AI for Invention Disclosures: Workflow and Guardrails

Not legal advice. Validate with counsel, protect sensitive data.

Why AI

  • Speed up structuring and reduce blank‑page time.
  • Improve consistency across teams by following a fixed template.
  • Surface missing enablement details via targeted prompts.

Suggested Workflow

  1. Collect engineer notes and artifacts
    • Design docs, code/CAD links, datasets, logs, bench results.
  2. AI structuring (template‑aligned)
    • Use a prompt that asks for: summary, background/prior art, technical details, variants, enablement parameters, diagrams list.
  3. Human review for accuracy and enablement
    • Engineers fill gaps, correct hallucinations, and add parameter ranges and acceptance criteria.
  4. Iterate and finalize
    • Produce one complete embodiment and at least two variants.
  5. Export package for counsel
    • Markdown/PDF disclosure + labeled diagrams (SVG/PNG) + attachment inventory.

Guardrails (Privacy, Security, Compliance)

  • Data minimization: redact PII, secrets/keys, and customer identifiers before sending to any external service.
  • Use enterprise/zero‑retention models where possible; prefer on‑prem or VPC endpoints for sensitive data.
  • Access control: restrict prompts and outputs to the project team; log access for audits.
  • Source awareness: require citations or file references for all non‑obvious claims; mark unverifiable statements.
  • Hallucination control: instruct the model to answer “unknown” when uncertain; require numeric ranges to echo their sources.
  • Safety review: run a red‑team checklist (privacy, security, export control) before sharing outside the company.

Practical Prompts

  • Structure prompt: “Given the notes below, draft an invention disclosure with sections: Summary, Background/Prior Art, Technical Description (with parameter ranges and at least one full embodiment), Variants, Enablement, Diagrams, Attachments.”
  • Gap‑finder: “List missing enablement details (ranges, materials, dependencies) that prevent reproduction.”
  • Variant explorer: “Propose 3 plausible alternatives and discuss trade‑offs (performance, complexity, cost).”

Quality Bar (Attorney‑Ready)

  • At least one reproducible embodiment with inputs, steps, outputs, and acceptance criteria.
  • Parameter ranges justified by data or engineering rationale.
  • Figures referenced in text; consistent terminology; acronym glossary if needed.

Handoff to Counsel

  • Include change log and open questions.
  • Provide contact for deep dives and a meeting link if necessary.
  • Related reading: Template, How to write, Enablement.