We built Paximal to answer a clear mandate from organizations that draft patents, i.e., law firms, in-house legal teams, and outsourced providers: file more, file faster, and keep outcomes strong. In ordinary U.S. utility practice, first Office actions arrive after about 22.6 months, which is far too slow to evaluate a new drafting approach in real time. Because Paximal, the first and only fully-agentic, professional-grade patent-drafting system, went to market within the past 12 months, we focused on the earliest public signals available: patents issued from accelerated applications that move from filing to examination in months, not years.

For Track One cases, acceleration is straightforward: prioritized examination moves an application to the front of the queue upon a granted request and fee, so first actions typically arrive within months. For Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) matters arising from PCT work, the practical measurement clock begins at the PCT filing. PPH becomes available after a favorable International Search Report and Written Opinion (ISR/WO) (or other qualifying work product); once PPH is accepted, U.S. first actions likewise follow within months. These are the right file wrappers to study when you want the earliest publicly available signals on application performance at the USPTO.

How we made sure we were measuring Paximal’s work

Confirming provenance. We verified that each application’s entire (or nearly entire) specification was generated by Paximal. This can readily be done at scale without access to the original documents by comparing hashed n-grams of Paximal drafts to the later-published specifications; a high-confidence hash match identifies filings generated via Paximal.

How customers actually draft with Paximal

• Scope of automation. The entire specification is produced in a single pass by Paximal’s agentic AI; professionals do not prompt, much less type, the specification.
• Professional supervision (“alignment”). Practitioners align critical parts—such as the claims—by selecting our system’s suggestions and confirming or refining them.
• As-filed posture. Applications are filed as generated or with minor refinements; we defer to supervisory choices during alignment.
• Time accounting. We requested and received total “application preparation” project time directly from drafting attorneys’ billing systems. This includes analysis of inventor materials, the inventor interview, Paximal supervision (“alignment”), final review, and light post-edits. Attorneys may make post-generation, pre-filing edits, but these are minor and not significant in terms of attorney time.

What accelerated prosecution shows (with USPTO context)

• Allowance velocity. ~10% were allowed on first action, ~70% moved to allowance after one round of prosecution (one Office action), and the remainder were allowed after a second round.
  
  • USPTO context: first-action allowance is about 14%, and most applications require multiple rounds.
• Prior art & patentability. ~65% saw prior-art rejections under §102/§103 at first action; ~20% raised §101 (all software patents).
  
  • USPTO context: prior-art grounds dominate first actions, and eligibility appears commonly in a subset of arts, including software.
• Enablement & clarity. No rejections under §112(a) for lack of enablement; ~20% included minor §112(b) rejections for straightforward claim clarifications that were promptly cured and did not affect outcomes.
  
  • USPTO context: §112(b) commonly appears alongside prior-art rejections in ordinary practice.
• Amendment path. ~80% of prior-art rejections were traversed through targeted claim amendments, often clarifying in nature and, in some cases, simply promoting allowable dependent matter into the independent claims.
  
  • USPTO context: amendment-driven traversal is the standard path to allowance; success depends on original spec support.
• Preparation time. ~4 hours on average (total project time) to move from inventor materials to a filing-ready application using the end-to-end draft—including alignment and final review.
  
  • Comparison: traditional manual drafting is ~20-30 hours for a full application; informal surveys of “patent copilots” report ~20% time savings vs. manual, far short of an agentic end-to-end draft, where time savings are ~80%+.

What these outcomes say about specification quality

Strategic amendments work only when the original filing already contains layered, cross-supported disclosure (e.g., alternative embodiments, explicit ranges, species-within-genera, and clean figure hooks mapping to claim elements). The observed path to allowance—most often one round, sometimes two—paired with largely clarifying amendments indicates that Paximal’s end-to-end specifications arrive amendment-ready. They provide broad and fine-grained support to make novel/non-obvious narrowing moves while preserving commercial value.

Equally important, the §112(b) touch-ups we observed were minor, not cures for structural enablement or written-description defects. The conceptual scaffolding (e.g., definitions, cross-references, and embodiments aligned to claim elements) was in place on day one.

Agentic AI vs. “Copilot” tools in practice

Copilots (prompt-driven, fragmented) provide snippets that professionals must stitch together. The drafter remains the typist and prompt engineer, hand-managing structure, terminology, and claim/spec coherence. With reported savings at around 20%, total project times hover at ~16-24 hours and rely on heavy human orchestration.

Paximal (agentic, end-to-end) orchestrates generation of the entire, internally consistent specification in a single pass: sections are scaffolded, terms harmonized, embodiments mapped to claims, and fallbacks embedded for amendment-ready hooks. Professional time shifts to claim strategy, art positioning, and eligibility framing, with a quick final review, hence the ~4 hours average total preparation time.

What this means for the innovation ecosystem

1. More protection, earlier. When a complete, coherent specification can be prepared in ~4 hours instead of 20-30 hours, organizations can protect more ideas closer to the time of invention. That supports broader patent coverage and faster product cycles without compromising examination outcomes.
   
2. Quality at scale. The allowance pattern (single- or second-round resolution) and the amendment-ready posture show that automation can increase throughput while maintaining the depth needed to traverse §102/§103 and resolve §101 efficiently.
   
3. Access for startups and SMEs. Lower preparation time and reduced orchestration demands enable earlier and more frequent filings for teams that historically filed too little, too late. This narrows the protection gap between large enterprises and resource-constrained innovators.
   
4. Better use of expert time. Attorneys spend less time typing specifications and more time on strategy, such as with claims, art positioning, eligibility framing, and portfolio architecture. That reallocation improves outcomes per hour and strengthens the signal quality of filings entering examination.
   
5. Healthier prosecution pipeline. Specifications that begin with a clean structure and rich support reduce avoidable form issues (§112) and accelerate resolution of prior-art rejections, which can ultimately lighten examiner cycles and shorten the path to allowance across the board.

Bottom line

We generate the entire specification in a single pass, and professionals supervise, align to the claims, and make minor refinements as desired. That combination yields high-quality, amendment-ready specifications that are resilient in form and substance and fast to prepare. For organizations that draft patents (e.g., law firms, in-house teams, and outsourced providers), this is the performance profile that matters. And it’s achievable now with Paximal.

‍

‍

‍

‍