Last updated 3 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
Getting a patent can be thrilling. The promise of innovation, commercial success, and legal protection drives inventors to pursue their ideas.
At its core, the U.S. patent system makes a deal: disclose your invention to the public, and the government grants you a limited-time monopoly to exclude others from making, using, or selling it. This system encourages innovation by rewarding genuine advances in knowledge.
But that reward only goes to inventions that are truly new contributions. The measuring stick for this novelty is “prior art.”
What Is Prior Art?
Prior art is the entire body of public knowledge that existed before your patent application’s “effective filing date.” The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and U.S. law consider prior art to be any information made available to the public in any form, anywhere in the world, that might be relevant to your invention’s claims of originality.
If your invention was already described in prior art, it’s not new, and you can’t get a patent. This principle is the bedrock of patent law, ensuring patents reward true advances rather than rediscovering what’s already known.
It’s More Than Just Patents
Many first-time inventors think prior art only includes previously issued patents. The reality is much broader and includes a vast array of publicly accessible information:
Patents and Published Applications include all U.S. patents, U.S. published patent applications, and foreign patents and applications.
Printed Publications cover scientific and technical journals, academic theses, books, magazines, conference proceedings, product manuals, catalogs, and even marketing brochures or press releases. A document counts as a “printed publication” if it was indexed or cataloged so that someone skilled in the relevant technical field could have found it through reasonable effort.
Public Use or Sale means an invention that was in “public use” or “on sale” in the United States can also be prior art. Under U.S. law, inventors have a one-year “grace period” from their first public disclosure, use, or sale to file a patent application. But most foreign countries offer no such grace period—any public disclosure before filing can immediately kill patent rights abroad.
Anything “Otherwise Available to the Public” is a catch-all category that’s grown important in the digital age. It encompasses websites, social media posts, online videos, public speeches, and presentations or posters at conferences. Even traditional or indigenous knowledge passed down through generations can qualify as prior art if it was publicly known.
Information shared under a signed Non-Disclosure Agreement or Confidentiality Agreement isn’t considered a public disclosure and therefore doesn’t typically constitute prior art. This highlights why NDAs matter when discussing unpatented inventions with potential partners or investors.
The Legal Foundation
The concept of prior art and its role in patent examination is written into Title 35 of the United States Code. Patent examiners at the USPTO use discovered prior art to test applications against key statutory requirements for patentability:
35 U.S.C. §101 requires an invention to have utility (be useful).
35 U.S.C. §102 requires an invention to be novel (new).
35 U.S.C. §103 requires an invention to be non-obvious.
The USPTO provides extensive guidance on how examiners apply these laws in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. Chapters covering “Prior Art,” “Rejection on Prior Art,” and “Patentability” offer exhaustive detail for those seeking deeper legal specifics.
Why Prior Art Acts as the Gatekeeper
To receive a U.S. patent, an invention must successfully pass through rigorous examination. Prior art serves as the primary gatekeeper, used by the USPTO to determine if an invention clears the two most critical hurdles: novelty and non-obviousness.
Core Requirements for a U.S. Patent
According to the USPTO, an invention must meet several key conditions to be patentable. It must fall within a patentable subject matter category (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), and it must be:
Useful (Utility): The invention must have a specific, substantial, and credible real-world use. It can’t be a mere theory or abstract idea.
Novel (New): The invention must not have been previously known or described in prior art.
Non-obvious: The invention must be more than a trivial or predictable variation of what already exists in prior art.
Enabled: The patent application must describe the invention in full, clear, and concise terms so that someone skilled in the relevant field could make and use it without undue experimentation.
While all these requirements are essential, the novelty and non-obviousness standards are where battles over prior art are most often fought.
The Novelty Hurdle: Is Your Invention Genuinely New?
The novelty requirement, governed by 35 U.S.C. §102, is the most straightforward test. An invention is considered not novel if it’s “anticipated” by prior art.
In legal terms, anticipation occurs when a single prior art reference—whether a patent, journal article, or product manual—discloses each and every element of the invention as described in a patent claim.
This is a strict, one-to-one comparison. Imagine an invention claimed as “a table comprising a flat top surface, four legs, and a drawer.” If a single prior art document, like an old furniture catalog, shows a picture and description of a table with a flat top, four legs, and a drawer, the invention is anticipated. The claim lacks novelty and will be rejected.
The Non-Obviousness Challenge: Beyond Simple Combinations
Non-obviousness, governed by 35 U.S.C. §103, is far more complex, subjective, and challenging. Even if an invention is technically novel (no single reference discloses everything), it can still be denied a patent if the differences between the invention and existing prior art would have been “obvious” to a “person having ordinary skill in the art” (PHOSITA) at the time the invention was made.
The most common way an examiner makes an obviousness rejection is by combining the teachings of two or more prior art references to effectively reconstruct the invention. For example:
An inventor claims a new “caffeinated soap bar.”
The examiner finds Prior Art Reference A, which describes a standard soap bar.
The examiner also finds Prior Art Reference B, a medical journal article discussing the skin’s ability to absorb caffeine from topical lotions.
The examiner could combine these references and argue that it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA (like a cosmetic chemist) to add the caffeine from Reference B to the soap bar of Reference A to create the claimed invention.
This prevents inventors from getting patents for simply combining old elements to achieve predictable results.
The KSR Shift: Making Obviousness More Flexible
The legal framework for determining obviousness was established by the Supreme Court in the 1966 case Graham v. John Deere Co. This case set forth three core factual inquiries:
- Determine the scope and content of prior art
- Ascertain the differences between the claimed invention and prior art
- Resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art (the PHOSITA)
For decades, courts applied a relatively rigid test requiring the prior art to contain some explicit suggestion to combine references. However, the legal landscape shifted dramatically with the 2007 Supreme Court decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. The KSR case endorsed a more flexible, expansive, and common-sense-based approach to obviousness.
An examiner is no longer required to find an explicit “suggestion to combine.” Instead, they can make an obviousness case based on rationales such as market pressures, design incentives, the predictable use of known elements, or the simple substitution of one known component for another.
This change prevents overly rigid rules from granting patents on essentially predictable improvements. However, it also introduces greater subjectivity into the examination process, making obviousness rejections harder to predict.
This legal evolution makes a pre-filing prior art search more critical than ever. It’s no longer sufficient to search only for direct copies of your invention. You must now strategically search for the individual “building blocks” of your invention, even if those blocks exist in different technical contexts, to anticipate how an examiner might combine them.
To counter an obviousness rejection, an inventor can present “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness. This objective evidence can include factors like the invention’s commercial success, its satisfaction of a long-felt but unsolved need, the failure of others to create the invention, or evidence that the invention produces unexpected and superior results compared to prior art.
Why Search Before You File?
Conducting a prior art search before filing a patent application isn’t just defensive—it’s a proactive strategy offering significant financial, legal, and competitive advantages. It transforms the patenting process from reactive damage control into strategic intellectual property building.
Financial Prudence: Avoiding Costly Mistakes
Perhaps the most compelling reason to conduct an early prior art search is saving money. The patent application process is expensive. Costs include USPTO filing and examination fees, plus patent attorney fees for drafting the application, which can easily range from several thousand dollars for a simple invention to over $16,000 for complex software or biotechnology.
Given that the USPTO rejects approximately 50% of all applications based on prior art findings, investing in a search upfront is sound financial planning.
Discovering a “knockout” prior art reference that completely anticipates your invention after these fees are paid is a significant loss. Worse still is proceeding with tooling, manufacturing, and marketing investments, only to find out later that the core idea isn’t patentable and the market is open to all competitors.
A prior art search is an upfront investment that provides critical data needed to decide whether to proceed, pivot, or abandon a project before committing substantial resources.
Strengthening Your Patent Application
A prior art search isn’t simply a pass/fail test for patentability—it’s a powerful tool for drafting a better, stronger, and more defensible patent application. By understanding the existing technological landscape, you and your patent attorney can build a robust case for patentability from the beginning.
Crafting Strategic Claims: The “claims” are the most important part of a patent, as they define the legal boundaries of your invention’s protection. Knowledge of prior art allows claims to be drafted with surgical precision, focusing on specific features and combinations that are truly novel and non-obvious. This avoids drafting claims that are overly broad and easily rejected, or so narrow that they offer little commercial value.
Proactively Addressing Prior Art: A well-drafted application can preemptively address the closest known prior art. The “background” and “summary” sections of the patent can describe the state of the art and explicitly detail how the new invention provides unexpected advantages or solves problems that prior art didn’t. This narrative can be highly persuasive to a patent examiner.
Reducing Prosecution Costs: A patent application drafted with full knowledge of prior art is more likely to navigate the examination process smoothly. By anticipating and addressing potential rejections, the application may receive fewer “Office Actions” (official letters from the examiner detailing rejections). This reduces the costly and time-consuming back-and-forth between your patent attorney and the USPTO, ultimately lowering the total cost of securing the patent.
Risk Mitigation: Steering Clear of Infringement Lawsuits
One of the most critical and often overlooked benefits of a comprehensive search is avoiding unintentionally infringing on a competitor’s active patent. Launching a product only to receive a cease-and-desist letter or be sued for patent infringement can be catastrophic for a business, leading to expensive litigation, royalty payments, or a forced product redesign.
Crucially, ignorance of a pre-existing patent isn’t a valid legal defense against an infringement claim. The responsibility lies with the innovator to ensure their product has “freedom to operate.” A pre-filing search, particularly a clearance search that focuses on unexpired patents, can identify these potential legal landmines early in the development process.
This gives you strategic options: attempt to design around the competitor’s patent, approach the patent holder to negotiate a license, or decide that the risk is too great and pivot to a different technology.
A Tool for Innovation: R&D and Competitive Intelligence
Beyond its legal and financial benefits, a prior art search is an invaluable tool for innovation and business strategy. Patent databases are one of the world’s largest repositories of technical information, with some estimates suggesting that 70-90% of all technical knowledge can be found only in patent documents.
By tapping into this resource, inventors and businesses can:
Guide Research and Development: Studying prior art can reveal how others have tried to solve similar problems, spark new ideas for improvements, and prevent the costly mistake of “reinventing the wheel.”
Gather Competitive Intelligence: Analyzing competitors’ patent filings provides a unique window into their R&D strategies and future product pipelines. Patents often precede product releases by several years, offering an early warning system for market shifts. This intelligence can inform your own strategic direction, identify emerging technology trends, and even uncover potential partners for collaboration or companies for acquisition.
How to Conduct Your Search
A thorough prior art search is a systematic investigation, not a casual web search. While it can be complex, understanding the fundamental methods can help you conduct a more effective preliminary search and collaborate more effectively with patent professionals. A complete search typically relies on three complementary techniques: text searching, classification searching, and citation searching.
Step 1: Brainstorming Keywords & Defining Your Invention
The first and most important step is to clearly and concisely define your invention. Before searching, write down a one-sentence description of the invention’s purpose, structure, and function. Repeating this exercise several times with different phrasing can help identify core concepts.
From these descriptions, brainstorm a comprehensive list of keywords and synonyms for each key feature. Think broadly. Consider different technical terms, industry jargon, common language, and even potential translations or variations in phrasing that another inventor might have used.
For example, for a “camping bicycle” that folds into a backpack, your keyword list should include not only “bicycle” and “backpack” but also synonyms like “two-wheeled vehicle,” “rucksack,” and “knapsack,” as well as functional terms like “folding,” “hinged,” and “collapsible.”
Step 2: Executing the Search with Text and Classifications
With a robust keyword list, the search can begin. This involves two parallel strategies:
Text Searching is the most intuitive method, involving entering keywords into a patent database. To make these searches more effective, use Boolean operators:
- AND: Narrows the search to results containing all specified terms (e.g., bicycle AND folding)
- OR: Broadens the search to results containing any of the specified terms, perfect for grouping synonyms (e.g., backpack OR rucksack OR knapsack)
- Quotation Marks (“”): Searches for an exact phrase (e.g., “folding frame”)
Classification Searching is more reliable because different inventors use different terminology. This method uses a patent classification system, which organizes patents into technical categories regardless of specific words used. The dominant system today is the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system, jointly managed by the USPTO and the European Patent Office.
The CPC is a hierarchical system with broad sections (like Section A: Human Necessities) that drill down into highly specific technical subgroups.
A powerful strategy is to combine text and classification searching. Start with a keyword search to find a few highly relevant patents. Then, identify the CPC codes assigned to those patents. Finally, conduct a new search using those specific CPC codes to uncover all other patents in that same technological niche, even if they use different keywords.
Step 3: Deepening the Search with Citation Analysis
One of the most powerful but underutilized search techniques is citation analysis. Every patent contains a list of references that were considered by the inventor and examiner during prosecution. These citations create a web of interconnected documents that can be followed to uncover more prior art.
Backward Citation Search: Look at the “References Cited” section of a relevant patent you’ve found. These are the older documents that the patent builds upon. Following these links is like traveling back in time to find foundational prior art in a given field.
Forward Citation Search: Look for patents that have cited the patent you found (often labeled “Referenced By”). These are newer documents that considered your starting-point patent to be relevant. This is an excellent way to see how a technology has evolved and to find the most recent competitors.
Platforms like Google Patents and the USPTO’s Patent Public Search make it easy to navigate these forward and backward citations with a single click. This iterative process—using keywords to find patents, using those patents’ classifications to find more patents, and then using those patents’ citations to find even more—is the hallmark of a thorough search.
Step 4: Expanding Beyond Patent Databases
A comprehensive search must extend beyond patent databases, as prior art can take many forms. It’s essential to also search non-patent literature, including:
Academic and Scientific Sources: Use databases like Google Scholar and visit university library websites to search for scholarly articles, dissertations, and technical papers.
Commercial and Product Information: Search commercial websites like Amazon or Alibaba, and look at the product pages and technical manuals of companies that operate in the same space.
General Web and Media Searches: Conduct broad web searches using various search engines. Look for product reviews, news articles, press releases, and videos on platforms like YouTube that might describe or show the invention in use.
Step 5: Analyzing and Documenting Your Findings
As the search progresses, stay organized. Start by skimming the titles and abstracts of search results to quickly discard irrelevant documents. For any reference that seems relevant, conduct an in-depth review. Pay special attention to the drawings and, most importantly, the claims, as the claims legally define the scope of what the patent protects.
Keep a detailed search log that records the databases searched, the keywords and classifications used, and the dates of the searches. Save complete copies of all relevant prior art documents you find. This documentation is invaluable for your own analysis, for your patent attorney, and for fulfilling the legal duty to disclose known, relevant prior art to the USPTO.
A systematic way to compare your invention to a piece of prior art is to create a “claim chart,” which is a table that breaks down your invention’s features element by element and maps them to corresponding disclosures in the prior art reference.
Key Databases and Resources
Fortunately for inventors, there are numerous powerful and free resources available for conducting a prior art search. While professional searchers may have access to sophisticated paid databases, these public tools provide an excellent starting point and are often sufficient for a comprehensive preliminary search.
The Official Source: USPTO Patent Public Search
The primary and most authoritative resource for U.S. patents is the USPTO’s own Patent Public Search tool. This web-based application replaced the older, separate systems for searching patents and applications. It provides access to the complete history of U.S. patents and published applications and offers two distinct interfaces:
Basic Search: Designed for new users, this mode allows for simple keyword searches across common fields like title, inventor, and publication number.
Advanced Search: This mode unlocks the full power of the database, allowing for complex queries using Boolean operators, filtering by specific databases, and tagging documents for organization.
For inventors who prefer in-person assistance, the USPTO also supports a nationwide network of Patent and Trademark Resource Centers, often located in public and university libraries, where trained staff can provide free guidance on using these search tools.
Powerful Free Global Resources
While the USPTO’s tool is essential for U.S. documents, a thorough search must be global. Several excellent free resources provide worldwide patent coverage.
Google Patents is often the best starting point for any search due to its user-friendly interface, massive global database covering over 100 patent offices, and powerful features. Key advantages include seamless integration with Google Scholar to include non-patent literature in results, built-in machine translation for foreign documents, and an intuitive display of patent families and citation links.
Espacenet is managed by the European Patent Office and is a highly respected database containing over 150 million patent documents from around the world. It’s particularly strong in its classification search capabilities, allowing users to effectively leverage the CPC system, and in its detailed tracking of patent families (the same invention filed in multiple countries).
PATENTSCOPE is provided by the World Intellectual Property Organization and is the official source for published international patent applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. It also includes numerous national patent collections and offers advanced features like cross-lingual and chemical structure searching.
U.S. Government Information Portals
Sometimes, relevant prior art can be found in official government documents that aren’t patents. Two key resources for this are:
GovInfo is managed by the U.S. Government Publishing Office and is a central hub for authentic publications from all three branches of the federal government. This can be a source for technical standards, government reports, or historical documents that may be relevant prior art.
Federal Register is the official daily journal of the U.S. government, containing agency regulations, proposed rules, and public notices. It’s particularly useful for tracking the latest policy discussions from the USPTO, such as recent requests for public comment on the impact of artificial intelligence on prior art and patentability.
| Database Name | URL | Managed By | Key Features/Best For | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patent Public Search | https://www.uspto.gov/patents/search/patent-public-search | U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) | Official U.S. patent and application data; Basic/Advanced modes; direct access to USPTO classification tools. | Free |
| Google Patents | https://patents.google.com/ | User-friendly interface; global coverage; integrated non-patent literature (Google Scholar); excellent citation analysis. | Free | |
| Espacenet | https://worldwide.espacenet.com/ | European Patent Office (EPO) | Extensive global coverage; powerful CPC classification search; detailed patent family tracking. | Free |
| PATENTSCOPE | https://patentscope.wipo.int/ | World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) | Official source for international (PCT) applications; advanced multilingual and chemical search capabilities. | Free |
DIY vs. Professional Search: A Cost-Benefit Analysis
One of the most important decisions an inventor faces is whether to conduct the prior art search themselves or hire a professional. There’s no single right answer; the choice depends on your budget, the complexity of your invention, and your tolerance for risk. This decision isn’t merely financial but a strategic calculation of risk management, where the upfront cost of a professional search can be viewed as insurance against the potentially catastrophic costs of a flawed patent strategy.
The DIY Approach: Empowerment and Pitfalls
An inventor isn’t legally required to perform a prior art search before filing, and many choose to conduct one themselves using the free tools available.
Advantages: The most obvious benefit is cost savings. A Do-It-Yourself search involves an investment of time rather than money, which can be appealing for inventors on a tight budget or at the very early stages of validating an idea. The process also forces the inventor to become deeply familiar with the technology in their field, which can be educational.
Disadvantages and Risks: The primary risk of a DIY search is its potential for being incomplete or inaccurate. An inexperienced searcher is likely to miss relevant prior art due to unfamiliarity with advanced search strategies, classification systems, or the nuances of patent language. This can lead to a false sense of security.
Filing an application based on a flawed search can result in an immediate rejection from the USPTO or, in a worst-case scenario, the issuance of a patent that’s later invalidated in court. DIY filers often struggle most with the subjective analysis of non-obviousness, a skill that patent professionals develop over years of experience arguing before examiners.
Hiring a Professional: The Value of Expert Analysis
The alternative is to hire a registered patent attorney, patent agent, or a specialized patent search firm to conduct the search.
Advantages: Professionals bring deep expertise in search methodologies and access to specialized databases. More importantly, they provide expert legal analysis of the results. A patent attorney can deliver a formal “patentability opinion,” which is a legal judgment on the likelihood of securing a patent and the potential scope of the claims.
Their experience allows them to think like a patent examiner and anticipate potential rejections, particularly complex obviousness arguments that a layperson would likely miss. This expert analysis is crucial for crafting a strong application and a robust IP strategy.
Understanding the Costs
The cost of a professional search varies significantly based on several factors:
Invention Complexity: A simple mechanical device is less expensive to search than complex software, a chemical compound, or a biotechnology process.
Scope of Search: A search limited to U.S. patents will cost less than a comprehensive global search that includes foreign patents and non-patent literature.
Type of Report: A basic search report listing relevant documents is cheaper than a report that includes a detailed patentability opinion from an attorney.
As a general guideline, professional search costs can range from $500 for a simple search to $3,000 or more for highly complex inventions requiring extensive analysis by a patent attorney. While this upfront cost may seem substantial, it must be weighed against the thousands of dollars in application fees and the even greater potential losses from pursuing a non-patentable invention.
| Factor | DIY Search | Professional Search |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | Low (primarily time) | Moderate to High ($500 – $3,000+) |
| Accuracy / Completeness | Variable; high risk of missing key art | High; uses expert strategies and databases |
| Time Commitment | Very high for a thorough search | Low for the inventor |
| Legal & Strategic Insight | None; provides raw data only | High; includes analysis of patentability, claim strategy, and infringement risk |
| Best For… | Early-stage idea validation, simple inventions, inventors on a very tight budget | Serious patent applications, complex technologies, risk-averse inventors/businesses |
Beyond Patents: Surprising Sources of Prior Art
The universe of prior art is vast, dynamic, and often found in the most unexpected places. The legal standard for a public disclosure is simply that it must be accessible to the public; it doesn’t need to be in a formal technical document. This principle has led to some remarkable cases that underscore the need for creative and expansive searching.
Where You Least Expect It: Case Studies in Unexpected Prior Art
History is filled with fascinating examples of non-traditional prior art being used to challenge patents. These stories serve as a powerful reminder that a search limited to patent databases is dangerously incomplete.
The Donald Duck Comic: In one of the most famous anecdotes in patent law, a Dutch patent application filed by Karl Kroyer in the 1960s for a method of raising sunken ships by filling them with buoyant foam balls was rejected. The patent examiner cited a 1949 Donald Duck comic strip in which Donald and his nephews use ping-pong balls to raise a sunken yacht in precisely the same manner. The comic, being publicly available, was valid prior art.
Science Fiction Films and Novels: The world of science fiction has also been used as a source of prior art. During a lawsuit between Apple and Samsung, Samsung’s lawyers pointed to the 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey, which featured tablet-like devices, to argue that the general design of the iPad was not novel. Similarly, the inventor of the modern waterbed was reportedly unable to enforce his patent because the concept had been described years earlier in Robert Heinlein’s science fiction novel Stranger in a Strange Land.
Public Speeches and Demonstrations: An inventor’s own words can become prior art. Apple faced this issue when a German court considered Steve Jobs’ public demonstration of the iPhone’s “rubber-banding” screen bounce effect during his 2007 keynote address to be a public disclosure that could be used against a later-filed Apple patent for that same feature.
Ancient Texts and Mythology: The scope of prior art can extend back centuries. In one instance, a patent examiner famously cited a passage from the Bible as prior art against an application. In another, the Greek myth of Hercules cleaning the Augean stables by diverting a river was cited against an invention for a method of cleaning stables with a deluge of water.
These examples illustrate a crucial point: the patent system rewards what is new to the public, and the definition of “public” is incredibly broad. A search must therefore be equally broad and creative.
The Evolving Frontier: How Artificial Intelligence is Changing the Game
The concept of prior art isn’t static; it expands continuously with technology and culture. Today, the patent world is grappling with the profound impact of artificial intelligence, a technology poised to fundamentally reshape the patent landscape.
The USPTO is actively exploring this frontier, holding public listening sessions and requesting comments on how AI will affect patentability through Federal Register notices.
AI’s impact is twofold:
AI as a Generator of Prior Art: Advanced AI models can generate enormous volumes of text, images, and technical designs. As this AI-generated content becomes publicly accessible, it will massively expand the body of potential prior art that must be searched.
AI as a Tool for the PHOSITA: The “person having ordinary skill in the art” is a legal standard that evolves with technology. As powerful AI tools for data analysis, simulation, and problem-solving become widely available, the baseline level of skill expected of a PHOSITA will rise. An inventive step that would have been non-obvious to a human working alone might be considered obvious to a human assisted by a sophisticated AI tool.
This creates a feedback loop: more AI-generated art necessitates more powerful AI search tools to find it, and the availability of those tools raises the bar for what’s considered a non-obvious invention.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
