Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

PatentEdits: Framing Patent Novelty as Textual Entailment

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2411.13477 v1 pith:UYC7SPST submitted 2024-11-20 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CYcs.IR

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.CYcs.IR
keywords patentpriornoveltyclaimseditsentailmentinventionnovel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

A patent must be deemed novel and non-obvious in order to be granted by the US Patent Office (USPTO). If it is not, a US patent examiner will cite the prior work, or prior art, that invalidates the novelty and issue a non-final rejection. Predicting what claims of the invention should change given the prior art is an essential and crucial step in securing invention rights, yet has not been studied before as a learnable task. In this work we introduce the PatentEdits dataset, which contains 105K examples of successful revisions that overcome objections to novelty. We design algorithms to label edits sentence by sentence, then establish how well these edits can be predicted with large language models (LLMs). We demonstrate that evaluating textual entailment between cited references and draft sentences is especially effective in predicting which inventive claims remained unchanged or are novel in relation to prior art.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. PEDANTIC: A Dataset for the Automatic Examination of Definiteness in Patent Claims

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    PEDANTIC provides the first public dataset of 14k patent claims labeled with examiner-cited reasons for indefiniteness, along with baselines showing LLMs still lag logistic regression on binary prediction.

Pith tools