Patent Scanner

**Total Score**: Sum of all dimensions (0-13)

**Reporting Threshold**: Report a pattern only when its total is >= 8 **and** its Distinctiveness score is >= 2

CALIBRATE: both values are starting points, subject to revision as eval data accrues. The Distinctiveness minimum exists because the total alone admits a pattern with no distinctiveness (0 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 9); it is 2 because levels 0 and 1 describe a standard approach and a common pattern with minor variation.

### 1. Component Breakdown

For the described concept, identify:

• All technologies/methods being combined
• Source domain for each component
• Standard vs. custom implementation
• What each component contributes

### 2. Combination Analysis

Analyze the combination:

• What emerges from the combination?
• Unexpected synergies (1+1=3)
• Why haven't others combined these?
• Technical barriers overcome

### 3. Problem-Solution Mapping

Map problem to solution:

• Technical problem addressed
• How combination solves it
• Quantifiable benefits (if known)
• Comparison to existing approaches

### 4. Sophistication Assessment

Evaluate sophistication:

• Why this combination shows technical sophistication
• Barriers that existed before
• Challenges in existing implementations
• What makes this approach different

### 5. Problem-Solution-Benefit Mapping (JB-1)

Structure each pattern as:

| Element | Question |

|---------|----------|

| **Problem** | What specific technical limitation exists today? |

| **Solution** | How does this approach address it (explain HOW)? |

| **Benefit** | What measurable advantage results? |

**Quality check**: Problem must be SPECIFIC, Solution must explain HOW (not just WHAT),

Benefit must be MEASURABLE.

### 6. Claim Angle Generation (JB-5)

For patterns that meet the reporting threshold (see Scoring Dimensions), generate three claim framings:

1. **Method claim**: Process steps

2. **System claim**: Components and their arrangement

3. **Apparatus claim**: Physical or logical structure

**Example** (same pattern, three angles):

> **Pattern**: Real-time collaborative editing with conflict resolution

• **Method**: "A method for synchronizing document edits comprising detecting concurrent changes, applying operational transformation, and merging without data loss"
• **System**: "A system comprising an edit detection module, a transformation engine, and a conflict resolver configured to merge concurrent modifications"
• **Apparatus**: "An apparatus for collaborative authoring including change buffers, transformation logic, and consistency enforcement mechanisms"

---

Scoring Guide

**Distinctiveness (0-4)**:

• 0: Standard approach, widely used
• 1: Common pattern with minor variation
• 2: Meaningful customization of known approach
• 3: Distinctive combination or significant innovation
• 4: Genuinely unique approach

**Sophistication (0-3)**:

• 0: Straightforward implementation
• 1: Some clever optimizations
• 2: Complex but well-structured
• 3: Highly elegant solution to hard problem

**System Impact (0-3)**:

• 0: Isolated utility
• 1: Affects one subsystem
• 2: Cross-cutting concern
• 3: Foundational to system architecture

**Frame Shift (0-3)**:

• 0: Works within existing paradigm
• 1: Questions one assumption
• 2: Challenges core approach
• 3: Redefines the problem entirely

### Patent Value Signals (JB-3)

In addition to the distinctiveness score, assess patent value signals:

| Signal | Range | Criteria |

|--------|-------|----------|

| **Market Demand** | low/medium/high | Would customers pay for this capability? |

| **Competitive Value** | low/medium/high | Is this worth disclosing via patent? |

| **Distinctiveness Confidence** | low/medium/high | Distinctive approach or good engineering? |

**Advisory signals**: JB-3 signals are advisory only — displayed alongside the 4-dimension

score but do NOT affect the reporting threshold. The 4-dimension score remains the

primary filter; JB-3 provides additional context for prioritization.

### Final Analysis: Product Centrality and Defensibility

After scoring patterns on the four distinctiveness dimensions and the JB-3 signals, emit a per-pattern Final Analysis to help the user prioritize which patterns are worth attorney consultation time. This is **not a patentability assessment** — it is workload prioritization for the human attorney.

For each pattern that meets the reporting threshold, score two axes:

| Axis | Range | Question |

|------|-------|----------|

| **Product Centrality** | 0.0-1.0 | How central is this mechanism to the user's stated product? Would removing it materially change what the product does? |

| **Defensibility** | 0.0-1.0 | How hard would a competitor have to work to design around this mechanism? Is the technique itself the moat, or is there a readily available workaround? |

Each score MUST be accompanied by a sentence-level **rationale** — the score alone is uninterpretable; the rationale is what the attorney can evaluate without taking the score at face value.

**Recommendation rule**:

recommend_attorney_consultation = product_centrality > 0.5 AND defensibility > 0.5

• If true → **"Recommended for attorney consultation"**
• If