IP — Prior Art Search Orchestrator

Use when an IP attorney or patent agent needs a systematic prior-art search to assess novelty and non-obviousness before filing or during prosecution. Orchestrates searches across USPTO, EPO Espacenet, WIPO PatentScope, Google Scholar, industry publications, and open-source repositories, then synthesizes a structured novelty and non-obviousness assessment. Relevant for MENA filings (UAE, KSA, EG, GCC) as well as US, EP, and PCT national-phase proceedings.

IP — Prior Art Search Orchestrator

Purpose

A structured prior-art search underpins every patentability opinion, prosecution response, and freedom-to-operate analysis. This workflow orchestrates parallel searches across the canonical databases, de-duplicates results, maps them against claim elements, and produces a novelty-and-non-obviousness assessment in a format usable by outside counsel or a patent committee.

Inputs / Signals

Input	Required	Notes
Invention disclosure or draft claims	Yes	Can be free text or formal disclosure form
Key technical terms + synonyms	Recommended	Inventor-supplied; reduces false negatives
International Patent Classification (IPC) codes	Optional	Narrows search; auto-suggest if not provided
Target filing jurisdictions	Optional	Defaults to US + EP + WO
Date range for prior art	Optional	Default: all dates; narrow to last 20 years for mature fields
Exclusions (known art, own prior filings)	Optional	Avoids re-surfacing known landscape

Search Methodology

Pass 1 — Patent databases (parallel)

Database	Coverage	Query type
USPTO Full-Text & Image (patents.google.com + USPTO)	US granted + published applications	Full text + classification
EPO Espacenet	EP, PCT, + 100+ patent offices worldwide	CPC classification + full text
WIPO PatentScope	PCT applications + national collections	Full-text + IPC
GCC Patent Office (GCCPO)	GCC granted patents	Title + abstract
National offices (SAIP, UAE MoE, EGYPO)	Country-specific	Abstract-level; limited full-text

For each database: run claims as Boolean keyword queries; run IPC/CPC classification browse; run citation forward/backward walk on top hits.

Pass 2 — Non-patent literature (NPL)

Source	What to find
Google Scholar	Academic papers, conference proceedings, dissertations
arXiv, IEEE Xplore, ACM DL	Technical publications in CS, EE, engineering
Industry white papers / standards bodies	ETSI, IEEE, 3GPP, IETF RFCs
GitHub + open-source repositories	Code with timestamps that predates filing — functions as prior art for software claims
Product manuals, datasheets	Commercial prior art — publicly available before priority date

Pass 3 — Targeted inventor art

Search inventor's own prior publications (conference papers, blog posts, GitHub commits) that could act as prior art under AIA §102(a)(1) or equivalents in non-grace jurisdictions
Search co-inventor employment history for relevant work at former employers (ownership + novelty risk)

Pass 4 — Synthesis

For each claim element, build a claim-chart matrix:

Claim Element	Prior Art Reference	Publication Date	How it reads on the element	Materiality
Adaptive rate-limiting	US 10,xxx,xxx	2019-03-12	Discloses variable throttling, not adaptive	Low
Machine-learning feedback loop	CN 109xxx	2020-07-01	Discloses ML prediction but in different context	Medium

Output

## Novelty Assessment

**Claim 1 (independent):** NOVEL — no reference discloses all elements in combination.
**Claim 2 (dependent):** LIKELY NOVEL — closest reference (US 10,xxx) discloses [X] but not [Y].
**Claim 5 (dependent):** AT RISK — EP 3,xxx,xxx discloses substantially the same method.

## Non-Obviousness Assessment

**Combination risk:** References A + B together suggest the invention might be obvious to PHOSITA.
**Teaching-away factor:** Reference B explicitly teaches away from [Y] — supports non-obviousness argument.
**Secondary indicia:** Commercial success of client's product using this method (to be documented).

## Recommendation
File with modified Claim 5 to differentiate from EP 3,xxx,xxx. Obtain inventor declaration on unexpected results for Claim 1 combination.

## Closest Prior Art
1. US 10,xxx,xxx — [title] — [summary of relevance]
2. EP 3,xxx,xxx — [title] — [summary of relevance]
3. arXiv:20xx.xxxxx — [title] — [summary of relevance]

Jurisdictional Notes

Grace Period Differences

Jurisdiction	Inventor Grace Period	Notes
US (post-AIA)	12 months	Applies to inventor's own disclosures only
EP	None	Any public disclosure before filing destroys novelty
UAE	None	Paris Convention member; strict novelty
KSA	None	SAIP follows international novelty standards
Egypt	None	EGYPO strict novelty
PCT / WO	None at international stage	National phase grace period varies

Software and Algorithm Claims

US: Abstract ideas without "something more" fail Alice/Mayo. Method-of-operation framing helps.
EP: Technical character required. Claims framed as technical means to solve a technical problem pass more reliably than pure algorithm claims.
MENA: UAE, KSA, and EG patent laws generally follow civil-law traditions and do not grant patents for algorithms, business methods, or software per se. Technical-method claims (hardware + algorithm combination) are the most defensible path.

Open-Source Prior Art

GitHub commits are prior art if the repository was publicly accessible before the priority date. For software inventions, always search GitHub for repositories with similar functionality and note the commit timestamp, not just the repository creation date.

Limits and Escalation

This workflow provides a preliminary patentability opinion. A formal freedom-to-operate (FTO) or patentability opinion for litigation or transactional purposes requires review by a registered patent attorney or patent agent.
GCC national office databases (UAE, KSA, EG) have limited full-text searchability — a comprehensive search for those jurisdictions should include EPO's worldwide collection and PCT, which capture most substantive filings.
Do not fabricate patent numbers. All references surfaced must come from the actual search query results.