PatentNode reads the rejection, fetches every reference, drafts the response. Your judgment stays in the loop.
Smith teaches a temperature-controlled reservoir; Lee, a pressure valve.
Claim 1(c) “feedback loop responsive to fluid pressure” → Lee Fig. 3, el. 28.
Examiner cites MPEP §2143(A). Counter: different problem domains.
Narrow to “closed-loop pressure feedback < 5 psi”: preserves scope.
One Office Action, end to end
4 in-house models · about 15 to 40 minutes · filed paper in English, client report in English and 中文
Nothing is drafted until you confirm the analysis, and nothing is assembled until you confirm the drafts.
From the first read of the rejection to the filed paper: in-house models built for Office Action work take part in the analysis and the drafting, and your judgment decides at both review points.
Four in-house models, trained on public USPTO records, do real work on your Office Action: one reconstructs the Examiner's case element by element, one finds where your specification supports each claim element, and two draft the amendments and the arguments. Each is built for one step of US Office Action work.
The agent does the legwork; you make the judgment calls.
Every rejection extracted with statute (§101 / §102 / §103 / §112), examiner reasoning, and cited references.
Patent Center, Google Patents, NPL DOI lookup; cited references are pulled and parsed automatically.
Per rejection: reference mechanism, claim mapping, combination motivation, amendment risk. The bundle waits for you.
Review and edit the structured analysis in the workbench. The drafting models begin only after you confirm.
Amendment and argument language drafted from your validated analysis; ready for your second review.
Review and refine the drafts (cancel a claim, file a Terminal Disclaimer, reconcile overlapping amendments), then PatentNode assembles the response and the polished bilingual client report.
The report you hand your client, in their language, on every rejection.
Smith teaches a temperature-controlled reservoir; Lee teaches a pressure-controlled valve. The examiner reads Lee's valve as supplying Smith's reservoir-level signal.
Claim 1 element (c), 'a feedback loop responsive to fluid pressure,' is mapped to Lee Fig. 3 element 28 in the rejection.
The examiner cites MPEP §2143(A): combining known elements for a predictable result. The strongest counter is that Smith and Lee target different problem domains.
Narrow claim 1 to 'closed-loop pressure feedback below 5 psi.' This clears Lee's broader teaching without surrendering the original commercial scope.
Excerpt from the full client report
Run a real Office Action end to end, or see the full process on a public USPTO sample.