Recipe Prior Art Search

Recipe: Prior Art Search

A multi-step workflow for comprehensive prior-art searching. Each database uses its own query syntax — see flowleap-uspto for the USPTO Lucene grammar.

Steps

Step 1: Write the Search Queries

You write both queries yourself — the invention description never leaves the machine to become a query. The method (from flowleap-patent, where the CQL fields live):

1. Extract the terms. List every specific noun phrase in the invention description; for each one you leave out of the query, state why. Unsure of a phrasing ("glass ceramic" vs "glass-ceramic")? OR both forms — never drop the term.
2. Write the CQL around a discriminating term — the specific subject matter, never just the technology area, never a CPC class alone. Grouping repeats the field: (ta=X OR ta=Y) is valid; ta=(X OR Y) is a hard OPS
   404. Verify any CPC code against the official scheme (flowleap patstat query on flowleap.cpc_scheme) — never guess codes.
3. Probe the count — mandatory. patent search shows no total, so run the same tool directly and read total from its payload. details=false skips the per-document bibliography fan-out, so the probe stays cheap:

flowleap --json tools run search_patents query='<self-written CQL>' range=1-1 details=false

Over ~1,000 hits: add the next discriminating term from your extraction list. Under 10: broaden — this is a novelty pass, so start broad (drop the classification, OR in synonyms) and narrow from the count, never the reverse.

The USPTO leg uses ODP Lucene over title + metadata (see flowleap-uspto): same term extraction, same probe discipline, but the discrimination must be a term that plausibly appears in an invention title.

Done when you have one probed EPO CQL query and one USPTO ODP query.

Step 2: Search Patents (EPO + USPTO)

Run both databases — they are not interchangeable:

• patent search hits EPO OPS: worldwide DOCDB coverage, including EPO's own bibliographic copy of US documents. --countries US narrows this EPO collection to US members; it does not reach USPTO's Open Data Portal.
• uspto search hits USPTO ODP directly, returning US application and prosecution metadata (the patentFileWrapperDataBag) that the EPO copy lacks.

For US prior art the USPTO leg must go through USPTO ODP; do not substitute patent search --countries US (that returns EPO's copy, not ODP records).

EPO: the CQL from step 1 is a query string:

flowleap --json patent search --query "<CQL from step 1>" --limit 20

USPTO: the Lucene query from step 1 goes in --query (or wrap it in a full ODP request body via --body when you need fields/enrich):

flowleap --json uspto search --query '<ODP Lucene from step 1>' --limit 20

USPTO recall caveat — ODP is title-only. ODP search indexes the invention title and a few metadata fields; there is no abstract or claims full-text. A distinguishing feature that only appears in the abstract (e.g. "UV-C sterilization") therefore cannot be matched, and a query that ANDs such a term onto the search returns 0. When the USPTO leg comes back empty (the CLI prints a note and auto-retries once without the CPC filter), run a title recall pass on the core device noun and triage abstracts afterwards:

# Recall on the device category, with singular/plural variants; drop the
# abstract-only qualifier. Then read abstracts to keep the on-point hits.
flowleap --json uspto search --query 'applicationMetaData.inventionTitle:earbuds AND applicationMetaData.inventionTitle:"charging case"' --limit 25
flowleap ops abstract <application-or-publication-number>

If one office answers provider_keys_required, its patent-data key is missing. Do not narrow the search to the office whose key happens to be set, and do not fill the gap with web-scraped results: run the live office in full, report the other as a missing-key gap (not "no prior art found" and not "limited coverage"), and ask for the free key at the end. See flowleap-keys.

Done when both databases have returned ranked results, or one is reported as an open missing-key gap.

Step 3: Search Academic Literature

flowleap --json academic search "<invention keywords>" --limit 15
flowleap --json npl "<invention keywords>" --limit 10

Step 4: Deep Dive on the Closest Hits

Deep-dive every hit whose abstract maps to at least one independent feature of the invention — at minimum the top 5 by rank:

flowleap ops abstract <patent-number>
flowleap ops claims <patent-number>
flowleap ops family <patent-number>

Done when each qualifying hit has its claims and family pulled.

Step 5: Tag Each Reference X / Y / A

Against the invention's features, tag every retained reference:

• X — alone anticipates a feature (novelty-destroying)
• Y — anticipates only in combination with another reference
• A — general background

Done when every retained reference carries an X/Y/A tag, X-tagged first.

Step 6: Map the X References Element by Element

For each X-tagged reference, show the anticipation per element rather than asserting it per document. One table, one row per invention feature (or claim element, when the user supplied a claim), one column per X reference:

| Claim element | <Reference 1> | <Reference 2> |

Each cell quotes the disclosing passage from the retrieved claims — original language plus a translation where applicable. A feature no X reference discloses is the novelty candidate; say so under the table.

Done when every element row is either quoted from at least one X reference or named as a potential point of novelty.

Output

A prior-art table with:

• One row per patent family (the closest member represents the family; use ops family to collapse duplicates)
• Each row tagged X / Y / A, X-tagged references surfaced first
• The element-by-element mapping table for the X references (Step 6)
• Academic papers on the same topic
• Claims and abstracts from the closest prior art