/claims-drafting

name: claims-drafting
description: "Draft patent claims for an invention. Use when user says \"撰写权利要求\", \"draft claims\", \"写权利要求书\", \"claim drafting\", or wants to create patent claims. The core skill of the patent pipeline."
argument-hint: "[invention-disclosure-path]"
allowed-tools: Bash(*), Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, WebSearch, WebFetch, mcp__codex__codex, mcp__codex__codex-reply, mcp__antigravity__antigravity, mcp__antigravity__antigravity-reply, mcp__grok__grok, mcp__grok__grok-reply, mcp__claude-review__review, mcp__claude-review__review_reply, mcp__claude-review__review_start, mcp__claude-review__review_reply_start, mcp__claude-review__review_status

Claims Drafting: The Core Patent Skill

> **Before each reviewer slot**, follow [Selectable Reviewers](../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md): > resolve invocation → `.aris/reviewer.json` → Claude Code default (Codex MCP) > with `reviewer_route.py` through the canonical helper resolver, preserving this > slot's tier, fresh contexts, source/image inputs and deterministic gates. > Codex examples/pins below apply only to `backend=codex`; other routes use their > own first-call/reply contract. Save the route and actual returned identity; > unavailable selections are `REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE`. Classify acceptance from actual > families/completion/scope. Forward invocation reviewer/model/effort overrides > to reviewer-bearing children. Generation workers are unchanged.

Draft patent claims based on: **$ARGUMENTS**

This is the most critical skill in the patent pipeline. Claims define the legal scope of protection -- everything else (specification, figures, abstract) exists to support and enable the claims.

Constants

• `REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-6-astra` — External examiner for claim quality review
• `MAX_CLAIM_REVISION_ROUNDS = 3` — Maximum revision iterations
• `CLAIM_STYLE = "auto"` — `US` (Jepson or open), `EP` (two-part mandatory), `CN` (two-part), `auto` (detect from jurisdiction)
• `MIN_INDEPENDENT_CLAIMS = 2` — Typically method + system. For utility model (实用新型): apparatus/device only, NO method claims.
• `MAX_TOTAL_CLAIMS = 20` — Practical limit (USPTO includes 20 in base fee)
• `PATENT_TYPE = "invention"` — `invention` (发明专利) or `utility_model` (实用新型, apparatus claims only)

Inputs

1. `patent/INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md` — structured invention with core/supporting/optional features 2. `patent/PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md` — prior art to avoid 3. `patent/NOVELTY_ASSESSMENT.md` — novelty analysis with suggested amendments 4. Target jurisdiction from invention disclosure or `$ARGUMENTS`

Shared References

Load `../shared-references/patent-writing-principles.md` for claim drafting principles, antecedent basis rules, and common pitfalls. Load `../shared-references/patent-format-cn.md` for CN claim format (其特征在于). Load `../shared-references/patent-format-us.md` for US claim format (comprising, means-plus-function). Load `../shared-references/patent-format-ep.md` for EP two-part form (characterised in that).

Workflow

Step 1: Determine Claim Style and Patent Type

Based on patent type and jurisdiction:

**If `PATENT_TYPE = utility_model` (实用新型)**:

• CN jurisdiction ONLY
• Apparatus/device claims ONLY — no method, no product-by-process
• `MIN_INDEPENDENT_CLAIMS = 1` (single apparatus claim is sufficient)
• Claim format: "1. 一种[主题]，其特征在于，包括：[组件描述]。"

Based on target jurisdiction:

| Jurisdiction | Claim Style | Characterising Phrase | Preamble Format | |-------------|------------|----------------------|-----------------| | CN | Two-part (两部式) | 其特征在于 | 一种...的方法/装置，包括： | | US | Open (preferred) | comprising | A method for..., comprising: | | EP | Two-part (mandatory) | characterised in that | A method for..., comprising [known], characterised in that [inventive] | | ALL | Draft CN + US + EP | All of the above | All of the above |

Step 2: Draft Independent Claims

**CRITICAL — Claims numbering (CN format):**

• Claims must be numbered 1, 2, 3, ... continuously without gaps
• Independent and dependent claims are INTERMIXED in final numbering
• Do NOT group independent claims separately from dependent claims
• Example correct: Claim 1 (independent, product), Claim 2 (depends on 1), Claim 3 (depends on 1), Claim 4 (independent, method), Claim 5 (depends on 4)...
• Example WRONG: Claim 1 (independent), Claim 5 (independent), Claim 8 (independent), then Claim 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 as dependents

**CRITICAL — No empirical content in claims:**

• Claims describe ONLY structural features or method steps
• Do NOT include signal characteristics, detection principles, measurement results
• WRONG: "产生负脉冲信号" / "谐振频率下降" — these are results, not features
• RIGHT: "所述开口谐振环的开口处形成用于检测通过流体中颗粒物的间隙传感区域"

For each claim category identified in INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md:

**Method Claim (broadest)**: 1. Start with preamble identifying the category and purpose 2. List the core inventive features (from the "Core Inventive Concept" section) 3. Include enough known features for context (but not more than necessary) 4. Use open transition ("comprising" / "包括") 5. Each element should be separated by semicolons or on separate lines 6. Apply jurisdiction-specific format:

• CN: 前序部分 + "其特征在于" + 特征部分
• US: Preamble + "comprising:" + elements
• EP: Preamble + known features + "characterised in that" + inventive features

**System/Apparatus Claim**: 1. Mirror the method claim in structural form 2. Each method step becomes a "module configured to..." or "component for..." 3. Same hierarchy of known vs. inventive features

**Quality checks for each independent claim**:

• [ ] Single sentence (US/EP) or properly structured (CN)
• [ ] Antecedent basis: "a" first, "the" thereafter for each element
• [ ] No relative terms without definition
• [ ] No result-to-be-achieved limitations
• [ ] Transitional phrase is appropriate (open preferred)
• [ ] Preamble does not import unnecessary limitations
• [ ] Each element is necessary for patentability
• [ ] Claim s