Check an application against everything behind it before you file. Five checkable questions for every claim, and a comment wherever something deserves a second look.
For attorneys and inventors preparing an application to file.
Reviewing an application before filing means comparing several large documents and catching where they disagree. The inventor's disclosure. The drafted application. What is already out there in prior art. Sometimes a product spec, or the transcript of the meeting where the inventor first explained the idea.
Holding four long documents in your head at once is slow. It is also getting less reliable, and not because reviewers have got worse at their jobs.
Ask the same question about the same claim twice and you can get two different answers. Neither is traceable to anything in the actual document.
Inventors and drafters both use AI now. Disclosures and applications come in longer, and a growing share of that length is repetition or material never meant to be read as prose.
It checks the word against something real and gets a definite answer. Good patent review already works the same way. Does this claim element appear in the description? Does this claim hold up against the cited prior art? Did this idea from the disclosure make it into the draft? These are not questions of taste. They have checkable answers, if the comparison is broken into pieces small enough to check one by one.
Patent QC takes the documents a reviewer already juggles and breaks the review into five checkable questions. You get back an annotated copy with a comment wherever something is worth a second look.
Every one is a question a good reviewer already knows to ask. Patent QC asks all five on every claim, whether the application has 2 claims or 20. It does not get tired on page 40.
Maps each piece of what you are claiming straight back to the paragraph in your application that explains it.
Catches the small technical mistakes that have nothing to do with the invention and everything to do with claim drafting mechanics. The kind that gets a claim rejected on a technicality.
Compares your claims against the references in your own search report and points to the specific piece of your invention that none of them cover.
Checks the application against your own disclosure notes and catches anything that got left out along the way.
Checks that your description backs up every part of every claim clearly enough to hold up once an examiner starts asking questions, wherever you file.
You decide what to do with each comment.
The output is never a bare score or a vague warning that something looks risky. Each comment points to a specific piece of text from the application or the disclosure, and explains in plain language why it is worth a look. Nothing is asserted that was not checked.
A method comprising: receiving vibration data from a sensor on an industrial machine; computing a health index from the vibration data using the model; and scheduling maintenance when the health index crosses a threshold.
The tool does the checking. The person still makes the call.
It does not matter whether the application was drafted by hand or with AI help. Patent QC checks it as written. The documents are not going to get smaller, so the review needs to get smarter about where it spends its attention.
of the time, for a review that used to be a full manual pass through every document
specific, checkable questions asked of every claim, every time
unexplained scores. Every comment quotes the document it came from
Patent QC uses the same three-rail layout as every Semantyr workflow, so it feels familiar from the first click.
Patent QC is open to a small group while we refine it with the people who use it. A first look at the output is below.
Documents keep getting longer. The review does not have to.
Get early access