Sparlo is a rigorous analysis engine for patent prosecution.

Hand it an office action, a draft, or a patent. Get back a report grounded in the actual record, citation by citation.

14-day free trial · 5 analyses · no card, no demo · cancel anytime.

Office Action AnalysisApp. 19/382,753 · Public record
Examiner S. Lee · AU 1613Allowance 58% (n=342)Avg 2.67 OAs to allowanceInterviews in 31%
ClaimRecommended pathConfidence
19Obtain reference — verify firstCited element not found in retrieved artunverified
22Argue — conclusory rationaleGrounded in the reference’s own claimsModerate
26Review — no argument identifiedNo argument or amendment addressed this claimlow
27Obtain reference — verify firstMissing element rests on unretrieved artunverified
Where a rejection rests on art the record never retrieved, it’s flagged unverified — not argued against.Read the full analysis →

Respond to an Office Action

The response, worked out before you draft it.

Drop in the office action and the specification. About ten minutes later: the rejection map, the claim chart, a ranked argument bank, and a stress test that argues back — as your examiner.

It never argues against art it hasn’t read — an unretrievable reference is flagged, and the claim gets a verify-first posture.

Your stipulations are taken as given. Concede a point and every argument scopes to what’s left contestable.

It ranks arguments and marks what’s fragile. It never tells you a claim is patentable — that call is yours.

You write the response. The analysis is already done when you sit down.

Argument BankRanked · strongest first
1
Claim constructionSurvives

Whether §112(f) is invoked at all — 'filtering' may connote sufficient structure

MPEP § 2181 · § 2173.02

2
Corresponding structureSurvives

Identify the disclosed filter as the §112(f) corresponding structure — defeats both §112(b) and §112(a)

MPEP § 2181 · § 2163.03

3
Written descriptionSurvives

Point to the disclosed structure showing possession, not to redundancy

MPEP § 2163

4
DefinitenessFragile

Reasonable-certainty rebuttal to the §112(b) indefiniteness finding

MPEP § 2173 · § 2173.06(II)

StipulationsTaken as given

“Assume hypothetical reference X teaches every limitation the examiner maps to it (Fig. 1 elements 1–4, Fig. 2, page 5 lines 10–25). Do not contest X’s teachings. Focus the analysis on the §112 issues and claim construction.”

Provided by the attorney and taken as settled — the analysis scopes its arguments to the remaining contestable points.

Why not just paste it into a chatbot?

A chatbot answers from memory. Sparlo verifies against the record.

Both sound authoritative. Only one is checked. Every analysis runs a fixed multi-stage pipeline over the actual file — and anything it can’t confirm is flagged, not asserted.

Grounded in source text

It reads what the examiner cited

Every cited reference is chased down; every quote is checked against source text. What can’t be retrieved is marked unverified — and never argued against.

Bekerman — claim text retrievedThomas — not retrieved · unverified4 Bekerman quotes flagged — verify first

USPTO public data

It knows the examiner’s record

Allowance rate, actions to allowance, interview and RCE patterns for the examiner assigned — each with its sample size. The stress test argues as that examiner.

Allowance 58% (n=342)Avg 2.67 OAs · interviews 31%

Checkable output

It shows its work

Every argument carries its MPEP section and a one-click verify link. A grounding log records what was checked — and what couldn’t be confirmed.

MPEP § 2143 · § 2144.05Grounding log · 5 flags

Proof strips transcribed from the published analysis of App. 19/382,753 — the same public-record run shown in the hero.

Confidentiality architecture

Built for privileged work — checkable line by line.

A careless disclosure isn’t a privacy incident — it’s prior art against your own client. Here is exactly what leaves the boundary, per job.

What leaves the boundary, per job

Respond to an Office Action
Your office action and specification stay in-boundary. Reference checks, when run, reach Exa + Google Patents only.
Review My Draft
Nothing leaves. Zero external calls.
Draft an Application
Nothing leaves. Zero external calls.
Patentability & Moat Analysis
Prior-art queries reach Exa + Google Patents only, built from generalized invention terms. The disclosure itself never leaves.
Invalidity Search
The target patent is public record. It is fetched by number; prior-art queries built from its own published language reach Exa + Google Patents. No client documents are involved.

No training on your inputs, per-report isolation, a data-egress log on every run, and passcode-only sharing. Model calls go directly to Anthropic, with provider failover disabled — your content is never rerouted to another provider.

Example Library

Read a finished analysis.

Every example ran on the public record, through the same pipeline your matter would. Pick one and read the actual work product.

View all examples →

Office Action Analysis · Biotech

Office Action Analysis — App 19650706 (public record)

Office action analysis of application 19650706 — generated on a public USPTO office action, no confidential disclosure.

4Rejections mapped
19Claims worked
10Arguments built

Per-claim strategy · sample

Cl. 61Arguehigh
Cl. 62Arguehigh
Cl. 63Arguehigh

9-Section deliverable

01 About·02 Fastest Path·03 Per Claim Strategy·04 Rejection Map·05 Reference Reality Check·06 Claim Chart·07 Argument Bank·08 Grounding Summary·09 Egress Log

Pricing

Priced per seat. Standard usage included.

Month-to-month, cancel anytime. Start solo; pool seats or move to a flat firm license when you’re ready.

Attorney
$299/seat/mo

14 days free · 5 analyses · no card required, cancel anytime

For the individual patent attorney who wants the tool today.

  • All five jobs — office action response, draft review, patentability & moat, invalidity search, application drafting
  • Standard usage included
  • Grounded prior-art citations with one-click verify links
  • PDF export
Start 14-day free trial
PracticeMost popular
$249/seat/mo

3-seat minimum · usage pooled across the team

For the prosecution practice group working matters together.

  • Everything in Attorney, pooled across your team
  • Standard usage included
  • Matters and docket organization
  • Priority support and a team training session
Start now
Firm
Custom

Flat annual license · seats uncapped

For the firm that wants one price and no seat-counting.

  • Firmwide flat annual license — seats uncapped
  • ZDR, DPA, and a security addendum for your diligence file
  • Dedicated onboarding and a redline-calibration program
  • Per-matter access controls as they ship, and optional per-matter billing
Talk to us

Every plan includes

  • The full security architecture — your disclosure never leaves for outside search and is never used to train a model
  • A Data Egress Log on every run — exactly what left the boundary, recorded and reviewable
  • Consent controls — the protected terms you confirm are blocked by a deny-list gate before anything leaves
  • Passcode-gated share links — the shared page serves the finished analysis only, never the disclosure text
  • Pinned to your account, deleted on demand

Run your next office action through it.

Free to start · cancel anytime.

This site uses cookies to improve your experience.