Invention-specific questions
Does the service adapt its follow-up questions to how your invention works, or only collect standard form fields?
Online services can help organize, draft, review, or file a provisional patent application—but those are different jobs. Compare the depth, deliverable, review, filing responsibility, and legal boundaries before you buy.
Updated July 22, 2026 · Attorney review pending · No vendor rankings
Service evaluation · 10 checks
Before checkoutA simple form may be enough to organize an already complete disclosure. Guided drafting may fit when you need invention-specific questions and an editable draft. Attorney-led work is the safer path when ownership, disclosure timing, foreign rights, deadlines, or major commercial stakes create legal risk.
The USPTO does not examine provisional applications. Draft preparation and USPTO submission are separate jobs unless a service explicitly includes filing support.
A useful service should make its drafting depth, deliverables, data policy, review boundaries, and filing responsibility easy to understand.
Does the service adapt its follow-up questions to how your invention works, or only collect standard form fields?
Does it probe other components, arrangements, methods, materials, or implementations beyond one prototype?
Does it help identify, organize, and integrate the figures needed to understand the invention?
Can you review, edit, and revise individual sections without restarting the entire draft?
Do you receive an editable document, filing-ready PDFs, drawing files, and a clear record of what changed?
Is review available, who provides it, how much time is included, and what questions remain outside the engagement?
Who prepares the final submission, enters inventor data, pays government fees, and saves the USPTO receipt?
Is the advertised price complete for the support level, and are government fees or add-ons clearly separated?
Does the policy explain vendors, retention, security safeguards, and whether invention content is used for model training?
Does the service tell you when ownership, disclosure, foreign rights, deadlines, or commercial stakes call for counsel?
| Service model | Often fits | Drafting depth | Legal review | Filing | Main limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Static form or template | You already have a detailed technical disclosure | Low; structure without deep follow-up | Usually none | Inventor | A completed form can still omit important technical detail |
| Questionnaire document service | You want administrative structure | Varies with the questionnaire | Varies | Usually inventor | Standard prompts may not probe invention-specific alternatives |
| AI-assisted drafting platform | You need adaptive follow-up and an editable draft | Can be high when the workflow is invention-specific | Optional by provider or plan | Varies | AI output needs factual review; legal judgment remains human |
| Attorney-led preparation | The matter is complex, urgent, disputed, international, or high-stakes | High and strategy-specific | Direct registered-practitioner involvement | Defined by the engagement | Higher investment and more collaboration |
If you are deciding whether software-first preparation fits at all, start with our DIY decision guide.
You already have a complete disclosure
Use the service to organize material you have already developed—not as proof that the disclosure is complete.
You need help developing a structured first draft
Look for adaptive follow-up questions, support for alternatives, editable sections, and clear deliverables.
You want legal feedback but will file yourself
Confirm the call length, review time, reviewer credentials, deliverable, and whether a separate attorney engagement applies.
You want filing support
Identify who prepares PDFs, verifies inventor data, pays government fees, submits through Patent Center, and preserves the receipt.
The facts create legal or strategic risk
Software-first drafting is not the right default for disputed ownership, imminent disclosures, foreign rights, urgent deadlines, or major commercial stakes.
Patent Pending Made Simple uses an invention-specific sequential workflow to create an editable provisional application draft. You choose whether to review and file it yourself, add licensed attorney feedback, or include filing support.
The software does not determine patentability, inventorship, legal strategy, or legal sufficiency. You remain responsible for verifying technical facts and final filing information.
The same eight-agent workflow creates the draft in every inventor plan. Choose whether you review and file it yourself, add attorney feedback, or have filing support included.
01
AI drafts · You file
$599
02
Attorney reviews · You file
$1,399
03
Attorney reviews · We file
$1,599
Government filing fees are paid separately to the USPTO and vary by entity status. “Patent pending” begins after the application is filed, not when the draft is generated.
Compare Plans →The USPTO permits pro se filing, but recommends registered counsel because patent preparation involves complex law, procedure, and technical disclosure.
The invention is central to financing, licensing, an acquisition, or a valuable company.
A launch, sale, publication, demonstration, or other public disclosure happened or is imminent.
Founders, employees, contractors, employers, or disputed contributors may affect inventorship or ownership.
Foreign filing matters or timing across countries may change the strategy.
You need nonprovisional claims, patentability advice, licensing, enforcement, or litigation guidance.
A filing deadline is close or the facts need individualized legal analysis now.
The USPTO accepts provisional application documents through Patent Center. Government fees are separate unless a plan expressly says otherwise.
Review every technical statement, inventor detail, date, figure, and document.
File through USPTO Patent Center or use the filing support expressly included in your plan.
Save the exact submitted PDFs, payment record, and official filing receipt.
Prepare the next filing decision well before the ordinary 12-month provisional period ends.
Some services provide only a draft and filing tutorials; others include filing support. Confirm who prepares the final documents, enters submission data, pays government fees, files through Patent Center, and saves the receipt before you purchase.
No. A provisional application is not examined. A successful submission does not mean an examiner confirmed that the disclosure is complete or legally sufficient for a later claim.
The USPTO says drawings necessary to understand the invention should be included. Evaluate whether the service helps identify and integrate useful figures, and verify every figure before filing.
No. AI can help gather, organize, and draft invention information. It does not replace individualized legal judgment about patentability, inventorship, ownership, filing strategy, or legal sufficiency.
Know whether you receive an editable document, filing-ready PDFs, drawing files, filing instructions, and a record of revisions. A polished portal is not a substitute for a usable deliverable.
Inventor plans are priced per application: Self-Serve is $599, AI + Attorney Review is $1,399, and White Glove is $1,599. Government filing fees are separate.
Compare DIY, templates, services, AI-assisted drafting, and attorney help.
Read guide →Follow the preparation, review, submission, and recordkeeping sequence.
Read guide →Use a practical structure without mistaking headings for technical disclosure.
Read guide →See the strategy call, drafting workflow, and licensed-attorney feedback included in the $1,399 plan.
Read guide →Your idea deserves a serious first draft.
Build a structured provisional patent application draft now, then bring in counsel when the timing and stakes justify it.
See PricingThis guide provides general educational information and is not legal advice. Service features and policies may change; verify current terms before purchase. Attorney review is pending, and this page is not indexed.