| name | search-prior-art |
| description | Search for prior art relevant to a specific invention or patent claim. Covers patent literature, non-patent literature (academic papers, products, open source), defensive publications, and standard-essential patents. Use when evaluating whether an invention is novel and non-obvious before filing, challenging the validity of an existing patent, supporting a freedom-to-operate analysis, documenting a defensive publication, or responding to a patent office action questioning novelty or obviousness.
|
| license | MIT |
| allowed-tools | Read Grep Glob WebFetch WebSearch |
| metadata | {"author":"Philipp Thoss","version":"1.0","domain":"intellectual-property","complexity":"intermediate","language":"natural","tags":"intellectual-property, prior-art, patents, novelty, obviousness, invalidity, fto"} |
Search Prior Art
Conduct a structured prior art search to find publications, patents, products, or disclosures that predate a specific invention. Used to assess patentability (can this be patented?), challenge validity (should this patent have been granted?), or establish freedom-to-operate (is this design covered by existing rights?).
When to Use
- Evaluating whether an invention is novel and non-obvious before filing a patent application
- Challenging the validity of an existing patent by finding prior art the examiner missed
- Supporting a freedom-to-operate analysis by finding prior art that limits a blocking patent's scope
- Documenting a defensive publication to prevent others from patenting a concept
- Responding to a patent office action that questions novelty or obviousness
Inputs
- Required: Invention description (what it does, how it works, what problem it solves)
- Required: Search purpose (patentability, invalidity, FTO, defensive)
- Required: Critical date (filing date of the patent application, or invention date for prior art)
- Optional: Known related patents or publications
- Optional: Technology classification codes (IPC, CPC)
- Optional: Key inventors or companies in the field
Procedure
Step 1: Decompose the Invention into Searchable Elements
Break the invention into its constituent technical features.
- Read the invention description (or patent claims if searching against an existing patent)
- Extract the essential elements — each independent technical feature:
- What components does it have?
- What steps does the process follow?
- What technical effect does it achieve?
- What problem does it solve and how?
- Identify the novel combination — what makes this different from the known art:
- Is it a new element added to known elements?
- Is it a new combination of known elements?
- Is it a known element applied in a new field?
- Generate search terms for each element:
- Technical terms, synonyms, and abbreviations
- Broader and narrower terms (hierarchy)
- Alternative descriptions of the same concept
- Document the Search Map: elements, terms, and relationships
Search Map Example:
+------------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Element | Search Terms | Priority |
+------------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Attention layer | attention mechanism, self- | High |
| | attention, multi-head attention | |
| Sparse routing | mixture of experts, sparse MoE, | High |
| | top-k routing, expert selection | |
| Training method | knowledge distillation, teacher- | Medium |
| | student, progressive training | |
+------------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
Expected: A complete decomposition with search terms for each element. The novel combination is identified — this is what the search must either find (to invalidate) or confirm is absent (to support novelty).
On failure: If the invention is too abstract to decompose, ask for a more specific description. If the claims are unclear, focus on the broadest reasonable interpretation of each claim element.
Step 2: Search Patent Literature
Search patent databases systematically.
- Construct queries combining element terms:
- Search each element individually first (broad)
- Then combine elements to find closer art (narrow)
- Use classification codes to filter by technology area
- Search multiple databases:
- Google Patents: Good for full-text search, free, large corpus
- USPTO PatFT/AppFT: US patents and applications, official source
- Espacenet: European patents, excellent classification search
- WIPO Patentscope: PCT applications, global coverage
- Apply date filters:
- Prior art must predate the critical date (filing date or priority date)
- Include publications up to 1 year before filing (grace period varies by jurisdiction)
- For each relevant result, record:
- Document number, title, filing date, publication date
- Which elements it discloses (map to Search Map)
- Whether it discloses the novel combination
- Classify results by relevance:
- X reference: Discloses the invention alone (anticipation)
- Y reference: Discloses key elements, combinable with other references (obviousness)
- A reference: Background art, defines the general state of the art
Expected: A classified list of patent references mapped to the invention's elements. X references (if found) are showstoppers for novelty. Y references are the building blocks for obviousness arguments.
On failure: If no relevant patent art is found, this doesn't mean the invention is novel — non-patent literature (Step 3) may contain the critical reference. Absence in one database doesn't mean absence everywhere.
Step 3: Search Non-Patent Literature
Search academic papers, products, open source, and other non-patent disclosures.
- Academic literature:
- Google Scholar, arXiv, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library
- Search using the same terms from Step 1
- Conference papers and workshop proceedings often predate patent filings
- Products and commercial disclosures:
- Product documentation, user manuals, marketing materials
- Internet Archive (Wayback Machine) for date-verified web content
- Trade publications and press releases
- Open source and code:
- GitHub, GitLab — search for implementations of the technical features
- README files, documentation, and commit histories for date evidence
- Software releases with version dates
- Standards and specifications:
- IEEE, IETF (RFCs), W3C, ISO standards
- Standards-essential patents must be disclosed; search standard bodies' IP databases
- Defensive publications:
- IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin
- Research Disclosure journal
- IP.com Prior Art Database
- For each result, verify the publication date is before the critical date:
- Web pages: use Wayback Machine for date evidence
- Software: use release dates or commit timestamps
- Papers: use publication date, not submission date
Expected: Non-patent references that complement the patent search. Academic papers and open-source code are often the most powerful prior art because they tend to describe technical details more explicitly than patents.
On failure: If non-patent literature is sparse, the technology may be primarily developed in corporate R&D (patent-heavy). Shift emphasis to patent literature and focus on the combination-based obviousness argument.
Step 4: Analyze and Map Results
Evaluate how the collected prior art relates to the invention.
- Create a claim chart mapping prior art to invention elements:
Claim Element vs. Prior Art Matrix:
+------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Element | Ref #1 | Ref #2 | Ref #3 | Ref #4 |
+------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Element A | X | X | | X |
| Element B | | X | X | |
| Element C | X | | X | |
| Novel combo A+B+C| | | | |
+------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
X = element disclosed in this reference
- Assess novelty: Does any single reference disclose all elements?
- If yes → invention is anticipated (not novel)
- If no → invention may be novel (proceed to obviousness)
- Assess obviousness: Can a small number of references (2-3) be combined to cover all elements?
- Is there motivation to combine? (would a skilled person see a reason to combine these?)
- Do the references teach away from the combination? (suggest it wouldn't work?)
- For FTO searches: Does the prior art narrow the blocking patent's claims?
- Prior art that overlaps with the blocking patent's claims limits their enforceable scope
- Document the analysis clearly with citation to specific passages
Expected: A clear claim chart showing which elements are covered by which references, with an assessment of novelty and obviousness. Each mapping cites specific passages or figures in the references.
On failure: If the claim chart shows gaps (elements not found in any prior art), those gaps represent the potentially novel aspects. Focus follow-up searches on those specific gaps.
Step 5: Document and Deliver
Package the search results for their intended use.
- Write the Prior Art Search Report:
- Purpose and scope of the search
- Search methodology (databases, queries, date ranges)
- Results summary (number of references found, classification breakdown)
- Top references with detailed analysis (claim charts)
- Assessment: novelty, obviousness, and FTO implications
- Limitations and recommendations for further search
- Organize references:
- Sorted by relevance (X references first, then Y, then A)
- Each reference with full bibliographic data and access link
- Key passages highlighted or extracted
- Recommendations based on search purpose:
- Patentability: File/don't file, suggested claim scope based on prior art gaps
- Invalidity: Strongest combination of references, suggested legal argument
- FTO: Risk level, design-around opportunities, licensing considerations
- Defensive: Whether to publish as defensive disclosure based on white space found
Expected: A complete, well-organized search report that directly supports the intended decision. References are accessible and analysis is traceable.
On failure: If the search is inconclusive (no strong X or Y references, but some relevant background), state the conclusion clearly: "No anticipatory art found; closest art addresses elements A and B but not C. Recommend filing with claims emphasizing element C." Inconclusive is a valid and useful result.
Validation Checklist
Common Pitfalls
- Keyword tunnel vision: Searching only exact terms misses synonyms and alternative descriptions. Use the term hierarchy from Step 1
- Patent-only search: Non-patent literature (papers, products, code) is often more explicit than patents. Don't skip Step 3
- Date carelessness: Prior art must predate the critical date. A brilliant reference from one day after the filing date is worthless
- Ignoring foreign language art: Major inventions may first appear in Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or German patent literature. Machine translation makes these searchable
- Confirmation bias: Searching to confirm novelty rather than searching to find invalidating art. The best search tries hardest to find the closest art
- Stopping too early: The first few results are rarely the best. Iterate search terms based on what early results reveal about the field's vocabulary
Related Skills
assess-ip-landscape — Broader landscape mapping that contextualizes specific prior art searchesscreen-trademark — Trademark-specific conflict screening (different databases, different legal framework than patent prior art)file-trademark — Trademark filing procedures for when screening is completereview-research — Literature review methodology overlaps significantly with prior art searchsecurity-audit-codebase — Systematic search methodology parallels (thoroughness, documentation, reproducibility)
