---
name: thomasmoreai/patent-pipeline-wanshuiyin
source: https://app.decimal.ai/s/thomasmoreai-patent-pipeline-wanshuiyin@1/SKILL.md
source_sha256: c84019adc99d
---

# Patent Pipeline: From Invention to Filing

Draft a complete patent application based on: **$ARGUMENTS**

## Overview

This skill orchestrates the full patent drafting lifecycle -- from prior art search through jurisdiction-formatted filing documents. It chains sub-skills into a patent-specific pipeline:

```
/prior-art-search → /patent-novelty-check → /invention-structuring → /claims-drafting → /specification-writing → /patent-review → /jurisdiction-format
     (search)           (verify)              (structure)             (claims)            (description)          (examiner)         (compile)
                                                                                              ├── /figure-description
                                                                                              └── /embodiment-description
```

**This is a parallel branch, not part of the linear research pipeline.** After `/idea-discovery` produces validated ideas, the user can either:
- Go to `/experiment-bridge` → `/auto-review-loop` → `/paper-writing` (publish track)
- Go to `/grant-proposal` (funding track)
- Go to `/patent-pipeline` (patent track) **<-- this skill**

```
                    ┌→ /experiment-bridge → /auto-review-loop → /paper-writing  (publish track)
/idea-discovery ────┤
                    ├→ /grant-proposal → [get funded] → ...  (funding track)
                    └→ /patent-pipeline → [file patent]       (patent track)
```

Patents are about **protecting inventions** (legal scope), not publishing results (academic contribution). This skill handles the unique requirements of patent drafting: prior art analysis, claims hierarchy design, specification writing with enablement support, embodiment descriptions, and jurisdiction-specific formatting.

## Constants

- **JURISDICTION = `CN`** — Target patent jurisdiction. Options: `CN` (CNIPA), `US` (USPTO), `EP` (EPO), `ALL` (generate all three). Override via argument (e.g., `/patent-pipeline "invention — US"`).
- **PATENT_TYPE = `invention`** — `invention` (发明专利, 20 year protection) or `utility_model` (实用新型, CN only, 10 year protection, apparatus claims only). Override via argument.
- **REVIEWER_MODEL = `gpt-5.5`** — Model used via Codex MCP for examiner-style review.
- **MAX_REVIEW_ROUNDS = 2** — Maximum review-revision cycles.
- **AUTO_PROCEED = false** — At each checkpoint, **always wait for explicit user confirmation**. Patent applications require inventor judgment at every stage. Set `true` only if user explicitly requests autonomous mode.
- **LANGUAGE = `auto`** — Output language. Auto-detected from jurisdiction: CN->Chinese, US->English, EP->English. Override explicitly if needed.
- **OUTPUT_DIR = `patent/`** — Directory for generated patent files.
- **OUTPUT_FORMAT = `markdown`** — Draft format. `markdown` for review, `docx` for filing-ready.

> Override defaults via arguments: `/patent-pipeline "invention — US, utility model"` or `/patent-pipeline "invention — ALL, language: Chinese"`.

## Patent Type Specifications

### Invention Patent (发明专利)

| Field | Detail |
|-------|--------|
| **Protection** | 20 years from filing date |
| **Subject matter** | Methods, systems, products, compositions, processes |
| **Examination** | Substantive examination required |
| **Inventive step** | High (must involve an inventive step / 创造性) |
| **Timeline** | 2-4 years to grant (CN); 2-3 years (US); 3-5 years (EP) |
| **Claims** | Method + system + product claims allowed |

### Utility Model (实用新型) — CN Only

| Field | Detail |
|-------|--------|
| **Protection** | 10 years from filing date |
| **Subject matter** | Product shape, structure, or combination thereof only |
| **Examination** | Formal examination only (no substantive examination) |
| **Inventive step** | Lower than invention patent |
| **Timeline** | 6-8 months to grant |
| **Claims** | Apparatus/device claims only. NO method claims. |
| **Restriction** | CN jurisdiction only |

## State Persistence (Compact Recovery)

Patent drafting is a long task that may trigger context compaction. Persist state to `patent/PATENT_STATE.json` after each phase:

```json
{
  "phase": 3,
  "jurisdiction": "CN",
  "patent_type": "invention",
  "language": "Chinese",
  "codex_thread_id": "019cfcf4-...",
  "invention_title": "...",
  "claims_count": 15,
  "status": "in_progress",
  "timestamp": "2026-04-10T15:00:00"
}
```

**Write this file at the end of every phase.** On invocation, check for this file:
- If absent or `status: "completed"` -> fresh start
- If `status: "in_progress"` and within 24h -> **resume** from saved phase (read output files to restore context)
- If older than 24h -> fresh start (stale state)

On completion, set `"status": "completed"`.

## Workflow

### Phase 0: Input Parsing & Context Gathering

Parse `$ARGUMENTS` to extract:

1. **Invention description** — may be structured (references INVENTION_BRIEF.md), conversational with figures, or output from IDEA_REPORT.md
2. **Jurisdiction** — detect from keywords (e.g., "CN" or "中国" -> CN, "US" or "USPTO" -> US, "EP" or "EPO" -> EP, "ALL")
3. **Patent type** — detect from keywords (e.g., "utility model" or "实用新型" -> utility_model, default -> invention)
4. **Overrides** — language, output format, review rounds

Then gather context from the project directory:

1. Read `INVENTION_BRIEF.md` if it exists (user filled in the template)
2. Read `IDEA_REPORT.md` if it exists (from `/idea-discovery` -- can extract invention from research results)
3. Read `refine-logs/FINAL_PROPOSAL.md` if it exists
4. Read `NARRATIVE_REPORT.md` if it exists (research results that may be patentable)
5. Search for user-provided figures (PNG, JPG, SVG, PDF) in the project directory
6. Check for `patent/PATENT_STATE.json` (resume from prior interrupted run)

If insufficient context exists:
- No invention description at all -> suggest user describe the invention or fill in `INVENTION_BRIEF.md`
- Has IDEA_REPORT.md -> extract patentable aspects from the research
- Has figures -> reference them in the invention brief
- No figures -> note that figures will be needed and plan what drawings are required

**If the input is conversational** (not a structured brief), parse the description into the invention brief structure and write `patent/INVENTION_BRIEF.md` for downstream phases.

### Phase 1: Prior Art Search & Novelty Assessment

#### 1.1 Prior Art Search

Invoke `/prior-art-search`:

```
/prior-art-search "patent/INVENTION_BRIEF.md"
```

This searches patent databases (Google Patents, Espacenet) and academic literature for relevant prior art.

#### 1.2 Novelty Check

Invoke `/patent-novelty-check`:

```
/patent-novelty-check "patent/INVENTION_BRIEF.md"
```

This assesses novelty and non-obviousness against the prior art found in step 1.1.

**🚦 Checkpoint:** Present the prior art landscape and novelty assessment:

```
Prior art search complete:
- [X] patent references found
- [Y] non-patent literature references found
- Closest prior art: [reference] -- [why it's closest]
- Novelty assessment: [PATENTABLE / PATENTABLE WITH AMENDMENTS / NOT PATENTABLE]
- Key risk areas: [list]

Ready to proceed with invention structuring?
```

**⛔ STOP HERE and wait for user response.** Do NOT auto-proceed unless AUTO_PROCEED=true.

Options:
- Reply **"go"** -> proceed to Phase 2
- Reply with **adjustments** -> refine the invention scope and re-check novelty
- Reply **"stop"** -> save progress to `patent/DRAFT_NOTES.md`

**State**: Write `PATENT_STATE.json` with `phase: 1`.

### Phase 2: Invention Structuring & Claims Design

#### 2.1 Structure the Invention

Invoke `/invention-structuring`:

```
/invention-structuring "patent/INVENTION_BRIEF.md"
```

This decomposes the invention into core inventive concept, supporting features, and optional features. Produces `patent/INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md`.

#### 2.2 Draft Claims

Invoke `/claims-drafting`:

```
/claims-drafting "patent/INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md"
```

This drafts the claims hierarchy -- the most critical part of the patent. Produces `patent/CLAIMS.md`.

**🚦 Checkpoint:** Present the invention structure and claims:

```
Invention structured:
- Core inventive concept: [summary]
- Claim categories: [method, system, etc.]
- Claims drafted: [X] independent + [Y] dependent = [Z] total
- Independent claim 1 (broadest): [first 50 words of claim 1]
- Examiner review score: [X]/10

The claims define the legal scope of protection. Please review before proceeding to specification.
```

**⛔ STOP HERE and wait for user response.** Do NOT auto-proceed unless AUTO_PROCEED=true.

Options:
- Reply **"go"** -> proceed to Phase 3
- Reply with **adjustments** (e.g., "broaden claim 1", "add more dependent claims") -> revise claims
- Reply **"stop"** -> save progress

**State**: Write `PATENT_STATE.json` with `phase: 2`.

### Phase 3: Specification Writing

Invoke `/specification-writing`:

```
/specification-writing "patent/CLAIMS.md"
```

This writes the full specification section by section. Internally invokes `/figure-description` (if user-provided figures exist) and `/embodiment-description` for the detailed description. The specification-writing skill handles figure processing and embodiment writing as sub-skills.

**🚦 Checkpoint:** Present the specification overview:

```
Specification written:
- Title: [title]
- Sections: Technical Field, Background, Summary, Drawings Description, Detailed Description, Abstract
- Embodiments: [X]
- Reference numerals: [Y] components mapped
- Abstract length: [Z] words (limit: [jurisdiction limit])
- Claim support: [all elements covered / X elements missing]

Ready to proceed to review?
```

**⛔ STOP HERE and wait for user response.**

**State**: Write `PATENT_STATE.json` with `phase: 3`.

### Phase 4: Patent Review

Invoke `/patent-review`:

```
/patent-review "patent/"
```

This runs 2 rounds of examiner-style review via GPT-5.4 xhigh. The examiner evaluates clarity, written description, enablement, novelty, non-obviousness, and claim scope.

**State**: Write `PATENT_STATE.json` with `phase: 4` and review score.

### Phase 5: Jurisdiction Formatting & Output

Invoke `/jurisdiction-format`:

```
/jurisdiction-format "patent/"
```

This compiles the application into the target jurisdiction format(s).

#### Final Deliverables

| Output | Location | Description |
|--------|----------|-------------|
| CN: 权利要求书 | `patent/output/CN/` | Claims in CNIPA format |
| CN: 说明书 | `patent/output/CN/` | Description in CNIPA format |
| CN: 说明书摘要 | `patent/output/CN/` | Abstract (CN) |
| US: Claims | `patent/output/US/` | Claims in USPTO format |
| US: Specification | `patent/output/US/` | Description in USPTO format |
| US: Abstract | `patent/output/US/` | Abstract (US) |
| EP: Claims | `patent/output/EP/` | Claims in EPO format |
| EP: Description | `patent/output/EP/` | Description in EPO format |
| EP: Abstract | `patent/output/EP/` | Abstract (EP) |

#### Final Report

```markdown
## Patent Pipeline Complete

### Application Summary
- Title: [invention title]
- Jurisdiction: [CN/US/EP/ALL]
- Patent Type: [Invention / Utility Model]
- Language: [Chinese/English]
- Total Claims: [X] independent + [Y] dependent

### Pipeline Scores
| Phase | Score |
|-------|-------|
| Prior Art Search | [completeness assessment] |
| Novelty Assessment | [PATENTABLE/PATENTABLE WITH AMENDMENTS/NOT PATENTABLE] |
| Examiner Review Round 1 | [X]/10 |
| Examiner Review Round 2 | [Y]/10 |
| Final | [Z]/10 |

### Output Files
[Table of all generated files with paths]

### Next Steps
- [ ] Have a patent attorney review the application
- [ ] Conduct professional prior art search (this tool's search is preliminary)
- [ ] Prepare formal drawings (if user figures need professional rendering)
- [ ] File with the patent office
- [ ] For utility model (CN): formal examination typically takes 6-8 months
- [ ] For invention patent: substantive examination may take 2-4 years
```

**State**: Write `PATENT_STATE.json` with `phase: 5, status: "completed"`.

## Key Rules

- Never fabricate prior art references, patent numbers, or citations.
- Claims must be supported by the specification (written description requirement).
- Each jurisdiction has strict format requirements -- do not mix formats.
- Utility model (实用新型) applies ONLY to CN jurisdiction and ONLY covers apparatus/device claims.
- AUTO_PROCEED defaults to false -- patent applications require human review at every phase. Sub-skills inherit this flag: when AUTO_PROCEED=false, sub-skills present results and wait at their own internal checkpoints too.
- The patent pipeline produces drafts for attorney review, not final filing documents.
- Large file handling: if a Write operation fails, retry with Bash `cat <<'EOF'` heredoc.
- Never include experimental results or empirical evaluations in the specification.
- Consistent terminology is mandatory -- same word for the same concept throughout.
- If a downstream reviewer step is requested but reviewer delegation is unavailable in the current Codex host, stop and ask the user to enable Codex agent support before continuing.

## Composing with Other Workflows

The patent pipeline can start from multiple entry points:

```
User describes invention directly ──→ /patent-pipeline

/idea-discovery produces IDEA_REPORT.md ──→ /patent-pipeline (extract patentable aspects)

/research-refine produces FINAL_PROPOSAL.md ──→ /patent-pipeline (from refined research idea)

/auto-review-loop produces strong results ──→ /patent-pipeline (patent the method)
```

## Acknowledgements

Built on the ARIS (Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep) skill architecture. Patent writing principles adapted from MPEP (US), CN Patent Examination Guidelines (CN), and EPO Guidelines for Examination (EP).