patent-review

通过 Codex MCP 进行专利审查员评审（xhigh 推理）

每个审查员轮次开始前，请遵循可选审查员： 通过规范的辅助解析器调用 reviewer_route.py，依次解析调用 → .aris/reviewer.json → Claude Code 默认设置（Codex MCP）， 同时保留此轮次的层级、全新上下文、源文件/图像输入和确定性门控。 以下 Codex 示例/固定配置仅适用于 backend=codex；其他路由使用各自的首次调用/回复约定。保存路由和实际返回的身份； 不可用的选择记为 REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE。根据实际系列/完成情况/范围对接受情况进行分类。 将调用中的审查员/模型/effort 覆盖参数传递给包含审查员的子任务。生成工作进程保持不变。

根据以下内容，对专利申请进行多轮专利审查员评审：$ARGUMENTS

改编自 /research-review。审查员角色为专利审查员，而非论文审稿人。

常量

• REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-6-astra — 通过 Codex MCP 使用的模型
• REVIEW_ROUNDS = 2 — 评审轮数
• EXAMINER_PERSONA = "patent-examiner" — GPT-6-Astra 角色

先决条件

• 已配置 Codex MCP Server：

  claude mcp add codex -s user -- python3 "$HOME/aris_repo/mcp-servers/codex-exec/server.py"   # your ARIS clone's path
  

输入

1. patent/CLAIMS.md — 所有已起草的权利要求
2. patent/specification/ — 所有说明书章节
3. patent/figures/numeral_index.md — 附图标记对照表
4. patent/PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md — 已知现有技术
5. patent/INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md — 发明结构

工作流

步骤 1：收集专利背景信息

调用外部审查员前，编制一份全面的简报：

1. 阅读所有权利要求（独立权利要求 + 从属权利要求）
2. 阅读说明书章节（至少包括摘要和详细说明）
3. 阅读现有技术报告，了解背景
4. 确定：核心发明构思、权利要求范围、已知现有技术、目标司法管辖区

步骤 2：第 1 轮 — 全面审查员评审

使用 xhigh 推理，通过 mcp__codex__codex 向 REVIEWER_MODEL 发送：

首先解析此审查员轮次；以下为 backend=codex 示例。

mcp__codex__codex:
  model: gpt-6-astra
  config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
  prompt: |
    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.

步骤 3：实施修正（第 1 轮）

根据审查员的审查意见：

1. 严重问题（102 驳回、112 不明确、缺少可实施性说明）：

   • 必须在继续前修正
   • 修改权利要求或补充说明书支持

2. 主要问题（103 显而易见性、权利要求范围较弱、缺少支持）：

   • 应予修正或提出论证
   • 考虑修改权利要求或补充说明书

3. 次要问题（语言质量、附图标记一致性、格式）：

   • 如时间允许则修正
   • 在输出中记录，以便后续清理

对每项修正：

• 展示具体改动（旧权利要求 -> 新权利要求）
• 说明该修正如何回应审查员的关切

步骤 4：第 2 轮 — 后续评审

使用第 1 轮的 threadId 调用 mcp__codex__codex-reply：

首先解析此审查员轮次；以下为 backend=codex 示例。

mcp__codex__codex-reply:
  threadId: [from Round 1]
  # inherits the thread's model/effort — do not re-send
  prompt: |
    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?

步骤 5：生成改进报告

编写 patent/PATENT_REVIEW.md：

## 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

关键规则

• 审查员必须是专利审查员，而非论文审稿人或学者。
• 始终使用 model_reasoning_effort: "xhigh"，以进行最深入的分析。
• 进入下一阶段前，先处理严重和主要问题。
• 在评审报告中记录所有改动，以便追溯。
• 如果第 2 轮后的专利性评分低于 5/10，建议在提交申请前进行重大修改。
• 本评审仅供参考——实际审查程序可能有所不同。