WIREFRAME · non-functional design mockup · Patent / IP Patentability & FTO (Mockup A) · static illustrative data (DISC-2026-014) · the disclosure never leaves the firm's box
Claim-integrity score. Claim 1 fails §112; FTO blocked (design-around).
Six adversarial checks — every claim of patentability is treated as unverified
Patentability — will it be granted, and how broadly?
Novelty (§102) Flag
NPL (2018 conf.) discloses the binding + inhibition elements of dependent claim 12 — anticipation risk.
→ narrow claim 12
Obviousness (§103) Flag
Claim 9 obvious over US 9,YYY,YYY + the 2018 NPL (KSR motivation to combine).
→ argue or narrow cl. 9
Claim Scope (§112) Reject
Claim 1 is a functional genus; the disclosure has 3 species / 26 antibodies and no general structure–function rule — not enabled / no written description for the full breadth.
→ narrow claim 1 before filing
Freedom to operate — can the client launch?
Freedom-to-Operate Reject
The client product reads, element-by-element, on in-force US 10,ZZZ,ZZZ (subcutaneous administration of anti-Target-X antibodies).
design-around or license
Status & Bars Flag
Inventor's own publication 2025-05-20 vs intended filing 2026-07-01 (>12 mo) → §102(b) bar risk; a co-inventor is omitted (correction needed).
confirm date · fix inventorship
Blocker Validity Flag
The blocker US 10,ZZZ,ZZZ survived an IPR only with narrowed claims — a design-around path exists; FTO risk is lower, not zero.
design-around viable
Cards 1–3 = patentability (§102/§103/§112); 4–6 = freedom to operate. Status by pill + border, not colour alone: Pass = supported · Flag = conditional (narrow / design-around / fix) · Reject = unpatentable / blocked. Every finding is traceable (see audit drawer). No dollar figures — this is patentability/FTO, not a valuation (that is Mockup B).
Exception report — asserted vs supported scope
| Claim / item | Check | Finding | Asserted | Supported | Gap | Source |
|---|
| Claim 1 | Claim Scope §112 | Functional genus; disclosure = 3 species, no genus rule → not enabled / not described for full breadth | broad genus (all binders/inhibitors) | 3 species (cl. 7, 9) | the unsupported breadth | Disclosure Ex.1–3 · §112(a) |
| Product | FTO | Product reads on in-force US 10,ZZZ,ZZZ (subcutaneous administration) | clear to launch | — | infringement risk | Patent Center · US 10,ZZZ in force |
| Claim 12 | Novelty §102 | NPL (2018 conf.) discloses the binding + inhibition elements | novel | narrowed claim only | anticipated breadth | The Lens · NPL-2018-conf |
| Claim 9 | Obviousness §103 | Obvious over US 9,YYY,YYY + 2018 NPL (KSR motivation to combine) | non-obvious | arguable | obvious combination | MPEP §2143 |
| Disclosure | Status & Bars | Inventor's own 2025-05-20 publication; intended filing 2026-07-01 (>12 mo) → §102(b) bar risk; co-inventor omitted | no bars; inventorship correct | — | §102(b) bar + inventorship | §102(b) · Assignment db |
| Blocker | Blocker Validity | US 10,ZZZ,ZZZ survived IPR with narrowed claims → design-around path | — | narrowed blocker | lower (not zero) FTO risk | PTAB · IPR2023-00xxx |
| Patentability: 6 allowable · 6 conditional · 2 unpatentable (of 14 draft claims) · FTO: blocked — design-around available | before filing / launch |
Recommended position
Freedom to operate: Blocked — the product reads on an in-force patent. Path: design-around (the blocker was IPR-narrowed) or license, before launch.
Export patentability + FTO memo (PDF)
Send to docketing / matter file (stub)
Accept / override flags
Audit drawer (on click): Source = disclosure Examples 1–3 vs claim 1 breadth — three species, no general structure–function rule → claim 1 is not enabled / not described for the full genus under §112(a). Recommendation: narrow claim 1 to the disclosed species (cl. 7, 9) before filing. cf. Amgen v. Sanofi (2023); Juno v. Kite (Fed. Cir. 2021).
Secondary exposure (illustrative): the product launch and ~4 years of prosecution spend ride on positions DW fixes before filing — narrow the §112-fatal claim, clear the §102(b) bar, design around the blocker. The value driver here is malpractice / liability avoided, not a valuation.
Practice trend — this firm
112
draft claims screened YTD · 38 narrowed pre-filing · 9 FTO blockers caught — the practice-level view a boutique on free tools + manual work can't surface.
Bars = claims screened per month · amber = high-flag months.
Why on-prem: 56.2% of the market deploys on-premises and 65% cite privacy/liability as their top AI concern — invention disclosures never leave the firm. Hallucinated prior art is malpractice; every cite here is real and traceable.
Mockup only — illustrative figures, no live engine. Final figures come from the six-check engine per DESIGN-patent-ip-patentability-fto-verification.md. Companion Mockup B (acquisition / licensing / assertion — dollar-denominated) is planned.