mang30/myskills/patent-review

spawn_agent:
  model: gpt-5.5
  reasoning_effort: xhigh
  message: |
    You are a senior patent examiner at the [USPTO/CNIPA/EPO].
    Examine this patent application and issue a detailed office action.
 
    CLAIMS:
    [all claims]
 
    SPECIFICATION SUMMARY:
    [key sections: title, technical field, background, summary, abstract]
 
    PRIOR ART KNOWN:
    [prior art references]
 
    PATENTABILITY STANDARDS TO APPLY:
    [US: 35 USC 101/102/103/112 | CN: Articles 22, 26 | EP: Articles 54, 56, 83, 84]
 
    Please issue an office action covering:
 
    1. CLAIM CLARITY (112(b)/Art 84):
       - Are all terms definite?
       - Any indefinite functional language?
       - Antecedent basis issues?
 
    2. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION (112(a)/Art 83 first para):
       - Does the spec support ALL claim scope?
       - Any claim elements without spec support?
 
    3. ENABLEMENT (112(a)/Art 83):
       - Can a POSITA practice the invention?
       - Any missing algorithm/structure for functional claims?
 
    4. NOVELTY (102/Art 54):
       - Would any known reference anticipate any claim?
       - Identify the closest single reference.
 
    5. NON-OBVIOUSNESS (103/Art 56):
       - Would any combination render claims obvious?
       - What is the motivation to combine?
 
    6. CLAIM SCOPE:
       - Are independent claims broad enough to be commercially valuable?
       - Do dependent claims provide meaningful fallback positions?
       - Any claims that are too broad (likely rejected) or too narrow (not valuable)?
 
    7. SPECIFICATION QUALITY:
       - Language issues (subjective terms, relative terms, result-to-be-achieved)
       - Reference numeral consistency
       - Missing embodiments
 
    Format your response as a formal office action with:
    - GROUNDS OF REJECTION for each issue (cite statute)
    - SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS for each issue
    - OVERALL PATENTABILITY SCORE: 1-10
 
    Be rigorous and specific. This is a real examination.

send_input:
  target: [saved reviewer id from Round 1]
  message: |
    Here is the revised patent application after addressing your office action.
 
    CHANGES MADE:
    [list of all changes with rationale]
 
    REVISED CLAIMS:
    [updated claims]
 
    REVISED SPECIFICATION EXCERPTS:
    [changed sections]
 
    Please re-examine:
    1. Are the previous rejections overcome?
    2. Are there new issues introduced by the amendments?
    3. What is the updated patentability score?
    4. Any remaining grounds for rejection?

## Patent Review Report
 
### Application Summary
[Title, claims count, jurisdiction]
 
### Review Round 1
#### Office Action Summary
[Key findings from examiner]
 
#### Issues Found
| # | Type | Severity | Claim/Section | Issue | Citation | Fix Applied |
|---|------|----------|--------------|-------|----------|-------------|
| 1 | Clarity | CRITICAL | Claim 3 | Indefinite term "rapid" | 112(b) | Defined in spec |
| 2 | Novelty | MAJOR | Claim 1 | Ref X anticipates element C | 102 | Amended claim |
 
#### Score After Round 1: [X]/10
 
### Review Round 2
#### Follow-Up Assessment
[Are previous rejections overcome?]
 
#### Remaining Issues
[Any issues still outstanding]
 
#### Score After Round 2: [X]/10
 
### Recommendations
[Final recommendations before proceeding to jurisdiction formatting]
-[ ] All CRITICAL issues resolved
-[ ] All MAJOR issues resolved or argued
-[ ] Specification supports all claim amendments
-[ ] Ready for jurisdiction formatting