talhaMah56 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
- No external reviewer model — examiner verification is self-review (Claude re-reads its own preliminary claim analysis fresh and argues against it; see Step 4 and
auto-review-loop's "Self-Review Backend (No Second Model)" for the full rationale). 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.mdif 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: Self-Review Examiner Verification
No second model is available, so this step is performed by Claude acting as its own adversarial examiner rather than delegated to an external model. Re-open the invention and prior art from the actual files on disk (not from memory of drafting Steps 1-3) and, adopting a senior patent examiner persona at the [USPTO/CNIPA/EPO], analyze:
- Anticipation (novelty): Does any single reference anticipate any claim?
- Obviousness: Can any combination of references render claims obvious?
- Claim scope: Are the claims broad enough to be valuable?
- Recommended amendments if any claim is rejected.
Be rigorous and cite specific references. Actively argue against the preliminary claims drafted in Step 1 rather than confirming them, and explicitly flag any claim element you drafted yourself and therefore cannot evaluate impartially. This follows the same self-review discipline as auto-review-loop's "Self-Review Backend (No Second Model)" — it is a real check, but it carries no independence guarantee and cannot catch blind spots a genuinely different model would.
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:
## 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]
### Self-Review Examiner Analysis
[summary of the self-review examiner findings from Step 4]
### 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.
- The examiner verification in Step 4 is self-review, not independent review -- note this in the output rather than implying an external examiner was consulted.