When it is needed
For a technical overview, preparation of a comparative examination or checking the completeness of the equivalents used.
What we examine
- Patent publications
- Scientific and technical sources
- Description of the development examined
Materials to prepare
- Description and technical task
- Known equivalents and key features
- Relevant date and territories
- Search boundaries and intended use of the result
Sample questions
- Which published solutions relate to the stated technical task?
- Which search features and classification headings were used?
- Which technical similarities and differences were found in the selected documents?
- Which sources were published before the specified date?
- Which search limitations must be considered when interpreting the result?
Build a set of questions →
How the work is carried out
- We agree the subject, date and search strategy
- We search for and select relevant publications
- We prepare an overview with identifiers and a comparison table
Result
A search report describing sources, queries and selected documents.
What affects the conclusions
A search has agreed boundaries and does not guarantee the absence of all unknown equivalents or a positive Rospatent decision.
Frequently asked questions
Does this guarantee a patent will be granted?
No. Search results help study published solutions; a patent is granted through the relevant state procedure.
Can you check a search in someone else's report?
Yes. We need the report itself, a list of sources and an explanation of the search strategy used.
What makes a patent search verifiable
A useful search result makes clear not only which documents were found but also how they were selected. Before work begins, the technical task, relevant features, reference date, territories and source types are recorded. Searching by the name of a finished product may miss solutions described using other terminology or relating only to an individual component.
Search expressions are formed from several groups: purpose, operating principle, structural elements and the problem addressed. Terms are compared with classification headings and available language variants. Wording is refined while reviewing results, but information on how the strategy changed is retained.
- For every significant document, state the publication number, title, date and source from which it was obtained.
- The same solution in several publications is considered with regard to the documents' relationship rather than automatically counted as different equivalents.
- The reason for including a document in the overview is described through a relevant technical feature.
- Incomplete text, inaccessible appendices, machine translation and other limitations on reviewing the source are noted separately.
Publication date, filing date and priority information have different meanings. The report must show which was used for the particular task, rather than include a single unspecified ‘patent date’ column. If legal assessment of a right's validity is required, search results do not replace it.
A retained query and selection log helps check examination completeness and explain why some documents were compared in detail while others did not meet the brief.
