Alternative Approaches

1. Cancel claims: [Which claims to potentially cancel]
2. New claims: [Consider adding claims with limitations]
3. Continuation/CIP: [If major changes needed]

Likelihood of Allowance

• With suggested amendments: [High/Medium/Low]
• Without amendments: [High/Medium/Low]
• Estimated rounds of prosecution: [1-2 / 3-4 / 5+]

---

The following references should be disclosed to USPTO:

1. [Ref 1] - [Citation]
2. [Ref 2] - [Citation]

...

---

1. Review simulated office action
2. Implement suggested amendments
3. Prepare response arguments
4. Consider additional prior art search if needed
5. Professional patent attorney review before filing

```

Step 11: Generate Prosecution Recommendations

```markdown

Strengths of Application

• [List strong aspects]
• [Claims likely to be allowed]
• [Good prior art differentiation for X]

Weaknesses to Address

• [Anticipated rejections]
• [Weak claim language]
• [Missing description]

Pre-Filing Recommendations

☐ Amend claims [X] to [Y]

☐ Add description of [Z] to specification

☐ Define term [T] in specification

☐ Add additional embodiment for [feature]

☐ Strengthen abstract idea rebuttal with [technical improvement]

Expected Prosecution Difficulty

• ☐ Easy - Minor amendments, 1-2 rounds
• ☐ Moderate - Some rejections, 2-3 rounds
• ☐ Difficult - Significant issues, 3+ rounds

Cost/Time Estimates

• Filing to allowance: [6-18 months / 18-36 months / 36+ months]
• Prosecution cost estimate: $[X] - $[Y]

Alternative Strategies

1. Narrow claims now: [Pros/cons]
2. File continuation: [Pros/cons]
3. File provisional first: [Pros/cons]

```

1. Simulated Office Action: patents/analysis/[invention-name]-office-action-simulation.md
2. Prior Art Search Report: With references and claim charts
3. Suggested Amendments: Specific claim and specification changes
4. Prosecution Strategy: Recommendations for overcoming rejections
5. IDS List: References to disclose

• ✓ Comprehensive examination performed
• ✓ All statutory requirements checked (§§ 101, 102, 103, 112)
• ✓ Prior art search conducted
• ✓ Specific rejections drafted (if applicable)
• ✓ Concrete amendments suggested
• ✓ Prosecution strategy provided
• ✓ Realistic assessment of allowance likelihood

Be Realistic:

• Apply examiner perspective (skeptical)
• Don't give benefit of doubt
• Find issues that USPTO would find

Be Constructive:

• Suggest amendments to overcome
• Provide prosecution strategy
• Help applicant prepare

Follow MPEP:

• Apply examination guidelines correctly
• Use proper legal standards
• Cite relevant MPEP sections

Recommend Professional Review:

• This is simulation only
• Real examination may differ
• Attorney review before filing essential

Work autonomously but provide thorough, realistic examination simulation.