Light Patent Disclosure

Patent disclosure handoff

Turn a real project or research result into an attorney-reviewable invention disclosure packet: what problem is solved, what technical means solve it, why it differs from nearby work, what embodiments support the breadth, what figures are needed, and what counsel still needs to decide.

Read references/patent-resource-map.md before jurisdiction- or filing-sensitive work. It records the peer skills, official sources, borrowed mechanisms and honest boundaries. Read references/patent-interview-and-search.md before patent-point mining, public search, claim-ladder drafting or attorney handoff. It contains the detailed interview, search and QC rules.

Non-negotiable boundaries

1. This skill is not legal advice and never certifies READY_TO_FILE. Deliver only DRAFT, NEEDS_USER_INPUT, or READY_FOR_ATTORNEY_REVIEW.
2. Do not guarantee grant, novelty, inventive step, non-infringement, validity, ownership, freedom to operate, or registration outcome.
3. Preserve uncertainty. If a search, date, assignee, inventor, public disclosure, foreign-filing rule, or priority fact is not verified, write UNKNOWN, PLANNED, or UNAVAILABLE with the next check.
4. Evidence comes from real artifacts: repository files, design docs, lab notes, papers, experiment logs, issue discussions or user-supplied records. Keep relative locators and SHA-256. Do not invent implementation details.
5. Patent figures must be programmatic/vector/manual sources such as Mermaid, Graphviz, PlantUML or SVG. Do not use AI-generated bitmap images for patent drawings.
6. Keep the skill off the research DAG. It has no stage, no STAGE_GATES, no ROUTES, no light.findings.v1, and no scientific back-edge.

Workflow

1. Intake the decision facts and risk triage

Ask for or mark UNKNOWN:

• jurisdiction and intended route: CN invention/utility model, US provisional, US nonprovisional, PCT, EP, or undecided;
• owner/applicant, inventors/contributors, employment or sponsor constraints;
• public disclosures, papers, demos, GitHub releases, sales, thesis defense, posters, standards submissions, and their dates;
• deadline, prior filings, priority claim, secrecy/export/confidentiality risk;
• whether a licensed attorney or patent agent will review the output.

Record risk_triage for public disclosure, ownership/inventorship, foreign-filing/secrecy and trade-secret redaction. Stop for the user when a public disclosure, ownership dispute, foreign filing strategy, secrecy review, or filing deadline could change the next action.

2. Build the evidence packet

Scan only files placed in scope. For each source artifact record:

• id, relative path, sha256, freshness/date if known;
• what claim element or embodiment it supports;
• whether private or third-party confidential content must be redacted before sharing with outside counsel.

If the source is a paper, product demo, notebook, API contract, dataset or diagram, bind the exact locator. Do not let chat memory become evidence.

3. Mine patent points with problem-solution-effect discipline

For each candidate patent point, write:

• technical problem, not business desire;
• concrete technical means, algorithm, architecture, protocol, data structure, control loop, signal processing, model pipeline, hardware arrangement or UI interaction rule;
• technical effect and measurable advantage;
• distinguishing features versus the closest known work;
• fallback embodiments, alternatives, parameter ranges and failure cases;
• support artifact IDs for every feature.

Prefer one strong, defensible invention story over a pile of vague features. Ask targeted questions for tacit knowledge that the repo cannot show. Keep a short inventor interview log: problem, failed alternatives, key insight, constraints, contributors, disclosure dates and known prior art.

4. Do prior-art / novelty-context work honestly

Search the relevant official or public sources available in the current environment, then record:

• databases/pages searched, query strings, date, filters and failures;
• nearest results with locators and relationship to the invention;
• whether the search is VERIFIED, PLANNED, UNKNOWN, or UNAVAILABLE.

Keep inventor_known_prior_art separate from prior_art. The former is what the team already knows; the latter is the agent-run public search log. A verified public search records searched_sources; if non-patent literature is not searched, write why.

Do not call this a legal novelty opinion. If search coverage is shallow, say so and list the missing source or professional search still needed.

5. Build the claim ladder

Before drafting final sections, write a claim strategy:

• broadest defensible technical point;
• dependent/fallback positions and why each is narrower;
• enablement support summary: embodiments, variants, parameter ranges, edge cases and alternatives;
• artifact support for every strategy item.

If the broad point is unsupported, narrow it or mark it as counsel question.

6. Draft the disclosure for counsel

Use a plain, editable structure:

1. title and technical field;
2. background and nearest known approaches;
3. technical problem;
4. summary of the technical solution;
5. beneficial technical effects;
6. figure list and programmatic figure sources;
7. detailed embodiments, variants and fallback implementations;
8. draft patent points or draft claims with element-level support;
9. novelty/difference table;
10. open questions for attorney or patent agent review.

Claims are only drafts for review. Keep terminology consistent with the description and avoid over-broad elements unsupported by artifacts.

7. Run the machine gate before delivery

Create a packet following templates/patent-disclosure-packet.example.json, then run:

bashCopy code
python scripts/disclosure_gate.py --packet patent-disclosure-packet.json --base <project-root> --as-of 2026-07-05
python scripts/disclosure_gate.py --selftest

The gate must pass before saying the packet is ready for attorney review. It checks risk triage, inventor-known prior art, public search coverage, claim ladder, support mapping, figure source, QC flags and anti-overclaim language. A failed gate means fix the packet, lower the claim, or mark the missing fact.

ACT / ASK / NEVER

ACT:

• bind every invention feature and draft claim element to source artifacts;
• use official/current sources for jurisdiction-specific requirements;
• produce counsel-facing open questions, not hidden assumptions;
• generate figures as Mermaid/Graphviz/PlantUML/SVG or other auditable vector sources;
• record prior-art search limits instead of pretending completeness.

ASK:

• jurisdiction and filing route;
• whether public disclosure has already happened and when;
• ownership/inventor facts that are not in the repository;
• whether to redact trade secrets before outside review;
• whether a risky broad claim should be narrowed or left as counsel question.

NEVER:

• submit, file, sign, pay fees, or interact with patent offices on the user's behalf;
• promise grant/allowance/registration, novelty, inventive step or FTO;
• turn generated pictures into patent drawings;
• infer inventorship, ownership, disclosure dates or legal status from code alone;
• route this skill into the Light research DAG.