patent-novelty-check
- Repo stars 11,320
- Author updated Live
- Author repo Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep
- Domain
- Engineering
- Compatible agents
-
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- Cline
- Codex
- Windsurf
- Gemini CLI
- +20
- Trust score
- 88 / 100 · community maintained
- Author / version / license
- @wanshuiyin · no license declared
- Token usage
- Lean
- Setup complexity
- Plug-and-play
- External API key
- Not required
- Operating systems
- Unspecified (assume cross-platform)
- Runtime requirements
- No special requirements
- Permissions
-
- Read-only
- Write / modify
- Network behavior
- Local-only
- Install commands
- 26 variants
Profile is derived at build time from SKILL.md and install vectors. Subject to drift from author intent.
Heads up: 未限定 allowed-tools，默认拥有全部工具权限。
---
name: patent-novelty-check
description: Assess patentability of: $ARGUMENTS Adapted from /novelty-check for patent legal standards. Rese…
category: engineering
runtime: no special runtime
---
# patent-novelty-check output preview
## PART A: Task fit
- Use case: Assess patentability of: $ARGUMENTS Adapted from /novelty-check for patent legal standards. Research novelty is NOT the same as patent novelty. Load ../shared-references/patent-writing-principles.md for novelty/non-obviousness standards. runs entirely locally. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, Cline and 23 more..
- Inputs: target material, constraints, expected output, and acceptance criteria.
- Evidence boundary: follow “Constants / Inputs / Shared References” and do not present inference as author intent.
## PART B: Execution result
- **01** The card summarizes the use case; runtime output centers on “Assess patentability of: $ARGUMENTS Adapted from /novelty-check for patent legal standards. Research novelty is NOT the same as patent novelty. Load ../shared-references/patent-writing-principles.md for novelty/non-obviousness standards. runs entirely locally. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, Cline and 23 more.”.
- **02** When the source has headings, the agent prioritizes “Constants / Inputs / Shared References” so the result follows the author’s structure.
- **03** Typical output includes task judgment, concrete steps, required commands or file edits, validation, and follow-up options.
- **04** Risk context follows the fingerprint: read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
## Running Rules
- read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding scope.
- Return the result, validation criteria, and next iteration options.The source mentions slash commands such as `/novelty-check`, `/prior-art-search`; use them first when your agent supports command triggers.
Name target files or source material, expected output, forbidden changes, and whether network or shell access is allowed. Permission fingerprint: read files, write/modify files.
Start with a small task and check whether the result follows “Constants / Inputs / Shared References”. Inspect diffs, logs, previews, or tests before expanding scope.
Confirm the final output includes a concrete result, evidence, and next action. If it stays generic, tighten inputs, boundaries, and acceptance criteria.
---
name: patent-novelty-check
description: Assess patentability of: $ARGUMENTS Adapted from /novelty-check for patent legal standards. Rese…
category: engineering
source: wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep
---
# patent-novelty-check
## When to use
- Assess patentability of: $ARGUMENTS Adapted from /novelty-check for patent legal standards. Research novelty is NOT th…
- Use it when the task has clear inputs, repeatable steps, and validation criteria.
## What to provide
- Target material, scope, expected result, and forbidden changes.
- Whether network, commands, file writes, or external services are allowed.
## Execution rules
- Organize steps around “Constants / Inputs / Shared References” and keep inference separate from source facts.
- read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding the task.
## Output requirements
- Return the deliverable, key evidence, validation method, and next action.
- Mark missing information as unknown; do not invent commands, platforms, or dependencies.The author source anchors workflow facts; repository files anchor sources and commands; Fluxly only adds fit, limitations, and quality judgment.
skill "patent-novelty-check" {
input -> user goal + target files + boundaries + acceptance criteria
context -> Constants / Inputs / Shared References
rules -> SKILL.md triggers / order / output contract
runtime -> no special runtime | read files, write/modify files | mostly runs locally
guardrails -> usually needs no extra API key + small-sample validation + diff/log review
output -> copyable result + checklist + next iteration
}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 verificationNOVELTY_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: Cross-Model Examiner Verification
Call REVIEWER_MODEL via mcp__codex__codex with xhigh reasoning:
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:
## 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-5.5 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__codexis not available, skip cross-model examiner review and note it in the output.
Decide Fit First
Design Intent
How To Use It
Boundaries And Review