01
The examiner’s position
Office Action
Grounds of rejection, affected claims, and pinpoint citations.
Issues to address
Loading
Enterprise Trust
Controls shown reflect the current product architecture during private beta. Independent security assurance reports have not been issued yet.
Built for regulated patent teams handling confidential invention data, audit-sensitive workflows, and multi-jurisdiction portfolios.
Design Your Invention Team
IP Management Platform
Turn a USPTO office action into a reviewed issue map, then build a response from the signed analysis. Connect rejections to claims and source passages, prepare supported amendments, and keep attorney decisions on the record.
Built for USPTO office actions
Adaptive sensor system
OA-DEMO-118 · Non-final rejection
Analysis
Three issues. One reviewable record.
Obviousness
§ 103 · Claims 1-3 · Smith and Jones
Indefiniteness
§ 112(b) · Claim 4 · Antecedent basis
Claim objection
Claim 5 · Dependent form
Examiner issues are organized for attorney review.
Read the office action once. Keep each rejection connected to the affected claims and cited references.
A response is only as strong as the record behind it. The analysis keeps the office action, the examined claim set, and the application as filed in their own roles, so every later reading points back to the right paper.
The examiner’s position
Grounds of rejection, affected claims, and pinpoint citations.
Issues to address
The analysis baseline
The claim language and status the examiner acted on.
Claim chart and amendment baseline
The disclosure for support
The original disclosure against which amendment support is confirmed.
Support for inserted language
Preserve the Prosecution Context
The response retains its signed analysis, examined claims, as-filed disclosure, and file history as its source record.
Bring in a US application by application, patent, or publication number, or upload the papers directly.
The claim set the examiner acted on anchors the chart and, later, the claim listing.
EP and WO text through EPO OPS, US publications through USPTO Open Data. Granted US patents and NPL are uploaded.
An ambiguous claim set waits for your confirmation, and missing or unreadable pages are flagged.
See each rejection, the claims it affects, and the passages behind it. The issue map brings the examiner’s position and the supporting source text into one reviewable record.
Illustrative Issue Map
Claim 1 · Examined Limitation [1b]
A controller configured to adjust a sampling interval periodically.
Examiner’s Passage
“Smith discloses a controller that adjusts the sampling interval periodically.”
Office action · page 4 · Citing Smith ¶ [0031]
Quotation Matched to the Source
The attorney reviews the reading and decides how to address the issue.
See each rejection, the affected claims, and the references the examiner relies on.
Follow each limitation to a source passage, with quotations checked against the document.
Correct readings, resolve warnings, and sign the analysis before starting the response.
Prior-art rejections, eligibility, Section 112 issues, double patenting, objections, and procedural outcomes are grouped in the issue map. Claim charts compare limitations against cited references; missing sources and unresolved readings remain visible for attorney review.
See Document and Jurisdiction CoverageEach claim is broken into labeled limitations and charted against every reference the examiner relies on. See where the examiner’s mapping holds, where it is partial, and where it says nothing.
| Claim Limitation | Smith2 full · 1 partial | Jones2 full · 1 not addressed |
|---|---|---|
| [1a]A temperature sensor | Full¶ [0024] | Full¶ [0018] |
| [1b]A controller configured to adjust a sampling interval periodically | Full¶ [0031] | Not addressedNo mapped passage |
| [1c]A stored calibration profile | Partial¶ [0036] | Full¶ [0042] |
[1a]A temperature sensor
[1b]A controller configured to adjust a sampling interval periodically
[1c]A stored calibration profile
Full and partial readings describe the mapped disclosure. A passage not addressed in the chart is not a finding that the reference lacks it.
The examined claim structure stays intact throughout the analysis. Original numbering is preserved, and each multiple dependent claim retains every dependency path for review.
Duplicate or unnumbered claims and dependency errors, including circular or unresolved references, are flagged for correction. The chart waits until the claim structure is resolved.
Each cited passage carries its own pinpoint, and every quotation is matched to the source text before it is stored.
A limitation the examiner did not address is marked not addressed. It is never presented as proof the reference lacks it.
Every issue in the signed analysis gets a recorded strategy before the drafting starts. The choice shapes the response sections, and the reasoning stays with the issue for the reviewing attorney.
Obviousness
§ 103 · Claims 1-3 · Smith and Jones
Claim 1 amendment and remarks on the rejection
Counsel selects revised language for limitation [1b], confirms disclosure support, and records the basis for traversing the rejection.
Indefiniteness
§ 112(b) · Claim 4
Claim amendment and supporting remarks
The revised language stays linked to its as-filed disclosure support.
Narrow the claims and argue the rejection does not apply to them as amended.
Overcome the issue by amendment, with the inserted language linked to support in the application as filed.
Contest the examiner’s position without amendment, in remarks built on the record.
Answer a nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Not offered against statutory double patenting.
Take up allowable subject matter in an objected-to claim. The rewrite is computed and previewed before you accept it.
Carry reviewed issues into a structured draft. Keep your strategy, claim changes, and disclosure support connected as you prepare the reply.
1. (Currently amended)
A sensor system comprising a controller configured to adjust a sampling interval periodically in response to a detected change in temperature.
Application as filed · paragraph [0032]
“The controller varies the sampling interval when the temperature changes.”
Line up the examined claims against the linked patent draft, claim by claim, to see how prosecution has moved them.
Claim statuses and amendment markup are computed from your edits, with numbering and dependencies checked.
Link inserted language to specific passages in the application as filed for attorney confirmation. Inserted language without matching disclosure support is flagged for review before approval.
Carry issues, claims, references, and examiner quotations into response sections for attorney drafting and review.
Amend, cancel, withdraw, or add claims, and the listing follows. Every claim carries its status identifier, with insertions underlined and deletions struck through.
Model assistance, under your control. AI drafting aids depend on evaluated capabilities and workspace policy. Attorneys select strategies and accept amendments. See Availability.
Move from a review draft to an approved response with clear checks and a recorded signature. Approved content is locked, and filing remains with the attorney.
Resolve open issues, check citations, and confirm the support for amended claims.
A second attorney approves the response with an electronic signature, locking the content.
Download a Word document. The attorney handles filing and records what was submitted.
Response to Office Action
Adaptive sensor system
Amendments to the claims
Remarks and arguments
Approved content locked
Word filing copy · Filed separately by the attorney
Issue maps, evidence reports, response review drafts, approved filing copies, and interview agendas.
The same access controls and audit history that protect your docket extend to every office action analysis and response.
Tenant isolation and optional matter walls keep sensitive work within the authorized team.
Restrict providers, require a region and retention level, and block AI for individual matters. Monthly AI usage is capped per workspace.
Keep corrections, decisions, and signatures on the record, with the person and reason behind each act.
Coverage, documents, and how your team stays in control.
Analysis reads USPTO communications including non-final and final rejections, advisory actions, and restriction and election requirements. A notice of allowance is recognized, with nothing to map. The response workspace supports replies under 37 CFR 1.111 and amendments after final under 37 CFR 1.116. Other jurisdictions are planned, starting with EP. RCE submissions, pre-appeal requests, and restriction responses are not yet supported.
Import a US application by application, patent, or publication number, or upload your documents. The analysis identifies the office action, examined claims, and available references. You confirm the record when a document or claim set is ambiguous. Missing or unreadable pages are flagged for review.
EP and WO publication text is fetched through EPO OPS, and US published applications through USPTO Open Data. Granted US patents and non-patent literature require an uploaded copy. The examiner’s PTO-892 reference list can be fetched to the case, but is not read by the analysis.
Model-assisted issue restatements, amendment proposals, amendment assessments, and anticipation arguments are available only where the capability has completed its evaluation, the deployment enables it, and workspace policy permits it. The structured response workspace, claim listing, support links, and exports work without these drafting aids. Attorneys choose strategies and accept changes, and model-derived text cannot be approved until it passes an automated independent review.
An authorized attorney signs the analysis after confirming their identity, and whoever last corrected the map cannot sign it. Response approval requires an authorized attorney who did not last revise the draft. Corrections and decisions are recorded with a reason, and approved content is locked. Model-derived response text must also pass an automated independent review, a separate model reading plus code checks, before approval.
Word exports include analysis review drafts, evidence reports, signed issue maps, response review drafts, approved filing copies, and interview agendas. The attorney files separately in Patent Center and records the filing. The software does not submit the response to the USPTO.
Yes. The office action, analysis, and response belong to the docketed matter. Candidate response dates come from the docketing rules engine and require attorney confirmation; analysis does not overwrite the docket’s due date. Workspace policies and matter access controls apply throughout.
Explore the analysis and response workflow on a published US application of your choice.