name: search-prior-art
locale: caveman-ultra
source_locale: en
source_commit: 82c77053
fence_basis_commit: 82c77053
translator: "Julius Brussee homage — caveman"
translation_date: "2026-05-03"
description: >
Prior art search for invention|patent claim. Patent + non-patent (academic, products, OSS), defensive pubs, standard-essential patents. Use → eval novelty+non-obvious pre-file, challenge existing patent validity, support FTO analysis, document defensive pub, respond to office action questioning novelty.
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
Structured prior art search → find pubs|patents|products|disclosures predating invention. Used for patentability (can patent?), validity challenge (should have been granted?), FTO (covered by existing rights?).
Use When
- Eval novelty+non-obvious pre-file
- Challenge existing patent validity → find art examiner missed
- Support FTO → find art limiting blocking patent scope
- Document defensive pub → prevent others patenting concept
- Respond to office action questioning novelty|obviousness
In
- Required: Invention desc (what, how, problem)
- Required: Purpose (patentability|invalidity|FTO|defensive)
- Required: Critical date (filing date or invention date)
- Optional: Known related patents|pubs
- Optional: Tech classification codes (IPC, CPC)
- Optional: Key inventors|companies
Do
Step 1: Decompose Invention
Break into constituent technical features.
- Read desc (or claims if vs existing patent)
- Extract essential elements — each independent feature:
- Components?
- Process steps?
- Technical effect?
- Problem + how solved?
- ID novel combination — what's diff from known:
- New element added to known?
- New combo of known?
- Known element new field?
- Gen search terms per element:
- Tech terms, synonyms, abbrev
- Broader+narrower (hierarchy)
- Alt descriptions
- Doc Search Map: elements, terms, 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 | |
+------------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
→ Complete decomposition w/ terms per element. Novel combo ID'd → search must find (invalidate) or confirm absent (support novelty).
If err: too abstract → ask more specific. Claims unclear → broadest reasonable interp per element.
Step 2: Search Patent Literature
Patent DBs systematic.
- Construct queries:
- Each element individually first (broad)
- Combine to find closer art (narrow)
- Classification codes filter by tech area
- Multi DBs:
- Google Patents: Full-text, free, large
- USPTO PatFT/AppFT: US patents+apps, official
- Espacenet: EU, excellent classification
- WIPO Patentscope: PCT, global
- Date filters:
- Prior art must predate critical date
- Up to 1yr pre-filing (grace varies by jurisdiction)
- Per relevant result record:
- Doc number, title, filing date, pub date
- Which elements disclosed (map to Search Map)
- Discloses novel combo?
- Classify by relevance:
- X: Discloses invention alone (anticipation)
- Y: Key elements, combinable (obviousness)
- A: Background art
→ Classified patent ref list mapped to elements. X (if found) = showstoppers for novelty. Y = building blocks for obviousness.
If err: no relevant patent art → doesn't mean novel — non-patent (Step 3) may have critical ref. Absence in 1 DB ≠ absence everywhere.
Step 3: Non-Patent Literature
Academic, products, OSS, other.
- Academic:
- Google Scholar, arXiv, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library
- Same Step 1 terms
- Conf papers + workshop proceedings often predate patents
- Products + commercial:
- Product docs, manuals, marketing
- Internet Archive (Wayback) for date-verified web
- Trade pubs + press releases
- OSS + code:
- GitHub, GitLab — search impls of features
- READMEs, docs, commit history for date evidence
- Software releases w/ ver dates
- Standards:
- IEEE, IETF (RFCs), W3C, ISO
- Standards-essential patents must be disclosed; search standard bodies' IP DBs
- Defensive pubs:
- IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin
- Research Disclosure journal
- IP.com Prior Art DB
- Verify pub date before critical date:
- Web: Wayback for date evidence
- Software: release dates|commit timestamps
- Papers: pub date not submission
→ Non-patent refs complement patent search. Academic + OSS often most powerful — describe details more explicitly than patents.
If err: non-patent sparse → tech primarily corp R&D (patent-heavy). Shift emphasis to patent + combo-based obviousness.
Step 4: Analyze + Map
Eval how art relates to invention.
- Claim chart mapping art → 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
- Novelty: Single ref discloses all elements?
- Yes → anticipated (not novel)
- No → may be novel (proceed obviousness)
- Obviousness: Few refs (2-3) combinable to cover all?
- Motivation to combine? (skilled person sees reason?)
- Teach away? (suggest wouldn't work?)
- FTO: Does art narrow blocking patent claims?
- Art overlapping blocking patent's claims limits enforceable scope
- Document analysis w/ specific passage citations
→ Clear claim chart showing element coverage by refs, w/ novelty + obviousness assessment. Each mapping cites specific passages|figures.
If err: chart shows gaps (elements not in any art) → those = potentially novel. Focus follow-up on specific gaps.
Step 5: Document + Deliver
Package for intended use.
- Write Prior Art Search Report:
- Purpose + scope
- Methodology (DBs, queries, date ranges)
- Results summary (count, classification breakdown)
- Top refs w/ detailed analysis (claim charts)
- Assessment: novelty, obviousness, FTO implications
- Limitations + further-search recommendations
- Organize refs:
- Sorted by relevance (X first, Y, A)
- Each w/ full bibliographic + access link
- Key passages highlighted|extracted
- Recommendations by purpose:
- Patentability: File|don't, suggested claim scope by gaps
- Invalidity: Strongest combo, suggested legal arg
- FTO: Risk level, design-around opportunities, licensing
- Defensive: Whether to publish defensive disclosure based on white space
→ Complete organized report directly supporting decision. Refs accessible, analysis traceable.
If err: inconclusive (no strong X|Y, but relevant background) → state clearly: "No anticipatory art; closest addresses A+B not C. Recommend file w/ claims emphasizing C." Inconclusive valid + useful.
Check
Traps
- Keyword tunnel vision: Exact terms only misses synonyms. Use Step 1 hierarchy.
- Patent-only search: Non-patent (papers, products, code) often more explicit. Don't skip Step 3.
- Date carelessness: Must predate critical date. Brilliant ref 1 day after = worthless.
- Ignore foreign: Major inventions may first appear in CN|JP|KR|DE patents. MT makes searchable.
- Confirmation bias: Searching to confirm novelty vs to find invalidating art. Best search tries hardest to find closest.
- Stop too early: First results rarely best. Iterate based on field vocabulary revealed.
→
assess-ip-landscape — broader landscape mappingscreen-trademark — TM-specific (diff DBs + legal frame than patent)file-trademark — TM filing post-screenreview-research — lit review methodology overlapssecurity-audit-codebase — systematic methodology parallels (thoroughness, doc, reproducibility)