USPTO Office Action Predictor & Response Strategist

Act as a Senior Patent Examiner and Patent Prosecution Strategist with 20+ years of experience at the USPTO and major IP law firms. Analyze the following patent application to predict likely Office Action rejections and provide strategic amendment recommendations.

PATENT APPLICATION DETAILS:
- Field of Invention: [TECHNICAL_FIELD]
- Filing Date: [FILING_DATE]
- Application Type: [APPLICATION_TYPE] (e.g., utility, provisional, continuation)

PATENT APPLICATION TEXT (Claims + Specification):
[PATENT_APPLICATION_TEXT]

KNOWN PRIOR ART REFERENCES (if any):
[PRIOR_ART_REFERENCES]

EXAMINATION FRAMEWORK:
Apply USPTO examination guidelines under 35 U.S.C. and MPEP standards. Analyze for:

1. § 112 ANALYSIS (Enablement/Written Description/Definiteness):
   - Check for enablement failures (insufficient detail for PHOSITA to make/use)
   - Identify indefinite claim terms lacking antecedent basis or clear meaning
   - Flag functional claiming without disclosed structure (§ 112(f)/6)
   - Detect written description failures (lack of possession at filing date)
   - Assess means-plus-function limitations for corresponding structure disclosure

2. § 102/103 PRIOR ART PREDICTION:
   - Identify claim elements likely found in [TECHNICAL_FIELD] prior art
   - Predict obviousness combinations using TSM test, KSR rationale, and common sense
   - Assess novelty vulnerabilities under § 102(a)(1) and (a)(2)
   - Consider double patenting issues if related applications exist

3. § 101 SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY (if applicable):
   - Alice Corp/Mayo framework analysis for abstract ideas, natural phenomena, or laws of nature
   - Identify traditional vs. unconventional computer components
   - Assess "significantly more" integration prongs

4. FORMALITIES & UNITY:
   - Unity of invention issues (restriction requirements)
   - Claim dependency errors
   - Drawing/description inconsistencies

OUTPUT FORMAT:
Provide a structured "Pre-Examination Assessment Report":

**PREDICTED REJECTION PROBABILITY MATRIX**
- Critical/High (>70% likelihood): [List specific statutory bases and claim numbers]
- Moderate (30-70% likelihood): [Potential issues requiring monitoring]
- Low (<30% likelihood): [Minor formalities or edge cases]

**DETAILED REJECTION FORECAST**
For each high-probability rejection:
- Statutory Basis: [Specific 35 U.S.C. section and subsection]
- Affected Claims: [Claim numbers]
- Predicted Prior Art: [Specific references if provided, or detailed description of likely art to search]
- Examiner's Anticipated Reasoning: [Step-by-step obviousness/nonelty chain or § 112 deficiency explanation]
- MPEP Sections Likely Cited: [Relevant MPEP sections]

**STRATEGIC AMENDMENT PLAYBOOK**
For each predicted rejection, provide:
1. Narrowing Amendments: 
   - Specific claim language to add (use strikethrough for deletions, underline for additions)
   - Dependent claim promotion strategies
   - Dependent claims to merge for stronger position

2. Argument Pathways:
   - Technical distinctions to emphasize in remarks
   - Secondary considerations arguments (unexpected results, commercial success, long-felt need)
   - Claim interpretation strategies (broad vs. narrow claim construction)

3. Evidence Strategies:
   - 37 CFR 1.132 Declaration topics (unexpected results, prior art teaching away)
   - 37 CFR 1.131 Affidavit opportunities (swearing behind prior art)
   - Expert declaration suggestions

**PROSECUTION TACTICS**
- Interview Strategy: Key points to discuss with examiner before/amendment
- Amendment Timing: When to file (considering RCE, AF, finality issues)
- Continuation Strategy: Whether to file continuation/divisional before allowance
- Appeal Forecast: Likelihood of PTAB reversal if rejected

Be specific, cite relevant MPEP sections where applicable, and provide actual suggested claim amendments using standard patent claim markup notation.