# Patent Novelty Check

> 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.

- Skill: `talhamah56/patent-novelty-check` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add talhamah56/patent-novelty-check`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/talhamah56/patent-novelty-check/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: talhaMah56 (https://skillmd.com/u/talhamah56)
- Updated: 2026-09-22
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/talhamah56/patent-novelty-check

---


# 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

1. Invention description from `$ARGUMENTS`
2. `patent/PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md` (output of `/prior-art-search`)
3. `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:
1. List the technical features that make the invention novel
2. Identify which features are known from prior art vs. inventive
3. 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:
1. **Primary reference**: Which reference is closest to the claimed invention?
2. **Secondary reference(s)**: Which reference(s) teach the missing element(s)?
3. **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:

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. 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`:

```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]

### 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.