Prior Art Search Strategy

Prior Art Search Strategy — Prior Art Search Strategy Guide

Search strategies, IPC/CPC classification utilization, and analysis frameworks for systematic prior art investigation.

3-Phase Search Strategy Framework

Phase 1: Invention Decomposition

Invention -> Technical Problem -> Solution Means -> Components

Decomposition Matrix:
| Component | Function | Relationship | Tech Field | Core Keywords |
|-----------|----------|-------------|-----------|--------------|
| A         | F1       | A->B        | Sensor    | sensor, detection |
| B         | F2       | B->C        | AI        | neural, learning |
| C         | F3       | C->Output   | Control   | control, adjust |

Phase 2: Search Query Design

Keyword Expansion Rules

Core keyword -> Synonyms -> Broader concepts -> Narrower concepts

Example: "artificial intelligence"
  Synonyms: AI, machine learning, ML
  Broader: data processing, computer system
  Narrower: CNN, RNN, transformer, deep learning

Search Query Structure

(Component A keywords OR synonyms) AND
(Component B keywords OR synonyms) AND
(Function/Effect keywords OR synonyms)

Scope adjustment:
  Broad search: A AND B (2 elements)
  Medium search: A AND B AND C (3 elements)
  Narrow search: A AND B AND C AND D (4+ elements)

Phase 3: Search Execution Order

IPC/CPC Classification Code Utilization

Classification Codes by Major Technical Field

Novelty and Inventive Step Judgment Framework

Novelty Analysis Matrix

| Claim Element | Prior Art 1 | Prior Art 2 | Prior Art 3 |
|-------------- |------------|------------|------------|
| A: [element]  | O Same     | O Same     | X Absent   |
| B: [element]  | O Same     | X Absent   | O Same     |
| C: [element]  | X Absent   | O Same     | X Absent   |
| D: [element]  | X Absent   | X Absent   | X Absent   |

Judgment: If all elements exist in a single prior art -> No novelty
          If even one is missing -> Novelty may be recognized

Inventive Step Analysis: TSM Test

T (Teaching): Does the prior art teach the combination?
S (Suggestion): Is there a suggestion to combine in the description?
M (Motivation): Does a person skilled in the art have motivation to combine?

Judgment flow:
1. Select the closest prior art (primary)
2. Identify differentiating elements
3. Search for secondary prior art containing the differentiating elements
4. Determine whether combination motivation exists
5. Check for unexpected effects from the combination

Search Report Output Structure

## Prior Art Search Report

### Search Strategy
- Search query: [Described]
- DB: [Databases used]
- Search results: [Number of results]

### Key Prior Art (Top 5)

#### [Prior Art 1] — [Document No.]
- **Title**: [Title of invention]
- **Filing/Publication Date**: [Date]
- **Key Technology**: [Summary]
- **Related Components**: A(O), B(O), C(X), D(X)
- **Differentiation**: [Difference from the present invention]

### Novelty and Inventive Step Comprehensive Opinion
- **Novelty**: [Recognized/Denied] — Basis: [Explanation]
- **Inventive Step**: [Recognized/Questionable] — Basis: [Explanation]
- **Design-Around Direction**: [Suggestion]

Notes

• Utilizes KIPRIS, Google Patents, Espacenet
• Detailed search strategies: See references/search-strategy-detail.md