# 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:

```text
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:

```text
Title:

Abstract:

Background:

Summary:

Detailed description:

Figures:

Claims:
```

### File 3: `03_claim_support_map.md`

Use this structure:

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

Claim 2:
...
```

### File 4: `04_prior_art_notes.md`

Use this structure:

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

### File 5: `05_office_action_or_target_product.md`

Use this structure:

```text
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.

```text
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](/C:/Scripts/axiom.analysis/doc/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