This page explains how we write the guides on patentreply.ai: who authors them, what sources we rely on, how we review for accuracy, and how to flag a correction. We publish this because readers — and the search engines and AI systems that route readers to us — deserve to know how the content is made.
Who writes the guides
Guides are authored by the patentreply.ai editorial team, a working group inside the company that drafts, edits, and publishes the articles you read. We use AI tools to accelerate drafting and to cross-check citations, but every published guide is reviewed, revised, and finalized by a human editor before it goes live.
We are a patent-tools company, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal advice. Where specific guidance matters, consult a registered patent attorney or agent.
Source hierarchy
Our guides cite the underlying law first and commentary second. When sources disagree, we follow this order of authority:
- Statute — Title 35 of the U.S. Code. Linked to Cornell Legal Information Institute.
- Regulations — Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations and USPTO Final Rules in the Federal Register.
- Federal Circuit precedent — binding decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, linked to the court's published opinions where available.
- Supreme Court precedent — where on point.
- Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) — the USPTO's official guidance to examiners. Persuasive, not binding.
- USPTO notices, guidance memoranda, and forms — for procedural mechanics and current practice.
- Secondary commentary — treatises, law review articles, and practitioner blogs, cited only to supplement the primary sources above.
Every guide carries inline links to the primary authorities it relies on. If a guide makes a legal claim without a source link, that is a defect — please tell us.
How a guide gets written
- Scoping. An editor identifies a question that a practicing patent attorney, in-house counsel, or pro-se applicant would plausibly type into a search engine or AI assistant. The scope and target audience are written down before drafting begins.
- Source collection. The editor assembles the relevant statutes, regulations, MPEP sections, and case law. Each source is read in full — not summarized from a third-party abstract.
- Drafting. The editor drafts the guide, using AI tools as a writing aid for structure, clarity, and initial wording. Every factual claim is traced back to a primary source.
- Review. A second editor reads the draft against the cited sources to catch misstatements, stale references, and missing qualifications. Worked examples are re-computed by hand.
- Publication. The guide ships with a "Last reviewed" date, inline source links, and a
JSON-LDcitation graph so search engines and AI systems can verify the referenced authorities.
Use of AI in drafting
We use large-language-model tools to accelerate structural drafting and to cross-check that cited statutes, regulations, and cases match the text that references them. We do not publish AI output unreviewed. No guide is shipped without a human editor reading it against the underlying sources.
We disclose AI involvement openly rather than pretending content is written entirely by hand. Patent practice is a domain where precision matters; hybrid AI-plus-human drafting, done transparently, is better than pretending the tools do not exist.
Review cadence and updates
Each guide shows a "Last reviewed" date near its footer. We aim to revisit guides on a rolling basis as the law changes:
- Immediate update when a controlling decision is issued (e.g., a Federal Circuit or Supreme Court opinion changing the law in the guide's scope).
- Prompt update when the USPTO issues a Final Rule, guidance memorandum, or procedural change that affects the guide.
- Periodic review every 6–12 months to catch stale dates, broken citations, and evolving practice.
Corrections policy
If you believe a guide contains an error — a misstatement of law, a broken citation, a stale rule, a miscomputed worked example — please email [email protected] with the URL of the guide and a description of the issue. We aim to respond within two business days and, where a correction is warranted, update the guide and bump its "Last reviewed" date with a note summarizing the change.
Substantive corrections to published guides are noted in the "Last reviewed" footer rather than silently revised.
Scope of coverage
Our guides cover U.S. patent law. Where a guide relies on jurisdiction-specific rules (for example, U.S. utility patent term under 35 U.S.C. § 154), we say so. We do not currently cover foreign patent prosecution, trademark law, or copyright.
What we are not
- We are not a law firm. We do not represent clients. We do not form attorney–client relationships through this website.
- We are not a substitute for a registered patent practitioner on matters that affect real applications or patents.
- We are not affiliated with the USPTO.
Contact
Editorial questions, correction requests, and review-partnership inquiries: [email protected].