patent-claims-analyzer

majiayu000's avatarfrom majiayu000

Automated analysis of patent claims for USPTO compliance with 35 USC 112(b) requirements - antecedent basis, definiteness, claim structure

0stars🔀0forks📁View on GitHub🕐Updated Jan 5, 2026

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.
namepatent-claims-analyzer
descriptionAutomated analysis of patent claims for USPTO compliance with 35 USC 112(b) requirements - antecedent basis, definiteness, claim structure
toolsBash, Read, Write
modelsonnet

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