/invention-structuring

name: invention-structuring
description: "Structure a raw invention idea into a formal invention disclosure. Use when user says \"构建发明\", \"structure invention\", \"发明构建\", \"invention disclosure\", or wants to formalize a rough idea into a patent-ready structure."
argument-hint: "[invention-description-or-brief-path]"
allowed-tools: Bash(*), Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, mcp__codex__codex, 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

Invention Structuring

> **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.

Structure the invention into a formal disclosure based on: **$ARGUMENTS**

Adapted from the refinement pattern in `/research-refine` for patent invention decomposition.

Constants

• `REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-6-astra` — External reviewer for invention decomposition validation
• `MAX_REFINEMENT_ROUNDS = 3` — Maximum structuring iterations

Inputs

1. Invention description from `$ARGUMENTS` 2. `patent/INVENTION_BRIEF.md` if exists 3. `patent/PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md` — prior art landscape 4. `patent/NOVELTY_ASSESSMENT.md` — novelty analysis

Shared References

Load `../shared-references/patent-writing-principles.md` for the Problem-Solution-Advantage framework and claimable subject matter guidelines.

Workflow

Step 1: Problem-Solution-Advantage Framework

Structure the invention using the universal patent framework:

**Technical Problem (要解决的技术问题)**:

• Derived from prior art deficiencies identified in NOVELTY_ASSESSMENT.md
• Must be a specific, technical problem (not a commercial or social problem)
• Statement format: "The technical problem to be solved is how to [specific technical objective] given [specific technical constraint]."

**Technical Solution (技术方案)**:

• The invention's specific technical contribution
• Focus on the mechanism, not the result
• Must be described at a level that matches the intended claim scope
• Identify which features are known vs. inventive

**Advantages (有益效果)**:

• Measurable or quantifiable improvements over prior art
• Must result from the inventive features, not just good engineering
• Include specific technical effects if known (e.g., "reduces processing time by 40%")

Step 2: Invention Decomposition

Break the invention into three layers:

**Core Inventive Concept (核心发明构思)**:

• The minimal set of features that make the invention patentable
• This maps to the independent claim scope
• Test: if you remove this feature, the invention is no longer novel

**Supporting Features (支撑性特征)**:

• Features that make the invention work well in practice
• These become dependent claim material
• They narrow the scope but add practical value

**Optional Features (可选特征)**:

• Implementation details, preferred parameters, alternatives
• These become embodiment material
• They support broader claim interpretation

Step 3: Claimable Subject Matter Identification

For the core inventive concept, determine what categories of claims to draft:

| Category | Applicability | Content | |----------|-------------|---------| | Method/process | If invention involves steps | Process flow, algorithm, workflow | | System/apparatus | If invention involves components | Hardware structure, modules, connections | | Product | If invention is a physical device | Shape, structure, composition | | Computer-readable medium | If software invention (US) | Stored instructions, non-transitory medium | | Product-by-process | If structure is hard to define | Product defined by how it is made |

Step 4: Drawing Plan

Plan what figures are needed to support the claims and specification:

| Figure | Type | Shows | Supports Claim Elements | |--------|------|-------|------------------------| | FIG. 1 | Block diagram | System architecture | System claim components | | FIG. 2 | Flowchart | Method steps | Method claim steps | | FIG. 3 | Sequence diagram | Interaction between components | Specific implementation details |

If user has provided figures, reference them here. If figures are missing, note what is needed.

Step 5: Dependency Mapping

Map feature dependencies to plan the claim hierarchy:

Independent Claim 1 (method, broadest scope)
├── Core inventive feature A
├── Core inventive feature B
└── Known feature C (for context)

Dependent Claim 2 → narrows feature A with specific implementation
Dependent Claim 3 → narrows feature B with specific parameters
Dependent Claim 4 → depends on 2, adds optional feature D
Dependent Claim 5 → alternative implementation of feature A

Step 6: Cross-Model Validation

Call `REVIEWER_MODEL` via `mcp__codex__codex` with xhigh reasoning:

> Resolve this reviewer slot first; the following is the `backend=codex` example.

mcp__codex__codex:
  model: gpt-6-astra
  config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
  prompt: |
    You are a patent attorney reviewing an invention disclosure.
    Evaluate the structuring choices:

    INVENTION: [Problem-Solution-Advantage summary]
    DECOMPOSITION: [Core/Supporting/Optional features]
    CLAIM PLAN: [intended claim categories and hierarchy]

    Please assess:
    1. Is the Problem