The report displays 3 closest retrieved documents. 3 verified documents support the categorical legal conclusions; 0 remain visible only as excluded or context records.
◍Assessment basis. This patentability workflow uses the approved claim, technical disclosure, search inputs and 3 of 3 displayed documents reviewed, including 3 date-qualified documents eligible to support legal conclusions. Novelty, inventive step, contextual records and claim drafting are kept separate. It reflects what was public as of your filing/priority date, 2026-03-01.
Patentopia Demonstration · sample@patentopia.example · 3 April 2026 Prepared by Christopher Holmgaard · Report ID mock-sample-001
Demonstration record: the claim, documents, evidence excerpts, review identities and decisions on this page are synthetic and show the completed workflow only.
Assessment overview
The record separates novelty, inventive step and claim drafting. Status is shown from traceable evidence and approval receipts; numerical model estimates are not presented as patentability probabilities.
Novelty recordAnalysis completed
5 of 5 counted features have a recorded relationship across 3 reviewed documents.
Inventive-step recordAnalysis completed
The evidence-qualified Art. 56 analysis is available below.
Claim drafting recordAnalysis available
4 drafting directions retained for traceability; the recorded support, professional review and user decisions produced the clean claim shown below.
Executive assessment
Novelty
Review indicated
The strongest reviewed single-document mapping covers 4 of 5 counted features; see the disclosure matrix and evidence locators below.
Strongest single-document overlap
Review indicated
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitposture.2023.07.012 maps to 4 of 5 counted features in the reviewed material.
Inventive step
Review indicated
1 of 2 recorded feature routes are marked obvious; see the qualified problem-solution routes below.
Principal combination route
Review indicated
Current recorded route: 2-A.
Drafting readiness
Action required
Revision required: 3 weaknesses and 4 drafting directions are recorded; 4 verified and 0 blocked pending support or distance review.
Technical definition review
No issue recorded
No unresolved clarity or support item was recorded.
Search record
The record below distinguishes database scale, retrieved material, the displayed closest-document set and conclusion-bearing reviewed evidence. Exclusions are reported explicitly; user-supplied prior art is retained in the review record.
Executed retrieval lanesEPO Open Patent Services, Crossref
Displayed material sourcesEPO Open Patent Services, Crossref, USPTO, User-supplied prior art
Supported query languagesEnglish; Chinese, Japanese and Korean when the native-language lane is enabled
Query languages executedEN
Displayed source-language receipts6 recorded / 6 displayed; EN
Native CN / JP / KR laneNot executed on this run
Approved / executed queries3 / 3
User-supplied prior art1 forced into review; reconciliation confirmed
1
Database-reported matches
Count unavailable
2
Retrieved records
121
3
Unique documents after deduplication23 excluded: Duplicate record or patent-family representation
98
4
Ranked candidates73 excluded: Outside the ranked candidate window
25
5
Closest retrieved-document set22 excluded: Outside the approved closest-document set
3
6
Conclusion-bearing reviewed evidence0 excluded: Displayed as excluded or context-only records
3
Recorded provenance: 121 retrieved -> 98 after dedup -> 25 ranked -> 3 closest.
Assessment basis and coverage
Displayed material sources
EPO Open Patent Services, Crossref, USPTO, User-supplied prior art
Displayed material languages
EN
Critical date
2026-03-01 · User-provided critical date
Search executed
3 April 2026, 10:06 UTC
Displayed / conclusion-bearing
3 / 3
Unresolved displayed records
0
Every displayed closest document has a conclusion-bearing review receipt.
Art. 54(3) prior rights are not assessed unless expressly recorded.
No-disclosure findings are limited to the reviewed material and do not establish absence from unreviewed passages, family members or the wider prior-art universe.
The listed source languages describe the displayed record and do not prove complete multilingual source coverage.
User-supplied prior art
ISO 22523:2006 — External limb prostheses and orthoses — Requirements and test methodsUploaded document without a public publication identifier
Forced inclusion
Yes
Material coverage
No completed material-review receipt
Publication status
Date not verified
Matrix status
Retained in the evidence set; outside the closest-document view
Current candidate starting point, subject to verification
This document has the strongest verified relationship to the approved feature model and is the current starting point for the separate novelty and inventive-step analyses.
The claim is represented as patent-relevant technical relationships, not grammatical fragments. Search and legal conclusions use the approved conversion recorded below.
Approved source claim
The complete claim text used for feature traceability and search approval.
A smart adaptive insole system comprising (a) a flexible substrate configured to be inserted into footwear; (b) an array of pressure sensors embedded within the substrate for detecting plantar pressure distribution in real-time; (c) a wireless communication module that transmits pressure data to a mobile device; and (d) a machine learning algorithm running on the mobile device that analyzes gait patterns and generates injury prevention recommendations based on historical pressure data and biomechanical models.
B
An array of pressure sensors embedded within the substrate for detecting plantar pressure distribution in real-time
importance: high
From claim: “an array of pressure sensors embedded within the substrate for detecting plantar pressure distribution in real-time”
Provisional cross-jurisdiction feature estimates. These values are not office-specific legal conclusions and require patent-professional review.
Low importanceHigh overlap
Retrieval validation
Validation passedRequired diagnostics, feature approval and publication-family verification passed.
Diagnostic
Expected
Observed
Status
Feature A: A flexible substrate configured to be inserted into footwear
Targeted retrieval and completed material review; positive mappings and explicit non-identifications are reported separately
3 positive mapped references; remaining reviewed cells explicitly record no identified disclosure
Passed
Feature B: An array of pressure sensors embedded within the substrate for detecting plantar pressure distribution in real-time
Targeted retrieval and completed material review; positive mappings and explicit non-identifications are reported separately
2 positive mapped references; remaining reviewed cells explicitly record no identified disclosure
Passed
Feature C: A wireless communication module that transmits pressure data to a mobile device
Targeted retrieval and completed material review; positive mappings and explicit non-identifications are reported separately
2 positive mapped references; remaining reviewed cells explicitly record no identified disclosure
Passed
Feature D: A machine learning algorithm running on the mobile device that analyzes gait patterns
Targeted retrieval and completed material review; positive mappings and explicit non-identifications are reported separately
1 positive mapped reference; remaining reviewed cells explicitly record no identified disclosure
Passed
Feature E: Generates injury prevention recommendations based on historical pressure data and biomechanical models
Targeted retrieval and completed material review; positive mappings and explicit non-identifications are reported separately
1 positive mapped reference; remaining reviewed cells explicitly record no identified disclosure
Passed
Feature conversionApproved
Known prior artReconciled
Publication-family verificationRegister verified
Evidence objectsVerified complete review
Disclosure matrix and novelty
Partial feature overlap: 5 of 5 counted claim features appear in 3 documents; no single document discloses all of them. Per-document overlap: 1-P (features A, B and C), 2-A (features A, B, D and E) and 3-A (features A and C). The reviewed scope does not identify a single-document novelty-destroying disclosure under EPC Art. 54; overlap of separate features across different documents is assessed separately under EPC Art. 56.
The strategic matrix uses only patent-relevant technical relationships. Select a cell to inspect the publication, locator, reviewed material, language and verification record. A blank cell is not evidence of absence.
Comprehensive
One document maps to every counted feature; review possible anticipation under EPC Art. 54.
High
One document describes most counted features, missing only a minor one.
Substantial
One document describes several features, including an important one.
Moderate
One document describes one important feature, or a few minor ones.
Limited
One document describes part of a single feature.
Minimal
The record maps only a fragment of one counted feature.
No counted feature overlap
No counted feature relationship was identified in the material reviewed for this document.
Disclosure matrix · which document discloses which feature
Strategic disclosure view5 counted features · 5 total limitations
Every recorded claim limitation remains visible. The disclosure summary counts only strategic features; traceability-only wording stays in the matrix without affecting that count.
Feature keyRead the full limitation text before comparing cells.
A
A flexible substrate configured to be inserted into footwearCounted in strategic view
B
An array of pressure sensors embedded within the substrate for detecting plantar pressure distribution in real-timeCounted in strategic view
C
A wireless communication module that transmits pressure data to a mobile deviceCounted in strategic view
D
A machine learning algorithm running on the mobile device that analyzes gait patternsCounted in strategic view
E
Generates injury prevention recommendations based on historical pressure data and biomechanical modelsCounted in strategic view
Complete matrix
Legal claim-limitation traceability · 5 total limitations
Inventive step: 1 of 2 assessed features (D) has a located, verified pre-critical obviousness route via 2-A eligible for EPC Art. 56. For the remaining 1 feature, the reviewed routes did not establish that obvious-development conclusion.
Inventive step is organised by document-combination route, not by labelling isolated features obvious or non-obvious.
Route 1Obviousness route supported by verified evidence
Starting point
1-P
Secondary reference
2-A
Shared features
Feature D
Distinguishing relationship
Mobile machine-learning analysis of gait patterns
Technical effect
Patient-specific gait analysis across multiple sessions supports more targeted injury-prevention guidance than raw visualization or generic classification.
Objective technical problem
How to process collected plantar pressure data to provide actionable injury prevention guidance, rather than raw data visualization or simple gait classification.
Reason to combine
2-A expressly deploys a gait classifier on a smartphone, giving a direct implementation route for this limitation at its present breadth when starting from the separately identified 1-P platform.
Reason not to combine
No countervailing rationale was entered; professional review is required.
Route 2Obviousness not established on the verified route
Starting point
1-P
Secondary reference
2-A
Shared features
Feature E
Distinguishing relationship
Historical pressure analysis combined with a personalized biomechanical model to generate injury-prevention guidance
Technical effect
Patient-specific gait analysis across multiple sessions supports more targeted injury-prevention guidance than raw visualization or generic classification.
Objective technical problem
How to process collected plantar pressure data to provide actionable injury prevention guidance, rather than raw data visualization or simple gait classification.
Reason to combine
No supported reason to combine was established on the reviewed route.
Reason not to combine
2-A uses a generic risk model, but the reviewed record does not establish a reason to adapt the model continuously to an individual across multiple sessions.
Additional patentability criteria
Industrial applicability and excluded subject matter are assessed independently from novelty and inventive step. A missing result is shown explicitly and is never inferred as favourable.
Industrial applicability · EPC Art. 57Not assessed on this run
No persisted Art. 57 result is available. Patent-professional review is required before treating this criterion as satisfied.
Patent eligibility · EPC Arts. 52 and 53Not assessed on this run
No persisted Arts. 52/53 result is available. No favourable eligibility conclusion is inferred from the missing record.
Adversarial review
⚑ Substantive claim risks
The following points challenge the technical contribution and claim breadth rather than explaining system limitations.
A broader or better-targeted search may identify the claimed technical relationship in an earlier publication.
The distinguishing relationship may be an arbitrary selection or an expected implementation choice.
The stated technical effect may not be supported across the full breadth of the approved claim.
A functional limitation may state only a desired result without the technical means that achieve it.
Evidence limitations
A focused search for adaptive, user-specific biomechanical models could still identify a stronger combination route. The conclusion is limited to the reviewed material and verified dates listed below.
Feature A is disclosed by "Smart Insole for Plantar Pressure Monitoring" (Art. 54).
Feature B is disclosed by "Smart Insole for Plantar Pressure Monitoring" (Art. 54).
Feature C is disclosed by "Smart Insole for Plantar Pressure Monitoring" (Art. 54).
Feature D is disclosed by "Real-time Gait Analysis Using Wearable Pressure Sensors" (Art. 54).
Feature E is disclosed by "Real-time Gait Analysis Using Wearable Pressure Sensors" (Art. 54).
[exposure] Feature A is mapped in all three reviewed closest-art documents and does not add a distinguishing relationship on this record.
[exposure] Feature D overlaps with the CNN-based gait classifier in 2-A. The claim should be narrowed to distinguish the specific ML approach.
A challenger would combine the smart-insole platform in 1-P with the smartphone classifier in 2-A and argue that longitudinal risk guidance is an expected analytics objective. The strongest response depends on the verified user-specific adaptation and multi-session relationship.
Document 2-A shows that machine learning can be applied to gait data. The reviewed record does not establish a reason to adapt its generic model continuously to an individual across multiple sessions.
The reviewed route treats these as distinguishing relationships requiring professional review: Injury prevention recommendations (not just classification); Historical pressure data analysis over time; Integration of biomechanical models with ML analysis (EPC Art. 56).
Claim amendment workflow
Amendment directions follow from the analysis above. Each direction records the cited document, minimum wording change, support basis, scope effect and novelty or inventive-step effect.
Minimum change
The smallest recorded change that addresses an identified risk.
a recurrent neural network running on the mobile device that analyzes temporal gait patterns across multiple sessions using a personalized biomechanical model adapted to the individual user's foot morphology
an array of at least twelve capacitive pressure sensors arranged in anatomically-mapped zones within the substrate for detecting plantar pressure distribution at a sampling rate of at least 100 Hz
Safe expansion
Recorded dependent-claim or breadth directions, subject to explicit support and professional review.
wherein the biomechanical model is continuously updated based on accumulated user data to refine injury risk predictions over time
Patent-language improvement
Recorded clarity and claim-structure reformulations that do not invent new technical matter.
a wireless communication module configured to transmit pressure data to a mobile device
Amend Feature D · Approved for clean claim
Rationale: Narrowing Feature D to specify the temporal/multi-session aspect and personalized biomechanical model creates distance from 2-A (which uses a generic CNN on single-session data). This is the most impactful amendment because it strengthens the technically distinguishing relationship in the disclosure. Distinguishes from 1-P, 2-A.
Minimum verified amendment:a machine learning algorithm running on the mobile device that analyzes gait patterns → a recurrent neural network running on the mobile device that analyzes temporal gait patterns across multiple sessions using a personalized biomechanical model adapted to the individual user's foot morphology Basis (paragraph [0042]): “a recurrent neural network running on the mobile device that analyzes temporal gait patterns across multiple sessions using a personalized biomechanical model adapted to the individual user's foot morphology”.
Scope effect: Narrows the model architecture, observation period and biomechanical-model relationship.
Novelty / inventive-step effect: Specifying multi-session temporal analysis and a personalized biomechanical model distances the claim from 2-A on inventive step; 2-A discloses only single-session CNN gait classification.
Disclosure-matrix trace: Feature D × 1-P: not identified; Feature D × 2-A: partial at Section 3.1; page 7
Distance verification: Verified by Demo patent professional · 2026-04-03T10:13:00Z.
Amend Feature B · Approved for clean claim
Rationale: Specifying sensor count, type (capacitive vs piezoresistive in 1-P), anatomical mapping, and sampling rate creates technical distance from both 1-P and 2-A while narrowing to the actual implementation. Distinguishes from 1-P, 2-A.
Minimum verified amendment:an array of pressure sensors embedded within the substrate for detecting plantar pressure distribution in real-time → an array of at least twelve capacitive pressure sensors arranged in anatomically-mapped zones within the substrate for detecting plantar pressure distribution at a sampling rate of at least 100 Hz Basis (paragraph [0035]): “an array of at least twelve capacitive pressure sensors arranged in anatomically-mapped zones within the substrate for detecting plantar pressure distribution at a sampling rate of at least 100 Hz”.
Novelty / inventive-step effect: Capacitive sensors in anatomically-mapped zones at ≥100 Hz distance the claim from 1-P on novelty; 1-P discloses generic piezoresistive sensors without a specified sampling rate.
Disclosure-matrix trace: Feature B × 1-P: full at Claim 3; paragraph [0024]; Feature B × 2-A: full at Section 2.2; page 4
Distance verification: Verified by Demo patent professional · 2026-04-03T10:13:30Z.
Add new feature · Rejected
Rationale: Adding an adaptive/learning element would narrow Feature E toward a relationship that is not mapped in the retained passages from 1-P, 2-A or 3-A. Professional review is still required before relying on that distance. Distinguishes from 1-P, 2-A, 3-A.
Minimum verified amendment: wherein the biomechanical model is continuously updated based on accumulated user data to refine injury risk predictions over time Basis (paragraph [0048]): “the biomechanical model is continuously updated based on accumulated user data to refine injury risk predictions over time”.
Scope effect: Narrows the recommendation function to a continuously updated personalised model.
Novelty / inventive-step effect: The retained passages from 1-P, 2-A and 3-A do not map continuous, user-specific refinement of injury-risk predictions. This is an evidence-limited distance record, not a broader inventive-step conclusion.
Disclosure-matrix trace: Feature E × 1-P: not identified; Feature E × 2-A: partial at Section 4.2; page 10; Feature E × 3-A: not identified
Distance verification: Verified by Demo patent professional · 2026-04-03T10:13:45Z.
Amend Feature C · Rejected
Rationale: Uses conventional functional claim syntax while preserving the same module, data and destination relationship.
Minimum verified amendment:a wireless communication module that transmits pressure data to a mobile device → a wireless communication module configured to transmit pressure data to a mobile device Basis (claim 1): “a wireless communication module that transmits pressure data to a mobile device”.
Scope effect: No scope change is intended.
Novelty / inventive-step effect: This is a non-substantive drafting reformulation, not a prior-art distinction.
Disclosure-matrix trace: Not applicable; this is a support-verified drafting-form change and asserts no prior-art distance.
Distance verification: Not applicable; substantive technical tokens and intended scope are unchanged.
Platform-proposed claim directionPlatform proposal · separate from the user-approved claim
A smart adaptive insole system comprising (a) a flexible substrate configured to be inserted into footwear; (b) an array of at least twelve capacitive pressure sensors arranged in anatomically-mapped zones within the substrate for detecting plantar pressure distribution at a sampling rate of at least 100 Hz; (c) a wireless communication module that transmits pressure data to a mobile device; (d) a recurrent neural network running on the mobile device that analyzes temporal gait patterns across multiple sessions using a personalized biomechanical model adapted to the individual user's foot morphology; and (e) generates injury prevention recommendations based on historical pressure data and biomechanical models, wherein the biomechanical model is continuously updated based on accumulated user data to refine injury risk predictions over time.
User-approved claimClean version from the recorded amendment decisions
A smart adaptive insole system comprising (a) a flexible substrate configured to be inserted into footwear; (b) an array of at least twelve capacitive pressure sensors arranged in anatomically-mapped zones within the substrate for detecting plantar pressure distribution at a sampling rate of at least 100 Hz; (c) a wireless communication module that transmits pressure data to a mobile device; and (d) a recurrent neural network running on the mobile device that analyzes temporal gait patterns across multiple sessions using a personalized biomechanical model adapted to the individual user's foot morphology and generates injury prevention recommendations based on historical pressure data and biomechanical models.
Version history
Source claim3 April 2026, 10:00 UTC
Strategy generated3 April 2026, 10:12 UTC
Review record2 amendment decisions recorded · 3 April 2026, 10:15 UTC
Optional assessment terminology
Novelty
Whether all assessed claim limitations are disclosed together in one earlier public document (EPC Art. 54).
Inventive step
Whether the claimed combination follows obviously from the prior-art record for the skilled person (EPC Art. 56).
Defensibility: drafting quality
How well your claim is written to survive challenge. A separate measure from patentability.
Critical / filing date
Documents made public before this date can count against you; later ones can't.
Counted vs generic
Counted features carry weight; generic building blocks are set aside and never included in the overlap rating.
Fail-closed
When date receipts are incomplete, the system withholds a conclusion instead of guessing.
Patentability assessment generated from approved inputs and recorded evidence. It supports patent-professional review and does not replace professional judgment.
Patentopia · patentability assessment · 3 April 2026 Evidence, source and approval status are drawn from the stored assessment record.