Patent Application Self-Check
Paste a draft application and get a list of places to reread: title and abstract length, section order, figures, claim references, claim words and reference numerals. Then work through 34 review questions.
The checks are a browser port of the mechanical half of a completeness check from the research behind our reading of 32 US software provisional applications and the 32 non-provisionals that followed them. Every limit is quoted from the rule it comes from. Method and limits: how we read these filings.
It counts and matches. It reads your text for eight properties a script can test, and lists each place it finds so you can read it. It does not judge the draft, and nothing it shows means the draft meets a rule.
Paste Your Draft
Numbered as in the draft: "1. A method ... 2. The method of claim 1, ..."
Everything from the first section heading after the title to the end of the detailed description. Keep the headings, each on its own line, and one paragraph per line, as a word processor copies them. Text copied from a PDF with line breaks inside sentences can separate a numeral from its name.
What Each Check Reads, and the Rule Beside It
Each check is a count or a match, and each lists places rather than passing or failing anything. The rule text is quoted as published, with its own force: where a rule says "should" or "preferably", so does this table.
| Check | What it lists | The rule, as quoted |
|---|---|---|
| M1. Section order | The headings it recognizes as sections (2) to (10) of 37 CFR 1.77(b), when they run out of the rule's order, and a draft with no heading recognized as the brief description of the drawings or the detailed description. Non-provisional only. | "The specification should include the following sections in order:" ... "(7) Background of the invention. (8) Brief summary of the invention. (9) Brief description of the several views of the drawing. (10) Detailed description of the invention. (11) A claim or claims. (12) Abstract of the disclosure." (37 CFR 1.77(b), as reproduced in MPEP 608.01(a)). Sections (1) to (6) are the title, cross-reference to related applications, federally sponsored research, joint research parties, incorporation of electronic listings, and prior disclosures by the inventor. The rule says "should". |
| M2. Title length | A title over 500 characters, counting every character including spaces. Non-provisional only. | "The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible." (37 CFR 1.72(a)). Only the 500 is counted; how short and specific the title is stays with you. |
| M3. Abstract length | An abstract over 150 words, counting runs of characters between spaces. Non-provisional only. | "The abstract must be as concise as the disclosure permits, preferably not exceeding 150 words in length." (37 CFR 1.72(b), as reproduced in MPEP 608.01(b)). The 150 words is stated as a preference. |
| M4. Figures, both ways | Each figure listed in the brief description of the drawings that is referred to nowhere else in the description, and each figure referred to that is not listed. | "When there are drawings, there shall be a brief description of the several views of the drawings and the detailed description of the invention shall refer to the different views by specifying the numbers of the figures and to the different parts by use of reference letters or numerals (preferably the latter)." (37 CFR 1.74, as reproduced in MPEP 608.01(f)) |
| M5. Dependent claims | Each claim that refers to a claim number that is not an earlier claim in the text pasted. A reference is read when written "claim 3" or "claims 3" in lower case. | "a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed" (35 U.S.C. 112(d)) |
| M6. Claim words | Words of four or more letters in each independent claim, less a list of common claim words, that share no stem with any word in the description. The stemming is crude, so a word listed may appear in another form. | "the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." (37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), as reproduced in MPEP 608.01(i)) |
| M7. Reference numerals | Each numeral (a number of 2 to 4 digits written after a word) that follows more than one name, counting a name only when it is used with that numeral at least twice. A reading list: see below. | "The reference characters must be properly applied, no single reference character being used for two different parts or for a given part and a modification of such part." (MPEP 608.01(g)). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted." (MPEP 608.01(o)) |
| M8. Incorporation by reference | Each paragraph with a sentence that incorporates another document by reference, so you can read it with review question B12. | "Express a clear intent to incorporate by reference by using the root words “incorporat(e)” and “reference”" (37 CFR 1.57(c), as reproduced in MPEP 608.01(p)) |
M7 is a reading list, not a check. When the research script these checks port was tried on held-out applications, 12 of its numeral reports were read: 9 were one part under two names (an abbreviation, a synonym, a singular and a plural), 2 were one numeral used for two parts, and 1 was an ordinary number read as a numeral. Both of the first two kinds are worth reading, for different reasons, and only you can tell which one you are looking at.
These checks are a browser version of a research script. The research script was tested by planting one defect per check in each of 16 held-out non-provisional applications, and it reported 126 of 126: 16 applications times eight checks, less two dependent-claim plantings that two applications' claims gave nothing to change. This browser version was tested against synthetic drafts written to trigger each check, and against the research script's own output on the same text. It has not been run on those 16 applications.
What These Checks Cannot See
- The drawings. Only the text is read. Whether a figure shows what its description says, or whether every numeral in the drawings appears in the text, is for a person with the drawings in hand.
- Meaning. A claim word found in the description may be used there in another sense. Review question T3 asks about that; the count cannot.
- Judgment the rule leaves open. "As short and specific as possible" and "as concise as the disclosure permits" are quoted above and are not measured.
- Headings it does not recognize. A heading is read from its words, the way 37 CFR 1.77(b) names the sections. The results list every heading recognized and the section it was read as, so a misreading is visible.
- Provisional drafts, for M1 to M3. The section, title and abstract rules quoted above are cited for the non-provisional, so those three checks are not run on a provisional. M4 to M8 run on both.
The Review Questions
Thirty-four questions to ask of the description, each answered by reading rather than by finding a heading. "The text" is your description and "the idea" is what it describes; in an application, "the problem section" is the background and "the short summary" is the summary or abstract. Each question asks what the text does not yet say. None of them asks for a legal verdict.
Building It
B1
Which part or step could you not make from the text alone?
B2
For that part or step, what exactly would you have to ask the inventor?
B3
Where does the text name a part without saying how it relates to the parts beside it: what passes between them or how they are joined, or, for an element of a structure, where it sits and which other elements it depends on?
B4
For each part, is there a property it must have for the idea to work (a size, a type, a mode, how many of it) that the text leaves out? Quote where the part is named.
B5
For each step the text names, does it say how the step is carried out, or only name it? Quote the step.
B6
Where a step decides something, does the text say what the decision is based on: the rule and its values, or, if the decision is learned, the inputs it is made from, what the model was trained to predict, and any threshold applied to its output? Quote the decision.
B7
Where the idea computes or converts a value, does the text give the rule it uses, or, if the computation is learned, what produces it: the model's inputs and output, its form, and the data and objective it is trained with? Quote where the value appears.
B8
Where the text says the idea behaves differently in some cases, does it say which cases? Quote the passage.
B9
For each item of data passed between parts, does the text say what the item holds?
B10
For each item of data the idea keeps or sends, does the text say where it is kept or sent, or that the idea works the same wherever it is?
B11
Where the choice of hardware, software or service matters to how a part works, does the text name it? Quote the part.
B12
Which part of the description relies on something outside the text that it does not itself put in words: a link, a document or standard, a repository or code, a dataset, a trained model it starts from, or a named component's datasheet? Quote the reference.
Running It
R1
Once it is built, could you put it into use from what the text says: start and operate it, or, if the idea is a structure such as a format or a message, write a valid instance of it and read one back?
R2
Could you tell whether it is working as intended: from what it produces, or, if the idea is a structure, from whether an instance is valid and reads back as it was written?
R3
What would you have to ask before you could do either?
R4
At each point where a person acts, does the text say what they do?
R5
At each point where a person acts, does the text say what is shown to them?
R6
Where a step can fail or an input can be missing, does the text say what the idea does then?
One Complete Version
V1
Is at least one version described completely enough, from its first part to its last, that you could build it as written?
V2
Does the text follow at least one case from what goes in to what comes out?
The General Form
G1
Does the text say which parts have to stay for it to be the same idea?
G2
Does it say which parts could be swapped for something else?
G3
Where the text names a general kind of part, does it say what that part can be in practice?
G4
For each value the idea depends on, does the text give the range that still works?
G5
Where the text describes more than one way, does it say which one the inventor uses or would build first?
Why It Works
W1
For each difficulty the problem section names, does the text say which part of the idea deals with it?
W2
For the main effect the text claims, does it say why the mechanism produces it, or, if the behaviour is learned, what in the data, the training or the design is meant to produce it and what result shows that it does?
W3
Does the text say what the idea gives up compared with the way before?
W4
Does the short summary say what the idea does or how it is built (its steps, or its structure and rules), or only what it achieves? Quote it.
Drawings
F1
Which part or step that the text relies on would a reader follow more easily from a drawing, and does any figure number it?
F2
Is each part numbered on a figure described somewhere in the text?
Wording
T1
Where does the text say a part can work in only one way, while another section describes a different way or no reason is given?
T2
Which term does the text use before saying what it means? Name the term and where it first appears.
T3
Which term does the text use in more than one sense? Name the term and both places.
The questions are used as written in the research. An independent reader tested each one there: all 34 make sense to someone who knows no patent rule, none makes or asks for a legal conclusion, and none uses a listed legal term in its own voice.
What This Does Not Decide
- It does not say whether the description supports the claims, or whether the draft is ready to file.
- It says nothing about whether anything described is new or patentable.
- An empty list for a check means that count found nothing. It does not mean the draft meets the rule quoted beside it.
- The review questions list what the text does not say. Answering all of them is not a measure of whether the text says enough.
Educational, not legal advice. A registered patent practitioner reads a draft against the claims and the facts, which no count can see.
Related
- How we read these filings, the sampling, the definitions and the limits
- What patent applications contain, the section order 32 non-provisionals kept
- What real provisional applications contain
- Showing possession of what you claim
- Disclosure Quality Check, the inventor's version, before any application exists
- All document templates
Scope. This self-check counts and matches text and lists places to read. It gives no score and no verdict, and an empty list does not mean a draft meets any rule.
Disclaimer. This page and its questions are used solely to read and organize the text of a draft. They and any output are for informational and technical-documentation purposes only and are not a substitute for advice from a registered patent practitioner. Use of this page does not constitute legal services or legal, patent, patentability, claim-drafting or filing-strategy advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship with Obviously Not. You are solely responsible for consulting qualified intellectual property counsel about any legal or IP issue.