Collect
Pulls the complete file wrapper and prosecution history directly from USPTO data. No manual uploads, no re-keying.
The platform
From file wrapper to filed response
NOA runs the whole sequence: it reads the full file wrapper, models how your examiner decides, ranks your realistic options, drafts the response, and runs it through a separate review pass before you see it.
One connected workflow
A clearer path through prosecution
Analyze
Extracts and classifies every document, builds the examiner's behavioral profile, and derives the metrics that describe this case's position.
Predict
Scores your realistic response options against how this examiner has actually behaved in comparable situations.
Draft
Produces a complete response with element-by-element claim mapping and multiple strategic variants, in your firm's voice.
Verify
Runs the draft against a structured review rubric, flagging unsupported assertions, overclaiming, and scope risk before it reaches a partner.
A. Examiner intelligence
Understand the decision-maker
A behavioral profile for the examiner on your case: disposition history, rejection tendencies by type, response patterns to amendments and interviews, and how their behavior shifts by technology area. Built entirely from public USPTO data.
Examiner profile · A. R.
§102
§103
§112
Eligibility
Obviousness
68%Allowance rate
2.4Avg. actions
61%Interview success
6%Appeal rate
B. Strategy recommender
Compare the strongest response paths
Ranked response options with a probability estimate conditioned on the specific Office Action in front of you, plus the weighted signals behind each recommendation. Every number is traceable to a reason.
Recommended strategies
- 1Amend independent claim78%
- 2Argue claim construction54%
- 3Request examiner interview42%
C. Claim mapping
Connect every element to the record
Each claim element mapped to the examiner's cited references and stated position, with a status for each: addressed, needs specification support, or open. The map is the skeleton of the response.
Claim 1 · Element mapping
| Claim element | Prior-art citation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Processor configured to... | Smith ¶42 | Addressed |
| Receive image data... | Chen Fig. 3 | Support |
| Generate a confidence score... | Not located | Open |
D. Draft generation
Draft from knowledge you already trust
Multiple complete draft variants across conservative-to-aggressive postures and technical-to-legal framings, with scope-conscious amendment options that show you what you're giving up before you give it up.
Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Smith discloses a sensor array and a controller. However, Smith does not teach or suggest receiving image data from the sensor array and generating a confidence score based on the image data.
Moreover, Chen fails to remedy these deficiencies because Chen does not disclose a confidence score, let alone generating a confidence score based on image data.
E. Verifier
Review with a disciplined second pass
A structured reviewer pass that scores the draft against the criteria a senior practitioner would apply, flags assertions the specification doesn't support, and checks obviousness arguments against the governing doctrinal framework.
86out of 100
- Rejection addressed ✓
- Claim support ✓
- Citation accuracy ✓
- Argument consistency ✓
- Dependent claim 7 ⚑
- Interview statement ⚑
Integrations
Fits the way patent teams already work
Output arrives as a formatted document you can edit, not a locked interface.
Documents
Docketing
API
Cloud storage
Spreadsheets
See the whole prosecution picture
Bring intelligence, drafting, and verification into one connected platform.