---
title: "Draft a response to an IP Australia examination report"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/intellectual-property-patents-trade-marks-copyright-designs/draft-a-response-to-a-patent-office-action-or-examination-report/commonwealth"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A23-T1-R3-CTH"
practice_area: "Intellectual Property — Patents, Trade Marks, Copyright, Designs"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["CTH"]
last_reviewed: "2026-09-23"
---

# Draft a response to an IP Australia examination report

> Draft a response to an IP Australia examination report with claim amendments and arguments on novelty, inventive step, manner of manufacture, clarity and best method.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/intellectual-property-patents-trade-marks-copyright-designs/draft-a-response-to-a-patent-office-action-or-examination-report/commonwealth  
Last reviewed: 2026-09-23

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Intellectual Property — Patents, Trade Marks, Copyright, Designs](https://ailawframework.com/practice/intellectual-property-patents-trade-marks-copyright-designs.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | Draft a response to an IP Australia examination report with claim amendments and arguments on novelty, inventive step, manner of manufacture, clarity and best method. |
| What the lawyer must review | Check every proposition against the current IP Australia Examination Guidelines Apply the October 2025 computer-implemented invention guidance after Aristocrat [2025] FCAFC 131 Do not apply pre-Aristocrat framing or US Alice/Mayo Check amendments do not add matter (Patents Act s 102) Verify every case, guideline and office decision exists and says what is claimed Consider what any argument or amendment concedes Do not narrow beyond commercial need |
| Written for | Commonwealth |
| Applies to | [Draft a response to a patent office action or examination report](https://ailawframework.com/practice/intellectual-property-patents-trade-marks-copyright-designs/draft-a-response-to-a-patent-office-action-or-examination-report.md) |

## Checking plan

**Source-by-source verification**

Trace relied-on content to independent sources and check for relevant material the output has missed.

- What the AI does: Potential support includes preparing preliminary structure or wording. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope.
- What the lawyer does: Set the scope, verify the evidence, resolve exceptions and approve the final output for its intended use.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Suggested checking approach based on the task guidance. Complete the assessment for the actual tool, information and jurisdiction.
- Why: The plan reflects the described work and review requirements. Policy colours are not used to determine permission or checking.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Open each relied-on authority independently. Confirm its existence, current status, proposition and any quotation or pinpoint reference.
2. Verify the applicable jurisdiction and the version of each relevant law, rule or instrument in force at the material time.
3. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
4. Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

## Notes

- Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts. The checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*