AI Patent Drafting: 5 Prompts to Prevent Hallucination & Ensure Technical Accuracy
Key Takeaways
- •This approach is optimized for patent attorneys/agents (US, EP, JP, CN) seeking to maintain legal and technical integrity during AI-assisted drafting
- •This overstatement can inadvertently weaken the Inventive Step (Non-obviousness) of the current invention during prosecution
- •[Prompt Example 1] "The following is the inventor's memo regarding the 'Problem(s) of the Prior Art
- •' [Input Text] : The existing Method A suffers from sensor corrosion in high humidity conditions
- •[Instruction Set] : Based only on the input text provided, draft the Background Art section
Specific Prompt Examples for Drafting Patent Specifications (Optimized for Patent Professionals)
Introducing 5 Highly Specific Prompt Examples to Systematically Prevent AI Hallucinations (Inaccurate Generation) at the Sectional Level of a Patent Specification. This approach is optimized for patent attorneys/agents (US, EP, JP, CN) seeking to maintain legal and technical integrity during AI-assisted drafting.-----Case 1. Drafting the Background Art: Preventing Overgeneralization of Prior Art Limitations
When drafting the Background Art section, LLMs (Large Language Models) often excessively exaggerate the known problems of the Prior Art. This overstatement can inadvertently weaken the Inventive Step (Non-obviousness) of the current invention during prosecution.
[Prompt Example 1] "The following is the inventor's memo regarding the 'Problem(s) of the Prior Art.' [Input Text]: The existing Method A suffers from sensor corrosion in high humidity conditions.
[Instruction Set]: Based only on the input text provided, draft the Background Art section.
Absolutely do not overgeneralize by stating phrases like 'all existing technologies have failed.'
Do not introduce drawbacks not present in the source text (e.g., battery or communication problems) in addition to the input problem of 'sensor corrosion.'
Describe the limitations of the Prior Art solely from the perspective of 'Moisture Resistance (Damp-Proofing).'"
-----Case 2. Detailed Description: Standardizing and Fixing Terminology (Definitions)
If an inventor inconsistently uses terms (e.g., 'Controller' vs. 'Control Unit'), the AI will become confused, leading to ambiguity in the Claims and Detailed Description. Standardizing the terminology at the start is crucial.
[Prompt Example 2] "When drafting this specification, treat the following [Glossary/Terminology Dictionary] as an absolute, non-negotiable standard.
'Brain' in the Invention Disclosure Form (IDF) → 'Control Module (100)' in the specification.
'Connection Line' in the Invention Disclosure Form (IDF) → 'Data Bus (110)' in the specification.
[Constraint]: Do not arbitrarily generate new component names that are not defined in the Glossary above. If an explanation requires a reference to an undefined component, use general designations such as 'First Member' or 'Second Member,' but mark it as [Review Required] in parentheses."-----Case 3. Technical Effects/Advantages: Preventing Distortion of Causal Relationships
The drafting must maintain a clear, logical link (Component A $\to$ Effect B). AI sometimes incorrectly attributes the effect of one component to another (e.g., Component C's effect is linked to Component A).
[Prompt Example 3] "Draft the Technical Effects/Advantages (or 'Summary of the Invention') according to the [Mapping Table] below.
Component: Dual Chamber Structure $\to$ Effect: 10% Increase in Thermal Efficiency
Component: Titanium Coating $\to$ Effect: Enhanced Wear Resistance
[Warning]: Do not state that the Titanium Coating results in increased thermal efficiency. Describe each Component and its corresponding Effect with a strict one-to-one mapping, without intermixing the causal links."-----Case 4. Numerical Limitations: Prohibiting Arbitrary Generation of Optimal Ranges
AI often generates unsubstantiated 'best mode' or 'preferred' ranges (e.g., "Preferably, the temperature is 10~20 degrees"). This can lead to serious legal issues if the range is not supported by the invention.
[Prompt Example 4] "These are the principles for describing Numerical Parameters (Values) in the Detailed Description of the Invention.
Other than the specific numerical values explicitly stated in the Invention Disclosure Form (IDF) (e.g., 50mm, 100°), the AI must not arbitrarily generate a 'Preferred Range' or 'Optimal Range' through inference.
If a numerical range appears necessary for claim support, state [Inventor Confirmation Required] without filling in the actual numbers."
-----Case 5. Brief Description of Drawings: Preventing Mention of Non-Existent Figures
This prevents the AI from falsely describing drawings not included in the original filing, such as writing, "Fig. 4 is a Modified Embodiment," when the filing only contains three drawings.
[Prompt Example 5] "The total number of attached drawings is three (Figs. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3). [Instruction Set]: When drafting the 'Brief Description of Drawings' section, describe only from Fig. 1 to Fig. 3. Absolutely do not generate non-existent figure numbers such as 'Fig. 4' or 'Fig. 5.' If there is remaining content that needs explanation, incorporate it into the detailed description of Fig. 3."
