What Is Analogous Art?
We’re continuing our legal adventure into the world of patents, specifically focusing in this episode on a concept that might sound like something straight out of an art gallery—but is actually a cornerstone of patent law—called analogous art.
Now, maybe you’re thinking that analogous art is when you made a portrait of your mom and made it look a little like the Mona Lisa, so your art is analogous to the Mona Lisa. That has nothing to do with this in the patent world.
Let’s talk about what analogous art does mean in patent law, with a little background.
Patent Requirements Refresher
As I’ve mentioned before, to get a patent your invention has to be new, non-obvious, and useful. Pretty much everything is considered useful from a legal standpoint, so that’s rarely an issue. Being new also often isn’t a huge hurdle because any little tweak you make can make your invention technically new.
The big issue is usually obviousness. What the patent examiner does is look for things that already exist and may say: “These two or three things already exist, and if you just combine their parts, then you have your invention—so your invention is obvious and you can’t get a patent.”
Prior Art and Analogous Art
The things the patent examiner finds to build your invention from existing parts are called prior art. And analogous art is a subset of prior art. That means all analogous art is prior art, but not all prior art is analogous art.
An examiner can use any prior art to reject your application for lack of novelty. So if your invention includes parts A, B, and C, and the examiner finds something else that also has parts A, B, and C, then that “something else” can be used to reject your invention for lack of novelty—even if it’s completely unrelated to your field.
Example: Foam Grip Handles
Let’s say you invent a bicycle with handles that have a foam grip. You want really broad protection, so in your claim you say, “handles having a foam grip”—without even mentioning bicycles.
If the examiner finds that dumbbells have foam grip handles, that dumbbell is prior art and can be used in a novelty rejection—even though it has nothing to do with bicycles.
But let’s say the examiner instead says that your invention isn’t new, but is obvious because related things already exist. In an obviousness rejection, unlike a novelty rejection, the examiner can’t just use any prior art—they must use analogous art, meaning prior art that is somehow related to your invention.
Defining Analogous Art
To put it simply, analogous art in patent law refers to prior art references that are considered relevant for analyzing whether your invention is obvious.
In order for something to be considered analogous art, it must meet one of two criteria:
1. It must be within the same field of endeavor as your invention, or
2. It must be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem the inventor is trying to solve.
Example: Garden Hose Nozzle and Showerhead
Imagine you invent a new type of garden hose nozzle that conserves water. If there’s a previously patented nozzle with a similar water-saving feature, that’s not even analogous art—it’s the same art, and would fall under novelty rather than obviousness.
But let’s say there’s a showerhead that uses a similar mechanism to reduce water flow. That could be considered analogous art because, while one is for gardening and the other is for bathing, they both aim to conserve water using similar technology.
Example: Moist Cake vs. Moist Bread
Here’s another example. You create a new cake recipe with a secret ingredient that makes it moist. Then you find out a bread recipe from ten years ago used the same ingredient for the same purpose—moisture retention.
Different food items, yes—but they solve the same problem in the same way. That’s analogous art.
Example: Cake vs. Steel
Now, let’s say that same ingredient you used for cake was also used to harden steel, and the examiner says it’s obvious to use it in your cake because it’s known to have beneficial chemical effects.
That would not be considered analogous art. Making steel and baking cakes are not in the same field, and they don’t solve the same problem. So the examiner cannot use that steel-hardening reference as a basis to reject your cake patent for obviousness.
Of course, this doesn’t mean you’ll definitely get a patent—there could be other reasons for rejection—but this example shows that analogous art is only relevant when deciding what references the examiner can use for obviousness rejections.
Back to Foam Grip Handles and Dumbbells
Let’s return to the earlier example. Can an examiner use dumbbells as prior art to reject your bicycle invention?
Initially, I said probably not because they’re unrelated. But let’s go deeper.
Let’s say your invention is foam handlebars for bikes that absorb moisture to improve grip. If dumbbells with foam grips are also designed to absorb moisture and improve grip, then the two products solve the same problem using the same feature.
In that case, dumbbells are analogous art—even though they’re different products—because they solve the same problem in a similar way.
Gray Areas in Analogous Art
Sometimes it’s unclear whether something is analogous or not.
Let’s say you invent a medical adhesive for skin. An examiner finds a reference for a wood glue used in construction. Are these analogous?
The examiner might argue, “Yes—both are about attaching things together.”
You might argue, “No—carpenters using wood adhesives don’t know anything about what’s safe for human skin, and the challenges of closing wounds are completely different from gluing wooden beams.”
That’s why these cases can be gray areas—and why you need an attorney to help you build strong arguments, cite relevant case law, and guide your patent application through the process.
Conclusion
That’s the basic idea of analogous art in the patent world. It plays a huge role in determining what prior art the patent examiner is allowed to use in obviousness rejections—but not in novelty rejections.
Thanks for listening, and until next time, I’m Adam Diament—and keep on inventing.