AXIOM Analysis

Patent Filing Analysis Intake Template

Version 1.0 | April 12, 2026
Working template for structured patent filing review in the AXIOM portal.

Purpose

Use this template to prepare a patent filing analysis run in AXIOM.

It is designed for:

• draft patent application review
• claim-support review
• prior-art stress testing
• office action / rejection review
• interpretation and risk-focused first-pass analysis

This is a structured analysis intake, not a substitute for patent counsel.

Best AXIOM Settings

Draft Filing Review

• Domain: Law
• Modules: review, risk
• Report Depth: Standard
• Reasoning Engine: AXIOM Gateway or Auto
• Live sources: off

Prior Art / Novelty Stress Test

• Domain: Law
• Modules: review, risk
• Report Depth: Standard
• Reasoning Engine: Gemini or Auto
• Live sources: on

Office Action / Rejection Review

• Domain: Law
• Modules: review, risk
• Report Depth: Standard first, Deep second if needed
• Reasoning Engine: Gemini or Auto
• Live sources: on

Quick Triage Only

• Domain: Law
• Modules: fast
• Report Depth: Compact or Standard
• Reasoning Engine: AXIOM Gateway
• Live sources: off

Important Upload Note

If possible, convert patent materials to .txt or .md before upload.

In the current AXIOM implementation, PDF, DOC, and DOCX files can be stored, but plain-text style files are much more reliable for actual analysis.

Best current upload shape:

• 01_request.md
• 02_application_draft.md
• 03_claim_support_map.md
• 04_prior_art_notes.md
• 05_office_action_or_target_product.md

You do not need all five files for every run.

Data Collection Checklist

Collect as much of the following as possible before running the analysis.

1. Matter Basics

• Project or matter name:
• Jurisdiction:
• Filing stage:
• Application type:
• Target filing date:
• Applicant / assignee:
• Inventor(s):
• Reviewer:
• Date prepared:

2. Analysis Goal

• What kind of run is this?
  • draft review
  • claim-support review
  • prior-art stress test
  • office action review
  • product / feature claim mapping
• What decision are you trying to make?
• What are the top 3 questions you want answered?

3. Invention Summary

• Working title:
• One-sentence invention summary:
• Problem addressed:
• Proposed solution:
• Main technical advantage:
• Commercial advantage:
• What is actually believed to be novel:

4. Patent Text Package

Confirm whether you have each of these:

• Title
• Abstract
• Background
• Summary
• Detailed description
• Figure list / figure descriptions
• Independent claims
• Dependent claims
• Definitions / terminology section

5. Claim Architecture

For each independent claim, collect:

• Claim number:
• Claim category:
  • method
  • system
  • apparatus
  • composition
  • device
  • computer-readable medium
• Short plain-English paraphrase:
• Essential elements:
• Optional elements:
• Narrowest fallback version:
• Broadest intended interpretation:

6. Support Map

For each material claim element, identify:

• Which paragraph(s) support it
• Which figure(s) support it
• Whether the language in the claim matches the language in the specification
• Whether the support is direct, indirect, or weak
• Whether alternative embodiments are described

7. Terminology and Consistency

Collect:

• defined terms
• synonyms used by the inventors
• terms used inconsistently across the draft
• abbreviations / acronyms
• claim terms that do not appear cleanly in the specification

8. Prior Art Set

For each prior art reference, collect:

• Reference name or patent/publication number
• Link or citation
• Short summary
• Why it is close
• Which claim element(s) it overlaps with
• Whether it is novelty risk, obviousness risk, or background only

9. Office Action / Rejection Set

If this run involves prosecution, collect:

• Office action date
• Examiner / office
• Rejection type
• Rejected claims
• Cited references
• Examiner rationale
• Current draft response
• Proposed amendment strategy

10. Product / Feature Mapping Set

If this run involves mapping claims to a product, collect:

• product or feature name
• version / release
• architecture summary
• known matching features
• uncertain mapping areas
• evidence source for each mapping point

11. Missing Inputs

List what you do not yet have:

• missing claim support
• missing drawings or figure descriptions
• missing prior art
• missing inventor clarification
• missing prosecution documents
• missing product evidence

Suggested File Pack

File 1: 01_request.md

Use this for the business and review context:

Matter name:
Jurisdiction:
Run type:
Decision to support:

Top questions:
1.
2.
3.

Known constraints:

Known uncertainties:

File 2: 02_application_draft.md

Put the actual filing text here:

Title:

Abstract:

Background:

Summary:

Detailed description:

Figures:

Claims:

File 3: 03_claim_support_map.md

Use this structure:

Claim 1:
- Element:
- Support paragraph(s):
- Support figure(s):
- Support strength:
- Notes:

Claim 2:
...

File 4: 04_prior_art_notes.md

Use this structure:

Reference:
- Citation / number:
- Summary:
- Overlapping features:
- Risk type:
- Notes:

File 5: 05_office_action_or_target_product.md

Use this structure:

Type:
- Office action
- Product mapping

Details:

Relevant claims:

Relevant references or features:

Open questions:

Fill-In Intake Block

Copy this block into a working .md file and complete it.

Matter name:
Jurisdiction:
Filing stage:
Application type:
Target filing date:
Applicant / assignee:
Inventor(s):
Prepared by:
Prepared on:

Run type:
- draft filing review
- prior-art stress test
- office action review
- claim mapping

Decision to support:

Primary review questions:
1.
2.
3.

Working title:
One-sentence invention summary:
Problem addressed:
Proposed solution:
Main technical advantage:
Commercial advantage:
Claimed novelty:

Patent text included:
- title
- abstract
- background
- summary
- detailed description
- figures
- claims

Independent claims in scope:

Claim architecture notes:

Known terminology issues:

Claim-support concerns:

Prior art references included:

Office action included:

Target product / feature included:

Known weak spots:

Missing information:

What a useful AXIOM output should focus on:

Recommended Prompt Pairing

Use this template together with:

• PATENT_FILING_ANALYSIS_PROMPT_2026-04-12.txt

Best pattern:

1. fill out this intake
2. upload this intake plus the actual patent material
3. use the short prompt file in the portal request box

Practical Notes For Better Results

• Start with Standard depth, not Deep
• Use review + risk for serious analysis
• Use live sources only when prior art or external references matter
• If the result is weak, improve the input package before making the prompt longer
• Make sure claim language and support paragraphs are explicitly visible in the uploaded text
• If you want novelty pressure testing, include at least a short prior-art package instead of relying only on web lookup

Caution

AXIOM can help surface:

• ambiguity
• weak support
• inconsistency
• claim pressure points
• information gaps

It should not be treated as final legal advice or a final patentability opinion.

End of Patent Filing Analysis Intake Template v1.0