patent-claims-analyzer▌
robthepcguy/claude-patent-creator · updated Apr 10, 2026
Automated analysis of patent claims for USPTO compliance with 35 USC 112(b) requirements.
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
Discussion
Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)- No comments yet — start the thread.
Ratings
4.7★★★★★36 reviews- ★★★★★Pratham Ware· Dec 28, 2024
patent-claims-analyzer fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
- ★★★★★Chaitanya Patil· Dec 20, 2024
Keeps context tight: patent-claims-analyzer is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
- ★★★★★Mateo Bhatia· Dec 20, 2024
Registry listing for patent-claims-analyzer matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
- ★★★★★Naina Bhatia· Dec 8, 2024
I recommend patent-claims-analyzer for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
- ★★★★★Aisha Rahman· Nov 27, 2024
patent-claims-analyzer reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- ★★★★★Piyush G· Nov 11, 2024
patent-claims-analyzer has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
- ★★★★★Mateo Mehta· Nov 11, 2024
Useful defaults in patent-claims-analyzer — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
- ★★★★★Meera Singh· Oct 18, 2024
Registry listing for patent-claims-analyzer matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
- ★★★★★Shikha Mishra· Oct 2, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: patent-claims-analyzer is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
- ★★★★★Hassan Chawla· Oct 2, 2024
I recommend patent-claims-analyzer for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
showing 1-10 of 36