PATENT FLOW · NOW LIVE

From invention to filing-ready. One flow.

Paximal takes a matter from raw invention documents to a reviewed, proofread, Born Strong™ patent application. Every stage runs on Paximal’s agents. Every decision stays with the attorney.

Free for USPTO-registered practitioners.

TRUSTED BY PATENT PROFESSIONALS

THE PATENT FLOW

Sixteen stages. Three lanes. Nothing skipped by accident.

Each stage says who acts — the inventor, Paximal, or the attorney — what it produced, and what comes next. Optional stages can be skipped. Nothing downstream starts until the stage before it is ready.

Capture

Upload what you have. Optionally let Paximal write the IDF.

Analyze

Novelty, detectability, business value, prosecution — run or skip, each a report.

Draft

The full application with figures, with alignment checkpoints on the claims.

Review

Proofread, attorney and inventor review, feedback applied as a new revision.

File

Filing package, approvals and S-signatures. Shipping next.

STAGE GROUP 3 OF 5

Draft

The full application with figures, with alignment checkpoints on the claims.

07 Inventor interview (optional)

08 Application generation

Stages 1–12 are live. Filing package, approvals and signatures ship next.

HOW IT WORKS

The agent asks. You answer. The run continues.

Alignment checkpoints.

Target for protection, the first independent claim, the dependent set, the figures — Paximal pauses and asks in plain language. Every answer is kept.

Runs and revisions you can reason about.

Up to three runs per matter. Proofreading and applied feedback create numbered revisions, and a review always points at one run and one revision.

Skip, rerun, stop.

Every optional stage has Skip for now. Every run has Run again and Stop.

PAXIMAL MCP SERVER

Run the whole flow from wherever you already work.

Every stage is exposed as a tool over the Model Context Protocol. Connect Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, your docketing system or your own agents, and start, advance, answer and retrieve matters without opening the app. Same account, same permissions, same SOC 2 boundary.

PROOF

Early outcomes worth paying attention to.

From a cohort of accelerated applications drafted by Paximal and prosecuted at the USPTO.

Allowance velocity: fewer rounds

In Paximal-generated accelerated cases, the path to allowance was typically short in the analyzed cohort: ~10% allowed on first action, ~70% moved to allowance after one Office action, and the remainder after a second. That’s what “born strong” looks like when quality meets scrutiny.

10

%

first-action allowance

70

%

allowed after 1 OA

Strong specs → precise amendments

Even when prior art shows up, strong specs keep prosecution surgical. In the studied cohort, ~65% saw §102/§103 at first action, and ~80% of those were traversed through targeted claim amendments—often clarifying, sometimes by promoting allowable dependent matter into the independent claims.

65

%

§102/§103 prior art at first action

80

%

traversed via targeted amendments

Strong §112 posture, fast prep

Quality isn’t just speed—it’s resilience. The observed cohort had no §112(a) enablement rejections, and only ~20% had minor §112(b) clarifications that were promptly cured. At the same time, total prep time averaged ~4 hours from inventor materials to filing-ready (including alignment + final review).

0

%

§112(a) enablement rejections

4

hrs

average prep (vs. 20–30 hrs manual)

Speed is easy. Speed with quality shows up in the file wrapper.

Allowance velocity: fewer rounds

In Paximal-generated accelerated cases, the path to allowance was typically short in the analyzed cohort: ~10% allowed on first action, ~70% moved to allowance after one Office action, and the remainder after a second. That’s what “born strong” looks like when quality meets scrutiny.

10

%

first-action allowance

70

%

allowed after 1 OA

Strong specs → precise amendments

Even when prior art shows up, strong specs keep prosecution surgical. In the studied cohort, ~65% saw §102/§103 at first action, and ~80% of those were traversed through targeted claim amendments—often clarifying, sometimes by promoting allowable dependent matter into the independent claims.

65

%

§102/§103 prior art at first action

80

%

traversed via targeted amendments

Strong §112 posture, fast prep

Quality isn’t just speed—it’s resilience. The observed cohort had no §112(a) enablement rejections, and only ~20% had minor §112(b) clarifications that were promptly cured. At the same time, total prep time averaged ~4 hours from inventor materials to filing-ready (including alignment + final review).

0

%

§112(a) enablement rejections

4

hrs

average prep (vs. 20–30 hrs manual)

Speed is easy. Speed with quality shows up in the file wrapper.

Allowance velocity: fewer rounds

In Paximal-generated accelerated cases, the path to allowance was typically short in the analyzed cohort: ~10% allowed on first action, ~70% moved to allowance after one Office action, and the remainder after a second. That’s what “born strong” looks like when quality meets scrutiny.

10

%

first-action allowance

70

%

allowed after 1 OA

Strong specs → precise amendments

Even when prior art shows up, strong specs keep prosecution surgical. In the studied cohort, ~65% saw §102/§103 at first action, and ~80% of those were traversed through targeted claim amendments—often clarifying, sometimes by promoting allowable dependent matter into the independent claims.

65

%

§102/§103 prior art at first action

80

%

traversed via targeted amendments

Strong §112 posture, fast prep

Quality isn’t just speed—it’s resilience. The observed cohort had no §112(a) enablement rejections, and only ~20% had minor §112(b) clarifications that were promptly cured. At the same time, total prep time averaged ~4 hours from inventor materials to filing-ready (including alignment + final review).

0

%

§112(a) enablement rejections

4

hrs

average prep (vs. 20–30 hrs manual)

Case Study 01 — Accelerated patent applications prosecuted to allowance at the USPTO

The results above come from a cohort of applications drafted by Paximal. Read the full analysis.

Read the analysis

Case Study 02 — How a high-growth tech company’s in-house team drafts patents with Paximal (RapidSOS)

Read the full story behind the results — we’ll email you the PDF.

Get the PDF

WHAT PATENT TEAMS SAY

“…the difference with Paximal shows up in the draft itself. The structure holds, the language is precise, and the application reads like it was built by someone who understands patent prosecution. That’s not something you get from a generic AI solution.”

user pic

Ted Wood, Esq, Founder & Managing Partner, Wood IP LLC

Ted Wood, Esq, Founder & Managing Partner, Wood IP LLC

SECURITY & CONFIDENTIALITY

Secure by design

Secure by design

Your invention materials stay private — and we can prove it.

Reach out anytime

Ready to run your first matter?

Start in the app, or sign in for your MCP key and run it from your assistant. USPTO-registered practitioners sign up free.

info@paximal.com

Reach out anytime

Ready to run your first matter?

Start in the app, or sign in for your MCP key and run it from your assistant. USPTO-registered practitioners sign up free.

info@paximal.com

Reach out anytime

Ready to run your first matter?

Start in the app, or sign in for your MCP key and run it from your assistant. USPTO-registered practitioners sign up free.

info@paximal.com