# US Patent Draft Review Record

Use this blank record to identify defects in a working patent draft, connect
corrections to source material and recheck the saved revision. It is a review
aid, not a filing form, patentability opinion, quality score or approval.

Complete a downloaded copy in your own editor. Downloading this blank file does
not upload your invention to Patent Task. Follow your organization's requirements
when storing or sharing a completed record containing unpublished material.

## 1. Identify the review

- Internal matter reference:
- Purpose and limits of this review:
- Technical disclosure file/version/date:
- Inventor notes or other confirmed source identifiers:
- Claim set file/version/date:
- Specification file/version/date:
- Drawing set file/version/date:
- Exported DOCX file/version/date, if reviewed:
- Reviewer and review date:
- Intended recipient of the reviewed draft:

## 2. Inventory the source facts

Use locations another reviewer can find: a source file and page, paragraph,
figure, drawing register entry or dated note. Write "not found" rather than
inventing a fact. A sentence copied from an AI output is not independent
confirmation of a technical detail.

| Source ID | File and exact location | Confirmed fact or relationship | Uncertainty or missing information | Confirmation owner/date |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |

## 3. Review claims against the sources

| Claim and exact limitation | Disclosure support/location | Description support/location | Drawing/reference sign if relevant | Question or conflict | Required decision and owner |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |

- Have component relationships been checked, not only component names?
- Are materials, dimensions, thresholds and results supported by the sources?
- Are dependency references and intended antecedents clear in context?
- Which scope or legal-sufficiency questions need professional assessment?

Notes:

## 4. Record defects and proposed corrections

Quote only the passage needed to locate the issue. Describe what is wrong and
what evidence or decision would resolve it. Keep unconfirmed facts visible.

| Issue ID | Draft file/version and exact location | Original passage or figure reference | Concrete defect | Supporting source or missing information | Proposed correction/question | Owner | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |

Suggested statuses: open; awaiting technical confirmation; revised—recheck
pending; checked on identified version. A status records review work, not a
legal conclusion.

## 5. Cross-check the document set

For each area, record the locations actually inspected and remaining issues.
Leave unchecked work marked "not checked."

| Area | Files/locations inspected | Finding or open issue ID | Reviewer/date |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Source facts and unsupported additions | | | |
| Claim dependencies and terminology | | | |
| Description of components and operation | | | |
| Figure inventory and reference signs | | | |
| Summary and abstract consistency | | | |
| Equations, symbols, units and thresholds | | | |
| Exported DOCX numbering, images and editing | | | |
| Other review within the agreed scope | | | |

## 6. Recheck saved revisions

Reopen the named revised file. Verify the correction at its exact location,
then inspect related claims, paragraphs, figures and exported content.

| Issue ID | Decision and supporting evidence | Revised file/version | Related locations rechecked | Recheck result and remaining question | Reviewer/date |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |

- Reviewed handoff version:
- Issues still open:
- Technical information still required:
- Legal or scope decisions referred for professional review:
- Material not reviewed:
- Recipient and handoff date:

Do not calculate a patentability or quality score from completed rows. Finding
a matching passage does not by itself establish adequate written description,
enablement, novelty, appropriate scope or a successful examination outcome.
For an already-filed application, identify the application-as-filed material
and obtain the appropriate professional review before changing the documents.

## References

- Review method:
  https://patenttask.com/blog/ai-patent-draft-review-checklist
- DOCX inspection:
  https://patenttask.com/blog/us-patent-docx-checklist
- US drafting workflow:
  https://patenttask.com/write/us-patent
- USPTO MPEP 608, disclosure and document relationships:
  https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html
- USPTO MPEP 2163, written description:
  https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2163.html
- USPTO MPEP 2173, claim clarity:
  https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2173.html

Prepared by Patent Task Editorial Team. Date: 2026-10-20.
Patent Task is independent software and is not a patent office.