BlogPricingFAQ
Download materialsTry the demoWatch the demo videoBook a free demoLog in

Phone: 03-6629-3846 (weekdays 10:00-18:00)

Use caseIP departmentPatent applicationsDescription requirements

Using AI to check whether a pre-filing patent specification meets Patent Act description requirements and internal guidelines

We compared a near-final specification against Patent Act Article 36, JPO formatting, and internal filing guidelines, then had AI identify support and clarity issues in the claims with evidence.

ININDX Editorial TeamProduct Team||8 min read
Patent review desk with prototype parts, drawings, and measuring tools

"Even when we want to confirm description requirements before filing, manually checking each statutory item takes three full days." We tested how INDX Compliance addresses this familiar burden for IP filing owners using real product screens.

Background

Why patent specification description checks are so hard

An IP department was preparing a patent filing for the invention behind Product X. Among filing documents, confirming the description requirements for the specification and claims took the most time. Even experienced reviewers needed several days to compare every claim against Patent Act Article 36, JPO forms, and internal filing guidelines.

The difficult part is that defects may only be found after an office action arrives. Amendments and examiner coordination add cost and time, and in the worst case the company may abandon prosecution. At the root is a person-dependent review process where the basis for OK decisions is not retained.

Challenges encountered

  • Reviewers manually checked past office actions from experience, taking three full days per specification.
  • Support and enablement judgments were person-dependent, and review perspectives shifted when reviewers changed.
  • Description defects led to office actions after filing, creating a cycle of rushed amendment work.
  • Teams could not later trace which statutory requirement supported each decision.
01Trial

Describe the check in plain business language

First, there is no complex setup."Check whether the specification satisfies description requirements, showing evidence for each claim."We entered that in the same language a team member would use with a manager. AI automatically built the review workflow.

app.indx-compliance.com/start/draft

Your instruction (plain language is fine)

"Check whether pre-filing specification v1.0 satisfies Patent Act Article 36 description requirements, including support, enablement, and clarity, as well as JPO forms and internal filing guidelines. Show evidence for each claim."

AI generated the checklist workflowdraft · 4 steps

  1. 01Import relevant statutes and guidelines

    Import Patent Act Article 36, JPO forms, and internal filing guidelines.

  2. 02Assess description requirements for each claim and specification

    Check support requirement, enablement, and clarity item by item.

  3. 03Verify citation validity and confidence

    Confirm cited statutes and examples exist, then score confidence.

  4. 04Final human review

    Route only needs-review and non-compliant items to the IP owner.

Screen 1From a plain-language instruction, AI generates a 4-step workflow: import statutes and guidelines -> assess description requirements -> verify citations -> final human review. Review the contents and save.

No programming knowledge or complex rule configuration is required. The generated workflow can be reviewed and edited, then reused with the same checks for later filings.

02Trial

Run it to see pass/fail results with evidence for each claim

After saving and running the workflow, AI checks each description requirement against statutes, forms, and guidelines. The results are consolidated on one screen. The key point isevery decision includes the exact statutory requirement used as evidence so reviewers can verify the source instead of trusting the AI conclusion blindly. Tapping a row expands the highlighted statutory text used as evidence.

app.indx-compliance.com/runs/run_tokkyo-v10
Patent filing reviewSpecification v1.0v1.0

Compared against Patent Act Article 36 / JPO forms / internal filing guidelines / prior office action trends

Patent Specification Description Requirement Check

Run on 2026-05-21 | 9 checks

Evidence included

5

Pass

3

Needs review

1

Non-compliant

Compliant 56%
  • Decision evidencePatent Act Article 36(6)(i) p.1

    The claims must be supported by the detailed description of the invention. Broad claims require sufficient support from examples.

    Checked standard
    Patent Act Article 36(6)(i)
    Source match
    Possible conflict with statute
    AI confidence
    85%

    The broader concept in claim 1 may not be sufficiently supported by examples in the specification, creating risk of rejection for lack of support.

Screen 2A list of 5 pass / 3 needs review / 1 non-compliant item. Tap a row to open the highlighted statute or guideline text used as evidence and the reason for the defect.

In this test, AI found that claim 1 did not satisfy the support requirement as one non-compliant item. The broader claim lacked support from examples in the specification, a common gap often flagged in office actions after filing.

03Trial

Humans review only the needs-review and non-compliant items

The 5 items AI marked as passing have evidence attached and can be checked quickly. Human judgment is reserved forthe 3 needs-review items and 1 non-compliant item, 4 items in total. The IP filing owner returned the support issue to the drafting team, reran the specification after examples were added, and finally approved and locked the results.

app.indx-compliance.com/runs/run_tokkyo-v10/review

Final review (human confirmed)

Non-compliantClaim 1 support requirement

The broad claim lacks support from examples in the specification. Because it risks a rejection for lack of support, it was returned to the drafting team.

Humans review only the 4 needs-review and non-compliant items.The 5 passing items can move through with evidence attached, so reviewers can focus on judgment.

Audit log (tamper-proof)

  1. 10:14AI

    Assessed 9 checks (5 pass / 3 needs review / 1 non-compliant)

    hash c2d7…4f

  2. 10:31IP filing owner Yamada

    Returned the claim 1 support deficiency and requested additional examples

    hash e9a1…b3

  3. 13:55Drafting department Suzuki

    Added examples and reran -> support requirement changed to pass

    hash f4c8…07

  4. 13:57IP filing owner Yamada

    Approved and finalized all items. Moved to filing procedure

    hash a0e3…5d

Screen 3Left: humans review only items that need action. Right: every action, from AI decision to human approval or return, is automatically preserved in a tamper-proof log.

Every action and decision is recorded in a tamper-proof audit log. Teams can later trace who decided what, when, and based on which evidence, and reuse that record for internal filing management or IP portfolio reviews.

Outcome

Result: pre-filing checks dropped from three days to one hour

The experience-dependent review that used to take three days was completed from check preparation through final confirmation in1 hour. Most importantly, a support requirement defect that might have returned as an office action after filing was caught before filing.

3 days -> 1h
Review time per specification

From check preparation to finalization

100%
Decisions with evidence

Statute and examples available immediately

4 / 9
Items requiring human review

5 passing items move through

Key points from this case

  • Configure the check with a plain-language instruction. No specialist knowledge or programming is required.
  • Every pass/fail decision includes Patent Act or JPO form text as evidence, so people can verify the AI work.
  • Humans review only needs-review and non-compliant items, allowing them to focus on judgment and reduce pre-filing misses.
  • Actions and decisions remain in a tamper-proof log that can be used directly for IP department review records and internal audits.
Summary

Patents, policies, applications: rule checks follow the same pattern

This example focused on patent specification description requirements, but INDX Compliance works the same way across use cases.Provide the standard documents, such as statutes, JPO forms, and internal guidelines, along with the documents to check, such as specifications and claims, and compare them with evidence attached. The same workflow applies to internal policy consistency checks, contract reviews, ISO audit preparation, and any operation that requires checking documents against rules.

Try it in your workflow,starting with one document.

Bring a policy, contract, or application document, and we will demo the actual judgment screen. Closed-network and on-premise deployments are supported.

Download materials for freeBook a free demo

More use cases

View all
Use case
Internal policiesCompliance teamISO / PrivacyMark

Using AI to check whether a new internal policy conflicts with higher-level policies or laws

We compared a newly revised information security management policy against higher-level basic policies, work rules, and APPI requirements, then had AI identify conflicting clauses with evidence.

Policy review: 2 weeks to half a day, with zero missed issues
|8 minRead
Use case
ManufacturingQuality assuranceISO 9001

Using AI to pre-check an ISO 9001 internal audit and catch gaps in quality manuals and procedures

Before the internal audit, AI performed a first-pass check on whether the quality manual and department procedures met ISO 9001:2015 clauses 4-10, detecting missing corrective-action and audit provisions with evidence.

Audit preparation: 1 week to 2 hours, making missing requirements visible in advance
|8 minRead
Use case
Legal departmentContract reviewRisk clauses

Using AI to review a counterparty contract against internal contracting standards

We checked a counterparty service agreement against our contract checklist, subcontracting law, and past redlines, then had AI flag one-sided liability terms and unfavorable termination conditions with evidence.

Contract review: half a day to 15 minutes, flagging risky clauses with evidence
|8 minRead

Download the 3-piece product materials set for free

Free download