AUDIT ONLY — source authenticity not established; not for client delivery
01 / Assessment of the claim
Executive summary.
Patentopia Demonstration · Source authenticity not established — audit record
Report mock-sample-001 · 3 April 2026
Three questions. Separate conclusions.
On the reviewed record, 2 of the 5 counted features (features that carry weight in the assessment; background matter is set aside) have no full disclosure in any reviewed document; no anticipation was established, subject to the limits below. 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. D1 is the strongest identified document on the reviewed record; what it discloses: Feature A, Feature B, Feature C.
NoveltyRecorded finding
Read the recorded single-document finding and its evidence qualifications.
Recorded drafting proposals and their source support are in Proposed claim changes. This overview does not adopt proposed wording or infer that the claim needs no change.
Assessment basis and limitations
5 recorded feature groups (A, B, C, D, E); these are claim-reading aids, not a count of novel features. No additional claims are recorded. Reference critical date: 2026-03-01; priority entitlement is not established by this display.
Based on the recorded machine assessment. Missing analysis and evidence qualifications remain visible in the detailed chapters.
Claim assessed — exact wording
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.
02
Six areas. A clear account of what is known.
Separate assessment dimensions. Unassessed areas remain unassessed; no overall average is calculated.
01
Novelty and inventive step
See qualified findings
Read each recorded conclusion with its evidence and completion requirements.
What this area means
Novelty concerns the complete claim in a single source; inventive step concerns the reasoned combination case. These are separate tests.
This report has not established whether the supporting data is adequate or whether the disclosure enables the claimed subject matter across its scope.
What this area means
Supporting data and sufficiency of disclosure are separate questions. Art. 83 concerns whether the claimed subject matter can be carried out from the application.
No point plotted: the record does not establish validated, comparable numeric axis values. Missing values are not zero.
Novelty × inventive step. Recorded feature fractions are not grant probabilities or a validated legal scoring rubric. No overall average is calculated.
Disclosure
The exact independent claim and technical disclosure used as the basis for the analysis.
Other disclosure
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. 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. Paragraph [0048]: the biomechanical model is continuously updated based on accumulated user data to refine injury risk predictions over time.
Claim assessedOriginal wording used for this assessment
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.
Additional claims
No additional claims were provided for this assessment.
Claim analysis
Read the complete original claim
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.
The claim is represented as patent-relevant technical relationships, not grammatical fragments. Search and legal conclusions use the approved conversion recorded below.
Stated use (applicant's description, not a claim limitation)
How to process collected plantar pressure data to provide actionable injury prevention guidance, rather than raw data visualization or simple gait classification.
Only the confirmed claim defines the scope assessed; the stated use is not assessed for accuracy.
Technical application (derived from the record)
No objective technical problem is recorded on the reviewed record; the inventive-step section states why.
Approved feature model
B
An array of pressure sensors embedded within the substrate for detecting plantar pressure distribution in real-time
From claim: “an array of pressure sensors embedded within the substrate for detecting plantar pressure distribution in real-time”
Feature record
Confirmed
High importanceBroad
D
A machine learning algorithm running on the mobile device that analyzes gait patterns
From claim: “a machine learning algorithm running on the mobile device that analyzes gait patterns”
Feature record
Confirmed
High importanceBroad
E
Generates injury prevention recommendations based on historical pressure data and biomechanical models
From claim: “generates injury prevention recommendations based on historical pressure data and biomechanical models”
Feature record
Confirmed
High importanceBroad
C
A wireless communication module that transmits pressure data to a mobile device
From claim: “a wireless communication module that transmits pressure data to a mobile device”
Feature record
Confirmed
Medium importanceSubstantial overlap
A
A flexible substrate configured to be inserted into footwear
From claim: “a flexible substrate configured to be inserted into footwear”
Feature record
Confirmed
Low importanceBroad
Other claim requirements
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 Art. 57 assessment is available. Patent-professional review is required before treating this criterion as satisfied.
Patent eligibility · EPC Art. 52/53Not assessed on this run
No Arts. 52/53 assessment is available. No favourable eligibility conclusion is inferred from the missing record.
Search
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.
Search sources usedEPO 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
Document languages recorded6 recorded / 6 displayed; EN
Native CN / JP / KR laneNot executed on this run
Approved / executed queries3 / 3
Product class used in queriesgait-analysis insole (confirmed claim preamble, Gate 1)
User-supplied prior art1 forced into review; reconciliation confirmed
Approved search strings
("pressure sensor" OR "force sensor") AND ("insole" OR "footwear") AND ("real-time" OR "continuous monitoring")
("gait analysis" OR "gait recognition") AND ("machine learning" OR "deep learning") AND ("mobile" OR "smartphone")
("plantar pressure" OR "foot pressure") AND ("wireless" OR "bluetooth") AND ("wearable")
("biomechanical model" OR "gait pattern") AND ("injury prevention" OR "injury prediction") AND ("insole" OR "shoe")
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. These counts describe this run's retrieval windows; they are not a measure of search completeness.
Search funnel, in plain terms
Records retrieved121
Every record found across all search lanes, added together before duplicates are removed.
Distinct documents98
Documents retained after duplicate matching across search lanes; family matching uses publication identifiers and title heuristics, so unrecognised family members may remain separate.
Ranked for relevance25
Every distinct document scored against each confirmed feature of the claim and ordered by relevance.
Ranked shortlist25
The ranked shortlist retained for selection of the closest documents; this is not the number reviewed feature by feature.
Closest documents (compared excerpts)3
Documents whose available text excerpts were compared feature by feature; this does not establish review of every section.
With feature overlap3
Documents among the compared excerpts with at least one positive feature mapping counted in the legal record; context-only or legally unqualified mappings are excluded.
Displayed document inventory: 6 records in total, comprising 3 closest documents and 3 additional records. The 25-document ranked shortlist is a selection-stage count; it is distinct from both the displayed inventory and the closest-document review.
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; priority entitlement and effective filing date not validated
Search executed
3 April 2026, 10:06 UTC
Reviewed feature by feature / conclusion-bearing
3 / 3
Unresolved displayed records
0
Every displayed closest document has a conclusion-bearing review receipt.
Art. 54(3) status: see "Scope and limits".
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.
Earlier-filed, later-published European applications (Art. 54(3))
Art. 54(3) was not searched: the lane did not run.
Art. 54(3) was not searched: the lane did not run.
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
Search coverage
Evidence basis verifiedThe approved feature model, cited publications and reviewed evidence support the conclusions shown.
Review detailed search and evidence record
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 (3 full); 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 (2 full); 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 (2 full); 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 (0 full, 1 partial or implicit); 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 (0 full, 1 partial or implicit); remaining reviewed cells explicitly record no identified disclosure
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.
5 recorded feature groups (A, B, C, D, E); these are claim-reading aids, not a count of novel features. No additional claims are recorded. Reference critical date: 2026-03-01; priority entitlement is not established by this display.
Closest prior-art reference
This document has the strongest overlap in the feature matrix. That identifies a reference to examine closely; it does not by itself establish anticipation or select the starting point for the inventive-step analysis.
Selected by full-disclosure count first, then mapped-feature count; the overlap band separately measures importance-weighted coverage. Claim 1; paragraph [0021] Claim 3; paragraph [0024] Claim 5; paragraph [0027]
Partial feature overlap: 5 of 5 counted claim features appear in 3 documents; no single document discloses all of them. 3 of 5 counted features are fully disclosed by at least one document (A by D1, D2, D3, B by D1, D2, C by D1, D3); no single document fully discloses more than 3 of them; 2 partial disclosures recorded across 1 document. Strongest single document: D1 (EP3284412), with full overlap on 3 and partial overlap on 0 of 5 counted features. Per-document overlap: D1 (features A, B and C), D2 (features A, B, D and E) and D3 (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.
Counted features with no full disclosure in any reviewed document: 2 of 5. No anticipation was established in the specifically reviewed and verified pre-critical-date passages, subject to the unresolved items listed. Art. 54(3) status: see "Scope and limits".
On the reviewed evidence, EP3284412 maps 3 of 5 counted features (A, B, C fully). No single document fully discloses every counted feature, so no anticipation under EPC Art. 54 is established on the reviewed evidence (Art. 54(2) documents reviewed; Art. 54(3) status: see "Scope and limits"); the overlap is partial and the novelty status is "Review indicated": no single document maps every counted feature.
The matrix uses only patent-relevant technical relationships; a blank cell is not evidence of absence. A capped cell (a disclosure cell whose grade was lowered by the review itself) is shown at its lowered grade, never as a full disclosure.
Select a cell to inspect the publication, locator, reviewed material, language and verification record.
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
The evidence record maps only part of the feature.
IImplicit
The relationship is recorded as implicit rather than express.
UUnclear
The material does not support a settled mapping.
NINot identified
No relationship was identified in the reviewed material.
NANot analysed
No completed review covers this document-feature pair.
RImported
A legacy relationship exists and requires verification.
NRNo record
No structured evidence object is recorded.
Why a cell reads “Not identified” or “Not analysed”
NDnot disclosed in the reviewed text
NRnot reviewed (budget/timeout)
QNLquote not locatable (no verifiable passage found on any attempt)
QRquote rejected by a deterministic guard (the rejecting guard is named on the cell line)
Select any cell to inspect the evidence record. “Not identified” is limited to the material reviewed; “no record” is not evidence of absence.
How to read the single-document overlap ratings
Comprehensive overlap
A single document fully discloses every counted feature; this requires anticipation review under EPC Art. 54.
Broad (partial only)
The document maps every (or most) counted feature(s) at the Comprehensive overlap or High band, but at least one of those mappings is only partial; on the reviewed evidence it is not a single-document anticipation candidate under EPC Art. 54. This suffix rule applies to every band on this scale: its own word carries "(partial only)" when none of the mapped cells is a full disclosure, or stands alone when at least one mapped cell is a full disclosure.
High
A single document fully discloses features covering at least 75% of the importance-weighted total, but not every counted feature. A mixed or partial mapping uses the Broad label instead.
Substantial
Positive mappings cover at least 50% but less than 75% of the importance-weighted total. Feature weights: high 1.5, medium 1, low 0.6; these measure overlap, not legal validity.
Moderate
Positive mappings cover at least 30% but less than 50% of the importance-weighted feature total.
Limited
Positive mappings cover less than 30% of the importance-weighted total, except the single low-importance feature classified as Minimal.
Minimal
Only one low-importance feature is mapped and its share is below 30% of the importance-weighted total.
No strategic feature mapped
None of the patent-relevant features counted in the analysis is mapped by this document on the reviewed evidence.
Reviewed prior art · 3 documents
Real-time Gait Analysis Using Wearable Pressure Sensors
D2 · Journal article · 2023 · discloses 4 features
Broad▸
This document maps 4 claim features (2 fully, 2 partially), rated broad on the named scale.
Feature A · A flexible substrate configured to be inserted into footwear
Disclosed at Section 2.1; page 3
The insole substrate was fabricated from flexible thermoplastic polyurethane.
Feature B · An array of pressure sensors embedded within the substrate for detecting plantar pressure ... [truncated]
Disclosed at Section 2.2; page 4
Sixteen FSR sensors were placed at key plantar regions for continuous pressure distribution measurement at 100 Hz.
Feature D · A machine learning algorithm running on the mobile device that analyzes gait patterns
Partial overlap at Section 3.1; page 7
A convolutional neural network was deployed on the smartphone for real-time gait phase classification.
Feature E · Generates injury prevention recommendations based on historical pressure data and ... [truncated]
Partial overlap at Section 4.2; page 10
Longitudinal pressure features were compared with a generic biomechanical risk model to produce injury-risk guidance.
These points challenge the claimed distinction against the documents actually reviewed, rather than explaining system 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 partially mapped by "Real-time Gait Analysis Using Wearable Pressure Sensors"; a partial mapping does not anticipate the claim under Art. 54.
Feature E is partially mapped by "Real-time Gait Analysis Using Wearable Pressure Sensors"; a partial mapping does not anticipate the claim under Art. 54.
Inventive step
Claim context — exact wording and scope
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.
5 recorded feature groups (A, B, C, D, E); these are claim-reading aids, not a count of novel features. No additional claims are recorded. Reference critical date: 2026-03-01; priority entitlement is not established by this display.
Inventive step: 1 of 2 assessed features (D) has a located, verified pre-critical obviousness route via D2 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.
The reviewed record is assessed feature by feature; the combined technical effect of these features as a whole was not assessed.
Qualification here is an evidential threshold (a located, verified, full disclosure plus a stated reason to combine); it is stricter than the Art. 56 test a skilled person applies, so unqualified routes are not evidence of non-obviousness.
The starting point is selected deterministically from the persisted feature-evidence grid: the reviewed document with the most full, then most mapped, counted features; ties are settled by a title or abstract naming the approved product class, then by the earlier verified publication date, then by retrieval rank. It is a proxy for the closest prior art, not a problem-solution selection.
What this rule does under the problem-solution approach: it takes the recorded starting point as a proxy for the closest prior art and tests each distinguishing feature separately for a located, verified route from that starting point. What it does not do: it does not group the distinguishing features into partial problems, does not formulate one objective technical problem for the claim as a whole, and does not assess the technical effect of the distinguishing features in combination. Those three steps remain to be carried out by a patent professional.
2 route entries displayed (D, E); no route-execution receipt is available, so this is not a count of completed combination analyses. 0 qualified; the other 1 is listed compactly below. (qualified route: a feature-document route whose evidence meets the full inventive-step bar)
Route 1Obviousness route supported by verified evidence
Closest prior art and why it matters
Starting point
D1
Secondary reference
D2
Other features both documents map (any grade)
Feature A, Feature B
Fully disclosed by the starting point
Feature A, Feature B, Feature C
What the claim adds
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.
Argument against inventive step
Reason to combine
D2 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 D1 platform.
Counterargument
Countervailing rationale
No countervailing rationale was identified by the reviewer (this is not evidence in favour of combining).
Current assessment and outstanding evidence
Obviousness route supported by verified evidence
Feature E — no evidence-qualified combination route located; not assessed.
Critical reflection – inventive step
These points test whether the distinguishing technical relationship survives the obviousness route applied.
A challenger would combine the smart-insole platform in D1 with the smartphone classifier in D2 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 D2 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).
Critical reflection – claim as a whole
Defensibility of the claim on the reviewed record. No overall defensibility score is calculated.
Prior-art overlap
Where the reviewed record already reaches into the claimed subject matter.
[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 D2. The claim should be narrowed to distinguish the specific ML approach.
D1 overlaps features A, B, C; see matrix.
D2 overlaps features A, B, D, E (2 full, 2 partial); see matrix.
D3 overlaps features A, C; see matrix.
Claim-scope risk
Breadth, clarity and support weaknesses recorded during claim review.
[breadth] Feature B is too broadly worded and does not distinguish the specific sensor technology from existing solutions in D1 and D2.
Proposed claim changes
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.
Claim assessedOriginal wording used for this assessment · Baseline for every proposed change below
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.
Proposed changes and trade-offs
Directions with professionally verified distance take priority when present, followed by smaller supported wording changes. Ordering alone does not verify support or separation. Each approval remains tied to the wording that was reviewed.
Professional-review record. 2 unverified or unapproved directions retained. 2 proposed wording items are withheld from approved amendments.
Approved, client-verified amendment wording
1. Amend Feature B · Approved for clean claim
Review-order basis: Professionally verified distance across 2 disclosure-matrix documents; minor change.
Rationale: Specifying sensor count, type (capacitive vs piezoresistive in D1), anatomical mapping, and sampling rate creates technical distance from both D1 and D2 while narrowing to the actual implementation. Distinguishes from D1, D2.
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”.
Protection given up / scope effect: Narrows sensor type, minimum count, placement relationship and sampling rate.
Novelty / inventive-step effect: Capacitive sensors in anatomically-mapped zones at ≥100 Hz distance the claim from D1 on novelty; D1 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.
2. Amend Feature D · Approved for clean claim
Review-order basis: Professionally verified distance across 2 disclosure-matrix documents; minor change.
Rationale: Narrowing Feature D to specify the temporal/multi-session aspect and personalized biomechanical model creates distance from D2 (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 D1, D2.
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”.
Protection given up / 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 D2 on inventive step; D2 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.
Consolidated 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
Assessment summary
A concise view of the claim examined, the evidence found, the novelty and inventive-step position, and the recorded claim direction.
Executive summary
Search funnel: 121 records → 98 distinct → 25 ranked → 25 shortlisted → 3 reviewed → 3 with overlap
Novelty
Review indicated
The strongest reviewed single-document mapping covers 3 of 5 counted features; see the disclosure matrix and evidence locators below.
Strongest single-document overlap
Review indicated
EP3284412 maps to 3 of 5 counted features (3 fully) 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: D2.
Drafting readiness
Action required
Action required: 4 narrowing directions are recorded for a patent professional to weigh; 3 drafting weaknesses are recorded. Of these, 4 wording proposals are verified and 0 are blocked pending support or distance review.
Technical definition review
Not assessed on this run
Art. 84 clarity/support and Art. 83 sufficiency were not assessed on this run.
Assessment scope3 of 3 documents have review receipts
The recorded independent claim has an approved feature conversion. User-provided; priority entitlement and effective filing date not validated. 3 approved search inputs recorded; 3 executed.
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.
3 of 3 displayed closest documents carry a located, dated passage; translation and mapping quality are assessed per cell below.
Technical record
Full assessment summary and review provenance
On the reviewed record, 2 of the 5 counted features (features that carry weight in the assessment; background matter is set aside) have no full disclosure in any reviewed document; no anticipation was established, subject to the limits below. 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. D1 is the strongest identified document on the reviewed record; what it discloses: Feature A, Feature B, Feature C.
Based on the recorded machine assessment. Missing analysis and evidence qualifications remain visible in the detailed chapters.
Demonstration assessment · synthetic evidence
Patentability assessment
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 have review receipts, 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 · 3 April 2026 Prepared by Christopher Holmgaard · Report ID mock-sample-001 · Profile ID —
Demonstration record: the claim, documents, evidence excerpts, review identities and decisions on this page are synthetic and show the completed workflow only.
What to do next
Read D1 (EP3284412) first: it maps 3 of 5 counted features (3 full) ; features A, B, C.
◍
Scope and limits
Art. 54(3) not assessed (the lane did not run).
Target critical date: 2026-03-01 (user-provided; priority entitlement not validated).
6 documents displayed in the results table; 3 reviewed feature by feature.
Full disclosure resting on unverified machine translation is capped to partial. The cell stays partial unless the original-language passage confirms every element of the feature and no other grading cap applies. Confirming the passage alone does not restore full disclosure.
Inventive step is routed feature by feature from a starting point used as a proxy for the closest prior art; no partial-problem decomposition, no claim-level objective technical problem and no combined technical effect were assessed on this run. The inventive-step section states what that leaves to be done.
Art. 83 sufficiency of disclosure and Art. 84 clarity or support were not assessed on this record unless a specific finding says otherwise.
D-numbers are assigned per report and are positional within the closest set shown on this run; the closest set itself can change between runs of the same case. Documents are identified by publication number, not by D-number, when comparing across reports.
Assessment terminology
Novelty
Whether all assessed claim limitations are disclosed together in one earlier public document (EPC Art. 54).
Strongest single-document overlap
How many counted features the single closest earlier document reaches. Novelty turns on one document disclosing everything, so this reports the worst single case rather than the combined record.
Inventive step
Whether the claimed combination follows obviously from the prior-art record for the skilled person (EPC Art. 56).
Principal combination route
The specific document combination the inventive-step analysis applied when testing obviousness. A different route can produce a different answer, which is why the route is named rather than assumed.
Drafting readiness
Whether the claim as written is ready to file, from the weaknesses and drafting directions recorded during claim review. A separate measure from patentability: a novel idea can carry an unready claim.
Technical definition review
Claim terms whose meaning or support is unresolved and needs a technical definition before filing (EPC Arts. 84 and 83).
Critical date
The filing or priority date this assessment is measured against. Documents made public before it can count against the claim; later ones cannot.
Counted feature
A claim feature that carries weight in the assessment; generic background matter is set aside and excluded.
Distinguishing feature
A counted feature not shown disclosed by the closest starting-point document, and therefore part of what distinguishes the claim from it (EPC Art. 56).
Qualified route
A distinguishing feature and secondary document pair whose evidence meets the full bar for inventive step: a positive disclosure grade, a verified pre-critical publication date, and a passage a reader can locate in the text.
Capped cell
A disclosure cell whose grade was lowered by the review itself, for example by an unverified machine translation or a repaired quote, so it cannot support a qualified route whatever the reviewer answered.
Passages checked against an original-language publication
The validation line stating how many capped cells were checked against the original-language text published by the patent office, and how many of those checks confirmed it. A check that did not confirm leaves its cell capped.
unverified machine translation (capped to partial)
A full-disclosure grade resting on machine-translated text that nothing has checked against the original-language publication. The cell stays partial unless the original-language passage confirms every element of the feature and no other grading cap applies. Confirming the passage alone does not restore full disclosure.
Single-document overlap scale
The named scale rating how far one document reaches into the counted features. Its levels are defined in full where the scale is first shown.
Critical reflection
The defensibility of the claim on the reviewed record: novelty risk, prior-art overlap, inventive-step risk and claim-scope weaknesses, tested against the evidence actually reviewed rather than treated as limitations of the analysis tool. Printed as "Critical reflection – novelty" at the end of the Novelty section, "Critical reflection – inventive step" at the end of the Inventive step section, and "Critical reflection – claim as a whole" for what applies to the claim generally.
Action required / Review indicated / No issue recorded / Not assessed
The status word on each executive dimension. "Not assessed" means the run did not reach that question — it is not a favourable result.
An agentic patentability assessment based on the confirmed claim and feature model and the analysed closest prior-art set. It supports patent-professional review and does not replace professional judgment. Prepared with AI.
Patentopia · patentability assessment · 3 April 2026 Evidence, source and approval status are drawn from the stored assessment record.