No. The system prompt makes clear Claim shares fees and process only. Patentability, freedom-to-operate, claim strategy, and any individualised opinion require a registered patent attorney. The bot defers consistently even when pressed, which is the only safe configuration for a patent practice given the sharp UPL line around prosecution. Process information and current USPTO fees are fine; substantive opinions are not.

Add USPTO fees as a page or option and update when the schedule changes. SleekAI uses your current data, including micro, small, and large entity tiers across filing, search, examination, and issue fees. Because the bot reads your pages directly rather than baking fees into a system prompt, you do not have to redeploy or retrain anything when the USPTO fee schedule shifts. One page edit and every conversation is current.

Yes. Add PCT, EPO, and national-stage information as pages and SleekAI references them when foreign rights come up. The bot is particularly useful at flagging foreign-rights risk after a public disclosure, since most inventors do not realise that a US-filed provisional preserves international priority for 12 months but a public demo before that filing usually destroys absolute novelty for European, Japanese, and Chinese applications.

Yes. Multibot lets you run a software-patent bot on software pages and a mechanical or biotech bot on the relevant pages, each routed to the registered attorney whose tech area matches. The routing matters because USPTO art units are highly specialised and a software prosecutor is not the right fit for a mechanical kitchen tool, even at the intake stage. Each bot can have its own intake script and its own webhook.

The system prompt instructs Claim to remind inventors not to share unfiled invention details over chat. Sensitive disclosure happens at the consult under privilege. The bot captures category, public-disclosure history, and inventor count without trying to extract the technical core of the invention. Most patent firms add explicit language to the prompt that the chat is not privileged and the actual disclosure should wait for the meeting.

Yes. The system prompt can include language that flags trade shows, journal publications, Kickstarter launches, and YouTube demos, and warns about US 1-year bar dates and foreign absolute-novelty rules. The bot does not estimate whether a specific disclosure was enabling, since that is a substantive analysis, but it does ensure the attorney sees the timing risk before the prospect's scheduled consult three weeks out.

Yes, when both pages exist. The bot explains that ornamental design and functional utility are separate filings with different fees, different terms, and often different attorneys. For hardware products, it commonly suggests both a provisional utility and a design application, and routes the matter to an attorney whose practice covers both. The bot does not opine on whether the specific design qualifies, only on the process choice.

Yes. The system prompt can branch on company size. Solo inventors get the micro entity walkthrough, fee structure, and provisional-first guidance. Corporate IP groups get information about portfolio review, invention disclosure forms, assignment recordation, and PCT strategy. Most firms run a single bot with prompt branching rather than two separate bots, since the structural difference is roughly five sentences in the prompt.