Patent Grant
11048709
The management of a patent portfolio involves multiple stages. Initially, a decision is made as to what inventions are worth the investment of filing a patent application. Then, each filed patent application goes through prosecution with the patent office. Finally, for each patent that is allowed, maintenance fees are usually payable at a variety of intervals to keep the patent in force. Quick claim scope or relevancy determination is important in managing the assessment of large volumes of patent matters in a patent portfolio.
Tools for identifying patents for a particular purpose such as a prior art search, validity analysis, or a freedom to operate investigation, operate by performing Boolean queries using various search operators. These operators allow for searching by date, terms, document number, and patent classification, among others. These tools further allow for searching individual document portions such as a document title, abstract, or claim set.
Other searching tools accept freeform text. Such tools accept a freeform text block and extract information from the text block deemed most likely to return acceptable results. However, such tools are still limited to only performing Boolean queries and displaying a list of results.
These search tools often provide large numbers of results, most of which are irrelevant. These tools fail to present results in a manner allowing for quick relevancy determinations. The presentation also fails to provide enough detail suggesting how to adjust a search for obtaining only relevant results. Further, the search tools provide the documents of the result set in a manner very similar to the traditional paper format of the documents. Quick relevancy determination is important in managing the assessment of large volumes of prior art for potential citation to government patent agencies.
Some embodiments are illustrated by way of example and not limitation in the figures of the accompanying drawings in which:
The life cycle of a patent may include multiple stages. These stages generally include invention, filing a patent application on the invention, prosecuting the patenting application to allowance or abandonment, determining whether to file any continuing applications, and paying maintenance fees on the allowed patent.
At each stage, one or more parties determine the best course of action to take with respect to the invention. For example, when determining whether or not to file a patent, the inventor may know what products are out in the technology area of the invention, a business manager may know how the invention fits in with a company's goals, and a patent attorney may have researched existing patents or application in the technology area of the patent. These parties will ultimately decide whether it is worth the initial investment of filing an application on the invention and then determine the next course of action at each future stage.
In some instances, an inventor, business manager or portfolio manager may wish to monitor the patent activities of one or more competitors. The provision of up-to-date information relating to cited references or technology trends in the art to which a user's or competitor's patent portfolio relates may be particularly helpful in devising patenting strategy or making informed business decisions.
Tools
In various embodiments, a patent management system includes tools to help the parties involved in the patenting process make decisions at each stage in the life of a patent. These tools may also be used for general research by parties not immediately involved with the patenting of the invention. Additionally, these tools may be used as standalone tools, in combination with other tools, and in combination with other patent management systems. Examples of tools include, but are not limited to, prosecution analytics, reference management, prior art analytics, docketing management, claim mapping, claim analytics, portfolio analytics, external database (e.g., PAIR) analytics, annuity management, and strategic monitoring.
Meaning of Certain Term's
The systems, methods and tools of the present disclosure set forth in this specification are described in relation to a patent management system and patent matters, but it will be understood that embodiments of the present invention could equally be applied to other forms of intellectual property (trademarks, copyright, registered designs, and the like). Moreover, the term “patent” is not intended to be limited to an issued patent, but may include a pending patent application or un-filed application or invention disclosure. The term “user” is intended to cover any person interacting with the patent management system. A user may be an inventor, portfolio manager, business manager or patent attorney, for example.
Computer Network System
Network
Network 106 may include local-area networks (LAN), wide-area networks (WAN), wireless networks (e.g., 802.11 or cellular network), the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) network, ad hoc networks, personal area networks (e.g., Bluetooth) or other combinations or permutations of network protocols and network types. The network 106 may include a single local area network (LAN) or wide-area network (WAN), or combinations of LAN's or WAN's, such as the Internet. The various devices/systems coupled to network 106 may be coupled to network 106 via one or more wired or wireless connections.
Web Server
Web server 108 may communicate with file server 118 to publish or serve files stored on file server 118. Web server 108 may also communicate or interface with the application server 110 to enable web-based applications and presentation of information. For example, application server 110 may consist of scripts, applications, or library files that provide primary or auxiliary functionality to web server 108 (e.g., multimedia, file transfer, or dynamic interface functions). Applications may include code, which when executed by one or more processors, run the tools of patent management system 102. In addition, application server 110 may also provide some or the entire interface for web server 108 to communicate with one or more of the other servers in patent management system 102 (e.g., database management server 114).
Web server 108, either alone or in conjunction with one or more other computers in patent management system 102, may provide a user-interface to user terminal 104 for interacting with the tools of patent management system 102 stored in application server 110. The user-interface may be implemented using a variety of programming languages or programming methods, such as HTML (HyperText Markup Language), VBScript (Visual Basic® Scripting Edition), JavaScript™, XML® (Extensible Markup Language), XSLT™ (Extensible Stylesheet Language Transformations), AJAX (Asynchronous JavaScript and XML), Java™, JFC (Java™ Foundation Classes), and Swing (an Application Programming Interface for Java™).
User Terminal
User terminal 104 may be a personal computer or mobile device. In an embodiment, user terminal 104 includes a client program to interface with patent management system 102. The client program may include commercial software, custom software, open source software, freeware, shareware, or other types of software packages. In an embodiment, the client program includes a thin client designed to provide query and data manipulation tools for a user of user terminal 104. The client program may interact with a server program hosted by, for example, application server 110. Additionally, the client program may interface with database management server 114.
Operations Database
Operations database 116 may be composed of one or more logical or physical databases. For example, operations database 116 may be viewed as a system of databases that when viewed as a compilation, represent an “operations database.” Sub-databases in such a configuration may include a matter database, a portfolio database, a user database, a mapping database and an analytics database. Operations database 116 may be implemented as a relational database, a centralized database, a distributed database, an object oriented database, or a flat database in various embodiments.
Framework, Data Structure and Sources
In various embodiments, the tools of the patent management system 102 share a common framework. The framework may have a base organization unit of a matter. In various embodiments, a matter is an issued patent or patent application that includes one or more patent claims. In an embodiment, a matter is generally identified by its patent number or publication number. Identification may mean either identification as it relates to a user of the patent management system 102 or within the patent management system 102. Thus, a user may see a matter listed as its patent number while internally a database of the patent management system 102 may identify it by a random number. One or more matters may be associated with prior art or cited references stored in a reference or prior art database.
One or more matters may be grouped together to form a portfolio. A matter may also be associated with one or more other matters in a family. A family member may be a priority matter, a continuing (e.g., continuation, divisional) matter, or foreign counter-part member. Family members may be determined according to a legal status database such as INPADOC.
Data stored in a first database may be associated with data in a second database through the use of common data fields. For example, consider entries in the matter database formatted as [Matter ID, Patent Number] and entries in the portfolio database formatted as [Portfolio ID, Matter ID]. In this manner, a portfolio entry in the portfolio database is associated with a matter in the matter database through the Matter ID data field. In various embodiments, a matter may be associated with more than one portfolio by creating multiple entries in the portfolio database, one for each portfolio that the matter is associated with. In other embodiments, one or more patent reference documents may be associated with a patent by creating multiple entries in the patent database, for example. The structure of the database and format and data field titles are for illustration purposes, and other structures, names, or formats may be used. Additionally, further associations between data stored in the databases may be created as discussed further herein.
During operation of patent management system 102, data from multiple data sources (internal and external) is imported into or accessed by the operations database 116. Internal sources may include data from the various tools of the patent management system 102. External sources 120 may include websites or databases associated with foreign and domestic patent offices, assignment databases, WIPO, and INPADOC. In various embodiments, the data is scraped and parsed from the websites if it is unavailable through a database. The data may be gathered using API calls to the sources when available. The data may be imported and stored in the operations database on a scheduled basis, such as daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or some other regular or periodic interval. Alternatively, the data may be imported on-demand. The imported data may relate to any information pertaining to patents or patent applications, such as serial numbers, title, cited art, inventor or assignee details and the like.
After data importation, the data may be standardized into a common format. For example, database records from internal or external sources may not be in a compatible format with the operations database. Data conditioning may include data rearrangement, normalization, filtering (e.g., removing duplicates), sorting, binning, or other operations to transform the data into a common format (e.g., using similar date formats and name formats).
Patent Management System-Overview
User Database
In an example embodiment, user database 202 stores data representing users of patent management system 102. The data may include data fields of user credentials including a user ID and password and access rights with respect to patent management system 102. The user ID may be common across the tools of the patent management system 102. In this manner, access rights of the user with respect to the tools of the patent management system 102 may follow across the various tools of the patent management system 102. In an example embodiment, different access rights are granted to a user ID between the various tools.
In various embodiments, each user ID has access rights to one or more matters. Similarly, a user ID may have portfolio level access rights. Access rights may be defined according to at least two parameters: read access and write access. Thus, when a user logs into patent management system 102, the user is presented with access only to the matters/portfolios that have been associated with the user ID. More (e.g., additional contact information) or fewer data fields associated with a user may be included in a user entry stored in user database 202.
Patent or Matter Database
In an embodiment, matter database 204 stores data representing matters. Each matter may be associated with one or more portfolios. In some embodiments, a matter is associated with no portfolios. In various embodiments, a matter is a foreign or domestic patent or application, Matters may also be inventions that have not yet been filed (e.g., as may be the case within a docketing system). In an embodiment, a matter entry includes data fields representing a matter ID, patent number, publication number, serial number, docketing number, title (e.g., the name of the patent or application), type of the matter (e.g., application, issued patent, PCT application), status of the matter issued, abandoned, allowed), a link to the patent office where the matter was filed, a link to a. PDF download of the matter, abstract of the matter, inventors of the matter, current owner of the matter, cited references on the face of the matter, filed date, issue date, docket number, and annuity information (e.g., due date, country, and amount due). In some embodiments, other patent reference documents or prior art in any form may be stored and associated with one or more matters. More or fewer data fields associated with a patent may be included in a matter entry stored in matter database 204. In an example embodiment, matter database 204 may store a patent matter database, wherein this database includes data about the patent matters. The data may include, for at least one patent matter, a claim set or statement of invention and a priority date for the claim set or statement of invention.
Matter database 204 may also store a database of prior art documents (also known as “references”), wherein the prior art database includes data about the prior art documents. The data may include, for at least one prior art document, a priority date or publication date of the document. One or more of the prior art documents may be associated with a first patent matter in the patent matter database.
Matter database 204 may also store data obtained from internal or external sources relating to cited references owned by or cited against (in “forward” or “reverse” manner) a target entity (for example, a client of a firm) as well as cited references owned by or cited against (in “forward” or “reverse” manner) another entity (for example, a competitor of the client or other target entity). Public bibliographic details of such cited references may be obtainable from websites or databases associated with foreign and domestic patent offices (PAIR), assignment databases, WIPO, and INPADOC. In various embodiments, the data is scraped and parsed from the websites if it is unavailable through a database. The data may be gathered using API calls to the sources when available. The data may be imported and stored in the operations database 116 (of
In various embodiments, a matter is associated with one or more other matters as a family with a family ID. Family members may be priority documents, continuation patents/applications, divisional patents/applications, and foreign patent/application counterparts. In an embodiment, family information is determined according to an external source such as INPADOC. Patent reference documents and/or other prior art may be manually or automatically stored, cross-cited and associated with related family matters, for example.
Portfolio Database
Portfolio database 206, in an example embodiment, stores data representing portfolios of one or more matters. Data stored in portfolio database 206 may have been previously generated by a tool of patent management system 102. In various embodiments, a portfolio may be generated by a user using patent management system 102. For example, a user interface may be presented to the user requesting a name for the portfolio and identifiers of matters to be included in the portfolio. In an embodiment, a portfolio entry in portfolio database 206 includes the data fields of portfolio ID and portfolio name. Additionally, a data field for matter ID may also be included in an entry in the portfolio database 206. Thus, each portfolio may be associated with one or more matters through the use of the matter ID data field. More or fewer data fields associated with a portfolio may be included in a portfolio entry of portfolio database 206.
Mapping Database and Patent Concepts
In various embodiments, mapping database 208 may include mappings of patent concepts to one or more matters. In an example embodiment, the underlying patents and patent claims included in each patent portfolio may be categorized by patent concepts (sometimes referred to herein as concepts) such as scope concepts (SC) and technology categories (TC).
In an example embodiment, technology categories are categories that claims relate to, but are not necessarily limited to. For example, a claim to a pulse generator may be put in the technology category “pacemaker”, but not be limited to a pacemaker per se—perhaps the claim merely says that the pulse generator generates a pulse of certain type that is useful for pacing, but pacing does not appear in the claim. Hence, the claim relates to the technology category “pacemaker,” but it is not limited to being a pacemaker.
In an example embodiment, scope concepts are concepts that a claim is limited to. This is in contrast to technology categories, where the claim may be mapped to a TC but it not necessarily limited to it. A scope concept may be defined in a way to give the concept a context that a user can understand without necessarily having to look at the corresponding claim language. For example, if the scope concept is “method or apparatus for cardiac rhythm management”, and it is mapped to claim A, then claim A by definition is limited to this application, such that if a target device does not perform cardiac rhythm management, then it would not infringe claim A.
In an example embodiment, there are two types of scope concepts: 1) high level scope concepts that are like technical categories in the sense they are broad and general and apply to many claims in a portfolio; and 2) scope concepts that are specific to a limited number of claims—for example all claims in a patent may be limited to a very specific distinguishing feature, and this feature could be the basis for a scope concept.
In some example embodiments, high level scope concepts may be defined prior to mapping, and then assigned as applicable. For example, several scope concepts like: atrial pacing, ventricular pacing, defibrillation method or device, etc, may be defined. Then a mapping team may go through all claims in a portfolio and map these scope concepts to claims that are limited to these concepts. After the mapping is complete, an analysis may be done showing how many claims in the portfolio are limited to each of these scope concepts, and the claims may be presented for each SC. This may be useful in disqualifying claims that are not of interest to a particular target (e.g., if an analysis is being done to find a claim that covers an alleged infringer).
In some example embodiments, specific scope concepts are mapped patent by patent or by patent family. These may enable a person to create one or two scope concepts that can be mapped across all claims in a given patent, a family of patents, or across a portion of a patent portfolio. In order to effectively formulate a scope concept that may be globally useful across a patent portfolio, it may be useful to be able to examine multiple patent claims at the same time even if they are not all in the same patent or patent family. A keyword mapping may indicate that there is an exact match between the keyword and a subset of the claim language.
Analytics Database
In various embodiments, analytics database 210 stores data representing calculated analytics on data stored within patent management system 102 or external data sources. In various embodiments, analytics are organized according to an individual matter, a portfolio, or family, or date of an event (such as an assignment recordal, for example). Events may be organized by a date range (for example, all assignments occurring between Corporation A and Corporation B in the last 6 months, or all filings made by inventor X in last 12 months). The calculated analytics may be based on information gathered from multiple sources such as databases of patent management system 102 and PAIR.
In various embodiments, information for an individual matter may include status (e.g., disclosure received, drafting, filed, completed-waiting examination, in prosecution, allowed, issued), cited prior art, list and type of rejections (e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 101, 102, 103) number of claims allowed, office action count, interviews held, IDS statements filed, attorney fees to date, and PTO fees to date. Further metrics for an individual matter stored in analytics database 210 may include time waiting for examiner, total time in examination, time waiting for PTO while in examination, and time on appeal. Additional prosecution details may include an upcoming docket date (e.g., due dates for office action, IDS due dates, etc.). A claim prosecution history chart may also be stored in analytics database 210 for each matter. The prosecution history may include a history of claim amendments and arguments made in prosecution.
In various embodiments, portfolio and family analytics information may be stored in analytics database 210 based on aggregating the metrics for an individual matter. In an embodiment, the analytics of a family may differ from those in a portfolio as not all family member matters may be part of a portfolio. Additionally, the analytics may be stored for multiple time periods such that comparisons may be made between current metrics and metrics from a year ago (or other time period).
Aggregated metrics may include total patents and applications, pending and waiting for examination, in prosecution with no claims allowed, in prosecution with some claims allowed, appealed, notice of allowance received, and issued. These metrics may be compiled for both US and international matters in the portfolio. Additional information may include the international portfolio distribution by country. An age distribution of the portfolio may also be compiled. For example the portfolio may be broken down by less than one year old, 1 to 3 years old, 3 to 5 years old. 5 to 10 years old, 10 to 20 years old, and 20 or more years old. Recent filing and issue activity as well as upcoming Ford filing deadlines may be stored in analytics database 210.
In various embodiments, prosecution metrics across a portfolio or family are determined and stored in analytics database 210. This data may include matters waiting for examination, matters in examination, matters appealed, and cases allowed but not yet issued. Analytics with respect to office actions may also be compiled and stored. For example, success of allowance after a first office action response, a second response, and so forth may be stored in analytics database 210. Additional prosecution analytics may include allowance rate (e.g., 10%) after a telephone interview, allowance after an in-person interview, percentage of interviews with response, number and type of rejection, average time in prosecution (e.g., in months), average time to file a response, and average time to next office action. Further, the list of recently allowed cases, recently appealed cases, stalled cases, and recently abandoned cases may also be stored for each portfolio and family in analytics database 210.
In various embodiments, the results of keyword analysis on one or more matters and/or prior art references may be stored in analytics database 210. The keyword analysis may be based on the occurrences of the keywords in the matter or references to derive a score or keyword overlap.
In various embodiments, data stored in the analytics database 210 for a group of matters in a portfolio or family is analyzed to determine the top (e.g., ten) most cited patents, the top most cited inventors, top most cited prior art owners (e.g., according to assignment documents or the face of the patent), newly (e.g., within the last 60 days) cited prior art owners, and top most cited prior art inventors. This information may be stored in analytics database 210.
Display Module
In an embodiment, display module 212 is to display user interfaces and information retrieved from one or more databases 202-210. If a user is accessing patent management system 102 remotely (e.g., through a web browser) display module 212 may be to transmit data representing a user-interface through a network to a user terminal. In various embodiments, display module 212 is to generate one or more charts of data stored in databases 202-210. For example, display module 212 may generate a pie chart of the top 10 inventors within a portfolio.
Input Module
In various embodiments, input module 214 receives data from multiple sources where it may be further processed by one or more other modules and stored in one or more of databases 202-210. In various embodiments, input module 214 or the patent management system 102 may comprise a web server engine or search engine (not shown) for conducting searches through the databases in the system or external thereto, for example at a patent registry or on the Internet. For example, input module 214 may be to utilize one or more APIs to data from one or more patent data stores (e.g., public PAIR, private PAIR, INPADOC, foreign patent offices, patent docketing systems, portfolio management systems, etc). The data may include published patent documents, patent applications, office actions or other patent office correspondence, prior art references, claim mappings, dockets dates, annuity payment data and patent or patent application assignment information. Specific assignment data may include details pertaining to the assignor or assignee (e.g., name, address, nationality, place of incorporation), date of assignment, details of the matter being assigned, or any other data pertaining to assignments or change in ownership that may be recorded at any national or regional patent registry such as the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or European Patent Office (FPO), for example.
In various embodiments, input module 214 is to receive input from one or more user interface elements. For example, patent management system 102 may present multiple user interfaces to a user. These user interfaces may enable users to input data directly into databases 202-210, instruct the patent management system 102 to retrieve data from patent data stores, and instruct the patent management system to perform various operations (e.g., analysis) on the data in databases 202-210.
Additionally, input module 214 may be to determine the selection of one or more user interface elements by a user and initiate the action associated with the selected user interface element. For example, a user interface element may include a drop-down menu to select a portfolio. Input module 214 may be to receive the selection of the portfolio by the user. Then, input module 214 may pass the selection to one or more other modules for further processing. For example, display module 212 may update the drop-down menu to indicate the selection of the portfolio. In other example embodiments, a user may select an assignee name, or technology field, or date range of potential interest (or a combination of these or other aspects of interest), for which the user wishes to be informed of recent or ongoing assignment or change in ownership status. The user may request to be informed regularly (daily, weekly or monthly, for example) of ongoing assignments or changes in ownership by making a selection of the appropriate interface elements.
In various embodiments, input module 214 processes the data that has been inputted and formats it according to the data fields of databases 202-210 as discussed above. In various embodiments, processing is completed using a parsing module (not shown), For example, consider a patent publication that a user has directed to be inputted into one or more of the databases 202-210. The parsing module may use a combination of automatic image recognition and text analysis to determine the filing date, issue date, title, abstract, and claims of the patent. In some embodiments, the parsing module may flag certain pieces of data that had been determined to be potentially inaccurate (e.g., a number could not be read). A user of patent management system 102 may then examine the flagged data and manually enter the information which is then stored in the appropriate database 202-210.
The resulting data that has been parsed by the parsing module may then be entered as an entry in one or more of databases 202-210. This may be accomplished by, for example, formulating an insert SQL query with the parsed information. In various embodiments, the parsing module may parse multiple pieces of information before generating a database entry. For example, input module 214 may receive a docket number for an issued patent. The docket number may be combined with the information parsed from the issued patent to form an entry in matter database 204.
Mapping and Mining Modules
In various embodiments, mapping module 216 is to facilitate mappings of scope concept, technology categories, prior art and keywords to patent claims of a matter. In an embodiment, mapping signifies association. For example, in conjunction with display module 212, input module 214, or a mining module (not shown), mapping module 216 may present a user interface of patent claims stored in matter database 204 and scope concepts stored in mapping database 208. Input module 214 (or the web server or search engines) may receive a selection of one or more patent claims and one or more scope concepts and pass them to mapping module 216. Mapping module 216 may then formulate an SQL query to associate the one or more patents claims with the one or more scope concepts. When executed, the SQL query may update the mapping database 208 with the associations. In various embodiments, mapping module 216 also allows the creation of new scope concepts, technology categories, and keywords that may be mapped to one or more patent claims. Furthermore, mapping module 216 may present user interfaces that allow a user to rank and rate matters stored in matter database 204.
Mapping module 216 may also allow the generation of claim charts of a plurality of cells. A claim chart may include one or more scope concepts, technology categories, and keywords on one axis and claims of matters in a portfolio on the other axis. The claim chart may include a variety of levels of granularity of scope concepts. Some claims may be mapped to all of the scope concepts while others may not be mapped to any scope concepts. At the cell intersection between a scope concept (or technology category or keyword) and a claim, an indication of the mapping may be presented by changing the format of the cell. For example, the cell may be colored blue when a scope concept is mapped and red when not mapped.
In various embodiments, and as explained in more detail further below, a freedom-to-operate (FTO) analysis can be greatly facilitated using the mapping module 216 to generate claim charts. For example, a series of scope concepts mapped as being present in a claim may themselves be further mapped as being present (or not) in a competitive product. If all the scope concepts in a given claim, representing all the claim elements in that claim, are found present in a product an indication of “likely infringement” can for example be indicated in the claim chart accordingly. Red or green colored cells in a claim chart could, for example, respectively represent instances of when scope concepts are found present (or mapped) in a product, and when not. If the product being assessed was the patentee's own product, a “product coverage” chart could be generated in similar way.
So too a similar approach can be undertaken for validity analysis in which scope concepts are mapped to body of prior art instead of a product, for example. A green colored cell in a “validity” claim chart might indicate a novel concept for example, while a red colored cell might indicate prior disclosure.
In various embodiments, any one or more of the modules 212-222 can be configured to perform patent searches. For example, mapping module 216 may formulate an SQL query to search for one or more keywords or scope concepts in some prior art. The module may be configured to expand the search automatically, for example based on synonyms, forward or reverse citations, or other criteria. In this way, a seed group of patents can be identified and then expanded automatically.
The claim charts referred to above and in further detail below may be termed “Panoramic Claim Charts” in that they quickly provide to a user a panoramic display in summary overview the findings and conclusions of a mapping exercise, whether the analysis be of FTO, product coverage or validity type. For such charts or spreadsheets, further concept organization may be undertaken.
For example, in a method of concept organization for a Panoramic Claim Charts, a meta-label sort is provided to organize concepts under meta-labels. The meta-labels are like Scope Concept groups and in one example embodiment are added by the mapper to organize map output by the groups. Additionally, the mapper is able to direct or specify the order in which the Scope Concepts are displayed, and is able to store this order or grouping for later reuse. The mapper is optionally able to hide concepts too.
In various embodiments, the mapping module 216 is also able to roll down mapping from independent claims to dependent claims. In other words, independent claim limitations, scope concepts or technology categories are treated as if they were part of dependent claims (or not, as the case may be) and optionally presented in this manner in the Panoramic Claim Chart. A dependent relationship can be established by virtue of a defined claim dependency in a given claim set, or by the mapper who may elect to define a dependency or other relationship on the fly even though such a relationship might not formally be defined in the claim set under analysis.
In various embodiments, keyword clustering may be used for improved claim mapping. This approach may be termed a “clustered” search or mapping with the mapping other) module 216 configured accordingly. In an example embodiment of clustered mapping the mapping module 216 and display module 212 may together be configured to display within a mapping tool (referred to as ClaimBot, for example) a user interface which includes a user interface element or mapping feature referred to as OmniMap, for example. Selection of this feature invokes a search function to find like claims. This feature requires some knowledge about what is in the subject patent portfolio and deliberate refinement of a search string that will isolate claims of like kind into a list, before the mapper makes final determination as to whether certain scope concepts apply or “map” to each claim. It is highly desirable to have the same concept mapped to many or at least several claims. Both the knowledge of portfolio content and authoring and refinement of search strings take significant time. In order to further reduce the time needed to achieve high quality maps the following is envisioned.
One or more like claims are selected as keyword ‘source claims’. The system automatically extracts keywords from the source claim(s) by considering: removing prepositions, removing other “stop” words, removing insignificant words (as defined by a dictionary), including keywords chosen in ClaimBot keyword mapping, or other criteria. The result is a set of source claim keywords.
In various embodiments, selecting a user interface element (referred to as IntelliMap, for example) a keyword search function is invoked in which the mapping module 216 is configured to search for source claim(s) keywords in the whole portfolio to speed up search and to allow multi-word keywords strings and optionally display the source claim(s) keywords in a pop-up window where the user can select relative importance of the words or groups of words (sub-clustering). The mapping module 216 searches the portfolio for occurrences of source claim keywords optionally using key-word stemming, synonym listings, pre-populated taxonomies/dictionaries, or semantic processing and returns a list of claims that is sorted by intensity of source claim keyword occurrence within the claims being analyzed, or optionally weighing this occurrence intensity against a determined relative importance of the source claim keywords.
This results in a mapping method as follows:
In various embodiments, steps 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 can be fully automatic while steps 1, 3, 9, 10 initially require manual intervention but can be further automated. Automated aggregation of like claims, as per above, facilitates mapping by organizing claims in clusters of claims based on the claims' keyword content. The mapper can more easily find candidate concepts in the set of sought claims and will immediately have a claim(s) list for mapping the concepts without the need to explicitly author a search string. This method is based on the assumption that like claims to a significant degree use the same or related (e.g synonyms, stems) words.
In various embodiments, a claim similarity index is provided. A claim similarity index identifies claims to map scope concepts to. The similarity of a sub-paragraph (or element) of a claim or a full claim can be measured by: a) keyword similarity—roots of words are compared after throwing out unimportant words; b) linguistic analysis—how similar or not claim elements are based on other approaches. In one implementation, the mapping module 216 is configured to suggest to users mapping claims which claims are most similar to one another, or what parts of claims are most similar to one another. In another implementation, claims are just flagged as similar for later use.
In various embodiments, when mapping claims (for example, using the Omnimap feature mentioned above), a user is allowed to highlight the claim terms associated with a scope concept across a number of claims, storing those associations, and then when subsequently displaying those claims (for example, in the Panoramic Claim Chart) showing which claim terms have already been mapped. In various embodiments, those terms are highlighted in different colors for better visualization. This feature is helpful in situations in which a mapper moves to map another patent and has already mapped portions of claims. The highlighting makes it easier for the mapper to see what he or she has mapped. In some embodiments, the mapping module 216 is configured to automatically identify common claim terms or elements and display this in a user interface so these elements can be mapped more quickly. In some embodiments, the mapper can define common claim terms or filter them based on unique words or phrases of a certain number of words.
In some embodiments, an aid in mapping claims to a product is provided. Instead of using a claim chart, the mapping module 216 and display module 212 are configured together to show claims parsed by paragraph. Next to each paragraph, a mapper can indicate if the product includes the technology described in the claim. The same logic used in scope concept mapping is used to determine if claim is ruled out in an FTO analysis, or is novel in a validity analysis, for example.
Analytics Module
In various embodiments, analytics module 218 is to examine and run calculations on the data stored in the databases 202-210 to generate the analytics previously discussed. For example, analytics module 218 may formulate an SQL query that retrieves the number of times that a prior art reference has been cited within a portfolio. This query may be run for each prior art cited within the portfolio to determine a list of the most cited (e.g., the top ten) prior art references with a portfolio. In an embodiment, the queries are formulated and run as requested by a user. In an embodiment, once the analytics information has been determined, it is stored within analytics database 210. In various embodiments, queries are formulated and run on a periodic basis (e.g., nightly) and entries in analytics database 210 may be updated to reflect any changes. In other embodiments, the analytics module 218 may in response to user input formulate a query to examine how many times a given patent matter has been assigned or been subject to a change in ownership from one party to another. Other queries analyzing patent assignment data may be run as requested by a user.
In various embodiments, the analytics module 218 is to analyze and map cited reference data stored in the matter database 204. The data may be scraped in by the input module 214. For example, cited references owned by or cited against target or other entities as mentioned above may be mapped against each other to determine a “prior art” overlap. The overlap may be presented graphically, for example in a graphic user interface presented in user terminal 104. In various embodiments, the overlap may relate to so-called “forward” citations, or “reverse” citations, or both. In various embodiments, the overlap may be presented for a target company and one or more competitors. Changes in the overlap over time may also be stored and mapped to give an indication to a user of technology trends, changes in trends and the ongoing development of potentially relevant prior art. In various embodiments, a prior art overlap between a target and competitor may be stored, mapped and shown for a single patent, a portfolio of patents, or a family of patents. The target and other entities of interest, such as competitor companies or inventors, may be selected by the user.
An analytical result or mapping may be displayed as a list of prior art cited against both the target and competitor, with an indication of which art overlaps or is common to both listings. In various embodiments, the analytical result or mapping may in addition or alternatively present a list of companies that own the prior art cited against the target and other entities. The target company may appear as an owner. The display module 212 may be to display the results of the mappings and overlap of cited references as a bar chart, or listings, or other graphic, in a user interface of the type shown for example in
In various embodiments, the analytics module 218 is to receive input identifying a pool of keywords for a first patent matter in matter database 204 and associated prior art documents in matter database 204. The term keyword is intended to include individual keywords as well as a number of keywords grouped together making up a key phrase, for example. The analytics module 218 may be further to perform a keyword analysis on the first patent matter and associated prior art documents based on occurrences of the keywords in the first patent matter and associated prior art documents. The analytics module 218 may be further to identify, based on the analysis, keywords occurring uniquely in the first patent matter. In view of their uniquely occurring nature, these keywords may be regarded as claim elements potentially differentiating the claim set or statement of invention over the disclosures contained in the one or more prior art documents.
In various embodiments, the analytics module 218 is to generate for a user the patent activity profiles of one or more entities. The entities may be competitive entities to the user, or the user's employer or client. The generated activity profiles may form part of the information to assist in strategic monitoring of patent portfolios. A patent activity profile may be built for a particular patent applicant or owner, or a type of owner, and then deviances from that profile may be flagged. The profile may include foreign filing patterns, US filing patterns—for example, analyzing whether the owner typically files a provisional application first followed by a PCT application, or whether a US application is typically filed thereafter. The profile may include information about abandonments—for example, identifying what subject matter an owner gives up or surrenders during prosecution, or in making abandonment decisions.
In various embodiments, the profile may include information about instances or circumstances in which an owner does not pay a patent annuity or renewal fee. The profile may include any of the data stored in analytics database 210 referred to above. Analytics module 218 may be to flag deviances from a profile and send update alerts to a user accordingly. For example, in conjunction with display module 212 and input module 214, analytics module 218 may present to a user an interface indicating one or more patent activity profiles for one or more patent owners for the user to select and review.
Tracking Module
The tracking module 220, according to an example embodiment, maintains information related to a specific patent, group of patents, or concept. For example, the tracking module 220 may store information related to a patent's prosecution and litigation history (such as office actions or claim amendments). In other example embodiments, the tracking module 220 may store information relating to the assignment of patent applications or patents from one assignee to another, or from an inventor to employer assignee, for example. Information of this nature may be stored by tracking module 220 for defined sets of applications or patents registered in a specified name, and within certain date ranges, for example. Update alerts (e.g.; electronic mail, SMS, or similar) may be sent to a user indicating a change in ownership for a patent or patent application.
Filtering Module
In various embodiments, the filtering module 222 is to filter a set of matters according to a user preference. For example, a user may activate a check box that indicates only pending matters should be shown in a user interface. Filtering module 222 may formulate an assignment query consistent with retrieving only pending matters. The results of the query (or any query) may then be shared with display module 212 where the user interface may be updated. The regular alerts may in other example embodiments be pushed to a user terminal 104; an external website, an intranet site, a PDA, smart phone, or other similar handheld device.
In various embodiments, a patent system 102 may be provided comprising: a database of patent sets and a database of patents, each patent stored in the database of patents associated with one or more patent sets stored in the database of patent sets; and a web server engine to receive a search query associated with a first patent set; a mining module to search a first patent set as a function of the search query and generate seed search results, the search results including one or more patent claims associated with the search query and including terms from the search query and being stored in a patent claim database, the mining module to generate automatically an expanded set of search results including one or more patent claims further associated with the search query or associated with the patent claims in the seed set of search results; a mapping module to map the one or more patent claims to a patent concept.
In various embodiments, a system comprises a network and databases, the databases being accessible on the network and including at least one database of patent portfolios and a database of patents, each patent stored in the database of patents associated with one or more patent portfolios stored in the database of patent portfolios; and a server, operatively connected to the network, wherein the server includes: a processor, a memory, software operable on the processor to: receive a search query associated with a first patent portfolio; search the first portfolio as a function of the search query; generate a seed set of search results including one or more patent claims associated with the search query, the patent claims including terms from the search query; automatically generate an expanded set of search results including one or more patent claims further associated with the search query or associated with the patent claims in the seed set of search results; and map the one or more patent claims to a patent concept.
In various embodiments, a system may comprise a database of patent sets and a database of patents, each patent stored in the database of patents associated with one or more patent sets stored in the database of patent sets; a database of ontologies, the ontologies including one or more patent concepts in defined groups; and a web server engine to receive a search query associated with a first patent set; a mining module to search a first patent set as a function of the search query and generate search results, the search results including one or more patent claims associated with the search query and stored in a patent claim database; a mapping module to map the one or more patent claims to a patent concept in a defined group.
In various embodiments, a system may comprise a network and databases, the databases accessible on the network and including at least one database of patent portfolios, and a database of patents, each patent stored in the database of patents associated with one or more patent portfolios stored in the database of patent portfolios, and a database of ontologies, the ontologies including one or more patent concepts in defined groups; and a server, operatively connected to the network, wherein the server includes: a processor, a memory, software operable on the processor to: receive a search query associated with a first patent portfolio; search the first portfolio as a function of the search query; generate search results, the search results including one or more patent claims associated with the search query; and map the one or more patent claims to a patent concept in a defined group.
In various embodiments, a system 102 comprises a database of patent sets and a database of patents, each patent stored in the database of patents associated with one or more patent sets stored in the database of patent sets; a web server engine to receive a search query associated with a first patent set; a mining module to search a first patent set as a function of the search query and generate search results, the search results including one or more independent patent claims associated with the search query and stored in a patent claim database; and a mapping module to map the one or more independent patent claims to a patent concept and associate the at least one mapped patent concept to one or more patent claims which are dependent on the one or more independent patent claims.
In some embodiments, a system comprises a network; databases, accessible on the network, including at least one database of patent portfolios and a database of patents, each patent stored in the database of patents associated with one or more patent portfolios stored in the database of patent portfolios; and a server, operatively connected to the network, wherein the server includes: a processor, a memory, software operable on the processor to: receive a search query associated with a first patent portfolio; search the first portfolio as a function of the search query; generate search results, the search results including one or more independent patent claims associated with the search query; map the one or more independent patent claims to at least one patent concept; and associate the at least one mapped patent concept to one or more patent claims which are dependent on the one or more independent patent claims.
In various embodiments, a system 102 may comprising a database of patent sets and a database of patents, each patent stored in the database of patents associated with one or more patent sets stored in the database of patent sets; and one or more modules to perform at least a portion of one or more of the following: receive input identifying a set of key word source claims associated with a first patent set; automatically extract at least one key word from the source claims; receive or formulate a search query associated with the first patent set, the search query including the at least one keyword; search the entire first patent set as a function of the search query; generate search results, the search results including one or more patent claims associated with the search query; and map the one or more patent claims to a patent concept.
In some embodiments, a system comprising a network; databases, accessible on the network, including at least one database of patent portfolios and a database of patents, each patent stored in the database of patents associated with one or more patent portfolios stored in the database of patent portfolios; and a server, operatively connected to the network, wherein the server includes: a processor, a memory, software operable on the processor to: receive input identifying a set of keyword source claims associated with a first patent portfolio; automatically extract at least one keyword from the source claims; receive or formulate a search query associated with the first patent portfolio, the search query including the at least one keyword; search the entire first portfolio as a function of the search query; generate search results, the search results including one or more patent claims associated with the search query; and map the one or more patent claims to a patent concept.
In some embodiments, a system 102 comprises a database of patent sets and a database of patents, each patent stored in the database of patents associated with one or more patent sets stored in the database of patent sets; and a web server engine to receive a search query associated with a first patent set; a mining module to search a first patent set as a function of the search query and generate search results, the search results including one or more patent claims associated with the search query and stored in a patent claim database; a mapping module to generate a claim similarity index for at least one patent claim or portion thereof included in the search results based on its similarity to at least one other patent claim or portion thereof in the search results; identifying, based on the similarity index, one or more patent claims included in the search results as primary targets to map a patent scope to; and map the one or more patent claims to a patent concept.
In various embodiments, a system 102 comprises a network; databases, accessible on the network, including at least one database of patent portfolios and a database of patents, each patent stored in the database of patents associated with one or more patent portfolios stored in the database of patent portfolios; and a server, operatively connected to the network, wherein the server includes: a processor, a memory, software operable on the processor to: receive a search query associated with a first patent portfolio; search the first portfolio as a function of the search query; generate search results, the search results including one or more patent claims associated with the search query; generate a claim similarity index for at least one patent claim or portion thereof included in the search results, based on its similarity to at least one other patent claim or portion thereof in the search results; identify, based on the similarity index, one or more patent claims included in the search results as primary targets to map a patent scope to; and map the one or more patent claims to the patent concept.
In some embodiments, a system comprises a database of patent sets and a database of patents, each patent stored in the database of patents associated with one or more patent sets stored in the database of patent sets; and one or more modules to perform at least a portion of one or more of the following: receive a search query associated with a first patent set, search a first patent set as a function of the search query and generate search results, the search results including one or more patent claims associated with the search query and stored in a patent claim database, map the one or more patent claims to a patent concept, highlight any claim terms associated with the patent scope across a number of claims, store the associations, and display the highlighted claim terms to a user when subsequently displaying the one or more mapped patent claims.
In various embodiments, a system comprises a network; databases, accessible on the network, including at least one database of patent portfolios and a database of patents, each patent stored in the database of patents associated with one or more patent portfolios stored in the database of patent portfolios; and a server, operatively connected to the network, wherein the server includes: a processor; a memory, software operable on the processor to: receive a search query associated with a first patent portfolio; search the first portfolio as a function of the search query; generate search results; the search results including one or more patent claims associated with the search query; map the one or more patent claims to a patent concept; highlight any claim terms associated with the patent scope across a number of claims; store the associations; and display the highlighted claim terms to a user when subsequently displaying the one or more mapped patent claims.
Mapping Methods
Some embodiments of the present inventive subject matter include methods for patent mapping in a patent management system 102. User interfaces such as the one illustrated in
One such method embodiment is illustrated in
In various embodiments, the automatic generation of expanded search results may include retrieving patent claims from patents cited forward or against the patent claims in the seed set of search results. The computer implemented method may further comprise maintaining a database of ontologies, the ontologies including one or more patent concepts. The one or more patent concepts may include a technology category. The one or more patent concepts may include a scope concept, the scope concept defining a scope to which a patent claim is limited. In some embodiments, the mapping of one or more patent claims to a patent concept may include defining the patent concept. The mapping of one or more patent claims to a patent concept may further include maintaining a database of patent claims, the database of patent claims including the one or more patent claims, and storing an indication of a relationship between the patent concept and the one or more patent claims in the database of patent claims. The indication of the relationship may include an indication that the one or more claims are not mapped to the patent concept. The indication of the relationship may include an indication that the one or more patent claims are mapped to the patent concept. The search query may include a regular search expression.
Another example method embodiment is shown in
In various embodiments of the computer implemented method 300B, the one or more patent concepts may include a technology category. The one or more patent concepts may include a scope concept, the scope concept defining a scope to which a patent claim is limited. In some embodiments, mapping a plurality of patent claims to a patent concept may include defining the patent concept and assigning it to one of the defined groups.
In some embodiments, mapping a plurality of patent claims to a patent concept may further include maintaining a database of patent claims, the database of patent claims including the one or more patent claims, and storing an indication of a relationship between the patent concept and the one or more patent claims in the database of patent claims. In some embodiments, the indication of the relationship includes an indication that the one or more claims are not mapped to the patent concept. The indication of the relationship may include an indication that the one or more patent claims are mapped to the patent concept. In some embodiments, the search query includes a regular search expression. Further in some embodiments, generating search results may include retrieving patent claims which include terms from the search query and synonyms of the terms.
In another example embodiment shown in
In some embodiments, the computer implemented method 300C may further comprise maintaining a database of ontologies, the ontologies including one or more patent concepts. The one or more patent concepts may include a technology category. The one or more patent concepts may include a scope concept, the scope concept defining a scope to which a patent claim is limited.
In some embodiments of the computer implemented method 300C, mapping a plurality of independent patent claims to a patent concept includes defining the patent concept. Mapping a plurality of independent patent claims to a patent concept may further includes maintaining a database of patent claims, the database of patent claims including the one or more independent and dependent patent claims, and storing an indication of a relationship between the patent concept and the one or more independent or dependent patent claims in the database of patent claims. The indication of the relationship may include an indication that the one or more independent or dependent claims are not mapped to the patent concept. The indication of the relationship may include an indication that the one or more independent or dependent patent claims are mapped to the patent concept.
The search query may include a regular search expression, and in some embodiments; generating the search results includes retrieving independent or dependent patent claims which include terms from the search query and synonyms of the terms.
Another example method embodiment is shown in FIG. all. Here, a computer implemented method 300D comprises: at block 302D, maintaining a database of patent portfolios and a database of patents, each patent stored in the database of patents associated with one or more patent portfolios stored in the database of patent portfolios; at block 304D, receiving input identifying a set of keyword source claims associated with a first patent portfolio; at block 306D, automatically extracting at least one keyword from the source claims; at block 308D, receiving or formulating a search query associated with the first patent portfolio, the search query including the at least one keyword; at block 310D, searching the entire first portfolio as a function of the search query; at block 312D, generating search results, the search results including one or more patent claims associated with the search query; and at block 314D, mapping the one or more patent claims to a patent concept.
In some embodiments, the computer implemented method 300D may further comprise maintaining a database of ontologies, the ontologies including one or more patent concepts. The one or more patent concepts may include a technology category. The one or more patent concepts may include a scope concept, the scope concept defining a scope to which a patent claim is limited.
In some embodiments, mapping a plurality of patent claims to a patent concept includes defining the patent concept. In various embodiments, mapping a plurality of patent claims to a patent concept further includes maintaining a database of patent claims, the database of patent claims including the one or more patent claims, and storing an indication of a relationship between the patent concept and the one or more patent claims in the database of patent claims. The indication of the relationship may include an indication that the one or more claims are not mapped to the patent concept. The indication of the relationship may include an indication that the one or more patent claims are mapped to the patent concept.
In some embodiments of method 300D, the search query includes a regular search expression, and generating the search results may include retrieving patent claims which include terms from the search query and synonyms of the terms.
Another example method embodiment is shown in
In various embodiments of the computer implemented method 300E, the claim similarity index is generated by conducting a keyword similarity analysis on one patent claim or portion thereof included in the search results, and at least one other claim or portion included in the search results. The claim similarity index may be generated by conducting a linguistic analysis on one patent claim or portion thereof included in the search results, and at least one other claim or portion included in the search results.
In some embodiments, the method 300E further comprises maintaining a database of ontologies, the ontologies including one or more patent concepts. The one or more patent concepts may include a technology category. The one or more patent concepts may include a scope concept, the scope concept defining a scope to which a patent claim is limited.
In some embodiments, mapping a plurality of patent claims to a patent concept includes defining the patent concept. The mapping a plurality of patent claims to a patent concept may further include maintaining a database of patent claims, the database of patent claims including the one or more patent claims, and storing an indication of a relationship between the patent concept and the one or more patent claims in the database of patent claims. The indication of the relationship may include an indication that the one or more claims are not mapped to the patent concept. The indication of the relationship may include an indication that the one or more patent claims are mapped to the patent concept.
In various embodiments, the search query includes a regular search expression, and generating the search results may include retrieving patent claims which include terms from the search query and synonyms of the terms.
Another example method embodiment is shown in
Some embodiments of method 300F further include maintaining a database of ontologies, the ontologies including one or more patent concepts. The one or more patent concepts may include a technology category. The one or more patent concepts may include a scope concept, the scope concept defining a scope to which a patent claim is limited.
In some embodiments of method 300F, mapping a plurality of patent claims to a patent concept includes defining the patent concept. Mapping a plurality of patent claims to a patent concept may further include maintaining a database of patent claims, the database of patent claims including the one or more patent claims, and storing an indication of a relationship between the patent concept and the one or more patent claims in the database of patent claims. The indication of the relationship may include an indication that the one or more claims are not mapped to the patent concept. The indication of the relationship may include an indication that the one or more patent claims are mapped to the patent concept.
In some embodiments, the search query includes a regular search expression, and generating search results may include retrieving patent claims which include terms from the search query and synonyms of the terms.
For any of the methods described above, a database management system may be used (DBMS) for storing and retrieving data from a data store which includes the database of patents and database of patent portfolios. In some embodiments, the DBMS is a relational database management system (RDBMS). In some other embodiments, the data store includes storing data in a Resource Description Framework Schema (RDFS). In some embodiments, communication with the data store includes using a language such as Structured Query Language (SQL) or eXtensible Markup Language (XML).
As discussed above, an ontology may include all the metadata (patent concepts) that one may wish to map to a patent claim. For instance, the one or more patent concepts may include a technology category. The one or more patent claims may also include a scope concept, the scope concept defining a scope to which a patent claim is limited. Keywords may also be used as patent concepts. These may be any term or short phrase that appears in the claim, exactly as it appears in the claim. As these terms are taken from the claims, they may be thought of as limitations in the sense that if the term cannot be read on an accused device, the claim probably does not cover the accused device. Example user interfaces showing scope concepts in an ontology can be seen with reference to
A user of the system may wish to search a previously created portfolio of patents. A patent portfolio may include patents that a user wishes to analyze. For example, a portfolio might include all of the patents for a company ABC Corp (ABC). A portfolio may be stored and defined as a patent set in the patent set database ABC might have received information on a potential infringing product. In order to find the patent claims relevant to the product, ABC may wish to map its entire patent portfolio and use the resulting mapped portfolio to quickly find the best claims to assert in an infringement lawsuit. However, it may also be useful to map the patents of the alleged infringer. These patents may also be added to the portfolio as it is likely ABC's patents and the alleged infringer's patents will have overlapping subject matter.
A search query may help to narrow down the patent. In an example embodiment, the search query many include a regular expression. For example, if the search query is “*” all the patent claims in the patent portfolio will be displayed. Boolean expressions such as “car && dog” may also be used. In some example embodiments, an option is included to only search independent claims, dependent claims, or to search both. In some example embodiments, the portfolio may further be narrowed by using patent concepts that have been included in the current ontology.
Portfolio Mapping
Referring back to
The results of the query may then be presented to the user in an example user interface as shown in
Referring back to
As discussed above with reference to narrowing down search results, the relationship between a patent concept and a patent claim may take on many forms. For example, the relationship may be one where the patent concept is directly mapped to a patent claim. This may indicate that a user who looked at the claim made the decision that the patent claim was in a particular technology category, for example. Another relationship may indicate that a patent concept is not mapped to a patent claim. If a user is sure that a particular claim is not in a technology category, for example, it may be beneficial for that information to be saved so that the mapping process is not unnecessarily duplicative.
With reference back to
Upon a user indicating a preferred mapping for each patent claim, a user may further indicate a preference of which category of patent concept to map. In an example embodiment, there are two categories: technology categories and scope concepts (e.g., elements 424 and 426 in
Further example options may be presented to the right of each concept. An option to “modify and map” 812 may be selected if the user wishes to modify the concept. This may be useful if a user wishes to broaden the concept so that it may be mapped to more patent claims. For example, a narrow technology category may have been defined as “power computer speakers.” Rather than a user defining a new technology category of “passive computer speakers,” the user might decide it makes more logical sense to only have one technology category titled. “computer speakers.” In an example embodiment, the user can safely select “modify and map” and change the technology category to “computer speakers.” This may safely be done because all “powered computer speakers” are also “computer speakers.” In an example embodiment, every patent claim, regardless of which portfolio(s) it may be included in, will be updated to reflect the modified concept. Thus, it may not be advisable to narrow a concept without being certain every patent claim in the system adheres to the modified concept. In an example embodiment, a warning may be displayed to the user explaining the effects of modifying a concept.
In an example embodiment, an indication of a relationship between the patent concept and the plurality of claims in the database of patents may be stored (e.g., updating one or more databases). This may be accomplished, for example, by the user selecting the map button as displayed in
In some example embodiments mapping a plurality of patent claims to a patent concept includes defining the patent concept. Defining the patent concept may be initiated by a user clicking on the example “add_new” button 806 as displayed in
Report and Chart Generation
As described above, the system may allow the generation of visual representation of the data included in the databases to further maximize the value of concepts to patent claims. In some example embodiments, the visual representation may be in the form of charts sometimes called Panoramic Claim Charts which may be interactive. In some example embodiments, a method to generate the charts includes formulating a query to send to one or more databases, the query requesting whether or not a set of patent claims have been mapped to a set of patent concepts. An additional query may be sent to the databases to determine additional metadata about the patent claims including, but not limited to, the filing data and owner of each patent. Ranking data may be received for each patent concept retrieved from the databases. In an example embodiment, the system generates a relationship between a ranking, a patent concept, and a patent claim and displays the relationship to the user in the form of a chart. The ranking data may be stored in the database or may be received from a user. In some embodiments, ranking data may include integer values of disparate range (e.g., 1-10 or 1-100) alphabetical letters (e.g., a grading scale of A-F), or any other means to characterize a claim or concept.
In an example embodiment, a competitor landscape chart may be generated. An example simple competitor landscape chart is shown in
In an example embodiment, a product coverage chart may be generated. An example product coverage chart is shown in
This chart may also allow interactivity with a user. This interactivity may include the user changing the “Has feature” values and the chart automatically updating the claim coverage and product coverage rows. For example, if the SC 1 rating was changed to ‘1,’ the claim coverage value of the patent “Title 1” may change to “1” signifying the patent does not apply to the product. In some embodiments, any changes that result from input from the user are highlighted on the chart. This may allow a user to quickly see the effects of potential changes to product coverage.
Reference is now made to
User interface 1700 is illustrated with multiple user interface elements. In an example embodiment, a user interface element is a graphical or textual element that a user may interact with to cause an application to perform an assigned action for the interface element. Data representing user interface 1700 may be transmitted via network 106 and presented on a display of user terminal 104 through the use of a web browser. A user (e.g., manager of a patent portfolio, etc.) may interact with the user interface elements of user interface 1700 through the use of an input device (e.g., stylus, cursor, mouse, a finger) of the user terminal 104. In an embodiment, a user selection is based on the coordinates of the input device as it makes contact with the display or where a user “clicks” the mouse. The coordinates are compared to the coordinates of the user input element to determine the selection. The type of user elements, names, and layout depicted in
In general, the user interface elements may include my matters 1702, patent watches 1704, and company watches 1706. These elements may be used to select a context/view of the patent management system 102. For example, my matters 1702 lists the patents included within a portfolio of a user, patent watches 1704 lists information on patents that the user has indicated the patent management system 102 is to watch, and company watches 1706 lists information on companies that the user has indicated the system 102 should watch.
In various embodiments, a prior art overlap mapping tool includes further user interface elements which allow a user to input, for example at element 1708, the identity of a target entity and the identity of at least one other entity of interest. This input may be passed to the input module 214 for searching. The target entity might be an inventor of interest or a client, for example, while the at least one other entity of interest might be one or more competitors, for example. The input module 214, for example, is to search for and identify prior art cited against the patent filings (optionally domestic, foreign or both types of filings) of the identified target and competitor entities, and the display module 212 is to display the references in a window 1710, for example.
In display windows 1712, 1714, and 1716, the references may be broken down into listings of references cited against the target and the selected competitors. The references may be aggregated together, or in various embodiments, further broken down into group listings relating to one or more patents, patent matters or patent portfolios, or in various embodiments, into groupings relating to one or more domestic or foreign countries.
In various embodiments, further data relating to the cited references is provided. In windows 1718 and 1720, specific data relating to one or more cited references is provided. For example, the name of the owner of Reference A is shown at window 1722 as “x”. Any instances of reverse or back citations of Reference A are shown at window 1724, and instances of forward citations of Reference A at window 1726, for example. Similar details for Reference B may be shown at windows 1728, 1730 and 1732, for example.
The cited references found for the target and other entities can be conveniently displayed in a bar chart or other graphic. In an example embodiment, numeral 1734 indicates a chart having three bar lines. Each bar line represents the citation listings for a target entity and two competitors A and B identified by a user. Details of each citation listed in a bar line may be given, but are not shown here in the interests of clarity. A representation of the prior art overlap can be shown and is here illustrated by arrow 1736 which indicates a zone of commonality of references found for each of the target and competitors A and B. Other zones of commonality, such as indicated by arrow 1738, listing references common to the target and competitor A only, can be given. At a quick glance, a user can determine which areas of art or technology are being cited against or developed by each entity. In various embodiments, the zone of commonality can be rechecked at various intervals so that ongoing trends in the art can be analyzed over time.
Modules, Components and Logic
Certain embodiments are described herein as including logic or a number of components, modules, or mechanisms. Modules may constitute either software modules code embodied (1) on a non-transitory machine-readable medium or (2) in a transmission signal) or hardware-implemented modules. A hardware-implemented module is tangible unit capable of performing certain operations and may be configured or arranged in a certain manner. In example embodiments, one or more computer systems e.g., a standalone, client or server computer system) or one or more processors may be configured by software (e.g., an application or application portion) as a hardware-implemented module that operates to perform certain operations as described herein.
In various embodiments, a hardware-implemented module may be implemented mechanically or electronically. For example, a hardware-implemented module may comprise dedicated circuitry or logic that is permanently configured (e.g., as a special-purpose processor, such as a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC)) to perform certain operations. A hardware-implemented module may also comprise programmable logic or circuitry (e.g., as encompassed within a general-purpose processor or other programmable processor) that is temporarily configured by software to perform certain operations. It will be appreciated that the decision to implement a hardware-implemented module mechanically, in dedicated and permanently configured circuitry, or in temporarily configured circuitry (e.g., configured by software) may be driven by cost and time considerations.
Accordingly, the term “hardware-implemented module” should be understood to encompass a tangible entity, be that an entity that is physically constructed, permanently configured (e.g., hardwired) or temporarily or transitorily configured (e.g., programmed) to operate in a certain manner and/or to perform certain operations described herein. Considering embodiments in which hardware-implemented modules are temporarily configured (e.g., programmed), each of the hardware-implemented modules need not be configured or instantiated at any one instance in time. For example, where the hardware-implemented modules comprise a general-purpose processor configured using software, the general-purpose processor may be configured as respective different hardware-implemented modules at different times. Software may accordingly configure a processor, for example, to constitute a particular hardware-implemented module at one instance of time and to constitute a different hardware-implemented module at a different instance of time.
Hardware-implemented modules can provide information to, and receive information from, other hardware-implemented modules. Accordingly, the described hardware-implemented modules may be regarded as being communicatively coupled. Where multiple of such hardware-implemented modules exist contemporaneously, communications may be achieved through signal transmission (e.g., over appropriate circuits and buses) that connect the hardware-implemented modules. In embodiments in which multiple hardware-implemented modules are configured or instantiated at different times, communications between such hardware-implemented modules may be achieved, for example, through the storage and retrieval of information in memory structures to which the multiple hardware-implemented modules have access. For example, one hardware-implemented module may perform an operation, and store the output of that operation in a memory device to Which it is communicatively coupled. A further hardware-implemented module may then, at a later time, access the memory device to retrieve and process the stored output. Hardware-implemented modules may also initiate communications with input or output devices, and can operate on a resource (e.g., a collection of information).
The various operations of example methods described herein may be performed, at least partially, by one or more processors that are temporarily configured (e.g., by software) or permanently to perform the relevant operations. Whether temporarily or permanently configured, such processors may constitute processor-implemented modules that operate to perform one or more operations or functions. The modules referred to herein may, in some example embodiments, comprise processor-implemented modules.
Similarly, the methods described herein may be at least partially processor-implemented. For example, at least some of the operations of a method may be performed by one or more processors or processor-implemented modules. The performance of certain of the operations may be distributed among the one or more processors, not only residing within a single machine, but deployed across a number of machines. In some example embodiments, the processor or processors may be located in a single location (e.g., within a home environment, an office environment or as a server farm), while in other embodiments the processors may be distributed across a number of locations.
The one or more processors may also operate to support performance of the relevant operations in a “cloud computing” environment or as a “software as a service” (SaaS). For example, at least some of the operations may be performed by a group of computers (as examples of machines including processors), with these operations being accessible via a network (e.g., the Internet) and via one or more appropriate interfaces (e.g., Application Program Interfaces (APIs).)
Electronic Apparatus and System
Example embodiments may be implemented in digital electronic circuitry, or in computer hardware, firmware, software, or in combinations of them. Example embodiments may be implemented using a computer program product, e.g., a computer program tangibly embodied in an information carrier, e.g., in a machine-readable medium for execution by, or to control the operation of, data processing apparatus, e.g., a programmable processor, a computer, or multiple computers.
A computer program can be written in any form of programming language, including compiled or interpreted languages, and it can be deployed in any form, including as a stand-alone program or as a module, subroutine, or other unit suitable for use in a computing environment. A computer program can be deployed to be executed on one computer or on multiple computers at one site or distributed across multiple sites and interconnected by a communication network.
In example embodiments, operations may be performed by one or more programmable processors executing a computer program to perform functions by operating on input data and generating output. Method operations can also be performed by, and apparatus of example embodiments may be implemented as, special purpose logic circuitry, e.g., a FPGA or an ASIC.
The computing system can include clients and servers. A client and server are generally remote from each other and typically interact through a communication network. The relationship of client and server arises by virtue of computer programs running on the respective computers and having a client-server relationship to each other. In embodiments deploying a programmable computing system, it will be appreciated that both hardware and software architectures usually require consideration. Specifically, it will be appreciated that the choice of whether to implement certain functionality in permanently configured hardware (e.g., an ASIC), in temporarily configured hardware (e.g., a combination of software and a programmable processor), or a combination of permanently and temporarily configured hardware may be a design choice. Below are set out hardware (e.g., machine) and software architectures that may be deployed, in various example embodiments.
Example Machine Architecture and Machine-Readable Medium
The example computer system 1800 includes a processor 1802 (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU) or both), a main memory 1804 and a static memory 1806, which communicate with each other via a bus 1808. The computer system 1800 may further include a video display unit 1810 (e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD) or a cathode ray tube (CRT)). The computer system 1800 also includes an alphanumeric input device 1812 (e.g., a keyboard), a user interface (UT) navigation or cursor control device 1814 (e.g., a mouse), a disk drive unit 1816, a signal generation device 1818 (e.g., a speaker) and a network interface device 1820.
Machine-Readable Medium
The disk drive unit 1816 includes a machine-readable medium 1822 on which is stored one or more sets of data structures and instructions 1824 (e.g., software) embodying or utilized by any one or more of the methodologies or functions described herein. The instructions 1824 may also reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory 1804 and/or within the processor 1802 during execution thereof by the computer system 1800, with the main memory 1804 and the processor 1802 also constituting machine-readable media.
While the machine-readable medium 1822 is shown in an example embodiment to be a single medium, the term “machine-readable medium” may include a single medium or multiple media (e.g., a centralized or distributed database, and/or associated caches and servers) that store the one or more data structures or instructions 1824. The term “machine-readable medium” shall also be taken to include any tangible medium that is capable of storing, encoding or carrying instructions for execution by the machine and that cause the machine to perform any one or more of the methodologies of the embodiments of the present invention, or that is capable of storing, encoding or carrying data structures utilized by or associated with such instructions. The term “machine-readable medium” shall accordingly be taken to include, but not be limited to, solid-state memories, and optical and magnetic media. Specific examples of machine-readable media include non-volatile memory, including by way of example semiconductor memory devices, e.g., Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EPROM), Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM), and flash memory devices; magnetic disks such as internal hard disks and removable disks; magneto-optical disks; and CD-ROM and DVD-ROM disks.
Transmission Medium
The instructions 1824 may further be transmitted or received over a communications network 1826 using a transmission medium. The instructions 1824 may be transmitted using the network interface device 1820 and any one of a number of well-known transfer protocols (e.g., HTTP). Examples of communication networks include a local area network (“LAN”), a wide area network (“WAN”), the Internet, mobile telephone networks, Plain Old Telephone (POTS) networks, and wireless data networks (e.g., WiFi and WiMax networks). The term “transmission medium” shall be taken to include any intangible medium that is capable of storing, encoding or carrying instructions for execution by the machine, and includes digital or analog communications signals or other intangible media to facilitate communication of such software.
Although an embodiment has been described with reference to specific example embodiments, it will be evident that various modifications and changes may be made to these embodiments without departing from the broader spirit and scope of the disclosure. Accordingly, the specification and drawings are to be regarded in an illustrative rather than a restrictive sense. The accompanying drawings that form a part hereof, show by way of illustration, and not of limitation, specific embodiments in which the subject matter may be practiced. The embodiments illustrated are described in sufficient detail to enable those skilled in the art to practice the teachings disclosed herein. Other embodiments may be utilized and derived therefrom, such that structural and logical substitutions and changes may be made without departing from the scope of this disclosure. This Detailed Description, therefore, is not to be taken in a limiting sense, and the scope of various embodiments is defined only by the appended claims, along with the full range of equivalents to which such claims are entitled.
Such embodiments of the inventive subject matter may be referred to herein, individually and/or collectively, by the term “invention” merely for convenience and without intending to voluntarily limit the scope of this application to any single invention or inventive concept if more than one is in fact disclosed. Thus, although specific embodiments have been illustrated and described herein, it should be appreciated that any arrangement calculated to achieve the same purpose may be substituted for the specific embodiments shown. This disclosure is intended to cover any and all adaptations or variations of various embodiments. Combinations of the above embodiments, and other embodiments not specifically described herein, will be apparent to those of skill in the art upon reviewing the above description.
Notes on the Abstract
The Abstract of the Disclosure is provided to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.72(b), requiring an abstract that will allow the reader to quickly ascertain the nature of the technical disclosure. It is submitted with the understanding that it will not be used to interpret or limit the scope or meaning of the claims. In addition, in the foregoing Detailed Description, it can be seen that various features are grouped together in a single embodiment for the purpose of streamlining the disclosure. This method of disclosure is not to be interpreted as reflecting an intention that the claimed embodiments require more features than are expressly recited in each claim. Rather, as the following claims reflect, inventive subject matter lies in less than all features of a single disclosed embodiment. Thus the following claims are hereby incorporated into the Detailed Description, with each claim standing on its own as a separate embodiment.
This application is a continuation of and claims the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. § 12.0 to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/309,200, filed on Dec. 1, 2011, which claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/542,515 filed Oct. 3, 2011, and which claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/561,502 filed Nov. 18, 2011, each of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety and made a part hereof. This application is related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/605,030, entitled “Patent Mapping” by Steve W. Lundberg and Thomas G. Marlow filed Oct. 23, 2009, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety and made a part hereof. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/605,030 claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e) of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/107,930 filed Oct. 23, 2008, which is also incorporated herein by reference in its entirety and made a part hereof.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4807154 | Scully et al. | Feb 1989 | A |
| 4868733 | Fujisawa et al. | Sep 1989 | A |
| 5297039 | Kanaegami et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
| 5329447 | Leedom, Jr. | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5404506 | Fujisawa et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
| 5410646 | Tondevold et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
| 5530852 | Meske et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
| 5548506 | Srinivasan | Aug 1996 | A |
| 5548753 | Linstead et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
| 5553226 | Kiuchi et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
| 5555408 | Fujisawa et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
| 5557515 | Abbruzzese et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
| 5592664 | Starkey | Jan 1997 | A |
| 5623679 | Rivette et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
| 5623681 | Rivette et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
| 5644740 | Kiuchi | Jul 1997 | A |
| 5659729 | Nielsen | Aug 1997 | A |
| 5664063 | Johnson et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
| 5664714 | Navarro et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
| 5694523 | Wical | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5696916 | Yamazaki et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5699528 | Hogan | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5721910 | Unger et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
| 5745745 | Tada et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
| 5754840 | Rivette et al. | May 1998 | A |
| 5758328 | Giovannoli | May 1998 | A |
| 5768580 | Wical | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5774833 | Newman | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5787411 | Groff et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
| 5794236 | Mehrle | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5799325 | Rivette et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5809318 | Rivette et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5850520 | Griebenow et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5870745 | McCune | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5895468 | Whitmyer, Jr. | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5903881 | Schrader et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5907837 | Ferrel et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5940821 | Wical | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5953726 | Carter et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5970463 | Cave et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5991751 | Rivette et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5991756 | Wu | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5991780 | Rivette et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5999907 | Donner et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6006221 | Liddy et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6014663 | Rivette et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6038561 | Snyder et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6049801 | Whitmyer, Jr. | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6055538 | Kessenich et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6076088 | Paik et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6094652 | Faisal | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6182062 | Fujisawa et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6182078 | Whitmyer, Jr. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6216128 | Di-Crescenzo et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6226792 | Goiffon et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6263335 | Paik et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6327593 | Goiffon | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6339767 | Rivette et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6363361 | Lundberg | Mar 2002 | B1 |
| 6363378 | Conklin et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
| 6401118 | Thomas | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6405190 | Conklin | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6415283 | Conklin | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6415319 | Ambroziak | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6434580 | Takano et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6453312 | Goiffon | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6490581 | Neshatfar et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6499026 | Rivette et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6502081 | Wiltshire, Jr. et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6513027 | Powers et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6526440 | Bharat | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6542884 | Soderberg et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6556992 | Barney et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6560620 | Ching | May 2003 | B1 |
| 6574632 | Fox et al. | Jun 2003 | B2 |
| 6629097 | Keith | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6654731 | Mahesh | Nov 2003 | B1 |
| 6662178 | Lee | Dec 2003 | B2 |
| 6665656 | Carter | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6665670 | Winer et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
| 6675159 | Lin et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
| 6678692 | Hyatt | Jan 2004 | B1 |
| 6694315 | Grow | Feb 2004 | B1 |
| 6694331 | Lee | Feb 2004 | B2 |
| 6751621 | Calistri-Yeh et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6766315 | Bratsos et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
| 6789092 | Oppedahl et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
| 6823331 | Abu-Hakima | Nov 2004 | B1 |
| 6847966 | Sommer et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
| 6847979 | Allemang et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
| 6885999 | Corless | Apr 2005 | B1 |
| 6889223 | Hattori et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
| 6941553 | Eisler et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
| 6970842 | Ashby | Nov 2005 | B1 |
| 6970881 | Mohan et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
| 6976016 | Chang | Dec 2005 | B2 |
| 6980984 | Huffman et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
| 6981007 | Whitmyer, Jr. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
| 7003516 | Dehlinger et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
| 7016852 | Lee | Mar 2006 | B1 |
| 7016895 | Dehlinger et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
| 7024408 | Dehlinger et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 7035463 | Monobe et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
| 7051022 | Faisal | May 2006 | B1 |
| 7054854 | Hattori et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
| 7054856 | Won et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7080067 | Nonomura et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
| 7085771 | Chung et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7158983 | Willse et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7185172 | Mick, Jr. et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
| 7221016 | Inoue | May 2007 | B2 |
| 7231384 | Wu et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
| 7231386 | Nonomura et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
| 7281008 | Lawrence et al. | Oct 2007 | B1 |
| 7293018 | Hattori et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
| 7296015 | Poltorak | Nov 2007 | B2 |
| 7305625 | Zilka et al. | Dec 2007 | B1 |
| 7369701 | Lundberg | May 2008 | B2 |
| 7383294 | Tamer et al. | Jun 2008 | B1 |
| 7395261 | Atzel | Jul 2008 | B1 |
| 7433884 | Breitzman | Oct 2008 | B2 |
| 7444589 | Zellner et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
| 7493253 | Ceusters et al. | Feb 2009 | B1 |
| 7523126 | Rivette et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
| 7536446 | Blumberg | May 2009 | B2 |
| 7610185 | Ershov | Oct 2009 | B1 |
| 7653631 | Lundberg | Jan 2010 | B1 |
| 7676375 | Neifeld et al. | Mar 2010 | B1 |
| 7680733 | Lundberg | Mar 2010 | B1 |
| 7698330 | Kim | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 7702640 | Vermeulen et al. | Apr 2010 | B1 |
| 7716226 | Barney | May 2010 | B2 |
| 7716581 | Tran | May 2010 | B2 |
| 7734545 | Fogliano et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
| 7765227 | Khoshnevisan et al. | Jul 2010 | B1 |
| 7769685 | Malackowski et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
| 7788251 | Carlson | Aug 2010 | B2 |
| 7801889 | Kim et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
| 7801909 | Poltorak | Sep 2010 | B2 |
| 7823061 | Chan | Oct 2010 | B2 |
| 7836048 | Schneider | Nov 2010 | B2 |
| 7881937 | Hasan et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 7962511 | Barney | Jun 2011 | B2 |
| 7966328 | Germeraad et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
| 7983928 | Lee | Jul 2011 | B2 |
| 7996753 | Chan et al. | Aug 2011 | B1 |
| 8000528 | Ming et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 8005760 | Lee | Aug 2011 | B1 |
| 8041739 | Glasgow | Oct 2011 | B2 |
| 8064736 | Chan et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8078545 | Zilka et al. | Dec 2011 | B1 |
| 8131701 | Barney | Mar 2012 | B2 |
| 8160306 | Neustel et al. | Apr 2012 | B1 |
| 8161025 | Lundberg | Apr 2012 | B2 |
| 8176440 | Stading | May 2012 | B2 |
| 8196030 | Wang et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
| 8204816 | Brodsky et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
| 8254692 | Ramachandrula et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
| 8275708 | Dennes et al. | Sep 2012 | B1 |
| 8380548 | Ng et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
| 8386456 | Paiz | Feb 2013 | B1 |
| 8442814 | Ceusters et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
| 8447758 | Adler et al. | May 2013 | B1 |
| 8538794 | Marko et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
| 8543511 | Wang | Sep 2013 | B2 |
| 8589413 | Mohan et al. | Nov 2013 | B1 |
| 8600900 | Lundberg | Dec 2013 | B2 |
| 8713078 | Kunjithapatham et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
| 8812292 | Ceusters et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
| 8892547 | Lundberg | Nov 2014 | B2 |
| 8972385 | Lundberg | Mar 2015 | B2 |
| 9003474 | Smith | Apr 2015 | B1 |
| 9098568 | Li et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
| 9201956 | Lundberg et al. | Dec 2015 | B2 |
| 9201966 | Lundberg | Dec 2015 | B2 |
| 9286351 | Lundberg | Mar 2016 | B2 |
| 9396274 | Lundberg | Jul 2016 | B2 |
| 9541977 | Lee | Jan 2017 | B1 |
| 9652546 | Lundberg | May 2017 | B2 |
| 9659071 | Lundberg et al. | May 2017 | B2 |
| 9679019 | Lundberg | Jun 2017 | B2 |
| 9858319 | Lundberg et al. | Jan 2018 | B2 |
| 9904726 | Lundberg | Feb 2018 | B2 |
| 10268731 | Lundberg | Apr 2019 | B2 |
| 10546273 | Lundberg et al. | Jan 2020 | B2 |
| 20010007977 | Geary | Jul 2001 | A1 |
| 20010049688 | Fratkina et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
| 20020007373 | Blair et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020022974 | Lindh | Feb 2002 | A1 |
| 20020023053 | Szoc et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
| 20020029208 | Josephson | Mar 2002 | A1 |
| 20020035499 | Germeraad et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
| 20020035571 | Coult | Mar 2002 | A1 |
| 20020042784 | Kerven | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020052971 | Okudera et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020059076 | Grainger et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020065675 | Grainger et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020065677 | Grainger et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020072920 | Grainger | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020077835 | Hagelin | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020082778 | Barnett et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020091541 | Lundberg | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020091542 | Grainger | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020091702 | Mullins | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020103654 | Poltorak | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020107896 | Ronai | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020111824 | Grainger | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020111941 | Roux et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020111953 | Snyder | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020116363 | Grainger | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020138384 | Malackowski | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020138465 | Lee et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020138474 | Lee | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020138475 | Lee | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020143496 | Mactas et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020143742 | Nonomura et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020147711 | Hattori et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020147738 | Reader et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020161733 | Grainger | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020163541 | Williams et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020174131 | Winer et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020175934 | Hand et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020175941 | Hand et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020177907 | Hand et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020184234 | Lundberg | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030004843 | Frain | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030004936 | Grune et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030026459 | Won et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030033295 | Adler et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030046307 | Rivette et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030050915 | Allemang et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030074354 | Lee et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030084066 | Waterman et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030115191 | Copperman et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030154085 | Kelley | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20030167181 | Lundberg et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030187874 | Peschel et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030191654 | Panchal et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030191780 | Heger et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030195764 | Baker et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030212572 | Poltorak | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20030212706 | Shih | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20030217335 | Chung et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20030220891 | Fish | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20030229470 | Pejic | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20040002892 | Gluck et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040006457 | Dehlinger et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040006459 | Dehlinger et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040006547 | Dehlinger et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040006558 | Dehlinger et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040006594 | Boyer et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040010393 | Barney | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040015481 | Zinda | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040024733 | Won et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040024739 | Copperman et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040044688 | Brudz et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040054672 | Tsuchitani et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040059736 | Willse et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040059994 | Fogel et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040064438 | Kostoff | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040078192 | Poltorak | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040078365 | Poltorak | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040083206 | Wu et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040088332 | Lee et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040103112 | Colson et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040122841 | Goodman et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040133433 | Lee et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040133534 | Mahesh | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040133555 | Toong et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040133566 | Ishiguro et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040167875 | Sneiders | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040177068 | Beretich et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040181417 | Piller et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040181427 | Stobbs et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040186705 | Morgan et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040186738 | Reisman | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040199400 | Lundberg | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040223648 | Hoene et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040236646 | Wu et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040260569 | Bell et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20040268399 | Asakawa | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050004806 | Lin et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050005239 | Richards et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050010555 | Gallivan | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050010863 | Zernik | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050021522 | Herman et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050060303 | Wu et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050060306 | Hattori et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050080656 | Crow et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050080723 | Burchetta et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050097628 | Lussier et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050108652 | Beretich, Jr. et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050114763 | Nonomura et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050119995 | Lee | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050120011 | Dehlinger et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050131882 | Beretich et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050144177 | Hodes | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050154673 | Fellenstein et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050165600 | Kasravi et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050165744 | Taylor et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050182755 | Tran | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050198026 | Dehlinger et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050203768 | Florance et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050210008 | Tran et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050210009 | Tran | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050210042 | Goedken | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050216898 | Powell, Jr. et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050228684 | Pogodin et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050234738 | Hodes | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050234881 | Burago et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050240595 | Chandrasekaran | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050246194 | Lundberg | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050251383 | Murray | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050256734 | Clikeman | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050261927 | Bilak et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050289524 | McGinnes | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060015485 | Hofmann | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060026174 | Lundberg et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060026203 | Tan et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060036451 | Lundberg et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060036452 | Williams | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060036453 | Williams | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060036529 | Williams | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060036632 | Williams | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060036635 | Williams | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060074836 | Gardner et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060074867 | Breitzman | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060074991 | Lussier et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060085249 | Diaz et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060085478 | Landau et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060106793 | Liang | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060106847 | Eckardt, III et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060112084 | Mcbeath et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060143162 | Bernacki et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060150074 | Zellner | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060161562 | McFarland et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060173903 | Zimmerman et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060173920 | Adler et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060190449 | Lundberg et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060190807 | Tran | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060212302 | Lundberg et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060212402 | Lundberg et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060212471 | Lundberg et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060212480 | Lundberg et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060218188 | Duncan et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060218491 | Grossman et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060224412 | Frank et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060224999 | Albrecht et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060225000 | Albrecht et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060229983 | Lundberg | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060235811 | Fairweather | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060258397 | Kaplan et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060287971 | Armstrong | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070005575 | Dai et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070010994 | Mueller | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070011175 | Langseth et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070050343 | Siddaramappa et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070057967 | Armstrong | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070061384 | Harrington et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070067297 | Kublickis | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070073625 | Shelton | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070073748 | Barney | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070130112 | Lin | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070136116 | Germeraad et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070136373 | Piasecki | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070150298 | Barney | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070174041 | Yeske | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070192272 | Elfayoumy et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070198578 | Lundberg | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070208669 | Rivette et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070208719 | Tran | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070219853 | Van Luchene et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070219988 | Mueller et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070220041 | Van Luchene et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070220042 | Mueller et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070239705 | Hunt et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070245380 | Dommer et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070250468 | Pieper | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070250488 | Lee | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070288256 | Speier | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20070288856 | Butlin et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20070294610 | Ching | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080005103 | Ratcliffe et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080005144 | Katz et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080016069 | Holt | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080030800 | Matsukawa et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080077570 | Tang et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080097931 | Grotto | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080104032 | Sarkar | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080109454 | Willse et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080140644 | Franks et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080154767 | D'agostino | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080154848 | Haslam et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080162444 | Lee et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080183518 | Jiang et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080195568 | Chen et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080195595 | Masuyama et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080195601 | Ntoulas et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080216013 | Lundberg et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080243799 | Rozich | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080244429 | Stading | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080281748 | Newman | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080281821 | Chen et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080301138 | Hasan et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20080306952 | Lynn et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20080312981 | Marlett et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20090006328 | Lindberg et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090006379 | Shen et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090007200 | Amento et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090012827 | Avrunin | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090012937 | Lee et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090030713 | Venkatachalam | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090043797 | Dorie et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090048925 | Song et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090055721 | Kahn | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090063468 | Berg | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090070301 | McLean et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090083049 | Sciarrino et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090150326 | Sheets | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090157717 | Palahnuk et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090164431 | Zivkovic et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090216994 | Hsieh et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090228578 | Demers et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090228777 | Henry et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090248468 | Cronin et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090257396 | Eliezer et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090259459 | Ceusters et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090259506 | Barney | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090265274 | Hahn-carlson et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090282054 | Casey | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20100005094 | Poltorak | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100023386 | Avisar et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100030680 | Malackowski et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100057533 | Martinez Ruiz et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100082395 | De Andrade | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100106752 | Eckardt, III et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100114587 | Masuyama et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100131513 | Lundberg et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100174698 | Odland et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100179948 | Xie et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100180223 | Speier | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100185689 | Hu et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100191622 | Reiss et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100191702 | Hofmann | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100235337 | Shanahan et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100250479 | Carter | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100287478 | Avasarala et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20100306825 | Spivack | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20100332511 | Stockton et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20110029476 | Kasravi et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
| 20110047166 | Stading | Feb 2011 | A1 |
| 20110055192 | Tang et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110072014 | Lundberg et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110072024 | Barney | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110093449 | Belenzon et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20110099084 | Horn et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20110099186 | Zohar et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20110112824 | Sayers et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
| 20110113385 | Sayers et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
| 20110119134 | Zivkovic et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
| 20110153509 | Lundberg et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110153852 | Thomas | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110179032 | Ceusters et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110191314 | Howes et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
| 20110197121 | Kletter | Aug 2011 | A1 |
| 20110225159 | Murray | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110231449 | Ashley et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110246379 | Maddox et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110246473 | Stec | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110289096 | Barney | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| 20110302172 | Chandrasekar et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20110307499 | Elias et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20110320367 | Kan et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20110320582 | Lewis | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20120016859 | Sears | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120095984 | Wren-hilton et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120096027 | Coult | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120102427 | Fenster et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120109642 | Stobbs et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120116989 | Lai et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120117082 | Koperda et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120130773 | Abu-ghazalah et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120130993 | Lundberg et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120174017 | Tidwell et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20120215768 | Zellweger | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120221580 | Barney | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120239591 | Powell, Jr. et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120240026 | Iyer et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120254155 | Heim et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120259787 | Speier | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120278244 | Lee et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120284199 | Lundberg | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120290487 | Lee et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120317041 | Shaffer et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20130007578 | Shreck et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130013645 | Dias et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130084009 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130085911 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130085912 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130085929 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130085933 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130085934 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130085946 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130085947 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130085948 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130085949 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130085950 | Marais | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130085964 | Marais | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086032 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086033 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086042 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086043 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086044 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086045 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086046 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086047 | Lundberg et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086048 | Lundberg et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086049 | Lundberg et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086050 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086070 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086080 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086084 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086093 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086094 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086106 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086117 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086120 | Lundberg et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086257 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086469 | Lundberg | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130132302 | Lundberg et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130144895 | Cameron | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130282409 | Lundberg et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130282571 | Lundberg | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130282599 | Kang | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130346116 | Lundberg | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20130346265 | Lundberg | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20130346323 | Lundberg | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20130346505 | Lundberg | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20140032513 | Gaither | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140089210 | Lundberg | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140379388 | Lundberg et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20140379686 | Vadlamani et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20150066842 | Lundberg | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150134549 | Lundberg et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
| 20150149368 | Lundberg | May 2015 | A1 |
| 20150169777 | Lundberg | Jun 2015 | A1 |
| 20150347604 | Lundberg | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150347605 | Lundberg et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150348217 | Lundberg | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150371349 | Lundberg et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20160078109 | Lundberg et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160154863 | Lundberg | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160358274 | George | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160378766 | Lundberg | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20170046398 | Beretich, Jr. et al. | Feb 2017 | A1 |
| 20170075929 | Lundberg | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170316036 | Lundberg | Nov 2017 | A1 |
| 20170351682 | Lundberg | Dec 2017 | A1 |
| 20180137194 | Lundberg | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20180157665 | Lundberg et al. | Jun 2018 | A1 |
| 20180204180 | Lundberg et al. | Jul 2018 | A1 |
| 20200279222 | Lundberg et al. | Sep 2020 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 2006272510 | Feb 2012 | AU |
| 2012200701 | May 2014 | AU |
| 2013270517 | Apr 2016 | AU |
| 0638870 | Feb 1995 | EP |
| 2156112 | Oct 1985 | GB |
| 2260007 | Mar 1993 | GB |
| WO-9816890 | Apr 1998 | WO |
| WO-0243306 | May 2002 | WO |
| WO-02080039 | Oct 2002 | WO |
| WO-2006015110 | Feb 2006 | WO |
| WO-2006015110 | Feb 2006 | WO |
| WO-2006128183 | Nov 2006 | WO |
| WO-2006128183 | Nov 2006 | WO |
| WO-2007014341 | Feb 2007 | WO |
| WO-2007014341 | Feb 2007 | WO |
| WO-2007014341 | Feb 2007 | WO |
| WO-2011123517 | Oct 2011 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/605,030, filed Oct. 23, 2009, Patent Mapping. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 15/801,056, filed Nov. 1, 2017, Patent Mapping. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/573,804, filed Oct. 3, 2012, Systems and Methods for Patent Portfolio Management. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/573,803, filed Oct. 3, 2012, System and Method for Dynamic Contact Management. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,376, filed Aug. 26, 2013, Social Media in Patent Portfolio Management. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,380, filed Aug. 26, 2013, Mobile Applications in Patent Portfolio Management and Annuity Payments. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,391, filed Aug. 26, 2013, Patent Guard Tool. |
| U.S. Appl. NO. 14/010,400, filed Aug. 26, 2013, Patent Troll Monitor. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 14/483,903, filed Sep. 11, 2014, Systems and Methods for Patent Portfolio Management. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/309,200, filed Dec. 1, 2011, Patent Mapping. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 12/605,030, Appeal Decision mailed Sep. 1, 2017”, 14 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 12/605,030, Final Office Action dated May 21, 2012”, 10 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 12/605,030, Final Office Action dated Jul. 16, 2014”, 16 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 12/605,030, Non Final Office Action dated Oct. 7, 2011”, 12 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 12/605,030, Non Final Office Action dated Nov. 7, 2013”, 16 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 12/605,030, Response filed Feb. 7, 2012 to Non Final Office Action dated Oct. 7, 2011”, 9 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 12/605,030, Response Filed May 7, 2014 to Non Final Office Action dated Nov. 7, 2013”, 8 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 12/605,030, Response filed Oct. 22, 2012 to Final Office Action dated May 21, 2012”, 8 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/309,200, Appeal Brief Filed Jun. 8, 2015”, 17 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/309,200, Appeal Decision dated Aug. 28, 2017”, 12 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/309,200, Corrected Notice of Allowability dated Jan. 9, 2019”, 2 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/309,200, Final Office Action dated Jan. 8, 2015”, 14 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/309,200, Final Office Action dated Jan. 14, 2014”, 15 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/309,200, Final Office Action dated Jun. 18, 2018”, 18 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/309,200, Non Final Office Action dated Jul. 2, 2013”, 14 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/309,200, Non Final Office Action dated Sep. 10, 2012”, 12 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/309,200, Non Final Office Action dated Sep. 24, 2014”, 14 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/309,200, Non Final Office Action dated Dec. 4, 2017”, 17 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/309,200, Notice of Allowance dated Dec. 6, 2018”, 9 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/309,200, Preliminary Amendment filed Dec. 8, 2011”, 8 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/309,200, Response filed Jan. 2, 2014 to Non Final Office Action dated Jul. 2, 2013”, 12 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/309,200, Response filed Mar. 11, 2013 to Non Final Office Action dated Sep. 10, 2012”, 13 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/309,200, Response filed Apr. 4, 2018 to Non Final Office Action dated Dec. 4, 2017”, 11 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/309,200, Response filed Jul. 10, 2014 to Final Office Action dated Jan. 14, 2014”, 13 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/309,200, Response filed Jan. 17, 2018 to Final Office Action dated Jun. 18, 2018”, 38 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/309,200, Response filed Oct. 30, 2017 to Final Office Action dated Jan. 8, 2017”, 12 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/309,200, Response filed Dec. 23, 2014 to Non Final Office Action dated Sep. 24, 2014”, 9 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/573,803, Appeal Brief filed Dec. 29, 2015”, 20 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/573,803, Appeal Decision mailed Jul. 28, 2017”, 24 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/573,803, Final Office Action dated Apr. 7, 2015”, 16 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/573,803, Non Final Office Action dated Sep. 15, 2014”, 15 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/573,803, Non Final Office Action dated Dec. 5, 2013”, 16 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/573,803, Reply Brief filed Jul. 13, 2016”, 6 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/573,803, Response filed Jun. 5, 2014 to Non Final Office Action dated Dec. 5, 2013”, 12 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/573,803, Response filed Dec. 15, 2014 to Non Final Office Action dated Sep. 15, 2014”, 12 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/573,804, Final Office Action dated Mar. 23, 2015”, 16 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/573,804, Non Final Office Action dated Oct. 20, 2014”, 15 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/573,804, Response filed Jan. 20, 2015 to Non Final Office Action dated Oct. 20, 2014”, 15 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/573,804, Response filed Aug. 29, 2014 to Restriction Requirement dated Jun. 30, 2014”, 8 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 13/573,804, Restriction Requirement dated Jun. 30, 2014”, 5 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,376, Appeal Brief filed Apr. 19, 2016”, 19 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,376, Appeal Decision mailed Sep. 8, 2017”, 17 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,376, Final Office Action dated Aug. 19, 2015”, 13 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,376, Non Final Office Action dated Mar. 24, 2015”, 10 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,376, Reply Brief filed Nov. 22, 2016”, 5 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,376, Response filed Jun. 24, 2015 to Non Final Office Action dated Mar. 24, 2015”, 10 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,380, Appeal Decision mailed Sep. 27, 2017”, 18 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,380, Examiners Answer dated Nov. 9, 2016”, 8 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,380, Final Office Action dated Oct. 6, 2015”, 11 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,380, Non Final Office Action dated Apr. 15, 2015”, 11 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,380, Reply Brief filed Jan. 9, 2017”, 6 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,380, Response filed Aug. 17, 2015 to Non Final Office Action dated Apr. 15, 2015”, 11 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,391, Appeal Brief filed Aug. 15, 2016”, 23 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,391, Appeal Decision mailed Oct. 25, 2017”, 19 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,391, Examiners Answer dated Nov. 9, 2016”, 10 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,391, Final Office Action dated Sep. 15, 2015”, 11 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,391, Non Final Office Action dated Mar. 23, 2015”, 11 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,391, Reply Brief filed Jan. 9, 2017”, 6 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,391, Response filed Jul. 22, 2015 to Non Final Office Action dated Mar. 23, 2015”, 10 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,400, Appeal Brief filed Aug. 8, 2016”, 17 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,400, Appeal Decision mailed Nov. 3, 2017”, 16 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,400, Examiners Answer dated Nov. 9, 2016”, 9 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,400, Final Office Action dated Sep. 10, 2015”, 9 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,400, Non Final Office Action dated Apr. 22, 2015”, 11 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,400, Response filed Jul. 22, 2015 to Non Final Office Action dated Apr. 22, 2015”, 10 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/010,903, Examiners Answer dated Nov. 9, 2016”, 9 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/483,902, Appeal Brief filed Oct. 11, 2016”, 21 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/483,903, Appeal Decision mailed Sep. 25, 2017”, 18 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/483,903, Final Office Action dated Feb. 10, 2016”, 11 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/483,903, Non Final Office Action dated Sep. 1, 2015”, 10 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/483,903, Reply Brief filed Jan. 9, 2017”, 6 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 14/483,903, Response filed Jan. 4, 2016 to Non Final Office Action dated Sep. 1, 2015”, 11 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 15/801,056, Non Final Office Action dated Jul. 11, 2018”, 13 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 15/801,056, Preliminary Amendment filed Apr. 30, 2018”, 9 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 15/801,056, Corrected Notice of Allowability dated Nov. 7, 2019”, 2 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 15/801,056, Corrected Notice of Allowability dated Dec. 17, 2019”, 2 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 15/801,056, Final Office Action dated Jan. 25, 2019”, 12 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 15/801,056, Notice of Allowance dated Sep. 13, 2019”, 11 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 15/801,056, Response filed Jul. 25, 2019 to Final Office Action dated Jan. 25, 2019”, 10 pgs. |
| “U.S. Appl. No. 16/730,678, Preliminary Amendment filed May 26, 2020”, 8 pgs. |
| “Casefinder Manual, Ch. 1: Overview; Ch. 8: Hyperlinking”, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20040419155315/http://www.casefinder.com/downloads/manual-5.00.pdf>, (Archived Apr. 19, 2004), 13 pgs. |
| “ClaimMaster Software User Guide”, ClaimMaster Software LLP, (2009), 36 pgs. |
| “Definition of Timeline”, [Online] Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://www.yourdictionary.com/>, (Mar. 17, 2015), 1 pg. |
| “East Text Search Training”, (Jan. 2000), 155 pgs. |
| “Google Definition: System”, [Online] Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.google.com>, (Retrieved Aug. 13, 2012), 3 pgs. |
| “Module”, Dictionary.com, [Online] Retrieved from Internet: <URL: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/module>, (Retrieved Aug. 13, 2012), 5 pgs. |
| “Notice from the European Patent Office dated Oct. 1, 2007 concerning business methods”, Official Journal of the European Patent Office, 30(11), (Nov. 1, 2007), 592-593. |
| “Patent Rank: A Network-Dominant Logic for Innovation”, Submitted to Marketing Science, manuscript MKSC-Oct 10-0356, (Oct. 2010), 36 pgs. |
| “PatentOptimizer”, LexisNexis, (2009), 2 pgs. |
| “PatentPleeze Overview”, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20060824063540/web.ncf.ca/ex133/patnow.pdf>, (Archived Aug. 24, 2006), 33 pgs. |
| “Using Citation Link”, Delphion, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20041204224023/www.delphion.com/help/citelink_help>, (Archived Dec. 4, 2004), 10 pgs. |
| “What is PAIR?”, USPTO, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20040606224528/pair.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/final/help.pl>, (Archived Jun. 6, 2004), 9 pgs. |
| Brinn, Michael W, et al., “Investigation of forward citation count as a patent analysis method”, Proceedings of the 2003 Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium, (2003), 6 pgs. |
| Broekstra, Joen, et al., “Sesame: A Generic Architecture for Storing and Querying RDF and RDF Schema”, Int'l Semantic Web Conference (ISWC). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2342. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, (2002), 16 pgs. |
| Chang, Muchiu, “Sun Tzu and sustainable competitive advantage”, IEEE Int'l Engineering Management Conference, vol. 1, (Oct. 18-21, 2004), 153-157. |
| Davis, Lee, “The Strategic Use of Patents in International Business”, The 28th Annual EIBA Conference, Athens, Greece, (Dec. 2002), 27 pgs. |
| East, T. W, “Patent Claims—How to Keep Track of Them”, IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, 10(8), (Aug. 1995), 32-33. |
| Fall, C.J., et al., “Literature Survey: Issue to be considered in the automatic classifications of patents”, World Intellectual Property Organization, (Oct. 2002), 64 pgs. |
| Fenton, Gillian M., et al., “Freedom to Operate: The Law Firms Approach and Role”, In: Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices, [online]. [retrieved on Mar. 17, 2015]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: www.iphandbook.org/handbook/ch14/p04/index_print.html>, (2007), 11 pgs. |
| Gipp, Bela, et al., “Comparative Evaluation of Text- and Citation based Plagiarism Detection Approaches using GuttenPlag”, [Online] Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://gipp.com/wp-content/papercite-data/pdf/gipp11b.pdf>, (2011), 4 pgs. |
| Gruber, T R, et al., “A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications”, KSL Report KSL-92-71, Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Stanford University, (1993), 24 pgs. |
| Hoover, A.E, “Electronic Filing Top 10 Wish List”, IP Today, (Jul. 2006), 2 pgs. |
| Hutzell, Paula, “Image File Wrapper (IFW) Processing”, USPTO PPT Presentation, (May 8, 2003), 25 pgs. |
| Indukuri, Kishore Varma, et al., “Similarity Analysis of Patent Claims Using Natural Language Processing Techniques”, International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Multimedia Applications, (2007), 169-175. |
| Jagalla, Christopher, “Searching USPTO Assignments on the Web”, (Nov. 20, 2010), 4 pgs. |
| Langan -Fox, Janice, “Team Mental Models: Techniques, Methods, and Analytic Approaches”, The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, vol. 42, No. 2, (2000), 30 pgs. |
| Larkey, L. S, “A Patent Search and Classification System”, Proc. of the 4th ACM Conference of Digital Libraries, (1999), 179-187. |
| Larkey, Leah S, et al., “Collection Selection and Results Merging with Topically Organized U.S. Patents and TREC Data”, Proc. of the 9th Int'l Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, (2000), 8 pgs. |
| Luo, Si, et al., “A Semisupervised Learning Method to Merge Search Engine Results”, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 21, No. 4, (Oct. 2002), 35 pgs. |
| Madrid, Juan M, et al., “Incorporating Conceptual Matching in Search”, Proc. of the 11th Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, (2002), 17 pgs. |
| Mahesh, K., “Ontology Development for Machine Translation: Ideology and Methodology”, Technical Report MCCS-96-292, Computing Research Laboratory, New Mexico State University, (1996), 87 pgs. |
| Mase, H., et al., “Proposal of Two-Stage Patent Retrieval Method Considering the Claim Structure”, ACM Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing (TALIP), 4(2), (Jun. 2005), 190-206. |
| Quinn, B., “Internet Access to Patent Application Files Now Available”, Press Release, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20040813210925/http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/04-13.htm>, (Aug. 2, 2004), 1 pg. |
| Sheremetyeva, S., et al., “Generating Patent Claims from Interactive Input”, Proc. of the 8th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation (INLG), (Jun. 1996), 61-70. |
| Sheremetyeva, S., et al., “Knowledge Elicitation for Authoring Patent Claims”, IEEE Computer, 29(7), (Jul. 1996), 57-63. |
| Sheremetyeva, S., “Natural Language Analysis of Patent Claims”, Proc. of the ACL-2003 Workshop on Patent Corpus Processing, (2003), 66-73. |
| Sheremetyeva, S., et al., “On Creating Metadata with Authoring Tools”, Proc. of the ECAI Workshop on Semantic Authoring, Annotation and Knowledge Markup (SAAKM), (Jul. 2002), 22-26. |
| Von-Wun, Soo, et al., “A Cooperative Multi-Agent Platform for Invention based on and Patent Document Analysis”, The 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design Proceedings, (2005), 411-416. |
| Woods, W. A, “Conceptual Indexing: A Better Way to Organize Knowledge”, Sun Microsystems, Inc., (1997), 99 pgs. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20200050609 A1 | Feb 2020 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 61561502 | Nov 2011 | US | |
| 61542515 | Oct 2011 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 13309200 | Dec 2011 | US |
| Child | 16352364 | US |
