# GENERATE USPTO PATENT (MINIMALIST) PROCESS (Data-Centric, Structured Interaction, Legal Compliance & Technical Accuracy) ## Process Steps: 1. Access Project State & Task Instance. 2. Formulate understanding questions (Invention Details, Standards, **Compliance & Rigor Requirements**). 3. Structure AI output turn (project ID + task execution ID + status + summary + questions). 4. Present structured AI output turn to user. 5. Receive user responses (handle freeform by returning to step 2). 6. Verify inputs and readiness; return to step 2 if not ready. 7. Perform Generation (Title, Spec, Claims, Abstract) adhering to minimal USPTO rules. **Absolute Technical Accuracy & Consistency *from Disclosure*. Mandatory Capture Provenance (Basis for Claims/Description).** 8. Identify issues/clarifications (**Flag Insufficient Disclosure/Inconsistencies/Technical Concerns/Compliance Issues**). 9. Formulate clarification questions (may require non-yes/no). 10. Structure AI output turn (project ID + task execution ID + status + issue summary + questions). 11. Present structured AI output turn to user. 12. Receive user responses (handle freeform by returning to step 8). 13. Finalize Output Data (patent text + metadata), store in state. 14. Finalize Provenance Data (mandatory), store in state. 15. Update Task Execution Instance status, log issues/insights, update feedback status in state. 16. Formulate completion questions (**Confirm Rigor/Compliance Adherence, Confirm Provenance Prepared**). 17. Structure AI output turn (project ID + task execution ID + final status + outcome summary + questions). 18. Present structured AI output turn to user. 19. Receive user responses. 20. Update Project State based on final responses. 21. Indicate readiness for next process step (implicitly, by completing this process). ## Example Structured Questions (AI to formulate based on task details, inputs, and process progress): * "Confirm understanding: Generate minimalist USPTO utility patent text for [Invention Title]? (Yes/No)" * **Confirm understanding: This task requires strict adherence to minimal USPTO rules (37 CFR 1.77, MPEP 600), absolute technical accuracy and consistency *based on the provided disclosure*, zero invention of details, AND mandatory preparation of provenance data (documenting basis for claims/description)? (Yes/No)** * "Confirm understanding: Key features to claim are [List of features]? (Yes/No - If No, please provide correct list)" * "Confirm understanding: Disclosure includes sufficient detail for enablement (how to make/use) and written description (showing possession)? (Yes/No - If No, please provide more detail)" * "Clarification needed: Section describing [Specific Component] is unclear in the disclosure. Please provide more detail on its structure/function for the specification." (Freeform input expected) * **Clarification needed: Based on the disclosure, the proposed technical approach [Approach Summary] seems potentially infeasible or inconsistent with other details provided. Should I proceed with drafting this approach in the specification, or flag it as a major technical risk *in the disclosure*? (Proceed/Flag as Risk/Other - please specify)** * **Compliance Issue: Claim 1 as drafted appears to claim two distinct inventions, violating the 'atomic' claim rule. Should I split this into two claims? (Yes/No - If No, please provide alternative instruction)** * "Patent text generation complete. Ready for user review? (Yes/No)" * **Does the generated text adhere to the required rigor standards (compliance, consistency, accuracy from disclosure, enablement, written description, prior art distinction as described) to the best of my ability? (Yes/No - AI self-assessment)** * **Has the provenance data for this task (documenting the basis for claims/description from your disclosure) been prepared? (Yes/No - AI self-assessment)** * "Task [Task ID] output is ready. Initiate review process using [[archive/templates/projects/support/REVIEW-Feedback]]? (Yes/No)" --- **Project State Data Schema Update (Implicit in instructions):** The `DEFINE-ProjectStateSchema.md` would need to include a structure for the `patent_application_data` within the `task_execution_instance.output_data` field, including the `provenance_data` field, specifically tailored to the patent context. ```yaml # Structure for patent_application_data within task_execution_instance.output_data patent_application_data: title_text: string specification_text: string # Full text with numbered paragraphs claims_text: string # Full text with numbered claims abstract_text: string # Full text # Add other relevant metadata like word counts, section lengths provenance_data: object # Structured data detailing the basis for the generated content # Example structure (needs formal definition in schema): # content_segments: list of objects { segment_id: string (e.g., Claim 1, Spec Para [0005]), text_snippet: string (optional, brief), generated_from_input_ref: string (reference to user's disclosure section/point), supporting_spec_refs: list of strings (references to spec paragraphs supporting a claim), process_steps: string (summary of AI's internal steps for this segment) }