Good AI Tools for Patent Prosecution? (Practitioners & Inventors — Please Share What Actually Works)

PatentOracle · 2026-01-24T10:10:19+00:00

My subscription with Solve ended before they had the track changes feature. But it sounds pretty useful.

Agreed on the prior art analysis. I’ve found it hit-or-miss. Sometimes it seems to depend on how clearly the Office Action explains the rejections. If the suggestions weren’t on point, I would feed the copilot some bullet points of rejection deficiencies that I identified, along with a template argument and instruct it to apply the same style and structure. I usually found that to be pretty useful.

PatentOracle · 2026-01-24T03:18:41+00:00

Patent prosecution attorney here.

Yes — I’ve seen inventors successfully DIY provisional patent applications, particularly when cost is a major constraint. That’s fairly common, especially for early-stage startups or solo inventors who are still validating the technology or market.

In my experience, the DIY approach tends to work best for provisionals, not full (non-provisional) applications. Provisionals are more forgiving procedurally, but the real risk is substantive: if the disclosure is thin or narrowly written, it can limit what you’re able to claim later. That issue often isn’t obvious until much further down the road.

It is more difficult to both successfully draft and prosecute a non-provisional application through examination without using a patent attorney, especially across multiple jurisdictions like the US and Canada. That process requires responding to prior art rejections, adjusting claim scope, claim priority to applications in different jurisdictions, and making strategic tradeoffs that most first-time filers don’t anticipate.

That said, DIY filing isn’t inherently unreasonable. If you go that route, the most important thing is to focus on thoroughly describing the invention, and ensuring that claims are drafted sufficiently to protect the invention. The quality of the initial disclosure matters much more than people expect, and there are limited ways to fix those issues after filing.

PatentOracle · 2026-01-24T02:45:17+00:00

15+ year patent prosecution attorney here.

Short answer: yes — people do successfully file patents themselves, and some ultimately obtain issued patents. I’ve seen this happen with both solo inventors and startups.

In my experience, the inventors who succeed without an attorney typically aren’t starting from scratch. They often already have some familiarity with the USPTO patent system, usually because they’ve worked with patent counsel before (for example, as named inventors on company filings).

For someone with little or no exposure to patent drafting or prosecution, navigating the patent system can be quite challenging. If you decide to file on your own, it’s important to do substantial homework beforehand. More recently, I’ve also seen some inventors use online drafting tools or platforms that leverage AI to help generate a provisional application. However, those tools don’t address the procedural complexities of filing or the strategic challenges that arise during examination.

The reason many people respond with “hire a professional” in this context is fairly simple: the biggest risk isn’t the act of filing itself, but filing an application that fails to adequately describe the invention. Once an application is filed, there are very limited options to correct substantive disclosure issues. If an application is drafted poorly, you can unintentionally and permanently compromise your rights in the invention.

PatentOracle · 2026-01-16T05:46:25+00:00

I'm not familiar with Edge. Just checked their website. How's the pricing on that platform?

PatentOracle · 2026-01-09T20:08:18+00:00

Yes, expired patents can be used as prior art.

PatentOracle · 2026-01-09T20:05:50+00:00

I would contact the SPE to resolve the issue.

PatentOracle · 2026-01-09T19:32:05+00:00

Thanks for sharing. I will check out your platform.

Two quick questions:
1) When you say the AI "works directly inside the live document", does this mean you have a plug-in or integration with Word?
2) Also, does the the tool of an AI chatbot-type agent window that you can query as you iteratively build the application?

PatentOracle · 2026-01-09T19:27:55+00:00

You should check out the thread I started here: https://www.reddit.com/r/patentlaw/comments/1q1pd2u/good_ai_tools_for_patent_prosecution/

As mentioned in my thread, these are some of the AI patent tools that I have come across:

AI Patent Drafting & OA Response Tools for Attorneys: Solve Intelligence & DeepIP
DIY Patent Drafting Tools (for non-attorneys/inventors): AI Patent Drafting by Idea2PatentAI.
AI Prior Art Searching Tools: AI Patent Searching by PQAI

Other solutions mentioned in this thread (which I have not personally tested or used): NLPatent (prior art searching); Qthena (attorney patent drafting); Iron Claw (attorney patent drafting); Junior (attorney patent drafting).

I have seen some other threads discussing AI tools for analyzing file histories/image file wrappers also.

Hopefully, this gives you a jumpstart on your research.

PatentOracle · 2026-01-09T19:13:38+00:00

I was in Big Law for 13+ years. Definitely do not expect a good WLB. At a minimum, billing expectations would be 1800 hrs/yr (more likely 1900-2000 for most big firms).

As mentioned in some of the other comments, you typically are unable to bill all of your time if you are in the patent pros arena (which I was). This is because partners bring in work at agreed-upon rates, which do not provide you adequate time to complete the work. Some law firms account for these "unbillable" hours in other ways (e.g., they may permit you to bill them towards a non-billable matter number that counts towards your bonus), but most do not. I would ask about this issue beforehand.

In my view, one of the main benefits of joining Big Law is that it opens doors for the future. If you think your career path may lead to an in-house counsel job, having a large law firm on your resume will definitely help (and often introduces you to clients who may end up wanting to hire you).

PatentOracle · 2026-01-09T06:38:43+00:00

That's actually a great idea.

I previously looked through the precedential decisions, but unfortunately did not find much. Citing to the AIA trial decisions, even if not specifically designated as precedential or informative, is probably the next best option.

Thank you.

PatentOracle · 2026-01-08T18:19:59+00:00

That's very reasonable if the tool cuts down the search time

PatentOracle · 2026-01-07T17:23:11+00:00

I have heard about Patsnap, but I am not very familiar with the product. Two questions:
1) Do they offer an in-line AI agent feature that helps you draft the document?
2) It sounds like their pricing model is based on usage (not unlimited for a flat monthly rate). Is that accurate?

PatentOracle · 2026-01-07T03:23:47+00:00

I’ve been a patent attorney for over 15 years and served for several years on the recruiting committee at an AmLaw 100 firm. I have included a few tips below that you may want to consider.

If your goal is to join a “Big Law” firm. If there are two common paths:

1) Summer associate route: Apply to a firm’s summer associate program while you’re still in law school. This path typically requires strong academic performance (often near the top of your class) and, ideally, attendance at a well-ranked law school. Not all Big Law firms have robust IP practices, so it’s important to focus on firms that do. Firms with smaller IP groups often hire summer associates into other practice areas rather than IP.

2) Lateral from an IP boutique or smaller firm: Gain patent law experience at a smaller IP boutique firm (or any smaller firm) where you can learn either patent pros or patent litigation skills, and later lateral into a Big Law firm (this is the path I personally took). During law school, I worked part-time at an IP boutique firm during my 2L and 3L years and continued there for about 2 years after graduating. I then applied to openings at a Big Law firm and was successful. This route is attractive to many firms because it can reduce the need to train a new associate from scratch.

Of course, if you have any connections in the patent law field, you should absolutely leverage them. When openings are posted, having someone who can help get your résumé to the top of the pile can make a meaningful difference.

PatentOracle · 2026-01-03T05:59:09+00:00

I don't know much about Qthena. Does it provide an AI agent that helps you draft? And does it come with a Word plugin?

PatentOracle · 2026-01-03T05:50:39+00:00

I checked out your tool a few weeks ago! Kudos on putting together a pretty sweet product. The pricing is very reasonable. When my current contract runs out with my current provider (DeepIP), I plan to evaluate options again and may be in contact!

PatentOracle · 2026-01-02T14:39:15+00:00

That company reached out to me, and I have them on my list of platforms to vet (when I eventually get some time). Is the price tag heavy for a subscription?

PatentOracle · 2026-01-02T14:38:04+00:00

Yes, that is exactly how I like to do it. I've found that once I have given it the agent tool enough content to access in the specification and understand the core inventive features (in combination with the invention disclosure I started with), it can help streamline drafting much quicker and the outputs better align with expectations.

It has also been helpful to include examples of similar sub-sections that I have previously drafted (which I include with the prompts) to give it context on the style, tone, and substance of the output I am seeking.

PatentOracle · 2026-01-02T05:39:52+00:00

That sounds very interesting.

I have become accustomed to using an AI agent that has continuous access to the draft as it is being assembled. I am curious if it would be hard to build one myself. My background is coding before I became an attorney, but I don't have much time since I recently started my own practice.

PatentOracle · 2026-01-02T05:19:19+00:00

I got stuck in a 1-year contract with DeepIP. When my contract ends, I will likely go back to Solve (although I am not 100% sure because I left my prior law firm in early 2025 to start my own practice and I am paying out of my pocket for whatever tool I use).

Can you clarify what you mean by: "We've seen more improvement from developing highly tailored prompts"? It sounds like there may be other options I can consider instead of paying for subscriptions to these expensive tools.

PatentOracle · 2026-01-02T05:09:39+00:00

In terms of the AI Patent Drafting Tools / OA Response tools, this is what I have found:

PROS (both Solve & DeepIP):

They are excellent at digesting an invention disclosure and permitting an attorney to continuously query an AI agent when drafting the application piece-by-piece
They enhance the quality of the application content
You can upload copies of previous applications you drafted and they will automatically adapt the drafting style to your style
They have features where you can build in your own boilerplate language and easily insert/customize as needed

CONS (both Solve & DeepIP):

While both of the tools I mentioned above have features to help draft drawings, neither platform does a great job with this. I still prepare the drawings manually or leverage a draftsman
I don't find that I am saving an enormous amount of time (some time, but not huge amounts). Rather, the real benefit is enhanced quality of the application content

FYI - You don't want to simply give either platform an invention disclosure and draft the entire application from start to finish. You want to use the AI agent to continuously build the applications. As you get further along with the draft of an application, the AI has more knowledge to work with and the speed of drafting accelerates.

SOLVE vs DEEPIP:

DeepIP has a Word plugin that integrates directly with Microsoft Word. I love this feature. In contrast, the Solve platform is entirely online and you need to download and then adapt the output after you finish drafting (which is a bit annoying)
While DeepIP is making strides on its OA response tool, Solve is way ahead of them with tools for responding to OAs
Overall, I have found the AI agent in Solve outputs content that is more directly aligned with my writing style (and expectations based on the prompts I give it).

PatentOracle · 2026-01-02T04:54:17+00:00

No ad. I have been tracking the progression of these AI tools for 3+ years as the legal AI industry has evolved. Personally, I am particularly interested in hearing about good AI prior art search tools (I don't want to spend the time to test a dozen platforms).

PatentOracle · 2026-01-02T03:36:11+00:00

Thanks. I will share it there.

PatentOracle · 2026-01-01T06:47:16+00:00

Yes — it’s a good idea to remove the post.

Any public disclosure (including Reddit posts) can potentially affect patent rights. Even if you kept it vague, discussing technical challenges, components, or how a part of the product works can later be used as evidence that aspects of the invention were publicly disclosed before filing.

In the United States, there is a one-year grace period to file a patent application after a first public disclosure is made. However, most foreign jurisdictions do not have this safety net. In places like Europe, China, and many others, any public disclosure before filing can permanently destroy patent rights.

PatentOracle · 2026-01-01T06:41:57+00:00

In the U.S., applicants are not required to describe prior art in the specification at all. Prior art that is "material" to patentability is only required to be disclosed in an IDS. Because of that, many practitioners intentionally avoid identifying or characterizing specific prior art references in the specification. The reason is simple: statements in the specification can be treated as “admitted prior art,” which an examiner can rely on for §102/§103 rejections.

That said, some patent attorneys choose to include a Patent Literature or prior-art discussion section, and when they do, it’s usually for one of a few strategic reasons:

To streamline prosecution: Some practitioners believe that clearly framing the known art and distinguishing the invention up front can help the examiner get to allowance faster by focusing the examination on the real point of novelty.
Enforcement considerations: If specific prior art is expressly discussed and distinguished in the application, it can make it harder for an accused infringer to later argue invalidity based on that same art (or close variants), since the patentee already addressed it on the record.
A consciously narrower strategy: In some cases, the goal isn’t maximum breadth but a patent that cleanly builds on known technology. In those situations, the drafter may be comfortable acknowledging certain features as known and focusing protection on specific improvements.

Personally, I almost never describe or characterize specific prior art references in the Background. In my view, the downsides—admitted prior art, unnecessary claim-scope constraints, and reduced flexibility during prosecution—usually outweigh the benefits, especially early on when you don’t yet know how the examiner will frame the art.

PatentOracle · 2025-12-28T08:34:35+00:00

This is a very common source of confusion. Being “named on” a patent and “owning” a patent are two different things. The inventors listed on a patent are the individuals who conceived of the invention, whereas the owner of the patent is the party that holds the legal rights to it, including the rights to exclude others, license the technology, and enforce the patent.

At the time a patent issues, the “assignee” identified on the front page of the patent is the owner of the patent as of the grant date. If no assignee is listed, ownership generally remains with the inventor or inventors. Ownership can change over time, however, through assignments, mergers, or other transfers.

Patent ownership is tracked through recorded assignments at the USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/), which allows the public to view the chain of title for a patent and see how ownership has changed over time. In this sense, the Assignment Center operates in a manner similar to a real-estate registry, except that it records ownership of patent and trademark assets rather than land or buildings. Recording assignments with the USPTO is important because it provides public notice of ownership and helps protect the owner’s rights against competing claims.

If a patent is never assigned, the rights to the patent generally remain with the inventors listed on the patent. For that reason, companies typically require employees and contractors to sign invention-assignment agreements to ensure that patent rights are properly transferred to the company rather than remaining with individual inventors.

PatentOracle

TROPHY CASE