Prepare the invention disclosure

Novelty screening starts with a clear, complete technical description: the problem your invention solves, the key structural or functional elements, and how they work together — including materials, dimensions, and method steps where they distinguish your solution. A fuller description improves accuracy (the tool recommends a passage longer than 200 words), though shorter queries still run. Avoid marketing language and focus on the technical implementation; if your invention combines known components in a new way, describe that combination explicitly. Since the description becomes the search query, technical clarity matters more than prose style. Sketches, diagrams, or photos are optional and can improve retrieval, though text alone is usually enough.

Distinguish novelty screening from a patentability conclusion

A novelty search retrieves and compares prior art, helping you spot features that may distinguish your invention from what’s already published. It doesn’t render a legal opinion on patentability, validity, or freedom to operate — examination weighs novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability, and formal requirements, and this search addresses only the first at a preliminary level. Results depend on the description you supply, the database scope, and the ranking algorithm: a highly relevant reference can be missed if it uses different terminology or sits outside the search scope, and a reference flagged as similar may turn out to differ in ways that preserve novelty once examined closely. Treat results as research leads for a patent attorney or agent to interpret against claim-drafting strategy and examination practice in your target jurisdictions.

1Connect Patsnap Patent Research

1. Get a Patsnap Open Platform API key.
2. Copy the connection URL or JSON config from the Connect panel on the Patsnap Patent Research page.
3. Add the server to your AI assistant or coding agent or another MCP-compatible client, then restart it.
4. Confirm novelty_search and get_task are available before you ask — the same server also exposes fto_review and design_fto for related workflows.

2Start the novelty-search task

Check this invention for novelty: Thin aluminum inter-cell cooling plate with serpentine coolant channels, sealed phase-change-material pockets, inlet/outlet temperature sensing and delta-T flow control.

Claude calls novelty_search with that description, lite mode for faster execution, and top_k set to 5 for five representative comparisons. The tool returns a task ID and runs asynchronously through seven steps — generating search queries, retrieving candidates, screening for relevance, comparing features, assessing novelty, and preparing a summary report. Claude polls get_task automatically and notifies you when it’s ready — typically a few minutes for a lite search. In the recorded run, task novelty-6ad9b23bec2e completed all seven steps.

3What the search result gives you

50 candidates were retained after screening, with five core patents selected for detailed comparison:

The report compared these against the disclosure and concluded the sealed PCM pockets integrated directly into the liquid-cooling plate appeared novel. Each reference showed partial overlap — serpentine channels in one, discrete PCM chambers in another, differential sensing in a third — but none combined all four features in the described configuration.

4Refine around uncovered features

Use the returned patents to explore adjacent design space — Ask your AI assistant or coding agent to search for cooling plates combining metallic construction with embedded phase-change materials, or thermal-management systems that modulate flow rate on real-time temperature differentials. Each refinement reuses novelty_search with adjusted terminology. You can also supply a publication number from the initial result and Ask your AI assistant or coding agent to retrieve the full abstract, claims, or bibliographic details for deeper comparison. If the search surfaced close prior art, consider whether a design change, a narrower claim, or a different inventive-step argument might preserve patentability; if it found nothing blocking, expand the query to related materials, alternative implementations, or earlier filing dates to confirm the field is clear.

Prepare findings for qualified review

Compile the novelty report, compared patents, and any follow-up results into a summary for your patent attorney or IP advisor — highlight which features appeared in prior art and which combinations stayed uncovered, and note any terminology mismatches or jurisdictional gaps that might warrant a supplemental search. Provide the full technical description you used so the attorney can judge whether the search captured your invention’s complete scope, and flag any design changes made since so they can advise on whether a new search is needed before filing.