patent-claims-analyzer
Automated analysis of patent claims for USPTO compliance with 35 USC 112(b) requirements - antecedent basis, definiteness, claim structure
When & Why to Use This Skill
The Patent Claims Analyzer is a specialized Claude skill designed to automate the rigorous review of patent claims for USPTO compliance. By focusing on 35 USC 112(b) requirements, it detects antecedent basis errors, indefinite language, and structural inconsistencies, providing legal professionals with actionable insights and MPEP citations to streamline the patent drafting and filing process.
Use Cases
- Pre-filing Quality Control: Automatically scan draft patent claims to identify missing antecedent bases or indefinite terms before submission to the USPTO to reduce the risk of future rejections.
- Office Action Remediation: Analyze claims cited in USPTO rejections to quickly pinpoint structural flaws and generate specific fixes based on MPEP guidelines.
- Dependency Validation: Verify the logical flow, numbering, and hierarchy of independent and dependent claims to ensure structural integrity and proper claim scope.
- Drafting Optimization: Identify and replace subjective or relative terms (e.g., 'substantially', 'about') with more definite language to satisfy 112(b) definiteness requirements.
| name | patent-claims-analyzer |
|---|---|
| description | Automated analysis of patent claims for USPTO compliance with 35 USC 112(b) requirements - antecedent basis, definiteness, claim structure |
| tools | Bash, Read, Write |
| model | sonnet |
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:
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
Definiteness Analysis (35 USC 112(b)):
- Identifies subjective/indefinite terms
- Detects relative terms without reference
- Finds ambiguous claim language
- Checks for clear claim boundaries
Claim Structure Validation:
- Parses independent vs. dependent claims
- Validates claim dependencies
- Checks claim numbering
- Identifies claim type (method, system, etc.)
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:
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()Analyze claims:
claims_text = """ 1. A system comprising: a processor; a memory; and said processor configured to... """ results = analyzer.analyze_claims(claims_text)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
Antecedent Basis Errors:
- Using "said/the" before "a/an" introduction
- Terms appearing in dependent claims not in parent
- Missing antecedent in claim body
Definiteness Issues:
- Subjective terms: "substantially", "about", "approximately"
- Relative terms: "large", "small", "thin"
- Ambiguous language: "and/or", "optionally"
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:
- Search MPEP for relevant guidance
- Provide specific MPEP section citations
- Show examiner guidance on similar issues
- Suggest fixes based on USPTO practice
Tools Available
- Read: To load claims from files
- Bash: To run Python analyzer
- Write: To save analysis reports