Multi-jurisdiction prior art search across Google Patents, USPTO PatentsView, KIPRIS/KIPO, Espacenet, WIPO Patentscope, and Semantic Scholar. Generates bilingual keyword sets (English + Korean), IPC/CPC classification codes, and applicant spelling variants. Outputs structured search results with jurisdiction coverage flags. Suggests accelerated examination suitability and examination request timing for Korean filings. Use when the user asks to "search prior art", "find similar patents", "novelty search", "prior art analysis", "freedom to operate search", "patent landscape", or "patentability search". Do NOT use for claim-vs-prior-art element mapping (use patent-claim-chart). Do NOT use for detecting patentable ideas in code (use patent-scanner). Do NOT use for drafting patent documents (use patent-us-drafting or patent-kr-drafting). Korean triggers: "선행기술 조사", "특허 검색", "신규성 조사", "선행기술", "FTO 검색".
Instrucciones de origen · Vista previa de solo lectura
name
patent-search-sylvanus4
title
Patent Search — Multi-Jurisdiction Prior Art Search
description
Multi-jurisdiction prior art search across Google Patents, USPTO PatentsView, KIPRIS/KIPO, Espacenet, WIPO Patentscope, and Semantic Scholar. Generates bilingual keyword sets (English + Korean), IPC/CPC classification codes, and applicant spelling variants. Outputs structured search results with jurisdiction coverage flags. Suggests accelerated examination suitability and examination request timing for Korean filings. Use when the user asks to "search prior art", "find similar patents", "novelty search", "prior art analysis", "freedom to operate search", "patent landscape", or "patentability search". Do NOT use for claim-vs-prior-art element mapping (use patent-claim-chart). Do NOT use for detecting patentable ideas in code (use patent-scanner). Do NOT use for drafting patent documents (use patent-us-drafting or patent-kr-drafting). Korean triggers: "선행기술 조사", "특허 검색", "신규성 조사", "선행기술", "FTO 검색".
Patent Search — Multi-Jurisdiction Prior Art Search
Role
Expert patent search analyst who identifies relevant prior art across multiple
patent offices and academic databases, producing structured search reports with
bilingual keyword coverage and jurisdiction-specific metadata.
Prerequisites
WebSearch tool available for patent database queries
WebFetch tool for retrieving patent document details
Write tool for persisting results to outputs/patent-search/{date}/
Workflow
Step 0: Input Validation
Before Step 1, confirm and normalize inputs. Required:
Technical field description — domain and problem context (e.g., AI orchestration, distributed systems).
At least three key technical features — distinct mechanisms or structural elements (not marketing phrases).
Target jurisdictions — at least one of US, KR, EP, WO, or explicit “global”; default if unspecified: US + KR.
Graceful degradation:
If the user provides fewer than three features, extract additional features from any attached documents, prior messages, or patent-scanner output before proceeding. If still fewer than three, ask the user to name missing differentiators.
If no technical details are available (vague one-liner with no field, no features, no docs), stop and ask for field + three features + jurisdictions before running searches.
If jurisdiction is vague (“worldwide”), treat as multi-source global search and include US + KR + WO minimum in coverage.
Step 1: Understand the Invention
Collect from the user:
Technical field and problem being solved
Key technical features of the invention
Target jurisdictions (US, KR, or both — default: both)
Any known prior art references
If the user provides an existing draft or patent-scanner output, extract the
technical features from those files.
Step 2: Generate Bilingual Keyword Sets
Produce a keyword matrix:
Category
English Keywords
Korean Keywords
IPC/CPC Codes
Core concept
...
...
...
Variant terminology
...
...
...
Component terms
...
...
...
Effect/result terms
...
...
...
For Korean applicant/inventor names, generate multiple spelling variants:
Romanization variants (e.g., Kim / Gim, Lee / Yi / Rhee, Park / Pak)
Company name variants (e.g., Samsung Electronics / Samsung Elec. / 삼성전자)
Step 3: Execute Multi-Source Search
Search these sources in parallel batches (max 4 concurrent):
Source
URL Pattern
Coverage
Google Patents
patents.google.com/?q=...
Global, full-text
USPTO PatentsView
api.patentsview.org/patents/query
US patents/applications
KIPRIS
kipris.or.kr
Korean patents/applications
Espacenet
worldwide.espacenet.com
EP, WO, JP, CN
WIPO Patentscope
patentscope.wipo.int
PCT applications
Semantic Scholar
api.semanticscholar.org
Academic publications
For each source, use WebSearch with jurisdiction-specific query construction:
US: English keywords + IPC/CPC + inventor/assignee
KR: Korean keywords + English keywords + IPC/CPC + applicant spelling variants
WO: English keywords + IPC + applicant
Step 4: Analyze and Rank Results
For each result, extract and score:
Field
Description
title
Patent/paper title
publication_number
Document number
filing_date
Filing/priority date
assignee
Applicant/assignee name
abstract
Abstract text
relevance_score
1-10 relevance to invention (LLM-assessed)
overlap_elements
Which invention features are disclosed
kr_doc_included
Whether KR document was found (boolean)
jurisdiction
US / KR / EP / WO / CN / JP
ipc_codes
IPC classification codes
Rank by relevance_score descending. Flag any result scoring 8+ as a potential
blocking reference — these MUST appear in the blocking_references array in the
final JSON output. If no result scores 8+, blocking_references must still be
present as an empty array [].
Step 5: Generate Search Report
Write the report to outputs/patent-search/{date}/search-results.json with:
Also produce a human-readable summary at
outputs/patent-search/{date}/search-summary.md.
Step 6: KR-Specific Recommendations
When Korean jurisdiction is included:
Assess suitability for accelerated examination (가속심사) based on:
Green technology applicability
SME/startup status
Professional agency filing
Defense-related technology
Recommend examination request timing within the 5-year window
Note if prior art is predominantly in Korean (affects translation burden)
Anti-Patterns (Common Mistakes)
DO NOT use generic keywords like “machine learning system” alone — always combine with specific technical mechanisms (e.g., routing graph, embedding index, scheduler policy).
DO NOT skip Korean keyword generation even when the user provides English-only input — always produce the Korean column in the keyword matrix.
DO NOT search only Google Patents and skip specialized databases — all six sources in Step 3 must be queried per run. A minimum of 4 out of 6 must return results; if a source is truly unreachable, document the skip with the reason. Fewer than 4 covered sources is a delivery failure.
DO NOT treat academic paper publication dates as patent filing dates — use patent filing/priority dates for patents; clearly label paper years separately.
DO NOT report results without relevance_score — every row must have a 1–10 score.
DO NOT omit overlap_elements from any result — every result must list which invention features are disclosed (use [] if none overlap).
DO NOT submit results without at least one IPC/CPC classification code in the keyword matrix — derive codes from the technical field even if the user does not provide them.
DO NOT forget the blocking_references array — any result with relevance_score ≥ 8 must be copied into this array; if none qualify, output [].
Worked Example (Test Invention Context)
Invention: LLM Agent Orchestration Platform that dynamically composes multi-agent workflows from a skill registry using semantic search-based routing, DAG-based execution ordering, and resource-aware model selection.
DAG execution order, workflow DAG, topological task schedule
DAG 실행 순서, 워크플로우 그래프, 작업 스케줄
G06F 9/48
Resource
model tier selection, cost-aware LLM routing, latency SLO
모델 티어 선택, 비용 인식 라우팅, 지연 목표
G06N 20/00, G06F 9/455
Use this density of specificity — not generic “AI platform” terms alone.
Pre-Delivery Check
Before presenting results or writing final artifacts, self-verify:
Six sources, 4+ covered — Google Patents, USPTO PatentsView, KIPRIS, Espacenet, WIPO Patentscope, and Semantic Scholar were all searched. At least 4 must have returned results (any skip is explicitly documented with reason). Fewer than 4 = FAIL.
Blocking references — the blocking_references array is present (populated with any result scoring ≥ 8, or [] if none qualify).
Per-result fields — every result in the JSON includes relevance_score (1-10) AND overlap_elements (list of invention features disclosed).
Dual artifacts — both search-results.json and search-summary.md paths are populated or explicitly waived by user.
KR recommendations — if KR jurisdiction was selected, kr_filing_recommendations is non-empty with accelerated exam and timing notes.
Scores — no result row has an empty or missing relevance_score.
If any check fails, fix or disclose before delivery.
Output Artifacts
Artifact
Path
Format
Structured results
outputs/patent-search/{date}/search-results.json
JSON
Human-readable summary
outputs/patent-search/{date}/search-summary.md
Markdown
Constraints
Do NOT make legal conclusions about patentability — present evidence for
human review
Do NOT access paid patent databases that require subscriptions
Always note that automated search cannot replace a professional patent search
For KR results, note that KIPRIS search may require manual verification on
the KIPRIS website
Gotchas
Google Patents search syntax differs from USPTO — use quotes for exact phrases
KIPRIS romanization of Korean names is inconsistent — always search multiple
spelling variants
IPC and CPC codes overlap but are not identical — search both when available
Academic papers may disclose prior art that predates patent filings — always
include Semantic Scholar
Filing dates vs publication dates: use filing/priority dates for novelty
assessment, not publication dates
