Introduction

A patentability search checklist helps teams turn the full how-to series into repeatable execution. This is the concluding piece of this Patentability Search How-To series — a condensed, practical toolkit. The previous thirty-two articles have covered a complete body of knowledge spanning from concepts to practice, while this article distills the most essential content into ready-to-use checklists and templates, making it easy for you to print, modify, and execute.

Patentability Search Checklist: Full-Process Steps

Before commencing any patentability search task, print or open this checklist to ensure your search process is complete and correct.

Phase 1: Preparation (Before Starting the Search)

• [ ] 1. Receive the Invention Disclosure — Confirm the disclosure includes: technical field, background art, invention content (detailed embodiments + drawings), and advantageous effects
• [ ] 2. Confirm the Search Type — Invention or utility model? Domestic or overseas filing? Full search or quick search? (See decision tree, Article 32)
• [ ] 3. Set Search Deadline and Objectives — What is the completion deadline? Is a formal patentability search report required or just a preliminary assessment?

Phase 2: Search (Operational Execution)

• [ ] 4. Understand the Invention and Distill Core Features — Write down 3–5 core technical features of the invention, noting the function of each feature in the invention (See Article 6)
• [ ] 5. Build a Keyword Matrix — For each core feature: Chinese expressions (>4), English expressions (>4), broader terms, narrower terms, functional terms (See Article 21)
• [ ] 6. Determine Primary Classification Codes — IPC (primary IPC for each patent) + CPC (if applicable) + FI/F-Term (if Japan)
• [ ] 7. Execute Multi-Database Search — Search 3–5 databases according to the search type. For each database: keyword search first → add classification codes → score and rank results
• [ ] 8. Execute NPL Search — At minimum Google Scholar (mandatory); supplement by field: arXiv / AI field, PubMed / biomedical, IEEE / electronics, CNKI / Chinese literature

Phase 3: Analysis and Assessment (Interpreting Search Results)

• [ ] 9. Feature Comparison — Complete a standardized feature-by-feature comparison table. Mark the status of each feature in the reference documents:
• ✅ = Fully disclosed
• ⚠️ = Partially disclosed / functionally equivalent (must explain rationale)
• ❌ = Not disclosed
• [ ] 10. Problem-Solution Approach Analysis — Execute per the standard:
• Step 1: Determine the Closest Prior Art (attach selection rationale)
• Step 2: Identify distinguishing features and the technical problem actually solved
• Step 3: Analyze whether there is a technical teaching for each distinguishing feature
• Output: Final patentability assessment
• [ ] 11. Strategy Recommendations — Provide specific claim drafting suggestions, pre-examination response strategy, and whether supplementary experimental data is needed

Phase 4: Closure and Quality

• [ ] 12. Add “Uncertainties” to the Report — Note: which databases were not searched, which keywords may have omissions, which reference document dates require verification
• [ ] 13. Internal Review / Peer Review of the Patentability Search Report — Core inventions → mandatory independent review (Four-Eyes Principle, Article 28). File after completing the review checklist.
• [ ] 14. Handoff Discussion with Inventor or Patent Attorney — (Mandatory for core inventions, Article 26). Key point: orally supplement strategic information that is “hard to write down” in the report.
• [ ] 15. Archive into the knowledge base workflow — Save: core technical features, reference document patent numbers, final assessment, actual examination results (if available)

II. “Reverse Check” Self-Verification Checklist

After completing the search, before executing the 15 steps above, ask yourself the following five questions:

• [ ] Q1: Can my search find the patent that I know is definitely relevant?
• Take a patent you know to be relevant → run it through your search query → does it hit?
• If not → your search query has gaps.
• [ ] Q2: Did I search at least 3 databases? In at least 2 languages?
• If only one database was used → you have only scratched the surface of the patent literature. In most technical fields, at least half of the patents are in a non-native language (English / Japanese / Korean / German).
• [ ] Q3: Is there “hindsight bias” in my Inventive Step assessment?
• Ask yourself: “If I were unaware of this invention before the filing date, would I have considered this combination obvious?”
• [ ] Q4: Is my assessment of each feature in the reference documents precise or vague?
• “Partially disclosed” cannot be just a sentence — it must be explained: “It is a certain structure suggested in Fig. 3 of D3; Fig. 3 shows…”
• [ ] Q5: Could a new IP staff member read my patentability search report and reproduce my search?
• If not → the search is not transparent. Supplement with: specific search queries, screening criteria, and exclusion rationale.

III. feature comparison template

Below is a ready-to-use patentability search feature comparison template.

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Patentability Search – Feature Comparison Table │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Invention Title: ___________ Date: _ │
│ Reference Document Identifier: D[Reference No.] │
├────┬───────────────────┬──────────┬──────────┬──────────┬──────────┤
│ No.│ Technical Feature │ D1-X │ D2-X │ D3-X │ Analysis│
│ │ of Invention │ │ │ │ Notes │
├────┼───────────────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│ 1 │ │ ⬜ Disclosed│ ⬜ Disclosed│ ⬜ Disclosed│ │
│ │ │ ⬜ Partial │ ⬜ Partial │ ⬜ Partial │ │
│ │ │ ⬜ Not disc.│ ⬜ Not disc.│ ⬜ Not disc.│ │
├────┼───────────────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│ 2 │ │ ⬜ Disclosed│ ⬜ Disclosed│ ⬜ Disclosed│ │
│ │ │ ⬜ Partial │ ⬜ Partial │ ⬜ Partial │ │
│ │ │ ⬜ Not disc.│ ⬜ Not disc.│ ⬜ Not disc.│ │
├────┼───────────────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│ 3 │ │ ⬜ Disclosed│ ⬜ Disclosed│ ⬜ Disclosed│ │
│ │ │ ⬜ Partial │ ⬜ Partial │ ⬜ Partial │ │
│ │ │ ⬜ Not disc.│ ⬜ Not disc.│ ⬜ Not disc.│ │
├────┼───────────────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│ 4 │ │ ⬜ Disclosed│ ⬜ Disclosed│ ⬜ Disclosed│ │
│ │ │ ⬜ Partial │ ⬜ Partial │ ⬜ Partial │ │
│ │ │ ⬜ Not disc.│ ⬜ Not disc.│ ⬜ Not disc.│ │
├────┼───────────────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│ 5 │ │ ⬜ Disclosed│ ⬜ Disclosed│ ⬜ Disclosed│ │
│ │ │ ⬜ Partial │ ⬜ Partial │ ⬜ Partial │ │
│ │ │ ⬜ Not disc.│ ⬜ Not disc.│ ⬜ Not disc.│ │
└────┴───────────────────┴──────────┴──────────┴──────────┴──────────┘

Summary of Conclusions:
· Closest Prior Art: _ (Rationale: )
· Novelty Assessment: ☐ High ☐ Medium ☐ Low (Risk Level)
· Inventive Step Assessment: ☐ High ☐ Medium ☐ Low (Risk Level)
· Uncertainties: _ · Strategy Recommendations: _

IV. Patentability Search Report Standard Structure Template

Use this structure to write or commission a patentability search report:

[1] Search Information Summary
· Search date
· Databases (with specific names)
· Keywords / classification codes (list)
· NPL sources (list)
· Total hits → Number subjected to in-depth analysis
· Searcher identity

[2] Invention Understanding Summary
· Technical field
· Core inventive points (2–4 sentences)
· Key distinguishing features (at least 3 items)

[3] Overall Description of Search Results
· Top 5–10 most relevant patents (numbered D1–D10)
· Other noteworthy literature

[4] Feature Comparison Table (complete the full table, see above)

[5] Patentability Analysis
· 5.1 Novelty
· 5.2 Inventive Step (full details of the Problem-Solution Approach execution)
· 5.3 Utility and other statutory requirements (if applicable)

[6] Strategy Recommendations
· Claim drafting suggestions
· Pre-examination response strategy
· Whether supplementary experimental data is needed or recommended
· Whether division into multiple applications is recommended

[7] Search Uncertainties
· Databases / languages not searched
· Possible keyword omission directions
· Uncertainties regarding reference document dates or legal status

V. Full Series Guide

A complete list of the 33 articles in this series for easy reference and navigation:

(For actual use, please substitute with the filenames in your file framework)

VI. Ongoing Continuous Improvement

This article provides a static full-process Patentability Search Checklist and templates. Patentability search as a discipline continues to evolve — new databases emerge, AI tools advance, and examination standards and classification frameworks are updated.

It is recommended to perform a “version upgrade” of this checklist and templates every 12 months — incorporating best practices, new pitfalls, and new coping strategies distilled from the team’s actual patentability search cases during the cycle. All articles in this series serve as the first-edition cornerstone of your patentability search framework, not the final version.

May all readers make sound patentability assessments and ensure that the value of innovation receives the best protection.

Key Takeaway: A patentability search checklist makes the full process easier to repeat and audit. This article is the “toolkit” finale of the Patentability Search How-To series — a 15-step full-process Patentability Search Checklist, a 5-question “Reverse Check” self-verification, a ready-to-use feature comparison template, a standard Patentability Search Report structure, and a complete 33-article series guide. It is recommended to print the checklist and templates and to update and upgrade them every 12 months based on the team’s practical experience.

For teams turning a patentability search checklist into daily practice, PatSnap Analytics can help centralize prior art review, family checks, and portfolio context.