SearchIntellectual Property

Prior Art Search

Prior art search software that searches by the invention's claimable elements, maps each close reference element by element, and shows the attorney which element nobody discloses.

Watch it work Book a walkthrough

Follow one disclosure to a signed opinion ↓

Watch with transcript →

The problem

Hundreds of keyword hits, and the novelty point still argued from memory

A search analyst writes a dozen keyword strings and runs them in several databases. A technical specialist reads the hits one by one, and the attorney rebuilds the comparison in a spreadsheet before writing the patentability opinion. Journal papers and art in German, Japanese or Chinese come last, if they come at all.

On a fixed fee, each of those hours comes out of margin. A reference the search missed tends to surface at the first office action, years after filing, as a narrower claim, a rejection or a candor problem. Meanwhile the inventor has one question: is it new, and can we file before the conference talk?

Built forPatent attorneysPatent agentsTechnical specialistsSearch analysts

The Problem Today

Keyword searches match shared words instead of shared features, so the novelty point is argued from memory.

22.6 mo: wait for a first patent office action in 2025, up from 19.9 published
70%: of patent examiners say they lack time for a thorough review published

Compared by hand today

Keywords
Papers
Foreign art
Spreadsheet

Days before drafting startsKeyword strings and hit lists read on a fixed fee
Missed art surfaces laterThe examiner finds it at the first office action

The Solution

Disclosure into elementsEach claimable feature cited to its page and drawing
Searched by elementPatents and papers in four languages, by meaning
The novelty gap shownThe nearest cluster holds four references, and none discloses element D
Cited opinion, signedEach statement linked to its passage; the attorney decides

Built-in controls

Only the attorney marks novelty and signs
An invention disclosure trains no model
Each query and source kept on the record

What You Get

Attorneys draft claims around the element nobody has, with the closest combination already argued.

3 hours: of review per case, down from 10–20 hours of searching our estimate

Filed before the public talkA talk date in the disclosure is flagged in the opinion
Citation list countedReferences to cite counted against the size-fee threshold
Foreign art in the same viewGerman, Japanese and Chinese passages beside their originals

From disclosure to opinion

Prior art search software built on the invention's claimable elements

Nine screens of a patentability search, from the disclosure to the signed opinion, each with what it does, how, and who uses it.

01Disclosure and its elements
An invention disclosure broken into claimable elements, each cited
How it works
- Each feature the inventors describe becomes an element, in their own words: five here, A to E
- Every element is tied to its page and drawing, such as p.5–6, Fig. 2
- The technical specialist confirms or edits each element before the search runs
- An edited element re-runs only its own query, and the change goes on the record
Technical specialistStarts the search from the features the inventors actually described, not from an analyst's guess at the right keywords.
02Search record
A search record logging each query, source and language with its hits
How it works
- Thirteen queries: six by element, three by classification, two in papers, two citation chases
- 3,118 hits reduce to 2,400 unique documents: 1,710 patent documents and 690 papers
- A source that timed out is shown, retried two minutes later and completed
- Each row shows how many close references that query found first
Search analystCan show what was searched, where and in which language, when a partner or a later office action asks how the art was found.
03Map of the close art
A map placing each close reference by how near it comes
How it works
- The invention sits at the center of 38 close references, with rings at closeness 80, 70 and 60
- Six clusters, each with its count and average closeness, joined by 24 citation links
- A strip across the top counts who discloses each element: D reads 0 of 38
- Dot size is closeness; shade is how many elements a reference discloses
Patent attorneySees in one view where the art crowds in and which element no one has reached, before reading a single reference.
04Nearest cluster
A cluster view that names the element no reference in it discloses
How it works
- Microneedle glucose patches: four references, average closeness 84, each with an A to E bar
- R01 comes closest at 91, with A, B, C and E
- A flag names the element the whole cluster lacks: here, D
- Only the attorney of record can mark it as the novelty point, with a reason
Patent attorneyFinds the element nobody has, and the reference that comes closest to having it, with no spreadsheet comparison to build.
05References, ranked
Close references ranked by closeness, each with its nearest passage
How it works
- Closeness weighs how many elements a reference discloses, and how fully
- Each row carries language, cluster, an A to E bar and the closest passage
- Filters split all 38 into 27 patents, 11 papers and the 9 not in English
- The 2,362 documents below closeness 60 stay listed in the search record
Patent agentReads a ranked list with the deciding passage already found, where a keyword search hands over hundreds of hits to read one by one.
06Reference, element by element
Foreign art mapped element by element, its original text alongside
How it works
- Each element marked discloses, partly or lacks, with the passage that decides it
- Under each translated passage of a Japanese publication sits its original, cited to its paragraph
- R04 discloses A, C and E; its electrode uses a ferrocene mediator, so B is partly
- A chip shows the mapping was confirmed by the technical specialist
Technical specialistChecks which paragraph discloses which feature in art they cannot read in the original, without sending each one out for translation.
07Element grid and combination check
An element grid with a combination check for the obviousness question
How it works
- 38 references by five elements; column heads count full and partial disclosures: A 14 +5, D 0 +2
- Any two references can be combined to see what they reach together
- R01 plus R17 reaches A, B, C and E, and D only in part
- The verdict reads obviousness risk: moderate, for the opinion to answer
Patent attorneySees the obviousness combination an examiner is most likely to build, and answers it in the opinion before the first action does.
08Technical papers
Technical papers searched element by element, the same way as patents
How it works
- Biomedical indexes, preprints and the firm's licensed journals, searched by element
- Of 690 papers searched, 11 come close; each card shows venue, year, language and the same A to E bar
- R17 and R26 come nearest to element D
- A paper behind a paywall is mapped from its abstract until the library copy arrives
Search analystCovers the journal art an examiner tends to find last, so the opinion does not rest on patent documents alone.
09Signed opinion
A patentability opinion drafted around the novelty point the attorney marked
How it works
- Twelve pages in nine sections, from summary to the limits of the opinion, each statement cited
- Before signing: 15 citations, 12 closest mappings confirmed, originals cited
- The citation list counted: 38 references, under the 50 that bring a size fee
- Signing locks the search record for the matter
Patent attorneySigns an opinion she can check line by line against the passages, with the deadline to file before the inventor's talk already stated.

R01 discloses four elements at closeness 91 yet calibrates at the factory

The nearest cluster and the two partial disclosures of D, as the element grid reads them.

Reference	Closeness	Discloses	Closest it comes to D
R01, patent publication	91	A, B, C and E	Factory calibration, with an optional fingerstick
R02, German publication	84	A and B; C partly	Temperature compensation by a thermistor
R03, 14-day patch study	82	A, B and C; E partly	Two fingerstick calibrations per day
R04, Japanese publication	79	A, C and E; B partly	Calibration by a blood glucose meter once a day
R17, paper	67	C; B and D partly	Sweat sodium corrects a sweat lactate reading
R18, patent publication	66	C; D partly	Hydration from skin impedance, no reading corrected

Around the map

The partial disclosures, the reason on record and the re-read

The screens the attorney, the specialist and the analyst open on either side of the novelty decision.

Map with the electrolyte and hydration cluster opened: five references, none disclosing the detachable cartridge, two marked D partly — **Where D comes closest**The electrolyte and hydration cluster: R17 and R18 disclose D in part, while R26 measures sodium and corrects nothing.

Dialog to mark element D, self-calibration in place, as the novelty point, with the attorney's reason citing R17 and R18 — **The novelty point, with a reason**Signed in as the attorney of record, she marks D and writes why: two partial disclosures, neither correcting an interstitial glucose reading.

Reference R17, a paper on sweat sodium sensing, with element D marked partly and its passage cited to page 6, section 3.2 — **R17, read for D**Sweat, not interstitial fluid; lactate, not glucose; a separate sensor. Each limit is quoted from the passage at p.6, §3.2.

Ranked references filtered to the nine not in English, with language codes DE, JA and ZH, element bars and closeness scores — **The art not in English**Nine references in German, Japanese and Chinese, ranked with the rest; four of them carry a confirmed mapping.

Audit timeline of the matter listing the signature, the opinion draft, the novelty mark and each agent run, beside the separation of duties — **Each step on the audit trail**People and agents on one timeline, newest first from the signature, beside the separation of duties for the matter.

Disclosure re-read by the reader agent: five claimable features found, no change to the elements, and a public talk date flagged — **A talk date caught in the disclosure**Re-reading the disclosure leaves the five elements unchanged and flags the public talk on December 3 for the opinion.

Where the 2,400 documents came from, in four languages

What the agents read for this invention, and what they kept beside it.

The invention disclosureThe inventors' pages and drawings, read once into elements and kept with the matter.

Patent publications from six officesGranted patents and published applications, searched by meaning for each element.

Technical papers and preprintsBiomedical indexes, preprint servers and the journals the firm licenses.

Classification codesSearches by class for glucose measurement, microneedles, enzyme electrodes and remote monitoring.

Citations of the closest artBackward and forward citation chases from the ten closest references.

Original-language textGerman, Japanese and Chinese originals, kept beside each translated passage.

Who does what

The agents search, translate and map; the attorney marks what is new

The agents propose, the technical specialist confirms, and each agent carries a limit written into it.

Disclosure reader

Breaks the disclosure into claimable elements, each cited to its page and drawing.

Never adds an element the inventors did not describe

Element searcher

Searches by meaning for each element, then by classification and by citation chase, across patents and papers.

Never drops a source or a query from the record

Translation agent

Translates the passages that matter from German, Japanese and Chinese art.

Never cites a translation without its original beside it

Element mapper

Marks each element in each reference as discloses, partly or lacks, with the closest passage.

Never marks discloses without a passage
A mapping counts as confirmed only when the specialist confirms it

Cluster agent

Scores closeness, clusters the references and draws the citation links between them.

Never hides a reference below the threshold without listing it

Opinion drafter

Drafts the patentability opinion around the novelty point the attorney marked, with a citation on each statement.

Never concludes on patentability
Never contacts the client or the patent office

Prior art search software: what a patent group checks first

What is prior art search software?

Prior art search software finds patents and papers close to an invention before the application is drafted. This one reads the invention disclosure into claimable elements and searches for each element by meaning in four languages. It maps every close reference element by element with the passage cited, and draws the references as a map, so the attorney sees which element nobody discloses.

How is a search by element different from a keyword search?

A keyword search returns documents that share words with the query. Here each element of the invention gets its own search by meaning, then classification searches and citation chases run beside them. A reference counts as close by how many elements it discloses and how fully, so the ranked list answers the patentability question directly.

Who decides what is new?

The attorney of record. The agents propose elements, mappings and a draft; the technical specialist confirms the elements and the mappings; the search analyst approves the strategy. Only the attorney marks the novelty point, writing down why, and only the attorney signs the opinion.

Does it search papers and foreign-language patents too?

Yes. Technical papers and preprints are searched element by element the same way as patents. German, Japanese and Chinese art is read and translated, and each translated passage is cited with its original beside it. A paper behind a paywall is mapped from its abstract and flagged until the full text arrives.

Can it build a claim chart for the obviousness question?

The element grid is a claim chart of every close reference against every element, exportable with each mark cited. Its combination check takes any two references and shows what they disclose together, so the opinion can answer the closest pairing before an examiner raises it.

How are client disclosures kept confidential?

Queries run only against licensed and public sources. Every search, confirmation, mark and signature is audited, and the search record locks when the opinion is signed.

Intellectual Property