Patentability search checklist: full-process steps

Use the following phases as a control framework. The appropriate search depth depends on the matter; fixed counts of databases, keywords or languages are not a substitute for reasoned scope.

Phase 1: preparation before searching

1. Receive and review the invention disclosure. Confirm that it explains the technical field, relevant background, the proposed solution, embodiments or examples, drawings where useful, and claimed advantages. Record missing information.
2. Confirm the search type and filing context. Identify the subject matter, likely patent or utility-model route, target jurisdictions, decision stage, and whether the task is a preliminary screen or a fuller patentability review.
3. Set the deadline, objective and deliverable. State the decision the search must inform, the cut-off date, responsible reviewer and expected output.

Once the scope is clear, Eureka IP Search can extract technical features from an invention description, build multiple search strategies and organize feature-by-feature prior-art comparisons.¹ The searcher still needs to verify the scope, dates, evidence and legal conclusions.

Phase 2: search execution

4. Understand the invention and distill its core features. Break the solution into claim-relevant structural, functional and relational features. Explain the role of each feature instead of relying on isolated nouns.
5. Build a keyword matrix. Record useful Chinese and English terms, synonyms, broader and narrower expressions, abbreviations, functional language and spelling variants. Add terms discovered during iterative review.
6. Select classification symbols. Use relevant IPC symbols and, where the search scope supports it, CPC or Japanese FI/F-Term classifications. Treat classification as a complement to text and semantic searching, not a replacement.
7. Search the databases justified by the scope. Combine keyword, classification, semantic, citation, family and applicant/inventor routes where useful. Record the database, query, filters, date and screening result. WIPO guidance emphasizes concentrating on resources likely to retrieve relevant documents and extending the search when results justify it.²
8. Search non-patent literature where the field or results require it. Select sources by discipline—for example, Google Scholar, PubMed, IEEE Xplore, arXiv, standards databases, product manuals or theses. WIPO guidance calls for broader NPL resources when relevant patent art is limited or when the technical field warrants them.³

Phase 3: analysis and assessment

9. Complete a feature comparison. For every material feature, mark whether each reference discloses it fully, partially or not at all. Cite the exact claim, paragraph, figure or passage and explain any functional-equivalence judgment.
10. Apply the relevant inventive-step framework. Where the EPO problem–solution approach is appropriate, identify the closest prior art, establish the objective technical problem from the distinguishing features and effects, and ask whether the skilled person would have arrived at the claimed solution.⁷ Other jurisdictions may apply a different test.
11. Prepare strategy points for qualified review. Identify claim directions, disclosure gaps, experiments or data that may need to be added, and foreseeable examination issues. Separate search findings from legal advice and filing decisions.

When the matter moves beyond searching, Eureka IP Drafting supports invention-disclosure, patent-drafting and office-action-response workflows aligned with CNIPA, USPTO and EPO standards.⁸ Those are separate drafting and prosecution tasks and require appropriate professional review.

Phase 4: closure and quality control

12. Record uncertainties. List sources, jurisdictions, languages or technical directions not covered; unresolved publication or priority dates; legal-status questions; and terms that may need another iteration.
13. Arrange internal or peer review. Use an independent reviewer for matters whose value or risk justifies it. Record the reviewer, scope, comments and disposition.
14. Discuss the handoff with the inventor or patent professional. Confirm the technical understanding, key references, unresolved assumptions and next decisions. Document material clarifications rather than leaving them only in conversation.
15. Archive the reproducible record. Save the disclosure version, feature set, complete queries, databases, filters, screened references, comparison notes, final assessment and later examination outcomes when available.

II. Patentability search checklist: reverse-check questions

Before finalizing the report, use these questions to test whether the work is robust enough for its stated purpose.

1. Can the strategy retrieve a known relevant patent? Test a known reference against the query set. If it does not appear, diagnose the missing terms, symbols, fields, filters or database coverage.
2. Are the sources and languages proportionate to the field? Do not rely on a universal minimum. Explain why the chosen patent databases, NPL sources, jurisdictions and search languages match the invention and filing plan.
3. Did hindsight influence the inventive-step assessment? Ask whether the skilled person, starting from the relevant prior art before the critical date, would have followed the asserted path—not merely whether the combination can be reconstructed after reading the invention.
4. Is every disclosure finding precise? A “partial” or “equivalent” finding needs a cited passage or figure and a short rationale. Avoid unsupported labels.
5. Could another trained reviewer reproduce the search? Preserve the exact queries, databases, dates, filters, screening criteria, exclusions and reasoning needed to rerun the work.

III. Patentability search checklist: feature-comparison template

Use this template for the closest references. Add rows and columns as needed; do not force different references into identical evidence categories.

Invention title: Search date: Critical date used:

Conclusion fields

• Closest prior art and selection rationale: ______________________________
• Novelty findings by claim: _____________________________________________
• Inventive-step findings and applicable framework: _______________________
• Uncertainties and additional search directions: _________________________
• Strategy points for professional review: ________________________________

IV. Patentability search checklist: report structure template

1. Search information summary: search and critical dates, databases, complete queries, classification symbols, NPL sources, filters, searcher and reviewer.
2. Invention-understanding summary: technical field, proposed solution, core inventive points and distinguishing features.
3. Search-results overview: the references selected for detailed review, patent-family context and other noteworthy literature.
4. Feature-comparison table: claim-relevant features, document passages, disclosure status and rationale.
5. Patentability analysis: novelty, inventive step or non-obviousness, utility or industrial applicability where relevant, and any jurisdiction-specific limits.
6. Strategy recommendations: claim and disclosure directions, possible supporting data, examination issues and matters for counsel.
7. Search uncertainties: scope limits, unsearched sources or languages, date and legal-status questions, and recommended follow-up.

V. Full 33-article series guide

The series moves from core concepts through methodology, technical analysis, industry applications, risk controls and operational templates.

VI. Continuous improvement

A patentability search checklist should evolve as databases, classification systems, examination guidance and team experience change. Review the checklist on a defined schedule—an annual review can be a practical baseline—and also after a material process failure, tool change or new jurisdictional requirement.

For each revision, record the version, owner, effective date, reason for change and training impact. Use completed matters to refine search routes, quality checks and uncertainty language without turning one case into a universal rule.

Sources and verification

1. Patsnap Eureka, IP Search. Accessed July 30, 2026.
2. WIPO, PCT International Search and Preliminary Examination Guidelines, paragraphs 15.52–15.62. Accessed July 30, 2026.
3. WIPO, guidance on patent and non-patent literature searching. Accessed July 30, 2026.
4. WIPO, International Patent Classification. Accessed July 30, 2026.
5. EPO and USPTO, Cooperative Patent Classification. Accessed July 30, 2026.
6. Japan Patent Office, Patent Classifications. Accessed July 30, 2026.
7. EPO Guidelines 2026, Problem-Solution Approach. Accessed July 30, 2026.
8. Patsnap Eureka, IP Drafting. Accessed July 30, 2026.

This article provides general search-process information, not legal advice. Search scope and patentability conclusions should be reviewed by qualified professionals under the law and practice of the relevant jurisdiction.