Search patent databases and academic literature for earlier disclosures related to an invention. The workflow extracts technical features, compares overlapping approaches, and produces a report on relevant references, potential patent coverage, and areas where novelty may be strongest.
Search patent databases and academic literature for prior art relevant to an invention. Use when user says "现有技术检索", "prior art search", "专利检索", "check patents", or wants to find relevant prior art.
Run score Not tested
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Search patents and literature for prior art relevant to: $ARGUMENTS
Adapted from /research-lit for patent-specific searching.
MAX_PATENT_RESULTS = 20 — Maximum patent documents to analyze in detailMAX_PAPER_RESULTS = 15 — Maximum academic papers to analyze in detailSEARCH_YEARS = 10 — How many years back to searchPATENT_DATABASES = "google-patents, espacenet" — Patent databases to searchRead the invention description from:
$ARGUMENTS if it contains technical detailspatent/INVENTION_BRIEF.md if it existsINVENTION_BRIEF.md if it exists at project rootLoad ../shared-references/prior-art-databases.md for search strategy templates and IPC/CPC classification guidance.
From the invention description, identify:
For EACH search concept, search via:
Google Patents (via WebSearch):
WebSearch: "site:patents.google.com [keywords]"
WebSearch: "[keywords] patent"
Espacenet (via WebFetch):
Assignee/Inventor Search:
For each potentially relevant patent found:
Search the same concepts in academic databases:
WebSearch "[keywords] site:scholar.google.com"/arxiv if available, or WebSearch): Search for preprints/semantic-scholar if API key set, or WebSearch)For each relevant paper found:
For each reference found, assess:
Organize results by IPC/CPC classification to see the technical landscape.
Based on the search results:
Disclaimer: This is a preliminary assessment only. A professional freedom-to-operate analysis by a patent attorney is recommended before filing.
Write patent/PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md with:
## Prior Art Search Report
### Invention Summary
[1-2 sentence description of the searched invention]
### Search Strategy
- Keywords used: [...]
- IPC/CPC classes searched: [...]
- Databases searched: Google Patents, Espacenet, Google Scholar, arXiv
- Date range: [year] to present
### Patent References Found
| # | Patent No. | Title | Date | Assignee | IPC/CPC | Key Teaching | Overlap Risk |
|---|-----------|-------|------|----------|---------|-------------|-------------|
| 1 | CN... / US... | [title] | [date] | [assignee] | [codes] | [2-3 sentences] | HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW |
### Non-Patent Literature Found
| # | Reference | Title | Authors/Venue | Year | Key Contribution | Relevance |
|---|-----------|-------|--------------|------|-----------------|-----------|
| 1 | [DOI/link] | [title] | [authors] | [year] | [1-2 sentences] | HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW |
### Prior Art Landscape
[Organized by technical approach or IPC class, not just chronological]
### Freedom-to-Operate Preliminary Assessment
[Which existing patents might block the invention? What is the risk level?]
### Recommendations
- Suggested claim scope adjustments based on prior art
- Areas where novelty appears strongest
- References to watch during prosecution
[VERIFY].No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Plan ablation studies, experiments that remove or replace parts of a machine learning method to test their contribution. Define reviewer questions, expected outcomes, priorities, execution order, and compute estimates, then implement experiments and record findings.
Plan and run ablation studies, experiments that remove or replace parts of a method to test their contribution. Organize reviewer questions, priorities, expected outcomes, and compute costs, then record results and findings.
Understand a single arXiv paper through an AlphaXiv summary, with full text and LaTeX source available when needed. Use it to identify key findings or ask specific questions about methods, experiments, and equations.
Compare machine learning experiment results from JSON or CSV files. Calculate improvements over a baseline, summarize variation across repeated runs, identify trends and unusual results, and suggest experiments to test possible explanations.
Search arXiv papers by topic or paper ID, review authors and abstracts, and summarize contributions stated in the abstracts. Download selected papers or all search results as PDFs to build a local paper library.
Improve an existing LaTeX paper through two rounds of Gemini review, targeted edits, and PDF rebuilding. Check whether claims match the evidence, resolve notation and presentation issues, and retain review logs and PDF versions.