Prosecution Workbench turns a USPTO Office action into a structured, source-linked map — rejections, claim elements, cited art, specification support, amendment options, and estoppel risk. You move faster without losing the thread.
A final action arrives as a wall of prose, a stack of prior-art references, and a deadline. Which reference reads on which limitation, what the specification actually supports, where an amendment quietly costs you scope — that mapping happens in your head, or in a claim chart you rebuild from scratch every time.
Prosecution Workbench reads the action, lines the cited art up against your claims element by element, and shows the passage behind every assertion. The analysis is there to check, not to take on faith — and when the record doesn't support a claim, it says so instead of papering over it.
The map is built before any prose. Draft language is rendered from it — never the other way around.
Rejections, statutory bases, the references cited against each claim, and the examiner's stated reasoning — pulled into structure.
Each independent claim broken into its limitations. Edit the segmentation and the analysis downstream re-runs.
Every limitation lined up against the cited art, each mapping quoting a real passage that is verified against the source.
Amend or traverse, side by side — each path carrying its scope cost, new-matter risk, and estoppel exposure.
Structured sections with USPTO-format amendments and a work-product appendix, exported to Word.
The two views attorneys live in: what the art actually discloses, element by element, and what each response path costs. Sample data shown.
The loudest treatment is reserved for what's missing — that's the attorney's opening.
Options, not answers. Scope cost is weighed next to allowance — the call stays yours.
Never files with the USPTO. The deliverable is an attorney-reviewable skeleton, not a submission.
No patentability, validity, or infringement calls. Those stay with the attorney, always.
Low-confidence and unproven analysis is marked, never quietly folded into a conclusion.
Allowance isn't the only goal. Every amendment surfaces what scope it costs you.
Alice/Mayo step framing; features tied to a practical application or technical improvement, surfaced for review — never an eligibility verdict.
Primary vs secondary references, the motivation-to-combine rationale, teaching-away and non-analogous-art angles, missing limitations.
Written description and enablement, antecedent-basis issues, and §112(f) functional terms that may need structure in the spec.
After-final reality is surfaced — RCE, appeal, and continuation tradeoffs laid out for the attorney to weigh, not resolved for them.
Built for non-final and final Office actions across §101, §102, §103, and §112.