For patent and trademark practitioners

Practitioner-designed.Attorney-supervised by design.

ZeroToIP searches, drafts and refines alongside you, and no change reaches the USPTO without your hand on it.

Where the hours go

The work that takes your hours is not the work that needs your judgment.

A first draft is mostly assembly: reading the disclosure, running the search, setting out the claims against what the search returned, keeping the numerals straight. It takes a practitioner a week and it requires a registration number for almost none of it. What requires the registration number is scope, sufficiency, and the decision to file, and none of that gets faster by being automated.

So the platform takes the first column and hands you the second, with the art, the reasons and the provenance already attached to it. You spend your hours where your judgment is the thing that is actually needed.

  1. Intake

    The platform does thisReads the client's disclosure and pulls out what is claimable, in their own words, with the gaps listed as questions rather than guesses.

    You decide thisWhether that is the invention worth protecting, and what the client has not told you yet.

  2. Prior art

    The platform does thisRuns the search, ranks every reference by the strength of its evidence, and reads the closest ones in full rather than by abstract.

    You decide thisWhich references actually read on the claims, which are noise, and what the closest one does to your scope.

  3. Claims

    The platform does thisDrafts an independent and dependent set against the art that was located, with each limitation traced to where it came from.

    You decide thisClaim scope. How broad to go, what to hold back for a continuation, and which fights are worth having with the examiner.

  4. Specification

    The platform does thisWrites an enabled specification with support for every claim term, and flags any term the disclosure does not support.

    You decide thisWhether the support is sufficient, and what the specification must not admit.

  5. Redlines

    The platform does thisProposes each change with the reason and the reference attached, one change at a time, and waits.

    You decide thisEvery change, individually. Nothing enters the document without your approval on that specific edit.

  6. Figures

    The platform does thisNumbers the figures, detects the callouts, and keeps the numerals in sync with the specification as it changes.

    You decide thisWhether the drawings show the embodiment you actually intend to claim.

  7. Filing

    The platform does thisAssembles the filing set, runs the gate checks, and states plainly what it found.

    You decide thisWhether to file, including whether to file over an open finding, which is recorded as your decision with your reason.

Nothing in the right-hand column is automatable, and nothing in it is optional. The platform cannot advance a matter past any of those rows on its own, by construction rather than by policy.

Supervision you can show

Supervision that leaves evidence behind it.

Without a clear paper trail, AI drafting is a black box. What nobody has solved is how you prove a human actually supervised the work.

An access log shows who opened a document. It does not show that a person approved this change, saw this finding, and chose to proceed for this stated reason. Ours does, not as a compliance feature bolted on afterward, but as the ordinary byproduct of how the work gets done.

filed_over_findings matter=US-2026-0413 actor=attorney:1182

finding=knockout_reference:US7,9xx,xxx status=overridden

reason="claims amended around reference; proceeding"

recorded_at=2026-08-14T17:22:09Z append_only=true

Inside your firm

Your matter, and your client’s way into it.

From disclosure through prosecution: total coverage across the entire patent lifecycle.

Two ways into one matter

A workspace is an account your firm opens for a client inside your matter. You issue it, you scope what it can see, and you close it. Your client never buys anything.

Your workroom

counsel.zerotoip.com

One continuous record: prior art, claim strategy, real-time redlines, and mandatory attorney sign-off.

A thermal regulation system for a modular battery assembly, comprising a plurality of cell modules arranged in a stacked configurationThe system of claim 1, wherein the controller increases the coolant flow rate in response to the temperature differential exceeding
[0006] Batteries assembled from discrete cell modules accumulate heat unevenly. A module near the center of a stack is bounded on both faces by further modules, each of which is itself generating heat, whereas a module at either end of the stack is bounded on one face by the enclosure and can reject heat to it. Under sustained load the resulting gradient persists and, in assemblies of any appreciable length, grows.
a temperature differential between cell modulesa temperature differential between non-adjacent cell modules separated by at least one intervening cell module
a temperature differential between cell modulesa temperature differential between non-adjacent cell modules separated by at least one intervening cell module

Your client's workspace

app.zerotoip.com

Their invention: the disclosure they wrote, where it stands, and your questions.

Invention capture · 7 / 7
Our packs run hot in the middle and cool at the ends. Every controller we have tried reads one module, or reads two modules that sit next to each other, and then guesses at the rest of the stack.
What we do instead is take the temperature difference between two modules that are not next to each other, with at least one module in between them, and drive the coolant pump from that difference.
Because the two modules are separated, the number describes the whole stack rather than one join. A blocked channel and a hard-working cell stop looking identical, which is the thing we could never get out of an adjacent pair.

Workspaces are issued, not bought. Your client does not buy anything from us and has no relationship with us to buy. Your firm opens the workspace inside your matter, your client works in it, their work lands in your book already attached, and you close it when the matter closes. The client relationship is yours throughout, which is the whole reason none of this is us practising law.

Phase one

Intake

01 / 03

  1. 01

    A disclosure, not a deck.

    Your client uploads what they have and answers five sections of plain questions about what they built.

    The specific: Problem statement, novel aspects, solution overview, key components, alternative embodiments. It arrives as a structured disclosure with the required fields accounted for, rather than as a slide deck and a phone call you have to reconstruct it from.

    Invention capture

    7 / 7 required

    ~8 min

    • Problem statement
    • Novel aspects
    • Solution overview
    • Key components
    • Alternative embodiments
  2. 02

    Already distilled.

    Patentability evaluated directly against their disclosure—not a generic lecture on patent law.

    The specific: Marketing language stripped. Technical novelty distilled. The system extracts the actual advance, frames it in terms of the underlying architecture, and secures inventor sign-off before a single claim is written. Counsel saves the half-hour call explaining patentability to a founder presenting a product roadmap.

    Distillation · confirmed by the client

    • revolutionary AI-powered platform

      closed-loop spectral controller

    • seamlessly optimises workflows

      varies emitted wavelength during cure

    • industry-leading accuracy

      resolves 380–520 nm in real time

  3. 03

    With a claim set and a first draft.

    A preliminary claim set built with them, and a first draft written alongside the invention details.

    The specific: Whether it was drafted against located prior art is a choice, and it is yours to enable or disable per matter. Either way the choice arrives on the record: a matter kept deliberately unaware of the art says so in the file. You never have to infer what the client did or did not look at.

    Preliminary claim set

    • 1.A thermal regulation system for a modular battery assembly, comprising a plurality of cell modules arranged in a stacked configuration
    • 2.The system of claim 1, wherein the controller increases the coolant flow rate in response to the temperature differential exceeding
    • 3.The system of claim 2, wherein the first threshold is determined as a function of ambient temperature, state of charge, or load
    • 4.The system of claim 1, further comprising a heat exchanger in fluid communication with the coolant channel and a pump
    Drafted against located prior art

    Either way, the choice is written to the record.

Phase two

Drafting

02 / 03

  1. 04

    Your entry point: an actionable draft and an organized review queue.

    A first draft paired with targeted redline suggestions against the art actually located.

    The specific: Neither a blank page nor a black box. Every proposed change explicitly cites the reference or limitation it addresses—turning review into evaluating an argument, not deciphering a rewrite.

    Your queue · 3 redlines

    [0006] Batteries assembled from discrete cell modules accumulate heat unevenly. A module near the center of a stack is bounded on both faces by further modules, each of which is itself generating heat, whereas a module at either end of the stack is bounded on one face by the enclosure and can reject heat to it. Under sustained load the resulting gradient persists and, in assemblies of any appreciable length, grows.
    • AI redline · claim 7

      a temperature differential between cell modulesa temperature differential between non-adjacent cell modules separated by at least one intervening cell module

    • AI redline · ¶ 0015

      a temperature differential between cell modulesa temperature differential between non-adjacent cell modules separated by at least one intervening cell module

    • AI redline · claim 1

      a temperature differential between cell modulesa temperature differential between non-adjacent cell modules separated by at least one intervening cell module

  2. 05

    Direct the machine, or refine it yourself.

    Say what you want changed and it comes back as redlines. Or edit the passage directly.

    The specific: ZeroToIP adapts to your style—your preamble preferences, transition phrases, and numeral conventions. But learned patterns only ever surface as proposed redlines: no learned preference can apply itself.

    What it learned from you

    41 accepts

    Transitional phrases
    12 accepts
    “including” over “comprising”
    Claim preambles
    9 accepts
    Apparatus first, method second
    Numerals
    8 accepts
    Introduced on first recitation
    Figure captions
    7 accepts
    Short form, no restatement
    Antecedent basis
    5 accepts
    Flagged, never silently repaired

    Zero auto-commits. Learning improves proposal precision over time, but nothing enters the document without your review. Every change remains a redline with your name on the approval.

  3. 06

    Claim strategy, without losing the invention.

    Restrategize the claim set in a window built for it, and the specification rebuilds around the new claims.

    The specific: Anchored to the client's original disclosure. The platform removes the need for speculative drafting by routing targeted questions to the client attached to the exact passage—storing their response directly in the audit trail.

    Claim strategy

    • 1.A thermal regulation system for a modular battery assembly, comprising a plurality of cell modules arranged in a stacked configuration
    • 2.The system of claim 1, wherein the controller increases the coolant flow rate in response to the temperature differential exceeding
    • 3.The system of claim 2, wherein the first threshold is determined as a function of ambient temperature, state of charge, or load
    • 4.The system of claim 1, further comprising a heat exchanger in fluid communication with the coolant channel and a pump

    Specification rebuilding

    [0037] Referring now to FIG. 1, a modular battery assembly 100 includes cell modules 110a through 110f arranged in a stacked configuration along a longitudinal axis. Coolant channels 120 are disposed at the interfaces between adjacent modules and are placed in fluid communication with a pump 130 and a heat exchanger 140. The number of modules shown is illustrative; assemblies of two modules and of several dozen are both contemplated.

    Anchored to the client’s disclosure throughout.

Phase three

Production

03 / 03

  1. 07

    Finalize and ship to the client.

    The draft goes back to their seat for sign-off, in the same matter it was built in.

    The specific: They see what changed and why, in the passage it changed. Nothing is exported, re-keyed, or emailed, so the version they approve is the version you file.

    Sent to the client’s seat

    • Claim 1 narrowed

      Around US7,914,232

    • ¶ 0015 reworded

      Figure language tightened

    • Claim 7 amended

      Housing limitation

    Nothing exported and nothing re-keyed. The version they approve is the version you file.

  2. 08

    File, docket, prosecute.

    File with the USPTO and run the matter from inside the platform afterward.

    The specific: Status, office actions docketed with the statutory authority that sets each date, responses, maintenance windows and renewal cascades. The record that drafted the application is the one that prosecutes it.

    Docket · Appl. No. 18/xxx,xxx

    • Filed2026-04-13
    • Office action · §1032027-01-22
    • Response due2027-04-22
    • Maintenance · 3.5 yr2030-10-13

    Each date docketed with the statutory authority that sets it.

  3. 09

    One portfolio, open to both of you.

    Everything your client owns, visible to you and to them at any time, alongside the docket.

    The specific: Deadlines, renewals and office actions land in the same view for both seats as they arrive. Your client stops emailing to ask where something stands, and you stop reconstructing the answer from a spreadsheet somebody updated in March.

    Portfolio · both seats

    • US 18/xxx,xxxOffice action due
    • US 18/xxx,xxxAllowed
    • EP 24xxxxx.xRenewal · yr 4
    • Ser. No. 97/xxx,xxxStatement of use

    The same view from your seat and from theirs, at any time.

Security

Scoped at the data layer, not at the interface.

An unassigned attorney sees an empty workroom because the query returns nothing, not because a screen hid it. That distinction is the whole of our access model, and it is the one worth checking before you trust any of the rest.

Your work is not our training data...

Client matters are never trained on
No disclosure, specification, claim set, or attorney edit is used to train or fine-tune a model. Not ours, and not a third party's.
Learning stays inside your firm
The system learns drafting preferences from the redlines you accept. What it learns is scoped to the firm that taught it and never leaves it.
No shared context between clients
One client's matter is never in context while another's is being drafted. Retrieval is scoped to the matter you have open.

Access is enforced where the data is...

Scoped at the data layer
An unassigned attorney sees an empty workroom because the query returns nothing, not because a screen hid it. An interface bug cannot widen access.
Workspaces are issued, not bought
A client works in a workspace your firm opens inside your matter. Access ends when you end it.
Encrypted in transit and at rest
TLS 1.2 or higher in transit, everywhere. AES-256 at rest for stored matters and their attachments.

The record is the evidence...

Append-only
Every consequential act writes an event. Nothing is updated in place and nothing is deleted, including the decisions you would rather had gone differently.
Failures recorded as failures
A run that failed is recorded as having failed. It is not retried quietly until it produces something that looks like an answer.
Portable when you want it
The record exports with its decisions, overrides, and the reasons attached to them. It is yours before it is ours.
Read the security architecture →

Questions

What practitioners ask first.

01Who is counsel of record?
You are. ZeroToIP is a technology platform, not a law firm. The attorney-client relationship is between your client and you, and nothing in the product creates one with us.
02Does the AI ever change a document on its own?
No. Every proposed change arrives as a redline that stays unapplied until a person accepts it. That is a property of how the drafting surface is built rather than a setting on it, so there is no configuration in which it behaves otherwise.
03What happens when I reject something?
The passage stays as it was, and the rejection is written to the record with your name on it. Rejections are kept for the same reason acceptances are: the file should show what was considered, not only what survived.
04Can I stop it drafting against prior art?
Yes, per matter. Some matters are deliberately kept unaware of the art, and when that is the choice the file says so in those words. You never have to infer it later from an absence.
05Is our work product used to train models?
No. Client matters are not training data. Model behavior improves from the preferences you accept inside your own firm, and those stay inside your own firm.
06What happens to the record if we leave?
You export it. The record is append-only while you hold it and portable when you want it, including the decisions, the overrides, and the reasons attached to them.
07Does my client need their own subscription?
No. You issue them a seat in your matter. They never sign up for a filing service, and the work they do arrives in your book already attached to the matter.

Book a walkthrough

01 / 04

First, who are you?

Your name and your firm, so the walkthrough is about your practice rather than a demo script.

press Enter ↵