Answer the examiner objection by objection — with the basis checked.

The pipeline

From the PDF the office sent to a reply that survives its own audit.

Each step writes down what it did. The reply you file can be traced back through strategy, chart, citation, and quote to a specific line of the examiner's report.

1. 1

   Read the report as filed

   document-intake

   The examination report goes in as the PDF the office issued. Text is extracted, the instrument is identified from its own detection phrases, and the metadata the profile requires is pulled from the document itself.

2. 2

   Split it into objections, and verify every quote

   objection-classifier

   Each objection becomes a record with the office’s own numbering preserved, the claims it affects, the citations it relies on — and the examiner’s words checked back against the source document before anything is drafted.

3. 3

   Resolve what the examiner actually cited

   citation-resolver

   Cited documents are pulled and their full text retrieved, so the objection is answered against the reference rather than against the examiner’s one-line characterisation of it.

4. 4

   Chart the claim against the citation

   claim-chart-service

   Element by element, where the citation reaches your claim and where it stops. The chart is the input to the strategy call, not a separate deliverable produced afterwards.

5. 5

   Offer argue, amend, or both — with the trade-offs

   strategy-service

   Each objection gets up to three options, each with its own rationale, pros, and cons, and one marked recommended. Proposed amendments arrive with tracked insertions and deletions plus a clean version.

6. 6

   Check every amendment against the specification

   basis verdicts

   For each amended claim: do the cited paragraph references resolve in the specification as filed, and is the inserted wording actually supported by them. Unsupported insertions are named individually and the claim is marked pass, risk, or fail.

7. 7

   Gate the export on hard rules

   compliance-lint

   The final check before anything leaves. A failure blocks the export rather than producing a defective reply — see the gates below.

Anti-fabrication

An examiner quote the report does not contain cannot be used.

Every quote attributed to the examiner is checked back against the extracted source text before it can appear in a reply. Short quotes must match exactly; longer passages must match on a high proportion of consecutive word pairs, which tolerates a stray dash or an OCR glitch inside a long verbatim span while still rejecting a sentence that was never written.

Objection vocabulary

Eleven canonical codes, mapped to whichever office you are answering.

The pipeline reasons in office-agnostic codes; a jurisdiction profile maps each one to local statute. The same classified objection becomes s.2(1)(j) in India, §102 in the United States, and Art.54 at the EPO without re-teaching the pipeline.

Deadlines

Three different clocks, because offices do not agree on how time works.

A response window is not a single rule. The profile records which model an office uses, what an extension buys, which form requests it, what it costs per month, and what happens if the date passes.

The export gate

Four rules that stop a defective reply from being filed.

These are not warnings. Each one is a hard check, and a failure blocks the DOCX export instead of producing a document that would be defective on the record. A forms checklist runs alongside them — a procedural-disclosure objection, for instance, pulls in the Form 3 requirement.