Get an external patent examiner review of a patent application. Use when user says "专利审查", "patent review", "审查意见", "examiner review", or wants critical feedback on patent claims and specification.

Patent Examiner Review via Codex MCP (xhigh reasoning) Get a multi round patent examiner review of the patent application based on: $ARGUMENTS Adapted from /research review . The reviewer persona is a patent examiner, not a paper reviewer. Constants REVIEWER MODEL = gpt 6 astra — Model used via Codex MCP REVIEW ROUNDS = 2 — Number of review rounds EXAMINER PERSONA = "patent examiner" — GPT 6 Astra persona Prerequisites Codex MCP Server configured: Inputs 1. patent/CLAIMS.md — all drafted claims 2. patent/specification/ — all specification sections 3. patent/figures/numeral index.md — reference numeral mapping 4. patent/PRIOR ART REPORT.md — known prior art 5. patent/INVENTION DISCLOSURE.md — invention structure Workflow Step 1: Gather Patent Context Before calling the external reviewer, compile a comprehensive briefing: 1. Read all claims (independent + dependent) 2. Read specification sections (at least summary and detailed description) 3. Read prior art report for context 4. Identify: core inventive concept, claim scope, known prior art, target jurisdiction Step 2: Round 1 — Full Examiner Review Send to REVIEWER MODEL via mcp codex codex with xhigh reasoning: Step 3: Implement Fixes (Round 1) Based on the examiner's office action: 1. CRITICAL issues (102 rejection, 112 indefiniteness, missing enablement): Must be fixed before proceeding Amend claims or add specification support 2. MAJOR issues (103 obviousness, weak claim scope, missing support): Should be fixed or argued Consider claim amendments or specification additions 3. MINOR issues (language quality, numeral consistency, formatting): Fix if time permits Document in output for later cleanup For each fix: Show the specific change (old claim new claim) Explain how the fix addresses the examiner's concern Step 4: Round 2 — Follow Up Review Use mcp codex codex reply with the threadId from Round 1: Step 5: Generate Improvement Report Write patent/PATENT REVIEW.md : Key Rules The reviewer persona must be a patent examiner, not a paper reviewer or academic. Always use model reasoning effort: "xhigh" for maximum analysis depth. Address CRITICAL and MAJOR issues before proceeding to the next phase. Document all changes in the review report for traceability. If the patentability score is below 5/10 after Round 2, recommend significant rework before filing. The review is advisory actual prosecution may proceed differently.

patent-review