Patent response from 3 days to 3 hours! How does AI tool Claude 3.7 make the examiner approve your application in seconds?
AI artifact Claude 3.7 reduces the time required for patent examination responses from days to hours. Good news for technical professionals!
Core content:
1. How Claude 3.7 significantly reduces the time required for patent examination responses
2. The advantages of Claude 3.7 in understanding legal texts and generating professional responses
3. A four-step method to teach you how to use Claude 3.7 to respond to patent examination opinions
Seriously, have you ever been overwhelmed by a patent response draft?
Those documents full of professional terms and legal clauses are simply a nightmare for technicians!
For an ordinary review opinion reply, it takes at least 3-5 days to produce a decent manuscript, not to mention the risk of rejection...
But now, the rules of the game have changed!
The emergence of Claude 3.7 Sonnet, the "AI patent assistant", is simply a life-saving straw for us technical people!
It can understand obscure legal texts in minutes and produce a professional-quality response in hours.
The work that used to take a week of overtime to complete can now be started in the morning and finished in the afternoon!
Don’t believe it? I used it last week to handle a patent examination opinion with 11 negative claims, and the whole process took only 2 hours!
And, the most surprising thing is that even if you know nothing about patent law, you can still get a high-quality answer!
Want to know how I did it?
Next, I will teach you step by step how to use Claude 3.7 to easily deal with those headache-inducing patent examination opinion replies!
Advantages of Claude 3.7
You may ask:
There are so many AI tools on the market, why choose Claude 3.7 sonnet? What is its strength?
I'm not just bragging!
Claude 3.7, Anthropic's flagship model, was born to handle complex professional texts such as patents!
It has a context window of more than 20,000 tokens (what does this mean? It is equivalent to being able to "swallow" and understand more than 60 pages of patent documents at one time!), which makes it a piece of cake for the patent examination opinions we need to deal with.
What’s even more impressive is its “professionalism”.
Last month, I used Claude 3.7 and DeepSeek to process the same electronic patent's office action response.
Although DeepSeek can also generate fluent text, Claude 3.7's answers are clearly more professional when it comes to complex creative arguments .
It not only captures the distinguishing features of technology, but also deeply analyzes the technical effects brought about by these differences, forming a complete chain of argumentation, which is precisely the key to creative argumentation!
Do you know what the most common pitfalls are in patent responses?
It's just the wrong tone!
Being too tough will offend the censors, while being too weak will not stand up.
Claude 3.7 has got this point absolutely right - his reply is both professional and humble , revealing respect for the reviewer between the lines, while firmly defending your technical innovations.
This delicate balance is difficult even for many experienced agents to grasp!
To be honest, when I first saw the patent response draft it generated, I was stunned:
Is this really written by AI? Why does it feel more professional than the one written by the senior patent agent we work with?
AI-assisted full process of patent examination opinion response
So, how to use Claude 3.7 to deal with patent examination opinions?
I have come up with a very simple four-step method:
Analyze review comments → Construct a response framework → Generate a detailed response → Polish and perfect it.
This method compressed the work that originally took our team 5 days into half a day!
The best part is that this method is super friendly to all kinds of characters:
- R&D engineer? No more struggling with obscure legal terms
- Product Manager? Easily handle the intersection of technology and law
- Solution engineer? AI helps you build the most convincing technical arguments
Doesn’t it sound exciting?
Don’t worry, I will teach you the specific operations of each step below, and I guarantee that you can start practicing after reading it!
Remember, you don’t need any patent law background. Claude 3.7 will be your professional legal advisor and you only need to keep a close eye on the key links.
Step 1: AI method for comprehensive analysis of review opinions
What is your first reaction after receiving the review comments? Confused? Full of question marks?
Don’t worry, this is the normal reaction of every technical person when facing patent documents!
The first step is to let Claude 3.7 help us thoroughly analyze the core issues of the review comments.
I have compiled a super practical prompt word template, you can just copy it and use it:
You are now an experienced patent attorney.
I have received an examination opinion letter and need your help to accurately analyze the core issues of each opinion, the legal basis for the examiner's concern, and possible directions for improvement.
The following are the specific contents of the review opinion:
[ Paste review comments ] .
Please analyze and answer each one:
1. What is the main concern of this opinion?
2. What legal provisions did the examiner cite and what are the core requirements of these provisions?
3. From a technical perspective, what modifications or arguments are needed to most effectively respond to this comment?
Examples:
When I pasted in the original review comment, Claude 3.7 immediately gave a clear analysis:
- Main concerns: Claim 11 lacks inventiveness and does not comply with Article 22, paragraph 3 of the Patent Law.
- Legal basis: Article 22, Paragraph 3 of the Patent Law, which stipulates that the inventiveness of an invention requires that it have outstanding substantive features and significant progress compared to the prior art.
- Root of the problem: The examiner believes that the system merely applies the methods of claims 1-5 to the conventional cloud disk system hardware architecture and has no additional innovations.
Did you see it?
Claude 3.7 gave an accurate analysis of a professional document that originally required us to read several times before we could understand it in just three seconds!
It even directly points out the direction we need to focus on:
This proves that the hardware structure of the cloud disk management system is substantially different from the comparison file and is not just a simple conventional application.
The magic of this step is that it not only helps you understand the problem, but also points you in the right direction for your next response!
Step 2: Use AI to frame your response
After understanding the review comments, the next step is to conceive the response framework.
To be honest, this step is the most troublesome for technical people!
What should I say first and what should I say later? How should I organize my arguments to be most convincing?
Don’t worry, with Claude 3.7, these problems can be easily solved!
I have summarized a super practical prompt word template:
Based on your previous analysis of the review comments, please help me develop a professional response framework for each comment.
Special considerations:
1. How to express gratitude to the examiner for his/her hard work at the beginning;
2. What kind of argument structure should be adopted for different types of questions such as creativity/novelty/support;
3. How to incorporate technical principles and effect demonstration into the response;
4. For areas that need to be modified, how to clearly display the modifications and explain the technical support for the modifications.
For each comment, please provide a response framework that includes the main arguments and the path of argument.
When I pasted in a review, the framework given by Claude 3.7 was textbook professional:
- Opening: Thank you for the professional work and valuable comments of the examiner
- Clarify the position: Affirm that claim 11 is inventive
- Core argument:
- Point out the specific technical differences from the comparative documents
- Emphasize that these distinctions are not simply general applications
- Detailed analysis of the technical effects of these differences
- Legal basis: citing relevant patent examination guidelines to support the judgment of creativity
- Summary: Based on the above arguments, I request the examiner to reconsider
When I saw this framework, I just wanted to give Claude 3.7 10,000 likes!
It not only provides a clear argument structure, but also places special emphasis on the argument of technical effects - this is the winning formula for creative replies!
Step 3: Generate high-quality detailed responses using Claude 3.7
With the framework in place, the next step is to generate detailed response content.
This step is the most time-consuming part of the entire process and is also where the value of Claude 3.7 is maximized.
I have personally tested the effective prompt word template:
Now, please play the role of a patent agent and generate a professional and detailed response to the examination opinion based on the previous analysis and framework.
Please note:
1. Use a humble and professional tone to show respect for the examiner;
2. Regarding the inventiveness of claim ? ?, elaborate on the technical differences between it and comparative document 1 , and emphasize the non-obvious technical effects brought about by these differences;
3. Cite relevant precedents or review guidelines to support your arguments;
4. Use a clear paragraph structure and numbered items when necessary to enhance readability.
Please generate a detailed response of 300-500 words .
When I fed an office opinion and the corresponding claim text to Claude 3.7, the response it generated was amazing:
Dear examiner:
Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on this application. After studying your review opinions, the applicant believes that claim 11 is inventive for the following reasons:
Regarding the cloud disk management system protected by claim 11, the applicant believes that it is substantially different from the reference 1 and is not just a well-known application of cloud disks. Specifically:
- Differences in technical solutions: The cloud disk management system of this application realizes the system integration of processors, memory and programs through a unique architecture, and especially adopts an innovative technical path in realizing user key generation and management. Although Comparative Document 1 discloses the feature that the private cloud proxy server can be accessed through the network, it does not involve the complex key management system in this application.
- Significant technical effect: The system of this application not only solves the key security management problem in a large-scale user environment, but also achieves a significant improvement in performance. In actual tests, compared with the solution of Comparative Document 1, the user authentication speed is increased by 40% and the data transmission security is improved by 60%, which is far beyond the reach of simply applying existing technologies.
- Non-obviousness: According to the provisions on creativity judgment in Chapter 4 of Part II of the Patent Examination Guidelines, when a technical solution can produce unexpected technical effects, it should be considered to be creative. The system architecture optimization and key management innovation of this application have brought about such significant technical effects.
Based on the above reasons, the applicant believes that claim 11 complies with the provisions on creativity in Article 22, paragraph 3 of the Patent Law and urges the examiner to reconsider.
Sincerely,
To be honest, the level of this reply is better than many professional agents I have seen!
It not only grasps the core argument, but also quantifies the technical effect with data, and even accurately quotes the relevant provisions of the review guidelines - this is definitely a high-level response that will impress the reviewer!
You know, before using AI, it would take our team at least half a day to write this kind of reply, and we had to revise it repeatedly and carefully consider the wording.
Now, you can get such a professional manuscript in less than 15 minutes. The efficiency improvement is simply breathtaking!
Step 4: AI-assisted polishing and improvement
After generating the first draft, the final step is to polish and perfect the response.
Don’t underestimate this step, it’s like adding the perfect cream to a delicious cake, it can elevate your response from “good” to “perfect”!
My prompt template:
As an experienced patent agent, please help me review and optimize the following response.
Focus:
1. Are there any inaccurate use of legal terms?
2. Whether the causal relationship between the technical features and the effects is clear;
3. Regarding the issue of creativity, whether the three-step method (distinguishing features, technical effects, and non-obviousness) is complete;
4. Whether any important issues raised by the examiner have been omitted;
5. Whether the tone is always professional and humble.
Please identify areas for improvement and provide specific suggestions for revisions.
When I submitted the response generated in the previous step to Claude 3.7 for polishing, it gave the following helpful advice:
- Regarding the technical effects of the cloud disk management system, the statement "user authentication speed increased by 40%" lacks specific test environment and comparison benchmark description. It is recommended to be revised to "Under the same hardware conditions, the user authentication speed of this system is about 40% faster than the solution described in Comparative Document 1" to make the description more accurate.
- The reference to Article 22, Paragraph 3 of the Patent Law can be more precise, and it is recommended to be adjusted to "comply with the provisions of Article 22, Paragraph 3 of the Patent Law regarding 'the invention has outstanding substantive features and significant progress'".
- It is recommended to add a direct response to the original review opinion in the first part: "Comparative Document 1 also discloses the following technical features (see paragraph [0043] of the specification): the private cloud proxy server is on the Internet, so that users can access it at any time through the Internet" to demonstrate full respect and understanding for the review opinion.
Did you see that? These detailed optimization suggestions are the key to turning a reply from “passable” to “excellent”!
A carefully polished reply draft can not only increase your pass rate, but also demonstrate your professional qualities and impress the examiner!
To be honest, this step is often overlooked by many people, but it is precisely this last 10% of effort that determines the final 100% effect.
Advanced Tips: Dealing with Special Types of Patent Examination Opinions
In addition to routine inventiveness issues, you will certainly encounter other types of examination opinions, such as insufficient support, unclear claims , etc.
These "tricky" questions often give people more headaches!
But don’t worry, Claude 3.7 can also perform well in these complex situations!
I’ve put together a few tips to help you navigate any type of review:
Tips for support questions:
Please find the paragraphs in my patent specification that support feature Y in claim X and explain how these paragraphs constitute sufficient support.
The instructions are as follows: [ Paste Instructions ]
I used this method to solve a difficult support problem last month.
I couldn't find any supporting points even after searching through the manual, but Claude 3.7 found perfect supporting evidence from an inconspicuous example.
Tips for claim amendment:
Based on the office opinion and the contents of the specification, please help me revise claim X so that it overcomes [ specific problem ] while ensuring that the amendment is supported by the original specification and does not introduce new content.
The review opinion and instructions are as follows: [ Paste content ]
Tips for sorting and organizing multiple complex opinions:
Please group these review comments by categories such as creativity, novelty, support, clarity, etc., and sort them by priority, so that I can develop a systematic response plan. The review comments are as follows: [ Paste content ]
Do you believe it?
Last quarter, we received a notice containing 17 review opinions. After sorting it out using this method, the entire response process became orderly. The work that was originally estimated to take two weeks was completed in just 4 days!
These tips are like your "Patent Answer Swiss Army Knife", which can easily handle any type of problem you encounter!
Summary and Recommendations for Action
After reading this, are you already eager to try this method?
Honestly, Claude 3.7 has completely changed the way I deal with patent examination opinions.
In the past, facing patent responses, the feeling of powerlessness and anxiety was simply overwhelming; now? It’s easy to handle, and you can free up time to do more things!
If you want to try this approach, I strongly recommend:
1. Full text input is important!
Don’t be lazy and only input part of the review comments. The complete context will allow AI to give a more accurate analysis and response.
2. Iterative refinement is the key!
Don’t expect to get a perfect answer in one go. Let AI analyze first, then build a framework, and finally generate a reply. This gradual process can greatly improve the quality.
3. Human-machine collaboration is the way to go!
No matter how powerful AI is, it still requires your professional judgment, especially when it comes to technical details. You must check and confirm carefully. I almost submitted it without checking it once, and I almost made a mistake in the technical description!
