现有技术检索结果回顾

Good morning, Dr. Lee. Thanks for coming in. I've compiled the results of our prior art search for your innovative medical device. Let's go over them.

Good morning, Mr. Chen. I'm eager to see what you found. How comprehensive was the search?

Very comprehensive. We covered US, European, and PCT patent databases, as well as relevant scientific literature. The good news is, there's no direct hit for your specific combination of features.

That's a relief! So, are there any close approximations we need to be aware of?

Yes, there are a few. We found patent US XXXXXXX, which describes a similar therapeutic effect using a different mechanism, and publication YYYY, which discusses a device with one of your core components, but lacking the critical integration. These are what we call 'analogous prior art.'

I see. So, how do these affect our application? Do they threaten the novelty or non-obviousness of my invention?

That's precisely what we need to evaluate. While they don't directly anticipate your invention, we'll need to carefully craft our claims to distinguish your device from these existing technologies, particularly in demonstrating the inventive step.

Understood. So, the strategy would be to highlight the unique combination and synergistic effect of my device's features?

Exactly. We'll focus on the specific advantages and unexpected results that arise from your unique integration. This will be key in overcoming any potential obviousness rejections from the examiner.

Sounds like a solid plan. I feel much more confident moving forward now that we've reviewed these. Thanks for your thorough work.