How Proguide Intellectual Property Office Built a Pre-Filing Patent Evaluation and Progression Process

At the start of the case, the inventor had submitted a technical disclosure, but the firm still had to decide whether it was sufficient for a pre-filing search and patent drafting. The documented questions concerned implementability, the effect of earlier public information on patentability, and whether the intended claim scope required adjustment.

The matter was a completed invention patent application. The case is de-identified, and technical details and client-identifying information are excluded from the public record. Sources S003 through S008 were verified and retained under editorial control by SNN.TW Deputy Editor Lin and are not available for public download. The submission did not provide hours, costs, database names or comparative case data.

SNN.TW describes the submitted method as a pre-filing patent evaluation and progression process. It begins with disclosure review, uses IPC and CPC classifications with technical-feature keywords, compares prior art, makes a Go / No-Go decision, drafts and reviews the specification, and files after inventor confirmation. This is an editorial description, not an externally certified method or standard.

The process produced six traceable stages: T0 disclosure-completeness review; T1 pre-filing search and comparison with two principal prior-art references; T2 progression decision and claim narrowing in response to prior art A; T3 patent-attorney review from v1.0 to v1.1; T4 inventor confirmation of vFinal and filing on 20 May 2025; and T5 direct approval by the competent authority on 15 January 2026 without an office-action response, followed by completion of the grant process.

The case involved patent engineers, a senior patent engineer or patent agent, a patent attorney, the inventor and IP administrative staff. The submission confirms use of global patent databases, IPC and CPC classifications, and a technical-feature keyword matrix, but does not identify databases, full search strings, hours or budget.

The supported results are completion of the six document and decision stages and direct approval of this particular case without an office-action response, followed by completion of the grant process. The search identified two principal prior-art references, prior art A led to claim narrowing, and the specification progressed from v1.0 through v1.1 to vFinal before filing. The evidence does not support claims of a general increase in approval rates or a stated proportion of cost savings.

Prior art A required a narrower claim strategy, so the initial protection approach did not proceed unchanged. The case did not involve an office-action rejection or response and therefore cannot show performance at that stage. A single approved case has selection limits, while de-identification prevents external reproduction of the search.

The process required sufficient technical disclosure, traceable prior-art searching and comparison, personnel capable of technical and legal judgement, an explicit stop-or-proceed decision, and versioned review from draft to final filing. Without those conditions, the outcome of this case cannot be carried over.