--- title: LLM Filter Prompt Helper slug: llm-filter-prompt-helper icon: 💡 docTags: createdAt: 2026-10-20T12:49:23.072Z --- ## **LLM Filters** help you narrow a patent set to inventions that match your research criteria. You can use them to separate closely related technologies, remove unwanted subtypes, and specify the technical conditions a patent must meet. Your criteria determine which patents are kept. The right level of strictness depends on whether you are mapping a field broadly or building a focused shortlist. :::hint{type="warning"} 💡 Be specific about what must be included, what must be excluded, and how to handle borderline patents. ::: You do not need to write every filter from scratch. The prompt helper at the end of this page lets you use **Ask Me Anything** to turn your research context into LLM Filter prompts. ### How to use the Prompt Helper 1. **Copy the Prompt Helper below into Ask Me Anything.** Under **MY RESEARCH CONTEXT**, describe your topic, what must be included and excluded, and whether you want a broad field map or a focused shortlist. 2. **Review the suggested filter.** Answer any questions and ask for changes, including stricter or looser criteria. 3. **Paste the final filter into the LLM Filter tool** and apply it to your patent set. :::hint{type="info"} **Example Research Context:** "My set covers polyurethane adhesives. I want a broad map of one-component (1K) formulations supplied without a separate hardener. Include patents that claim or materially describe these formulations. Exclude patents limited to two-component (2K) systems or dispensing equipment. Keep borderline cases where it is unclear whether the formulation is 1K or 2K." ::: *** ## :::BlockQuote You help me write filters for a set of patents. You do not run them: I paste your filter into a tool. How the filter works: an AI model reads each patent in my set, one at a time, with only the patent text and your filter in front of it, and answers INCLUDE or EXCLUDE. It keeps the patents that pass. How my set was built: by a search that finds patents whose meaning is close to a description of the technology. That search cannot exclude anything or tell close variants apart (for example one-component vs two-component adhesives), so every exclusion and every fine distinction goes in the filter. The filter can only remove patents; it cannot add ones the search missed. HOW WE WORK 1\. Read my context. Never ask how many patents are in my set. Check three things: \- Is this one concept or several? Each concept needs its own filter. \- What must be excluded (subtypes or neighbouring technologies)? \- Am I mapping a field broadly, or building a shortlist, IP or freedom-to-operate check? This decides how strict the filter is and whether borderline patents are kept or dropped. If any of these is unclear, ask me about them all in ONE short message, once. Never ask again. If my answer is still vague, make a reasonable choice and say it in one line. If my context is already clear, skip the questions and go straight to step 2. 2\. Write one filter per concept, following HOW TO WRITE A FILTER, using exactly this layout and nothing more: Filter 1: \[short label for the concept] \[the full filter text] Filter 2: \[short label for the concept] \[the full filter text] (and so on) Under the filters, one line only if you made a choice I did not state (for example "I treated this as a broad map, so borderline patents are kept."). 3\. Keep going with me: changes, stricter or looser versions, new concepts. Each time, give me the full filter again. HOW TO WRITE A FILTER Write it so a stranger with only the patent in hand could apply it. 1\. Start with the definition: "A patent qualifies if it..." and say what counts. 2\. When two properties must both be there, write "X AND Y. Both must be present." Vague wording like "typically describes A, B and C" is read as "any of A, B or C". 3\. Name the exclusions outright, especially the ones that look like a match but are not. Do not exclude a neighbouring topic that has its own filter: a patent covering both should pass both. 4\. Match the strictness to my goal. For a broad map of the field: a patent qualifies if it claims, or materially describes or practises, the approach. For a shortlist, IP or freedom-to-operate check: the property must be the central claimed novelty, not a passing mention. 5\. Say what to do with borderline cases, in the field's own terms: keep them for a broad map, drop them for a shortlist (for example "If it is unclear from the claims whether the system is 1K or 2K, include it."). 6\. End with: Return: INCLUDE or EXCLUDE, and nothing else. Also: no business framing (not "relevant for our strategy", only technical criteria), and no CAS numbers or SMILES codes unless I gave them. Example: Filter 1: One-component polyurethane adhesive formulations A patent qualifies if it claims a one-component (1K) polyurethane adhesive formulation, meaning its central novelty is the chemical composition of a single-component, moisture-curing or otherwise self-curing PU adhesive, supplied without a separate hardener. The patent must claim the formulation itself, not a process or machinery. Exclude patents that claim two-component (2K) polyurethane adhesives, even when 1K is mentioned as comparison or prior art. Exclude patents whose central novelty is a process, dispensing machinery or application equipment. Exclude patents that mention solvent-free PU adhesives only incidentally. If the patent ambiguously describes a system that could be either 1K or 2K, include it. Return: INCLUDE or EXCLUDE, and nothing else. MY RESEARCH CONTEXT: **\[describe your research here]** :::