Before & After · Fictional example
From raw engineer idea
to structured IP decision
A creative engineer should not need to write a perfect patent disclosure. They should be able to get the idea out quickly — and Grant:ed turns it into a structured case management can evaluate, complete, and later convert into patent work if it is worth pursuing.
Idea → decision draft
25–35 min
Target time from rough note to first structured case.
Evaluation support
76%
Initial completeness estimate before extra engineer answers.
Missing questions
4
Clear follow-up items before attorney review.
Next decision
Pursue?
Management chooses patent, trade secret, hold, test, or discard.
Input
How it arrives today
→
Output
What Grant:ed produces
Erik T.
Tuesday 09:14
“hey so I’ve been testing something this week. basically if you look at how the temperature on the cable connector changes rate over time — not just the temperature itself — you can kind of predict that something is going wrong about 40 seconds before our current cutoff triggers. I tested it on maybe 3–4 units in the lab and it seemed consistent. I was wondering if this is actually patentable or if someone already did this? Not sure if it’s hardware or firmware or both. probably needs more testing but felt like worth mentioning. maybe nothing but maybe interesting”
Invention title
Predictive thermal gradient cutoff for EV charging cable fault detection
Problem solved
Existing EV charger safety systems often react to absolute temperature thresholds. This may create a narrow intervention window where the charger reacts only after adverse conditions are already developing.
Technical solution
Monitor the rate of temperature change at the cable connector junction, correlated with charging state. Use gradient threshold — not only peak temperature — as an early protective cutoff signal. Potentially enables 30–60 second earlier intervention.
Implementation variants
A: Firmware only using existing sensors
B: Firmware + secondary sensor
C: Edge ML on failure precursors
Novelty hypothesis
Gradient-based cutoff as the primary trigger may differ from absolute temperature threshold approaches. Needs prior art review before patent decision.
Information still needed
Is this already described in internal test reports, Jira tickets, product specs, or supplier material?
Can it be implemented firmware-only, or does it require hardware modification?
What happens between detection and cutoff — user alert, derating, or shutdown?
Do competitor chargers monitor temperature rate in similar conditions?
Commercial relevance
Safety differentiator
Field failure risk reduction
Defensive IP candidate
Management evaluation readiness
76%
Strong enough for initial management review. Needs four targeted answers before attorney package generation. Target path: idea note → decision-ready case → attorney draft package if management chooses “Pursue”.
Answer the missing questions, then decide
Grant:ed does not force every rough engineering idea into patent drafting. It first creates enough structure for management to decide whether the idea should be pursued, tested further, held, protected as trade secret, or discarded.
Before attorney review
Questions Grant:ed would ask the engineer next
The goal is not more admin. The goal is fewer unclear handovers and a better decision before patent spend starts.
Can you upload the lab data or test notes from the 3–4 units?
What exact signal triggers the cutoff: gradient value, time window, charging state, or combined rule?
Is this visible externally in product behaviour, or mostly hidden inside firmware?
Could a competitor copy this by observing the product, or only by accessing internal logic?
Pursue
Approve prior art search and prepare attorney package.
Test further
Run more lab tests before attorney involvement.
Hold
Document and return for decision later.
Trade secret
Keep internal and protect through confidentiality.
Discard
Not novel, not relevant, or too early.