Novelty (anticipation)
Every prior-art reference is checked for each claim element — all elements must be present in a single reference to anticipate. Element-by-element mapping is required.
The most defensible patent search report a practitioner can order.
Patent Prior-Art & Search Engine delivers a finished, practitioner-reviewed evidence package — ranked references, element-by-element claim charts, search strategy log, and findings memo — built on a deterministic retrieval-and-mapping core and signed off by a USPTO-registered patent practitioner.
Every report reviewed by a USPTO-registered practitionerElement-by-element claim mapping against target claimsMulti-database retrieval: patent & non-patent literatureSearch strategy & database log included5-business-day SLA
Why searches fail
A single missed reference can invalidate a patent or sink an opinion.
Every meaningful patent decision rests on a search. Before filing, attorneys run a patentability (novelty) search to judge whether claims will survive §102/§103. Before launching a product, companies run a freedom-to-operate (FTO) search to find blocking claims. When challenging a patent in litigation or an inter partes review (IPR), the petitioner lives or dies on the quality of the invalidity prior art.
The search is the evidentiary foundation — and it is slow, expensive, and uneven in quality because it has historically depended on scarce human analysts reading patents one at a time. Most firms run searches by hand, from memory, or through offshore vendors with variable quality. That is exactly where completeness gaps hide.
Patent Prior-Art & Search Engine exists to close that gap with a single, exhaustive standard applied identically to every search.
80%
time reduction on complex searches at an Am Law 100 firm after adopting AI search
The benchmark
Measured against the letter of the statute and the practitioner's standard of care.
We do not summarize the law and hope. Every report is scored against a versioned rule pack tied to the exact text of 35 U.S.C. §§102, 103 and the USPTO's MPEP. These are the provisions each report is held to.
Non-obviousness
Combinations of references are evaluated for obviousness: whether the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Search scope and strategy
The search must cover U.S. patents, foreign patents, and non-patent literature (NPL) using keyword, classification (CPC/IPC), citation, and semantic/embedding vectors.
Rejection framework
References are ranked by relevance and mapped to specific claim limitations, with a clear explanation of how each reference reads on the claims.
Duty to disclose
All material prior art discovered during the search is disclosed in the report, regardless of whether it supports or undermines patentability.
Inter partes review (IPR) standard
For invalidity searches, the report applies the 'reasonable likelihood' standard for institution and the 'preponderance of evidence' standard for final determination.
How a report is built
Intake to practitioner release, with deterministic gates the AI cannot overrule.
AI extracts and drafts. Deterministic rules — running as code, outside the model — decide what is complete. A USPTO-registered practitioner reviews and signs every release. That order is never reversed.
01
Gap Scan
Upload the invention disclosure or target claims. We return a free completeness read: which search types and databases are needed, and what prior art you already have.
02
Multi-database retrieval
As your authorized search agent, we run queries across USPTO, EPO, WIPO, JPO, KIPO, and NPL sources (IEEE, Google Scholar, etc.) using keyword, classification, citation, and semantic vectors.
03
Grounded claim mapping
The AI drafts element-by-element claim charts, mapping each prior-art reference to the target claims. No legal opinions, no invented facts.
04
Deterministic completeness gates
All claim elements are accounted for; search strategy is logged; references are de-duplicated and ranked; any missing element blocks release.
05
Practitioner review
A USPTO-registered patent attorney or agent reviews the exception queue and signs the release. Deep-tech subject matter routes to an SME first.
06
Delivery
You receive the report: ranked references, claim charts, search strategy log, database evidence, and a plain-English findings memo — ready for use in prosecution, opinion, clearance, or litigation.
The bar we hold
Rigor you can measure.
100%
Practitioner-reviewed
No report ships without a USPTO-registered practitioner signature.
5 days
Standard SLA
From complete intake to released report.
<1%
Critical-defect target
Tracked against a gold-standard report library.
10+
Database sources
USPTO · EPO · WIPO · JPO · KIPO · IEEE · Google Scholar · and more.
Why Patent Prior-Art & Search Engine
Built to be the most thorough option a practitioner has.
Evidence-complete, by design
The deliverable is completeness itself — every claim element mapped, every search source logged, every reference ranked. Nothing is left implicit.
Deterministic, not vibes
The gates that decide completeness are code, not a model's opinion. A drafting error cannot slip past a statutory requirement.
In its lane, on purpose
We prepare search evidence and run searches as your clerical agent. We never give legal opinions, draft claims, or file applications. Legal opinions are signed by a registered practitioner or left to the client's counsel.
Engagement
Flat fee, per released report. Never hourly.
Simple, predictable, and aligned with a documentation standard — not a cut of any recovery.
- A free Gap Scan before you commit — see exactly what is missing.
- One flat fee per released Search Evidence Report; disclosed pass-through database fees.
- Optional fixed-fee practitioner review for deep-tech or high-value matters.
- Optional Continuity Add-on for follow-up searches or updated claim charts.
FAQ
Questions, answered precisely.
Is Patent Prior-Art & Search Engine a law firm?
No. Patent Prior-Art & Search Engine, a service of Your Deputy, Obuke LLC, provides documentation-completeness services. It is not a law firm, does not provide legal advice, and does not represent you in any legal matter. Practitioner review is available and recommended for high-value or contested matters.
Do you draft or file patent applications?
Never. Patent Prior-Art & Search Engine is a search and analysis service. We do not draft claims, write specifications, or file applications. The client's counsel remains responsible for all legal opinions and filings.
What makes a report 'complete'?
Completeness is defined by the statute and MPEP: all claim elements mapped, multi-database search executed, references ranked, search strategy logged, and practitioner-reviewed. Deterministic gates enforce each one before release.
How fast is it?
The standard SLA is five business days from complete intake to a practitioner-reviewed report. The free Gap Scan is returned much sooner and tells you exactly what is still needed.
How are you priced?
A flat fee per released report, plus disclosed pass-through database costs. No contingency and no percentage of any recovered amount or sale proceeds.
See what's missing before it costs you a patent.
Start with a free Gap Scan. Send your invention disclosure or target claims and we'll return a completeness read against every subsection of §102/§103 and MPEP.
Documentation-completeness service · not legal advice · the practitioner reviews every report.