ZYL Law Firm's proprietary patent prior art search workflow is designed for U.S. patent work, not generic web research. It combines professional patent database searching, structured keyword expansion, common-law style public-disclosure review, and U.S. patent practitioner analysis to identify references that may affect novelty, obviousness, design patent scope, IDS strategy, and claim drafting.

The system is built around a practical question: what should change before the application is drafted or the strategy is chosen?

A Four-Layer Workflow

01

Professional Database Layer

The workflow starts with professional patent search sources including Google Patents, USPTO data, Patent Public Search workflows, and Espacenet/EPO coverage where available. Search terms are expanded across technical features, functions, products, use environments, design features, synonyms, and alternative implementations so the review does not depend on one narrow keyword.

02

Common-Law / Public-Disclosure Research

Patentability can be affected by more than issued patents and published applications. The system includes a public-disclosure layer for product pages, manuals, datasheets, standards, papers, open-source repositories, videos, reviews, launch pages, forums, blogs, and archived web pages. These sources are separated from formal patent references and reviewed for possible 102/103 relevance, drafting implications, and evidence-preservation needs.

03

Utility and Design Patent Modes

For utility inventions, the report maps proposed technical features against the closest disclosures and flags possible novelty, obviousness, 101 utility, and 112 support issues. For design matters, the system focuses on visual reference tables, article similarity, visible design features, drawing strategy, and the limits of automated image-based screening.

04

Decision-Oriented Final Report

The final deliverable is a structured prior-art and drafting-strategy report, not a raw hit list. It covers:

Search scope, keyword matrix, and database coverage status
Key references and public-disclosure leads
Patentability observations and preliminary FTO flags
Claim fallback levels and specification support needs
Drawing strategy, IDS candidates, and recommended next steps

What the Report Helps Answer

Can we draft around the closest references?Identifies differences that should become claim limitations, fallback positions, examples, or design distinctions.

What should be added to the specification?Flags terminology, embodiments, parameters, alternatives, diagrams, and support gaps before filing.

Which references may matter for IDS?Separates search leads from final IDS decisions while preserving candidate references for attorney review.

Where does FTO need separate work?Keeps patentability and infringement risk distinct, and flags active-patent claim issues that may require dedicated FTO analysis.

When to Use It

Before drafting a utility applicationGet an earlier, clearer view of the landscape before major drafting or filing costs are incurred.

Design patent screeningAssess the distance between visible design features and earlier designs, and set drawing strategy accordingly.

PCT or foreign-to-U.S. filingsEvaluate the prior-art landscape before U.S. entry and align claim adjustments with U.S. practice.

Office Action strategy and post-grant researchBuild out the reference set and public-disclosure evidence needed for a response or an invalidity attack.

Request a Prior Art Search

To discuss a patent prior art search and drafting strategy report, contact the patent team with your invention disclosure, drawings, product materials, or target patent. We will confirm the search scope and technical field before proposing a work plan and timeline.

Contact the Patent Team See All U.S. Patent Services