patent-novelty-check

Original：🇺🇸 English

Translated

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.

6installs

Sourcewanshuiyin/auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep

Added on2026-04-22

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add wanshuiyin/auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep patent-novelty-check

SKILL.md Content

View Translation Comparison →

Patent Novelty and Non-Obviousness Check

Assess patentability of: $ARGUMENTS

Adapted from

/novelty-check

for patent legal standards. Research novelty is NOT the same as patent novelty.

Constants

```
REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-5.4
```
— Model used via Codex MCP for cross-model examiner verification
```
NOVELTY_STANDARD = patent
```
— Always use legal patentability standard, not research contribution standard

Inputs

Invention description from
```
$ARGUMENTS
```

patent/PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md

(output of

/prior-art-search

)

```
patent/INVENTION_BRIEF.md
```
if exists

Shared References

Load

../shared-references/patent-writing-principles.md

for novelty/non-obviousness standards. Load

../shared-references/patent-format-us.md

for 102/103 analysis framework.

Workflow

Step 1: Define Claim Elements

From the invention description, extract the key claim elements that would define the invention's scope:

List the technical features that make the invention novel
Identify which features are known from prior art vs. inventive
Draft preliminary claim language for 2-3 independent claims (method + system)

Step 2: Anticipation Analysis (Novelty)

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:

ANTICIPATED: One reference discloses every element → claim is not novel
NOT ANTICIPATED: At least one element missing from every single reference → claim is novel

Step 3: Obviousness Analysis (Inventive Step)

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:

Primary reference: Which reference is closest to the claimed invention?
Secondary reference(s): Which reference(s) teach the missing element(s)?
Motivation to combine: Would a POSITA have reason to combine these references?
- Explicit suggestion in the references themselves?
- Same field, same problem?
- Common design incentive?
- Known technique for improving similar devices?

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

Step 4: Cross-Model Examiner Verification

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.

Step 5: Jurisdiction-Specific Assessment

For each target jurisdiction, provide a patentability assessment:

Under 35 USC 102/103 (US):

Novelty: PASS / FAIL (cite specific reference if fail)
Non-obviousness: PASS / FAIL (cite combination if fail)

Under Article 22 CN Patent Law (CN):

新颖性 (Novelty): 通过 / 未通过
创造性 (Inventive Step): 通过 / 未通过

Under Article 54/56 EPC (EP):

Novelty: PASS / FAIL
Inventive step: PASS / FAIL (problem-solution approach)

Step 6: Output

Write

patent/NOVELTY_ASSESSMENT.md

:

markdown

## 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?]

Key Rules

Patent novelty is absolute: any public disclosure before the priority date counts as prior art, worldwide.
Research novelty ("has anyone published this?") is NOT the same as patent novelty ("does any single reference teach every claim element?").
Obviousness requires BOTH: (1) a combination of references AND (2) a motivation to combine them.
Never assume the invention is patentable just because no identical patent exists.
The assessment is advisory only -- actual prosecution may reveal different prior art.
If
```
mcp__codex__codex
```
is not available, skip cross-model examiner review and note it in the output.