Build a prior-art hit table for novelty, inventive step or non-obviousness
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- Search the patent collections and literature the lawyer names and table candidate hits with numbers, dates and a first-pass mapping to claim elements.
- What the lawyer must review
- Open every cited document
- Confirm the number, date and what it actually discloses
- Do not treat a mapping summary as a novelty opinion
- Written for / version
- US
Open a jurisdiction version of this task to see which instruments apply: US
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | Consider narrowly defined preparation support after confirming the tool’s capability and permitted scope. |
| Lawyer | Set the scope, supervise the work closely, verify every part relied on, resolve omissions and exceptions, and approve the exact output. |
Checklist
- Open each relied-on authority independently. Confirm its existence, current status, proposition and any quotation or pinpoint reference.
- Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
- Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.
Forms and precedents for this task
| Form or precedent | Kind | AI use | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prior-art table for a standard patent | Checklist | AI use Yellow | Table of prior art against the standard-patent requirements in section 18(1). |
Signed-in accounts can read the full text of each one. All precedents.