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.

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 6 astra — 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: 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 : 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.

patent-novelty-check