Technical features
Identify the mechanisms, components and functional relationships that define the invention.
Patent Search · Patentability
Know whether your invention can withstand deeper patentability analysis before you invest in filing.
Go beyond identifying earlier disclosures. Hashi evaluates relevant prior art against technical features and claim scope to assess novelty, inventive step and potential claim vulnerabilities before the next patent decision.

Direct answer
A patentability search combines prior-art discovery with analysis of whether an invention appears to satisfy relevant novelty and inventive-step or obviousness considerations based on the identified references. It supports an evidence-led decision; it does not guarantee patent grant or replace jurisdiction-specific legal advice.
The commercial question
“Is this invention sufficiently differentiated to justify moving towards patent protection?”
Drafting, attorney time, filing costs, prosecution effort, R&D resources and commercialisation planning all involve commitment. Build that decision around evidence rather than assumption.
Hashi intelligence
Analysis scope
The scope follows the technical question and intended decision—not a generic database query.
Identify the mechanisms, components and functional relationships that define the invention.
Investigate earlier disclosures relevant to important technical features and proposed claim elements.
Analyse whether relevant references, considered alone or in combination, may affect inventive-step or obviousness arguments.
Examine where claim elements appear supported, exposed or potentially worth refining.
Trace relevant patent families, related publications and citation relationships for context and search depth.
Depending on scope, review journals, standards, conference papers and product documentation.
A critical distinction
Both begin with prior art. The difference is the analytical question the evidence must answer.
A patentability search provides analytical evidence. It does not guarantee patent grant or replace jurisdiction-specific legal advice.
Methodology
Clarify the invention, technical objective, problem addressed and intended claim scope.
Break the invention into features, functions, relationships and alternative terminology.
Combine semantic retrieval, keywords, classifications, citations, families and relevant technical literature.
Review potentially relevant references against the technical features and claim elements.
Assess novelty and inventive-step considerations from the identified evidence.
Set out claim-scope observations, limitations and practical next steps.
AI accelerates discovery. Technical experts interpret the evidence.
Request a Patentability SearchAI + expert analysis
Semantic retrieval, terminology expansion, concept similarity, classification discovery, citation relationships, family clustering and document triage.
Technical interpretation, claim-element comparison, relevance review, inventive-step analysis, claim-scope observations and reasoned conclusions.
What you receive
Deliverables are confirmed during scoping. Depending on the agreed scope, they may include:
Defined concepts, scope, sources, jurisdictions and relevant cut-off dates.
Relevant patent and non-patent references identified during the search.
Technical comparison of relevant disclosures against important features and claim elements.
Reasoned review of relationships and combinations that may affect inventive step or obviousness.
Structured analysis of claims and their relationship to the identified evidence.
Observations on exposed, narrow, broad or technically differentiating elements.
Relevant publication relationships and citation context where applicable.
Clear findings, source references, technical reasoning and stated search limitations.
Claim-level analysis
A patentability search should not stop at a list of references. Its value comes from understanding how technical disclosures relate to claim elements—and where a claim may require further analysis or refinement.
Technical feature set
Illustrative analytical structure only; no fabricated claims or patent references are shown.
Timing
Test the invention before committing significant drafting effort.
Obtain evidence before filing costs and prosecution effort begin.
Help R&D and IP teams decide whether deeper analysis is warranted.
Review the disclosure environment before expanding a filing strategy.
Understand surrounding prior art before refining claim scope.
Investigate technical disclosures before substantial market investment.
Technology domains
For startups, R&D teams, corporate IP teams, patent attorneys, universities, research organisations and technology companies.
Chip architecture · HBM · advanced packaging · AI accelerators · RISC-V
5G · 6G · NTN · AI-RAN · massive MIMO · ISAC
ADAS · radar · V2X · autonomous systems · software-defined vehicles
Drug delivery · formulations · diagnostics · medical devices · biotechnology
Machine learning · AI infrastructure · computer vision · edge AI · software-enabled inventions
Patentability treatment for software-enabled and other inventions varies by jurisdiction. The analysis is scoped to the relevant technical and legal context.
Choose the right evidence
Focused investigation of earlier disclosure relevant to novelty.
ExploreNovelty, inventive-step analysis and claim-scope observations.
This serviceBroader investigation of relevant disclosures around an invention or technology.
ExploreProduct clearance analysis against relevant enforceable rights in defined jurisdictions.
ExplorePortfolio, competitor and technology intelligence across larger evidence sets.
ExploreNot sure which search you need? Talk to a Hashi IP Expert.
Why Hashi
We begin with the engineering problem and technical relationships, not a keyword list.
Semantic and concept-level retrieval expands discovery beyond exact terminology.
Technical analysts assess relevance, claim elements and reference relationships.
Findings are organised around claims, references, reasoning and stated limitations.
The output supports drafting, filing, refinement or further investigation—not a document dump.
Patentability search services
Tell us about the technology and the decision you need to make. Hashi can scope the search around relevant claims, jurisdictions and evidence requirements. Please avoid sharing confidential invention details until appropriate arrangements are in place.
FAQ
A patentability search combines prior-art discovery with analysis of how an invention appears to stand against novelty and inventive-step or obviousness considerations. It compares relevant evidence with technical features and potential claim scope to inform the next patent decision. It is an analytical assessment, not a guarantee of patent grant.
A novelty search focuses on whether the invention or its key features were disclosed earlier. A patentability search goes further by considering inventive step or obviousness, relevant combinations of references and potential claim-scope issues based on the evidence identified.
Yes. Within the agreed scope, the analysis considers whether relevant references and their technical relationships may affect inventive-step or obviousness arguments. The applicable legal test varies by jurisdiction, so formal legal conclusions should be made with qualified counsel.
Yes. Prior-art discovery is the evidence base for the analysis. The strategy can combine semantic retrieval, keywords, patent classifications, citations, family analysis and relevant non-patent literature depending on the technology and agreed scope.
No search can guarantee grant. Patentability depends on the claims, applicable law, examination and jurisdiction-specific legal assessment. The search provides technical evidence and structured analysis to support a better-informed filing or drafting decision.
Depending on scope, the report may include the search strategy, relevant references, feature or claim comparisons, novelty observations, inventive-step analysis, family and citation context, claim-scope observations, limitations and recommended next steps.
Yes, where claims or a proposed claim framework are available and claim-level analysis is included in scope. The report can map identified technical disclosures to individual claim elements without presenting the assessment as a formal legal determination.
It can. Relevant journals, standards, conference papers, technical publications and product documentation may be included depending on the technology, evidence need and agreed scope.
Yes. A search can be scoped around international publications and target jurisdictions to support PCT or national filing strategy. The analytical framing and legal advice required for a filing decision remain jurisdiction-specific.
Timing and cost depend on technical complexity, the number and maturity of claims, jurisdictions, source coverage and analysis depth. Hashi confirms the scope, deliverables, quotation and schedule before work begins.