メニュー
Assess patent novelty and non-obviousness against prior art. Use when user says "专利查新", "patent novelty", "可专利性评估", "patentability check", or wants to evaluate if an invention is patentable.
デフォルトでは、最初にソースを確認する Prompt が選択されています。直接コマンドに切り替えるか、ローカルコピーをダウンロードすることもできます。
インストールを決める前に、SKILL.md と SkillsMP に表示されている付属ファイルをお読みください。
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
直接コマンドでは確認用 Prompt が省略されます。実行前にソースを確認してください。
npx skills add https://github.com/ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open --skill patent-novelty-checkコマンドは1行のまま表示されます。コピー前に横へスクロールして全体を確認してください。
ローカルで確認しますか？SkillsMP が現在取得できるファイルをダウンロードできます。
Use when retrieving arbitration institutional rules (ICC, LCIA, SCC, SIAC, HKIAC, VIAC, МКАС/МАК при ТПП України, UNCITRAL) — fetching current version, verifying redaction applicable to the date of arbitration agreement, constructing URLs for official rule texts
Use when choosing the Polish legal regime for letters, requests, applications, complaints, petitions, public-information requests, KPA filings, PPSA complaints, RODO access requests, registry extracts, court-file access, tax/ZUS/cudzoziemcy/USC procedures, or professional lawyer letters. Prevents mixing UDIP, KPA, PPSA, RODO, registry, special-procedure, and advocate/radca letter regimes.
Use when preparing applications for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Poland, applications for setting aside arbitral awards under KPC art. 1205–1211, or opposing such applications — mapping Article V of the 1958 New York Convention to art. 1214–1215 of the Polish KPC, identifying grounds for refusal, structuring public policy arguments
SOC 職業分類に基づく
SKILL.md を表示中
| name | patent-novelty-check |
| title | Patent Novelty and Non-Obviousness Check |
| description | Assess patent novelty and non-obviousness against prior art. Use when user says "专利查新", "patent novelty", "可专利性评估", "patentability check", or wants to evaluate if an invention is patentable. |
| author | wanshuiyin |
| author_url | https://github.com/wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep/tree/main/skills/patent-novelty-check |
| license | MIT |
| version | 0.1.0 |
| execution_mode | open |
| jurisdiction | us |
| practice | ip |
| language | en |
Assess patentability of: $ARGUMENTS
Adapted from /novelty-check for patent legal standards. Research novelty is NOT the same as patent novelty.
REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-5.5 — Model used via Codex MCP for cross-model examiner verificationNOVELTY_STANDARD = patent — Always use legal patentability standard, not research contribution standard$ARGUMENTSpatent/PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md (output of /prior-art-search)patent/INVENTION_BRIEF.md if existsLoad ../shared-references/patent-writing-principles.md for novelty/non-obviousness standards.
Load ../shared-references/patent-format-us.md for 102/103 analysis framework.
From the invention description, extract the key claim elements that would define the invention's scope:
For each preliminary claim, test against EACH prior art reference in PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md:
Single-reference test: Does any single reference disclose ALL claim elements?
| Claim Element | Ref 1 | Ref 2 | Ref 3 | ... |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feature A | Yes/No + evidence | |||
| Feature B | Yes/No + evidence | |||
| Feature C | Yes/No + evidence | |||
| Feature D | Yes/No + evidence |
Verdict per reference:
If the invention is novel (passes Step 2), test for obviousness:
Two/three-reference combination test: Can 2-3 references be combined to render the claim obvious?
For each combination of the top references:
Format as a matrix:
| Combination | Primary | Secondary | Missing Elements | Motivation to Combine | Obvious? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ref1 + Ref2 | Ref1 | Ref2 | Feature D | Same field, similar problem | Yes/No |
Call REVIEWER_MODEL via mcp__codex__codex with xhigh reasoning:
mcp__codex__codex:
config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
prompt: |
You are a senior patent examiner at the [USPTO/CNIPA/EPO].
Examine the following invention for patentability.
INVENTION: [invention description + preliminary claims]
PRIOR ART: [prior art references with key teachings]
Please analyze:
1. Anticipation (novelty): Does any single reference anticipate any claim?
2. Obviousness: Can any combination of references render claims obvious?
3. Claim scope: Are the claims broad enough to be valuable?
4. Recommended amendments if any claim is rejected.
Be rigorous and cite specific references.
For each target jurisdiction, provide a patentability assessment:
Under 35 USC 102/103 (US):
Under Article 22 CN Patent Law (CN):
Under Article 54/56 EPC (EP):
Write patent/NOVELTY_ASSESSMENT.md:
## Patentability Assessment
### Invention Summary
[description]
### Overall Assessment
[PATENTABLE / PATENTABLE WITH AMENDMENTS / NOT PATENTABLE]
### Anticipation Analysis
[claim-by-claim matrix against each reference]
### Obviousness Analysis
[combination analysis with motivation to combine]
### Cross-Model Examiner Review
[summary of GPT-5.4 examiner feedback]
### Recommended Claim Amendments
[If claims need modification to overcome prior art, suggest specific amendments]
### Risk Factors
[What could cause rejection during actual prosecution?]
mcp__codex__codex is not available, skip cross-model examiner review and note it in the output.