Skip to content

patent-novelty-check

Category: audit
Field: —
License: MIT
Updated: 2026-05-18
Stages: referee-simulation

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-5.5 — Model used via Codex MCP for cross-model examiner verification
  • 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: Cross-Model Examiner Verification

Call REVIEWER_MODEL via mcp__codex__codex with xhigh reasoning:

Text Only
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.