Prior Art Analysis for a Unique Pain Relief Cream: A Detailed Case Study
Executive Summary
This case study examines Prior Art Analysis for patentability of a pain relief cream based on a prior art search and analysis. The study, titled “Patentability – Pain Relief Cream,” investigates the novelty and non-obviousness of the cream’s specific combination of ingredients. The analysis revealed unique combinations of natural ingredients, particularly the inclusion of rare components, which were not found in prior art either individually or in combination for pain relief applications.
Client Challenge
- Determination of patentability of the specific ingredient combination
- Requirement for comprehensive prior art analysis to support patent application
Methodology
Search Strategy
- Search Parameters:
- CPC Classifications focused on ointments
- Keywords related to pain relief compositions
- Specific ingredient combinations
- Non-Patent Literature: Scientific papers and market research
- Commercial Product Analysis: Existing pain relief creams in the market
Search Scope
- Patent search across multiple jurisdictions
- Analysis of 864 potentially relevant patent documents
- Review of existing market products
- Scientific literature review
Key Findings
Prior Art Analysis
- Patents: Seven closest prior art documents identified
- Market Products: Six similar products analyzed
- Scientific Literature: Key research papers reviewed, including specific studies on Daphne species
Feature Matrix:
A feature matrix was created to illustrate the overlap between the “Pain Relief Cream” ingredients and those disclosed in the closest identified patent results. The matrix compares the presence of each ingredient in the Pain Relief Cream against several patents, including Wittmayer (WO2023225143A1), Orie et al. (CN108883049B), Xin (CN115645504A), Marques et al. (BR102012016205A2), Jinke et al. (CN117224592A), Baptiste et al. (CN110149795B), and Chao (CN106852841A).
This section provides an overlap of the closest reference against the claims in focus.
Note: Codes have the following interpretation:
| ✔ | Supported:The result mentions the presence of ingredient. |
| – | Not Supported:Information regarding the ingredient is not available in the reference. |
| Features | Ingredient | Wittmayer | Orie | Xin | Marques | Jinke | Baptiste | Chao | |
| Preamble | Ingredients | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | |
| 1 | Ingredient 1 | ✔ | ✔ | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 2 | Ingredient 2 | – | – | – | ✔ | – | – | – | |
| 3 | Ingredient 3 | – | – | – | – | – | ✔ | – | |
| 4 | Ingredient 4 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 5 | Ingredient 5 | – | – | – | – | – | – | ✔ | |
| 6 | Ingredient 6 | – | – | ✔ | – | – | – | – | |
| 7 | Ingredient 7 | – | ✔ | ✔ | – | – | – | – | |
| 8 | Ingredient 8 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 9 | Ingredient 9 | – | – | – | – | ✔ | – | – | |
| 10 | Ingredient 10 | ✔ | ✔ | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 11 | Ingredient 11 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 12 | Ingredient 12 | ✔ | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
The matrix reveals that none of the identified patents disclose a combination of all the ingredients found in “Pain Relief Cream”. For example, Wittmayer discloses some overlaping ingredients, but not the other ingredeints. Same is the case with other patents.
Novelty and Non-Obviousness:
The study argues that even if a person skilled in the art were to combine some of the ingredients, the combination of some of the Ingredeints in the client’s Pain Relief Cream would not be obvious, as these ingredients are not suggested for pain relief composition. This specific combination is considered the unique selling point (USP) of the product.
Market Products and Non-Patent Literature:
The review of market products revealed that none use the specific ingredient set of “Pain Relief Cream.” Instead, they use ingredients like Lidocaine, apricot/grape/hemp oils, etc., as active ingredients.
Research articles primarily discuss commonly known pain relief ingredients like clove, horse chestnut, and licorice. While Moshiashvili highlights the anti-inflammatory properties of different Daphne species, including one in client’s formulation, no papers suggest using two main ingredeints from client’s formulation for pain relief.
Analysis Outcome
Patentability Assessment
- Novelty: Confirmed – unique combination not found in prior art
- Non-obviousness: Supported by the absence of suggestions to combine the specific ingredients
- Industrial Applicability: Clear application in pain relief sector
Supporting Evidence
- Feature matrix showing no complete overlap with existing patents
- Market product analysis showing distinct formulation
- Scientific literature supporting individual ingredient efficacy
Value Delivered
Client Benefits
- Clear patentability assessment
- Comprehensive prior art landscape
- Strong support for patent application
- Understanding of competitive positioning
Strategic Recommendations
- Proceed with patent application
- Focus on the unique combination in claims
- Emphasize the novel ingredients in patent strategy
Methodology Highlights
- Systematic search strategy
- Comprehensive database coverage
- Multi-faceted analysis approach
- Thorough documentation
Key Metrics
- Documents analyzed: 864+ patents
- Market products reviewed: 6
- Search databases utilized: 2+
- Key prior art documents identified: 7
Conclusion
The analysis strongly supports the patentability of the Pain Relief Cream formulation, primarily due to its unique combination of ingredients and the inclusion of novel components not previously used in pain relief compositions. The comprehensive search and analysis provide a solid foundation for patent application strategy.
Are you looking for technical IP support?
Contact us today to discuss how we can help you.