“Agentic patent workflow platform: prior-art search, claim strategy, drafting, figures, and quality checks produced by specialist AI agents and approved by attorneys at five decision gates.”
“Filing-ready patent applications from an invention disclosure: agentic drafting with five approval gates, a claim scope slider, provenance on every claim element, figures from the specification, and drafting profiles. US, EP, and IN practice native.”
“A prior art search asks whether your invention is new, against everything ever published. FTO asks whether your product infringes claims that are alive today, in the territories where you will make, use, sell, import, or export it. Different corpus, different date logic, different grading, and a different deliverable: a counsel memo, not a novelty report.”
“B marks a claim that blocks an element outright; P marks partial overlap; W marks something to watch, such as pending claims or ambiguous scope; C marks cleared. Overriding any grade requires a recorded reason, so the file shows not just the conclusion but the judgment behind it.”
“Earlier than it usually does. If a blocking claim sits where you were going to launch, or where you were going to claim, you want to know while the design and your own claim strategy are still soft. Because FTO lives in the same platform as drafting, the finding lands while the decision is still open.”
“The claim ribbon flags §112(f) elements and the workflow stops until the corresponding structure from the specification is confirmed. The real scope of a means-plus-function limitation lives in that structure. Grading art against the claim language alone would chart the wrong claim.”
“Everything is filtered to art before the target’s priority date. References whose dates cannot be verified automatically, such as same-year publications and undated disclosures, are parked in a verification tray until a person confirms them. No grade rests on an assumed date.”
“That is what the Y grade and combination groups are for: Y references carry their missing limitations by name, and suggested combinations show which references together cover the claim. The obviousness argument arrives assembled with its evidence, for you to accept, edit, or reject.”
“You do, at every stage: the claim ribbon, every triage round, the chart, and the report. The agents assemble; the judgment on what the position claims, and whether it is strong enough to use, is yours.”
“Two ways. The work runs on the platform, so you can see progress and step into any checkpoint rather than waiting for a status email. And you receive the full working record (graded references, evidence quotes, audit trails), not just the concluding document. The discipline is enforced by the workflow, not dependent on who picked up the assignment.”
“Experienced patent professionals on our team, working on Esgenix through the same review checkpoints the software enforces for everyone. Agents carry the production; a person reviews and approves every deliverable before it reaches you.”
“As involved as you choose. Some teams review every gate: claim strategy, risk grading, the final draft. Others delegate the checkpoints and review the finished record. The involvement level is set at scoping and can change matter by matter.”
“Yes, and the transition is clean by design: the matters already live on the platform, so your team can take over checkpoints gradually or switch to self-serve entirely with the full history intact. Many teams start with services during a capacity crunch and keep the platform afterward.”
“Entirely. Claims are a hard gate: you approve, amend, or send the claim set back for another pass, and nothing proceeds without that approval. The scope slider, fallback tags, and alignment audit exist to make your claim decisions faster to explore, not to make them for you.”
“Every claim element carries a provenance identifier tracing it to the passage of the invention disclosure it came from. Checking support for any limitation is a click, not a re-read of the file.”
“Yes. A drafting profile stores your house style, including claim formats, terminology, and structure conventions, and every agent is obliged to follow it. A rules audit scores the finished draft against the profile and documents every finding.”
“US, European, and Indian practice, natively. The draft is produced to the target jurisdiction’s conventions from the start rather than translated from one into another.”
“Keyword search matches the words a drafter happened to choose; semantic search matches what a document means. The reference most likely to block your claim describes your invention in different vocabulary. That is precisely the reference keyword search misses and semantic search finds.”
“X marks a reference that reads on the invention by itself; Y marks one that is relevant in combination with another; A marks background art. It is the grading vocabulary patent examiners use, so the triage board reads like a search report, because it becomes one.”
“Yes. That is the point. If you continue into drafting in the same session, the graded references position the claim set from the first draft, and the specification carries fallback positions where the art is dense. Search and drafting are one workflow, not two engagements.”
“You do. The agents grade and explain every reference, but you triage the board, override any grade, and direct what the next round should chase. The report does not finalize without your approval.”
Download this profile and inspect its supporting evidence.