U.S. patent application number 13/355218 was filed with the patent office on 2012-07-26 for system & method for assessing & responding to intellectual property rights proceedings/challenges.
Invention is credited to JOHN NICHOLAS GROSS.
Application Number | 20120191753 13/355218 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 46544851 |
Filed Date | 2012-07-26 |
United States Patent
Application |
20120191753 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
GROSS; JOHN NICHOLAS |
July 26, 2012 |
System & Method For Assessing & Responding to Intellectual
Property Rights Proceedings/Challenges
Abstract
An automated system profiles personnel, organizational behavior,
etc., of entities associated with intellectual property rights
proceedings and challenges. By analyzing rules and events
associated with such organizations (Patent & Trademark Office,
Board of Appeals, District/Appellate Courts, etc.) more accurate
assessments can be made of the merits and potential outcomes of IP
proceedings. Ratings can be calculated and assigned for
individuals, entities, representatives, cases, etc., as part of the
assessment.
Inventors: |
GROSS; JOHN NICHOLAS;
(BERKELEY, CA) |
Family ID: |
46544851 |
Appl. No.: |
13/355218 |
Filed: |
January 20, 2012 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
61434588 |
Jan 20, 2011 |
|
|
|
61442049 |
Feb 11, 2011 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
707/770 ;
707/E17.014 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06Q 10/10 20130101;
G06Q 10/0633 20130101; G06Q 10/0637 20130101; G06Q 50/184 20130101;
G06F 16/951 20190101 |
Class at
Publication: |
707/770 ;
707/E17.014 |
International
Class: |
G06F 17/30 20060101
G06F017/30 |
Claims
1. A computer implemented method of analyzing post-grant challenge
proceedings initiated in a governmental agency that are associated
with patents which include one or more issued patent claims
comprising: storing patent challenge proceedings data with the
computer in a first database, including at least a first proceeding
record containing a first reference number, an associated first
patent number for a first proceeding, and one or more portable
document format data files associated with said first proceeding;
wherein said first database is separate from a governmental agency
database hosting government generated data for said challenge
proceedings; providing an electronic interface to said first
database to permit an online query with the computer to a selected
reference set of challenge proceeding records, including to text
content of said one or more portable document format data files
associated with a corresponding set of patents with the computer;
wherein said online query can specify one or more of a keyword, a
patent classification, a proceeding reference number, a patent
number, a document type, a time constraint, a proceeding resolution
or an entity name for retrieving desired challenge proceedings
records in said first database; retrieving said selected reference
set records and presenting the same within said electronic
interface; automatically updating said first database at
predetermined intervals to reflect changes in said challenge
proceedings data at said governmental agency database.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein said one or more portable document
format data files include formal United States Patent &
Trademark (USPTO) Office Actions.
3. The method of claim 1 wherein said one or more portable document
format data files include formal filings by rights holders of said
set of patents.
4. The method of claim 1 wherein said one or more portable document
format data files include formal declarations filed in said
proceedings.
5. The method of claim 1 wherein said one or more portable document
format data files include decisions by an appeals panel.
6. The method of claim 1 further including a step: calculating at
least one of a timing parameter specifying a time period predicted
or a resolution outcome parameter for the one or more issued claims
of the patent in the patent proceeding.
7. The method of claim 1 further including a step: generating a
target prediction of additional events to be generated during the
challenge proceeding.
8. The method of claim 1 wherein a set of proceedings matching one
or more selectable criteria in said first proceeding can be
retrieved to identify similar cases handled by the governmental
agency.
9. The method of claim 1 wherein the challenge proceeding is a
judicial filing in a court of competent jurisdiction.
10. The method of claim 1 wherein the challenge proceeding is a
third party post-grant challenge filing with the United States
Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO).
11. The method of claim 1 wherein the challenge proceeding is a
reexamination filing with the USPTO.
12. The method of claim 1 wherein petition filings and decisions
can be queried and retrieved within said interface.
13. The method of claim 1 wherein documents relating to prior art
cited in said proceedings can be retrieved.
14. The method of claim 13 further including a step: compiling said
prior art and creating an index of text in such content; wherein
queries can be made to text content of said prior art.
15. The method of claim 1 wherein said patent proceedings data is
semantically classified and can be queried based on topics and/or
categories.
16. The method of claim 1 wherein said patent proceedings data is
analyzed to determine conformance with respect to a set of
underlying proceedings rules used by the governmental agency during
the challenge proceedings.
17. The method of claim 16 wherein said query determines a selected
set of proceedings for which a specified event is likely to
occur.
18. The method of claim 17 wherein said query further identifies
when said specified event is likely to occur.
19. The method of claim 1 wherein a feature vector is derived for
said first proceeding and is used to identify a data cluster of
similar patent challenge proceedings.
20. The method of claim 1 further including a step: generating an
alert which is broadcast to a user over an internet when a new
event is detected in said first challenge proceeding.
21. The method of claim 20 wherein said alert is customizable by
said user for specific content and is generated at least once per
day.
22. The method of claim 1 further including a step: receiving
predictions for future events and/or outcomes in said first
proceeding from an online community.
23. A computer implemented method of analyzing post-grant challenge
proceedings initiated in a governmental agency that are associated
with patents which include one or more issued patent claims
comprising: storing patent challenge proceedings data with the
computer in a first database, including at least a first proceeding
record containing a first reference number, an associated first
patent number for a first proceeding, and one or more reference
indexes to portable document format data files associated with said
first proceeding; wherein said first database is directly derived
from but is separate from a governmental agency database hosting
government generated data for said challenge proceedings; providing
an electronic interface to said first database to permit an online
query with the computer to a selected reference set of challenge
proceeding records; wherein said online query identifies at least a
user selectable date, and can further specify as a query parameter
one or more of a keyword, a patent classification, a proceeding
reference number, a patent number, a document type, a time
constraint, a proceeding resolution or an entity name for
retrieving desired reexamination proceedings records in said first
database; said interface further permitting a user to view a
statistical summary of events for all records of challenge
proceedings handled by the governmental agency matching said query
parameter at the time of said user selectable date within a single
graphical window.
24. The method of claim 23 wherein said user selectable date can
include a current date.
25. The method of claim 23 wherein said user selectable date is a
past date which allows the user to identify a state of selected
challenge proceedings within the governmental agency as of that
time.
26. The method of claim 23 wherein said user selectable date is a
future date which allows the user to identify a predicted state of
selected challenge proceedings within the governmental agency as of
that time.
27. The method of claim 23 wherein said statistical summary can be
filtered and separated in said interface in accordance with any one
or more of the following parameters: 1) patent related parameters,
including an art unit; a filing date for said patent; a size of
said patent; and/or a number of claims in said challenge
proceeding; 2) prior art parameters, including a number of
references used in said challenge proceeding; 3) Examiner related
parameters, including a name of one or more reviewers for said
challenge proceeding; 4) Entity related parameters including a name
of a patent owner or a patent challenger in said challenge
proceeding; 5) Representative related parameters including a name
of a representative for said patent owner or a representative of
said patent challenger in said challenge proceeding.
28. A computer implemented system for analyzing post-grant
challenge proceedings initiated in a governmental agency that are
associated with patents which include one or more issued patent
claims comprising: a first database for storing patent challenge
proceedings, including at least a first proceeding record
containing a first reference number, an associated first patent
number for a first proceeding, and one or more portable document
format data files associated with said first proceeding; wherein
said first database is separate from a governmental agency database
hosting government generated data for said challenge proceedings;
an electronic interface to said first database adapted to permit an
online query with the computer to a selected reference set of
challenge proceeding records, including to text content of said one
or more portable document format data files associated with a
corresponding set of patents with the computer; wherein said online
query can specify one or more of a keyword, a patent
classification, a proceeding reference number, a patent number, a
document type, a time constraint, a proceeding resolution or an
entity name for retrieving desired challenge proceedings records in
said first database; a query routine for retrieving said selected
reference set records and presenting the same within said
electronic interface; an update routine for automatically updating
said first database at predetermined intervals to reflect changes
in said challenge proceedings data at said governmental agency
database.
Description
RELATED APPLICATION DATA
[0001] The present application claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C.
119(e) of the priority date of Provisional Application Ser. No.
61/434,588 filed Jan. 20, 2011 and Ser. No. 61/442,049 filed Feb.
11, 2011 both of which are hereby incorporated by reference.
[0002] The application is further related to the following
applications, all of which are filed on this same date and
incorporated by reference herein:
[0003] System & Method For Locating & Assessing
Intellectual Property Assets; Ser. No. ______ (attorney docket
number PS2012-2);
[0004] System & Method For Facilitating Sequential Review of
Restructured Protected Data; Ser. No. ______ (attorney docket
number PS2012-3);
[0005] System & Method For Compiling Intellectual Property
Asset Data; Ser. No. ______ (attorney docket number PS2012-4);
[0006] System & Method For Analyzing & Predicting Behavior
Of An Organization & Personnel; Ser. No. ______ (attorney
docket number PS2012-5)
[0007] System & Method For Predicting Outcome Of An
Intellectual Property Rights Proceeding/Challenge; Ser. No. ______
(attorney docket number PS2012-6)
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0008] The present invention relates to automated electronic system
tools and methods for identifying, assessing and responding to
intellectual property challenges. The invention has particular
applicability in assisting companies, practitioners and IP stake
holders (particularly patent, trademark owners) to deal with
judicial and administrative proceedings involving IP assets.
BACKGROUND
[0009] A number of prior art systems exist for obtaining and
reviewing general issued patent related information, including
offerings by Google, Delphion, etc. None of these systems, however,
allow for inspection or review of cases that are still pending (not
yet issued) or in a post-issuance proceedings. The USPTO maintains
a website which provides similar data, as well as databases
containing information on still-pending cases through a system
known as PAIR (patent application information retrieval). The PAIR
system as currently constituted and presented, however, does not
contain any accessible electronic database to permit the general
public to perform conventional search, inspection operations for
cases. For instance, in its current incarnation the user is
required to know in advance and specify a specific case number
(which may be difficult or impossible to locate) before they can
see the data associated with such case, and even then the data is
not organized in a fashion that makes it easy to review. As an
example, the user cannot search any of the underlying
communications by the Examiners or applicants to understand or
follow what is transpiring in the application. Other than the use
of specific case numbers, the user is not permitted to search or
identify information of interest by subject matter, inventor,
Examiner, or any other convenient parameter.
[0010] The PAIR system has been in existence for several years and
yet has not been improved upon despite its obvious limitations. In
fact the PTO has made every effort to make the information
difficult to obtain through a variety of access limiting
mechanisms, including using CAPTCHA codes and timeout mechanisms. A
US government document dated Sep. 24, 2009 published by the Office
of the Chief Information Officer titled "Public Meeting on Data
Dissemination--Request for Information" confirms (see page 5) that
the US PTO online search systems are designed for single queries,
and are not designed for a large amount of traffic. In the RFI
attached to this document the authors confirm that the PTO has no
present solution to this problem, and they were actively seeking
assistance from third parties to research the problem and provide a
solution within the next 6 years. Moreover the authors confirm that
the USPTO system is designed to prevent machine access to the PAIR
data through a CAPTCHA system.
[0011] The general entry screens available through PAIR are shown
in FIGS. 11A, 11B and 11C. As seen in FIG. 11A, the user must first
traverse a security screen, which includes a well-known re-CAPTHCA
test. After passing this test, the user is presented with a screen
as seen in FIG. 11B, which only permits him/her to search cases by
case number. As is apparent, this is extremely limiting as many
persons do not know what these numbers are, and the PAIR system
provides no insight or guidance on what the numbers might be. Nor
does the PAIR system identify for the user the most recent
submissions made so that the user has any idea of the range of
input that might be relevant to identify the last N days of
materials for example. Thus, there is no indication anywhere, of
most recent cases/events issued by the PTO for ease of
reference/convenience.
[0012] Finally, as seen in FIG. 11C the user is presented with the
specific reexamination data in the form of multiple tabs. One tab
allows the user to examine an image file wrapper of submissions
(IFW) made by the submitter and/or issued by the PTO. Again,
however, there is no general search capability at this point to
allow the user to locate items of interest in the file, such as
comments, text, etc., associated with this case (or other cases).
While the tabs are reasonably well organized, one other significant
problem with the PAIR site is that it is extremely difficult to
navigate within a conventional browser, because many of the
conventional function buttons do not operate in a consistent
manner. For example while reviewing one screen, it is often
impossible to simply go "back" one screen to look at another entry.
Instead, the page load fails and the user is required to resubmit
the query all over again. In addition, the system frequently times
out and requires the user to re-log in all over again, which
because of the recaptcha mechanism, is time consuming.
[0013] Consequently, persons skilled in the art have been actively
deterred if not discouraged from accessing and compiling any of
this USPTO data. In turn this means that a large amount of very
useful data is kept effectively hidden from the general public,
which is undesirable and does not advance the purpose of the patent
laws. The problem is most acute in cases of reexaminations, which
are a form of post-issuance patent challenge. Since reexamination
cases are frequently associated with ongoing litigation, the
financial stakes are often high and the public interest factor much
larger. Yet as with un-issued cases the public is stuck using the
very limited PAIR system for obtaining information about ongoing
cases. Other examples of organizational processes which do not lend
themselves to public inspection and review are well-known,
including for example the status of ongoing immigration
applications.
[0014] Because the data is effectively inaccessible, it is
difficult to predict basic information about cases, such as how
long they will last, what strategies work or do not work, etc. The
public, again, is left with mostly indirect guesswork and gross
average statistics published by the PTO itself.
[0015] Clearly, there is a need for systems and methods to improve
the limitations in the current PAIR (and similar) systems and
existing approaches might attempt to do so, but are not sufficient.
This need is increasing as Congress has only recently enacted even
more post and pre-grant challenge mechanisms for patents and
applications in the America Invents Act (AIA) (which provisions are
incorporated by reference herein). The challenge proceedings in the
AIA are to be implemented by 35 U.S.C. .sctn.321 or inter parties
review under 35 U.S.C. .sctn.311 and in accordance with a new set
of PTO rules which are provided at Federal Register/Vol. 77, No.
3/p. 442 and p. 448--Thursday, Jan. 5, 2012 which is also
incorporated by reference herein. The rules for reexaminations have
also been changed, which means that it will take several years for
practitioners to begin to understand the new interpretations,
standards and rulings by the PTO based on the new statutes and
regulations. Thus, to fully avail themselves of these new
procedures, the public requires a data discovery, review and
presentation tool which provides greater transparency and oversight
of USPTO (and similar governmental agency) proceedings.
[0016] Public sector information such as PAIR offers a veritable
untapped resource of inestimable value (BBC News--Data storm:
Making government data pay 15 Dec. 2011: Michael Cross). Despite
the availability of public databases (e.g., USPTO PAIR, SEC EDGAR,
et. al.) the organization of these data combined with the user
access makes finding meaningful relationships all but impossible.
The plethora of available search engines (Google, Yahoo, Delphion,
Dialog, et. al.) has not improved this situation: access to Public
Sector Information is inadequate as evidenced by reports that this
information is being under utilized resulting in missed
opportunity.
[0017] In addition to patents, public sector information can range
from data sets about the weather and the natural environment to
great works of historic art. At issue is a foundational philosophy
that restricts user access to a constrained search strategy--if one
knows what they are looking for, they can find it. But it is
extremely difficult for a researcher to find relationships between
information that are not already scripted by a database schema
employed in the data storage system.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0018] Objects of the present invention, therefore, are to provide
an improved organizational analysis system and method that
overcomes the aforementioned limitations of the prior art.
DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0019] FIG. 1 illustrates an organization analysis system
implemented in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the
present invention;
[0020] FIG. 2 illustrates a personnel analysis/profiling process in
accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the present
invention;
[0021] FIG. 3 illustrates an organization data collection and
cataloguing process implemented in accordance with an exemplary
embodiment of the present invention;
[0022] FIG. 4 illustrates an event/outcome prediction process
implemented in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the
present invention;
[0023] FIG. 5 illustrates a database system implemented in
accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the present
invention;
[0024] FIG. 6 illustrates an exceptions handling/analysis process
implemented in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the
present invention;
[0025] FIGS. 7A-7I illustrate aspects of a graphical interface
system implemented in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of
the present invention;
[0026] FIG. 8 illustrates an alert process implemented in
accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the present
invention;
[0027] FIGS. 9A-9G illustrate exemplary interfaces for a query
process implemented in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of
the present invention;
[0028] FIG. 10 illustrates a crowdsource type prediction process
implemented in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the
present invention;
[0029] FIGS. 11A-11C show a prior art system used to locate and
review USPTO records, particularly reexamination cases.
[0030] FIG. 12 illustrates a patent asset discovery process
implemented in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the
present invention;
[0031] FIG. 13 illustrates a patent assignment discovery process
implemented in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the
present invention.
[0032] FIGS. 14A and 14B illustrate a preferred embodiment
implemented by a scraper system of the present invention;
[0033] FIGS. 15A and 15B illustrate a preferred embodiment
implemented by a data collection server system of the present
invention.
[0034] FIGS. 16A and 16B illustrate a preferred embodiment of a
visual heat map graph/output of the present invention.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0035] As will be explained in more detail below, an organization
analysis system permits third parties not otherwise authorized or
affiliated with the target organization to better understand,
characterize and predict the behavior of such entities, and the
outcome of events associated with the same. Despite the apparent
deterrents and discouragements Applicants have overcome the
technological hurdles imposed by the USPTO, and have solved the
long felt need to secure and maintain public data (including
aggregate data) that the public is entitled to access but hitherto
has been effectively stymied. Thus in the preferred embodiment of a
United States Patent Office organization, the system preferably
permits users to: [0036] 1) monitor the status of individual or
multiple ongoing cases using easily understood topics or
categories, or by date; [0037] 2) browse the entire set of pending
cases (and their related documents as might otherwise be available
at the target organization's publicly accessible databases) within
a conventional web browser, and using conventional browser related
functions so that the review process is easy, flexible and
effectively emulates the behavior of any other conventional
website; [0038] 3) perform multiple queries (using text or other
input) across one or an entire set of cases to locate cases of
interest or matching user-defined criteria--in addition the
criteria can be significantly expanded beyond the basic case number
limited interface offered currently; [0039] 4) profile and
characterize the timing and performance of the PTO as a whole with
respect to cases or associated actions for such cases, including in
aggregate or with respect to specific art units/personnel; [0040]
5) profile and characterize the behavior of art units and/or
specific personnel, again, across an entire set of documents;
[0041] 6) search and identify key developments and precedent in
technology, law or litigation as expressed in
documents/actions/events in the PTO; [0042] 7) search and identify
exceptions handling activity by the PTO, including actions and
rationale associated with petitions; [0043] 8) receive alerts for
ongoing (and new) cases in accordance with predefined criteria;
[0044] 9) estimate, project and predict the timing and outcome of
both micro and macro events.
[0045] Other functions and capabilities are also described below.
Again while the present preferred embodiment uses the example of
the United States Patent Office (UPSTO) and its personnel
(examiners), it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that
any number of target organizations with similar characteristics
could be examined and monitored in accordance with the present
teachings. For example another application could serve persons
interested in studying the behavior and predicted outcome of
trademark applications, immigration applications, SEC filings, etc.
to help identify optimal documentation formatting, routing, etc.,
to increase the chances of success for a case. In other embodiments
the invention could be used to mine and extract information from
databases maintained by similar governmental organizations. For
instance the PACER database is used by the United States Judicial
branch to maintain events and records for ongoing litigations.
Patent litigations could be identified and monitored in the same
manner as described herein as events to be tracked. Since patent
litigations are a rich source of materials for judicial opinions,
declarations, technical subject matter, substantive pleadings,
etc., all of these documents could be extracted and stored in a
database as described below. The events for litigation cases could
then be tracked in exactly the same manner as other events noted
below. This would allow for a richer database of materials than
that normally offered by traditional reporting services, which tend
to focus solely on precedential opinions but not other content that
may be of equal or greater interest to the community as a
whole.
[0046] In the examples below, specific organizations might be
described, but unless otherwise indicated, it should be apparent
that in general an "organization" comprises some sort of entity
that has personnel (including at least some human participants) who
review submissions (typically in the form of documentation) in
accordance with a set of procedures (which be related to substance,
format, time etc. and can vary). For each submission the
organization typically generates a number of measurable events,
which may be reflective of the status of the submission, a
determination on the merits of the submission, etc. An "event"
therefore may be as simple as providing an electronic
flag/indication in a publicly accessible file/database that a
submission has reached a certain status or treatment within the
organization.
[0047] FIG. 1 illustrates an organization analysis system 100
implemented in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the
present invention. An entity 105 may include a natural person, a
corporation, etc. The entity provides a submission 107 to an
organization 115, which, for purposes of the present disclosure, is
identified as the target organization to be
monitored/characterized. In the preferred embodiment, as noted
above, the entity is the USPTO, and the submission 107 includes a
patent application, a request for patent reexamination or patent
reissue, a response to a communication, a petition, or some other
form of documentation that the PTO is empowered to review and act
upon. It will be understood that the submission 107 may be in
electronic form or other tangible form, including paper or other
format accepted by the organization 115.
[0048] The submission 107 is then processed by order/processing
support logic 112, which again can be a combination of human and/or
machine handlers. In some environments the submission may be
examined manually by personnel 114, and classified by them in
accordance with rules 116 and/or procedures 118 to put into an
electronic docket (not shown) for later uptake by other such
personnel. In the case of a reexamination request, the
reexamination documents would be scanned into an electronic system,
and a variety of classification data would be captured or generated
and stored for inclusion as part of an organizational record. For
example, a control number can be assigned to the submission
(reexamination request), along with other identifying information
such as the name of the requester, the number of the patent for
which reexamination is requested, the name of the representative
for the requester, the inventor name, the title of any associated
litigation, etc., etc.
[0049] As the personnel 114 (or an automated artificial
intelligence agent) review and process submission 107, a variety of
events (122, 124) are generated by event logic processor 120, which
can be in the form of a combination of computer hardware and
software control modules. The event logic processor 120 can
reference the rules/regulations 116, procedures 118, etc., and
determine a schedule of when personnel 114 are required to act on
the submission. For example, an examiner may be required to
generate an initial written report within a certain number of days
after the submission is deemed complete within the rules and
procedures.
[0050] As the personnel 114 act on the submission they (or logic
120) generate a set of n events 122, 124, etc., which can range
from substantive to procedural. For instance, the examiner may
draft and issue an initial determination that a submission 107
raises a substantial new question (SNQ) of patentability within 90
days of a reexamination request. This information is communicated
from the target organizations internal computing system (not shown)
to one or more externally accessible databases 126 and websites
128, such as the aforementioned PAIR system described above. At
this point the information acted upon and generated by the target
organization is available for inspection and review by outside
third parties through an electronic network 129, which in preferred
approaches is the Internet.
[0051] During the process of the submission the target organization
may also report out or contact entity 105 through link 109, which,
again, may take any number of forms, including physical mail,
electronic networks, etc. These communications between organization
115 and entity 105 may also be reported in database 126. At the end
of the process organization 130 issues a final output report 130 to
entity 105. In the case of a reexamination request this may be in
the form of a reexamination certificate, a ruling on an appeal by
the Board of Appeals, or some other terminating event which
effectively ends participation by organization 115. Again for other
contexts it will be apparent that other types of events will be
appropriate, and it will be understood that the explanation has
been simplified to highlight the important aspects of the
invention.
[0052] As further seen in FIG. 1, an organization/event analyzer
110 consists of a number of components which facilitate review and
analysis of data associated with target organization 115 by any
number of users employing client devices 140. The latter devices
may include conventional PCs, laptop computers, mobile devices,
tablet devices, and any other known computing device which can
access system 110 through a network link 119 and interface 150. As
with link 129, link 119 is preferably an Internet based connection
using conventional protocols, but it will be understood that other
access mechanisms are possible.
[0053] Interface 150 is responsible for interacting with a client
browser, and includes one or more routines responsible for
presenting a graphical user interface to users embodied in a web
page as is typical in a client/server system. An example of a
preferred interface is shown in FIG. 7 and discussed in more detail
below. Other non-GUI interfaces could be implemented as well,
including for text/SMS which are common in mobile environments.
[0054] Returning to FIG. 1, databases 142 store a number of
organization/user data items as explained in more detail below,
including indexed text data for rapidly finding information of
interest in response to user queries processed by Query logic 160.
The format and composition of databases 142 is explained in further
detail with reference to FIG. 5 below.
[0055] Returning to FIG. 1, the routines associated with Query
Logic 160 preferably include options to permit users to specify
searches across documents, events, and personnel to locate
information matching specific criteria, such as, for example, an
identification of pending reexamination cases that have received a
reexamination certificate within the past X years within a certain
examining group. These criteria are shown in more detail in FIG. 9
discussed further below, and other examples will be apparent to the
skilled artisan from the present teachings.
[0056] Again with reference to FIG. 1, Catalog and natural language
(NL) logic 170 and Monitoring Logic 180 are responsible for
collecting and analyzing documents and other associated metadata
associated with the submissions 107. The operation of the routines
for this component are shown in more detail in FIG. 3 discussed
below. Generally speaking the information used by system 110 in
FIG. 1 may be gleaned, compiled and/or aggregated from parsing
organization database 126, rules 116, procedures 118, and by
examining other public sources of information such as broadcast
messages 182 (which may be so-called TWEETs as published by
TWITTER) and other press/company releases 184.
[0057] Alert logic 185 is responsible for identifying triggered
alerts, classifying and issuing alerts, etc., as seen generally
below in FIG. 8. This logic can also be used, generally, for
controlling RSS feeds, generating Twitter messages, and other
similar data publications for the content processed by system 110.
For example, it may be desirable for the system to maintain a
running visible list of most-recent cases submitted to the entity
for consideration, which, in the case of reexaminations, would be a
specific request identified by a control number. By publishing an
ongoing/updated list, users can be kept apprised of the most recent
developments at the PTO. The entries in the list can be associated
with tags and other metadata tied to the documents within a web
page so that the users can select the entries from a conventional
browser and see at a glance what the submission looks like. This
allows for a one-stop experience for the user who now no longer has
to manually traverse screens and guess about control numbers to
locate the most recent submissions.
[0058] Processing and Prediction Logic 190 includes routines for
performing additional analytical operations on the content and
substance of the submission and user queries. For example, a user
can request an indication of an expected average time period that
will elapse between two events associated with a submission
107--such as in the case of a reexamination request, some
indication of when to expect an Office Action. This type of
calculation module is described in more detail in FIG. 4 and
preferably uses both historical performance data for organization
115 as well as dynamic loading data associated with demand/capacity
measurements of such entity to render a useful prediction of an
estimated time to completion for an event.
[0059] Profiling Logic 192 includes routines for performing
additional analytical operations on the behavior, characteristics
and performance of the personnel 114 associated with entity 115.
For example, a user can request an indication of which
reexamination cases an Examiner is working on, the state of such
cases, and historical information on affirmance/rejection rates and
the like. This type of profiling module is described in more detail
in FIG. 2 and preferably uses both historical performance data for
organization 115 as well as dynamic loading data associated with
demand/capacity measurements of such entity to render a useful
prediction of personnel behavior.
[0060] Exceptions Logic 194 processes events which occur outside
the normal course of the expected path of progress of a submission.
For example in the context of a reexamination proceeding, one or
more parties may file a petition seeking specific relief that is
outside the parameters of the given rules, such as requesting more
time, more pages for a response, etc. As discussed further below in
connection with FIG. 6, these types of petitions are compiled and
analyzed as well to give insights into the operations of the target
organization. Other types of exception processing examples will be
apparent in other contexts.
[0061] An additional component 196 for crowd-community sourcing
logic can also be employed in a preferred embodiment. The details
of this are shown in FIG. 10 below. This feature can be used to
solicit generic user feedback, expert feedback, etc., to provide
voting and similar input from the community of users on the
expected outcome and timing of events. For example, a group of
participants could be asked to give their predictions on the
outcome and timing for a particular reexamination proceeding. A
similar tool used by Piqqem at their website of the same name is
used to predict the value of securities, and could be modified
under the present teachings to permit users to predict the outcome
of legal events, including reexamination of patents. Certain types
of participants could be authenticated to confirm their identity as
experts. The results could be published for public consumption and
entertainment. Again, other examples will be apparent to those
skilled in the art from the present teachings.
[0062] Looking at FIG. 2, this illustrates a personnel
analysis/profiling process 200 in accordance with an exemplary
embodiment of the present invention. The steps shown here are
preferably implemented using the software modules and hardware
identified with reference numeral 192 in FIG. 1. As noted earlier,
conventional systems do not publish or permit users to develop
"profiles" of the target organization personnel. A profile can
include a spectrum of useful information, ranging from basic
information such as the identity and number of cases being handled
by the Examiner (which is typically only accessible to internal
personnel) all the way to advanced correlations indicating their
propensity for sustaining or rejecting certain legal positions. For
example, an Examiner may be found to have a much larger than
average reversal rate on appeals, or a much larger than average
useage of 112 rejections relative to their peers, and so on. This
type of information is extremely valuable to patent holders, legal
representatives, court officials, and the general public, as it
permits a degree of analysis and accountability that is currently
not possible.
[0063] At step 205 therefore, the user can specify a particular
target to be profiled, which, in a preferred embodiment, can be a
human examiner, or a some larger logical group of personnel, such
as an entire examining group, individuals within an art unit, etc.
For example, the target to be studied may be Examiner S. Smith, or
Art Unit XXX where he/she works.
[0064] In step 210 the target's prior and current cases are
identified from information compiled in databases 142 as noted
above. In preferred embodiments the totality of the content for the
cases is stored, including not only the transactional data
(indicating events and dates) but also the actual correspondences
(Office Actions), submissions and other materials exchanged with
the applicant in a case. The data is preferably text-indexed as
well to allow for ease of review and querying.
[0065] Step 215 includes an optional load factor calculation for
the target. This can be as simple as an identification of the total
number of cases being currently handled by the target, to a more
advanced analysis which considers a relative number of cases
compared to historical norms, other examiners, etc. For example, it
is possible to characterize an Examiner's current workload not only
by reference to cases, but also a status of such cases. This is
because he/she may have a certain number of cases in a state which
does not require significant further input at this time by him/her.
Stated another way, an Examiner with 10 cases that are completed is
identified to have less loading than a second Examiner with half as
many cases but more expected actions. In this respect, it is more
accurate to calculate expected required actions across an
Examiner's cases in a predefined time window to estimate the
loading of such individual. Other examples will be apparent to
those skilled in the art. It will be understood that the degree of
sophistication and detail will be a function of a desired
application's level of accuracy and complexity.
[0066] The loading factor can be a dynamic variable that affects
other calculations as noted below. For example it may be discovered
that a particular Examiner's page count or rejection rate varies
significantly according to their current loading factor.
[0067] At step 220 the individual cases for the target are then
analyzed with the results being stored in a reference target/case
database 230, which, as alluded to above, may be part of databases
142. The analysis and data stored for each target may take into
consideration any number of target specific factors 218, including:
[0068] identity of requester [0069] identity of patent owner [0070]
inventor name/patent number [0071] representative filing request
[0072] representative responding to request [0073] verbosity of the
target (number of pages, words in selected documents, such as a
Office Action) [0074] timing (dates correlated to document filings
and other events by the target) [0075] appeals, appeal results and
appeal % for the target
[0076] Other types of data can be compiled of course. It will be
understood of course that all or some of this data can be
precompiled and thus made available very quickly in response to a
query. Moreover since most cases proceed very slowly, it is
relatively easy to keep up to date on the current behavior/profile
of a target. Some of the data is useful for quick reference
purposes (i.e., which representatives may have experience/knowledge
with a particular Examiner) while other parts of the data are
useful for understanding a personality, behavior, work rate,
reputation, etc.
[0077] At step 240 the outcomes of the cases for the target are
identified and classified. The outcome data is preferably stored in
the case database 230 as well. The analysis and data stored for
each case may take into consideration any number of case specific
factors 242, including: [0078] case number [0079] patent number
[0080] case disposition (reexamination certificate issued,
reexamination denied, etc.) [0081] individual claim disposition
(i.e., claim 1 confirmed patentability, claim 2 unpatentable under
102, claim n unpatentable under 112, etc.) [0082] attorney/agent
involved with case [0083] identity of requester [0084] identity of
patent owner [0085] patent correlations, including age, # claims,
claim length, etc. [0086] appeal results
[0087] At step 250 the user can be presented with the data in
accordance with any desired filter and/or visual preferences. Any
of the parameters/factors noted above can be used to filter the
profile report for the target in question. For example the user
could query which cases an Examiner had been involved with and
which reached appeal. Or the user could specify that this set
should be further broken down graphically by size (length of pages)
of the reexamination request, and so on. The data can be presented
in list, tabular, or graphical form depending on the information in
question. Some types of reports (such as comparing Examiners or art
units by overall reexamination duration) may be plotted more easily
in chart form. It should be noted that any number of known
techniques can be used to generate the reports and form thereof.
Furthermore, while the preferred embodiment uses the example of a
patent reexamination and a patent examiner, it will be understood
that the invention has wider scope and useage and will be
implemented with different objects and personnel in other
environments.
[0088] As seen in FIG. 2 the user can also avail him/herself of
certain prediction tools 400, which are described in more detail
with respect to FIG. 4 below.
[0089] Note that in some instances the system may permit the users
(or some selected subset of profilers) to contribute additional
individual scoresheets or personality/profiling data for the
targets as seen in step 260. Preferably this data is collected
anonymously and with protection for the privacy of the contributors
to encourage full and fair disclosures on the personnel of the
target entity. For example a scoresheet (not shown) may request
information from participants on a scale of 1-10 on several aspects
of the profilee, including: [0090] demeanor (pleasant->hostile)
[0091] professionalism [0092] cooperativeness--willingness to
compromise [0093] decisiveness/consistency of analysis [0094]
rigorousness/thoroughness of analysis of issues [0095] knowledge of
rules [0096] knowledge of subject matter [0097] accuracy of
analysis [0098] preference for 102 rejections [0099] preference for
103 rejections [0100] preference for 112 rejections [0101]
interview utility/efficacy [0102] etc.
[0103] From this data it is possible to compute a reputation or
authoritativeness score for the target based on one or more of
these factors, either alone or combined with the case disposition
data below. For example an Examiner may have a reputation score
that reflects an overall average of some subset of the figures
above computed across all surveyed persons.
[0104] To prevent gaming or distortion of the profiling, the
credentials of users may be authenticated as a prerequisite. For
example in the case of a patent application or reexamination, the
name of the inventor, the serial number, or the representative
registration number can be solicited. Contributions can be checked
to prevent duplication and other efforts to manipulate the results.
The data is preferably encrypted/de-personalized as it is stored in
database 230 to avoid tracing of the profile contributions.
[0105] Conversely, to see the more detailed personnel profile
information (or any of the other data/predictions the system can
generate) it may be desirable to limit dissemination of such data
to users with a particular status, or to users who have been
authenticated, etc. In some embodiments it may be useful to
"auction" such profile information to a limited number of users who
provide a bid that exceeds some threshold number, or even limit the
absolute number of users to some figure so that at any moment in
time (and for a defined period) only a limited group has access to
the detailed personnel profile information. Access to the
information could be controlled on a rolling basis so that with
each time cycle the users could participate in a new auction with
the result of a different group being qualified to access the data
in question. This restricted access may be used, again, for certain
specific analyses so that the larger community still has access to
the bulk aggregate information of interest. Other examples and
variations will be apparent to those skilled in the art.
[0106] Also to preserve privacy it may be desirable in some
embodiments to only permit review of aggregations of the user
contributed profiles, and not individual reviews. Thus, for
example, an Examiner may be revealed to have a professionalism
score of 8.5 across all contributors. The system preferably also
permits users to query/plot individual targets relative to each
other so that a user can see at a glance the relative
perception/scoring of the Examiner by a community of
representatives. The data can be segmented as well to compute
different reputation scores depending on the type of surveyer
(inventor, representative, etc.). Other applications of this
technique for scoring reputations of targets will be apparent to
those skilled in the art.
[0107] FIG. 3 illustrates an organization data collection and
cataloguing process 300 implemented in accordance with an exemplary
embodiment of the present invention. The steps shown here are
preferably implemented using the software modules and hardware
described earlier in FIG. 1 under reference numerals 170, 180.
[0108] The main purpose of this process, as alluded to above, is to
construct and maintain the databases 142 to ensure their currency.
As an initial step 305 the system identifies and catalogs every
case/application being handled by the target organization. The data
acquisition process preferably employs a standard, open source web
browser (such as Firefox) instrumented via a plugin mechanism to
send a set of data from viewed pages to a data acquisition server
(which may be part of databases 142). The injected code navigates a
viewed page and any tabs (see FIG. 11C) extracting data and sending
extracted data to the data acquisition server.
[0109] The data acquisition server code also maintains a list of
requested data and responds to queries for instructions from the
browser plugin with details (e.g. a reexamination control number)
of the next data to be acquired. The plugin accomplishes the tasks
of navigating the pages, selecting tabs as well as checking boxes
and clicking on buttons and links as needed to view and capture and
transmit the requested data. When solution of a CAPTCHA is required
the plugin can be configured to halt operation until a person
provides the solution. If the acquisition server is authorized it
is possible that in some instances the CAPTCHA can solved via
automated machine logic using known techniques.
[0110] A flow diagram of the operations performed by a preferred
embodiment of a scraper system 1400 which can be used for
retrieving data from online databases is provided in FIGS. 14A and
14B. The data scraping system 1400 preferably is divided into two
major components: code injected into pages viewed by a web browser
and operations running on a data collection server. The injected
code preferably selects, processes and sends information to the
collection server and interrogates the collection server for
further scraping tasks. The data collection server 1500 (FIGS. 15A
and 15B) preferably keeps a record of what data have been requested
from browsers, what data have been sent by browsers and maintains
the database of the information collected. The data collection
server also manages which data collection tasks will be handed out.
The data collection server may run on the same machine with
browsers or on a separate machine. The browsers and the data
collection server preferably communicate via HTTP requests (from
the browser) and responses (from the data collection server). A
single data collection server can manage multiple browser instances
running on multiple machines.
[0111] With reference to FIG. 14A again, the data scraper 1400 is
preferably implemented through an add-on to a FireFox web browser,
although other programs with browser-like capability can be
employed instead. The add-on permits the injection of code into web
selected pages beginning with event 1401. The add-on filters pages
by URL and injects code into pages that match a URL template. The
injected code is preferably executed after the browser's "onload"
event 1402 (when a page has completed loading).
[0112] The injected code inspects the content of a matched page at
1405 and takes actions appropriate for that page. For example, in
the case of a PAIR database maintained by a governmental agency,
the PAIR pages will be either a search page, a CAPTCHA page or a
data page. If the presented page contains a CAPTCHA at 1415 the
injected code creates an alarm 1410 (which may be visual, audible,
etc.) and stops to allow a data collector to solve the CAPTCHA and
continue the scraping process. Note that in some instances the
CAPTCHA solving can be performed by another remote computing system
(not shown). It will be understood that in the event a CAPTCHA is
not utilized, this section of the scraper is not required.
Furthermore it will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that
the nature of the pages will be a function of the particular
database being examined by the data scraper.
[0113] If the presented page is a PAIR search page at 1430 the
injected code sends a request 1435 to the data collection server
1500 asking for the next case (e.g., a patent application, a patent
reexamination, or some other assigned reference number) to be
scraped at 1445 and as seen in FIG. 14B. Note that the "next" case
can be determined at 1480 by reference to a purely numerical
sequence or any other desired sequence based on a desired priority
of data capture. After a response is received it is entered into
the search box 1485 and the "SEARCH" button is selected (manually
or automatically) at 1490. This causes the browser to load a new
page.
[0114] Looking at FIG. 14A again, if the presented page is a data
page at 1450 the data are digested at 1455 and sent to the data
collection server at 1470. In the case of PAIR, the data pages
typically have several different "tabs" (buttons which cause a new
page of data to be displayed). Each tab is preferably processed at
1465 to extract all relevant data from the agency record. The
injected code examines tabs present on a page at 1465 and if the
currently selected tab is not the last tab, then the next tab is
selected at 1440/1425 or 1475/1460, triggering the display of a new
page of data associated with such tab.
[0115] PAIR (and similar governmental databases which have limited
reliability) frequently fails to display requested data, often
presenting a page containing an error message. The injected code
preferably automatically attempts to try to navigate back to a
usable page upon such a PAIR error. Note that prior to extracting
data optional benchmarking tests can be performed to determine a
reliability and/or loading of the associated PAIR system. In
instances where such system appears unreliable or overloaded the
scraper 1400 can defer data collection to another time to comply
with any regulatory restrictions on data access limits and reduce
errors.
[0116] An Image File Wrapper (IFW) tab is treated differently when
examining PAIR records. When the IFW tab is selected additional
code is executed that selects and initiates the download of
portable document format (PDF) files. The downloaded PDF files are
preferably held on the machine where the browser is running so that
they can be collected and split up (if needed) and stored later on
the machine where the data collection server is running. Other
image or data files may be collected as well for the purpose of
optical character recognition to enhance data review of the
governmental agency database.
[0117] FIG. 15A shows that a data collection server 1500 accepts
the data sent by the browser-injected code, processes it and saves
it to a database. It also preferably responds to requests for a
control number to be scraped. It further preferably provides
configurable tools to manage the control number request queue and
display information about the collected data.
[0118] The browser-injected code (FIG. 14A) sends information to
the data collection server preferably as HTTP requests at 1501. The
data collection server parses the data at 1510, manipulates it as
necessary and updates a collection database 1515. Records can also
be kept at 1520 of the contributions of each browser within an
acquisition history table 1525 (since multiple instances can be
run) that contributes data and which browsers have been sent which
control numbers to scrape.
[0119] The data collection is driven by a data request queue 1565
(FIG. 15B). The queue 1565 can be loaded with ranges of control
numbers 1535 or can be updated at 1545 according to the data that
have already been acquired. The updating mode at 1555 and 1560 is
used to ensure that the database stays adequately up-to-date while
re-checking data from older control numbers at some desired
frequency. It will be understood that any number of request queue
strategies may be employed depending on the nature of the
proceedings involved.
[0120] The update request queue is managed by a queue manager 1540
and is constructed preferably by assigning a priority to each known
control number. For example in the preferred example of a post
grant challenge such as a reexamination, cases that have been
completed (e.g. with a Reexam Certificate Issued event) are given a
small priority while active reexams may be given a higher priority.
In some instances a priority level may be based on how recently
there has been some activity--again other examples will be apparent
to skilled artisans and it is expected that the particular
implementation will be domain dependent.
[0121] A data collector 1500 can determine how many reexams to
scrape, and submit the number at 1535 to the data collection
server. In some embodiments the server can randomly select a
priority scheme with queue manager 1540 so that many different
reexams to be scraped are assigned a likelihood of selection
proportional to the priority of the reexam. In the case of customer
driven selection schemes, a priority may be assigned in accordance
with a particular customer's status with a service provider
collecting the proceeding data. When all requests have been
processed a completion message can be generated at 1550.
[0122] The bootstrapping of the data is thus followed by periodic
updates, which are preferably performed on daily basis to ensure
that new materials are brought to the attention of the system users
as quickly as possible. For example in a reexamination context, the
PTO transaction records and/or image files in databases 126 (FIG.
1) are scanned to identify new events/entries. In a preferred
embodiment described below the main focus is on reexamination
cases, but it will be understood that other cases can be
automatically processed and compiled as well, including reissue
cases and user-selected cases 307. The latter in fact may be
requests for automatic updating of pending applications that have
not yet issued. For example the user may want to study cases for a
competitor to identify upcoming issuances and/or predict likely
claim coverage in the future. The data retrieval can be done
through a conventional web interface 128 in accordance with the
target organization's rules for such access, but it will be
understood of course that if an API is made available by the target
organization this can be used as well. This would allow for the
organization analyzer data to be updated more rapidly and with far
less overhead.
[0123] For example, the USPTO PAIR site is not searchable, and does
not even identify the most recent cases that have been
filed/initiated. Thus they must be identified automatically using
an auto-discovery technique. To do this, the present system
preferably starts with the most recent confirmed case (which
hypothetically has an assigned reference number of XXX) and then
increments the reference number by some constant (which can be 1,
2, etc.) to locate additional records/filings in the PAIR database.
The incremented case number (XXX+1) is then "searched" (under
control of monitoring logic 180 and catalog logic 170) to see if
there is a corresponding record in database 126. Using this
indirect approach the present system can glean the state of events
within target organization 115 (here the PTO) without direct access
to the latter's internal databases. Again, it will be understood
that other techniques may be used in the event the target
organization does make its data available through more conventional
access routes.
[0124] The updates are also preferably performed using some form of
prioritization. That is, the system may designate certain cases as
active or inactive depending on whether they have reached a
termination event. In such instance, cases with a termination event
may not be checked or serviced very frequently as there is unlikely
to be further developments. It is possible, of course that some
exceptions events may occur, and for that reason it is desirable to
periodically check even on an infrequent basis. However, to
conserve resources, bandwidth, etc., it is preferable to prioritize
updates in accordance with a probability model (discussed below in
more detail) that determines which cases are most likely to be the
subject of an update at any particular moment in time.
[0125] The operation of the data collection server is shown in
FIGS. 15A and 15B.
[0126] The probability model preferably studies events within the
target organization to determine their relative temporal
relationship. For example it may be determined, from analyzing all
or at least selected ones of the organizations cases that a first
event (E1) 122 generated within target organization 115 by logic
120 (FIG. 1) for a particular case is correlated very highly with a
second event (En) 124 within a certain time window T1, which may
span a period of N days. Other events could be similarly correlated
to determine their relationship, and to generate a table of
calculated expected probabilities {P1-Pn} of new events occurring
within a time window for each case {C1-Cn} under analysis. Thus a
sorted table may be constructed each day by monitoring logic 180
which looks like:
TABLE-US-00001 Case Probability of new event Likely new event type
Cx X E1 Ct X -) E2 . . . Cn X-n none
[0127] The present system uses this information to assign a
priority for researching and updating databases 142 in accordance
with an update schedule. In other words, in the absence of some
over-riding consideration, the system would construct an update
schedule by considering the highest likely event (E1, with a
likelihood of X) to occur (for case Cx) and would start the review
of databases 126 and updating of databases 142 using this case
first, and then progress through the entire set of cases until
completing the list of cases, or some other marking point. For
example, it may be decided that only cases above a certain
threshold probability Y should be evaluated on a daily basis, while
cases below this should be checked less frequently, say on every
second day, every week, etc.
[0128] Other schemes will be apparent to those skilled in the art
from the present teachings for generating an update schedule. The
system preferably is knowledgeable of the current state of internal
rules 116 and procedures 118 as part of the probability model
estimation evaluation. As these are typically published and
available to the public, it is not difficult to incorporate them on
a dynamic basis as part of the probability model. For example,
after filing a reexamination, the USPTO has a certain number of
days (90) fixed by regulations, to issue an initial determination.
Therefore, there is a strong correlation between such events which
is easily identifiable, and if such regulations are varied (to
change the time to say 60 days), the system should quickly learn to
revise the models based on this dynamic parameter rather than
solely prior historical information. Other organizations may have
similar temporal restrictions which can be gleaned and exploited
this way to optimize a prioritization of cases in an update
schedule.
[0129] In other instances it may be desirable to monitor the useage
patterns of the users of analyzer 110, and to base a prioritization
of updates on such useage instead. In other words, if system 110
notes that certain cases are widely accessed, it may bump the
priority of such case on an update schedule. To do this, the system
can simply log the accesses/queries performed in connection with a
certain case (say Ct). These can be sorted, again, into table form
to identify a relative popularity/interest level within the
community for the cases being handled by target organization
115:
TABLE-US-00002 Case Popularity/Interest Ct P Ca P -) . . . Cn
P-n
[0130] Thus rather than using a probability score as noted above,
the system may in some instances use a popularity or interest score
for the update schedule. Alternatively some mix of the two can be
used in accordance with system objectives, performance, etc., and
after routine testing. In such embodiments the popularity/interest
score may be used to augment, modify or modulate the probability
determinations made for the cases as noted above, to generate a
modified update schedule that reflects and incorporates community
interest as well.
[0131] Returning to FIG. 3, at step 312 the system may also locate
additional press releases, public posts, etc, from sources 182, 184
and other conventional content sites. These materials are then
correlated with the cases as desired, so that, for example, a
particular reexamination case for a particular patent/company (say
ABC corp) can be associated and paired with additional information
about the company. This allows users to quickly see more context
and supporting details that may be germane to their understanding
of the proceedings. For example, a press release may indicate that
company ABC had filed a patent lawsuit on Jan. 1, 2010 for patent
number XXX, and this could be paired with the reexamination case
for the same patent number to give the user additional insights on
the implications and impact of the proceedings.
[0132] From the set of documents at the target organization (and
other sources) the system identifies a subset of key documents at
step 310. Again, the system may decide to filter, ignore, or
prioritize the intake of documents to give more importance to some
types of documents over others. As an example, within a particular
case, a first type of document (e.g., a reexamination request) may
be processed more quickly than a second type of document (e.g., a
status request letter or the like). Other examples of
prioritization will be apparent to skilled artisans.
[0133] At step 314 the documents are preferably coded in some
convenient fashion to make them more easy to be indexed, sorted,
queried and/or analyzed as noted below. It may be desirable, for
example, to segment and categorize the documents in a different
fashion than they are found natively within database 126 (FIG.
1).
[0134] As is to be expected, in some instances the documents
relating to cases handled by the organization may not always be in
readily accessible form in a database 126. In such instances it may
be necessary to manually inspect, retrieve and scan the documents
for a file/case to ensure completeness as seen in step 316. Since
the USPTO records are available to the public, it is not expected
that this would present a significant burden. Moreover in some
cases it may be possible to secure copies of some documents in this
fashion which are not otherwise accessible through the PAIR
site.
[0135] A sorting operation and preferably an OCR operation is
performed on selected documents at step 320. Since many of the
target organization documents are not available in text form, this
aspect of the invention permits users to search and locate
information across cases in a manner that is not possible at this
time.
[0136] From this data one or more customized case databases 335 and
associated indices are constructed at step 330. The customized
databases may be in the form of separate files, tables, etc., and
may be configured using any number of known techniques.
[0137] A user may then query the customized database at step 340,
using any number of desired terms or filters. As seen in FIG. 3,
the user can search for text terms appearing in Declarations, prior
art, Office Actions, Amendments, Responses, Requests, Replies,
Petitions/Decisions, etc. Other items can be searched as well and
it is understood that these are but examples. In other non-PTO
domains it will be useful to store and segment the customized
database in accordance with the underlying data associated such
domains. The data can be presented in any desired form, including
as a report, as a graph, etc., much in the same way as discussed
for the data presentation step 250 (FIG. 2) and as depicted below
in connection with FIG. 9.
[0138] At step 350 the system preferably logs the user's
request/query into a review database, which can be part of the
databases 142 mentioned earlier. Here the system can compile user
access to specific cases, specific documents, etc., which can be
used for prioritizing an update schedule (noted above). In addition
this information can be used for optimizing a content mix for the
site. For example, it may be discovered that the cases for a
particular company are widely studied, and this can affect and
determine the types of press releases and other external data that
is accessed, retrieved and catalogued for general consumption.
[0139] In some specific instances the user can configure (or the
system may autoconfigure) an alert for the cases reviewed by the
user, or even other specific cases designated by the user at step
360. In other words if the system notes that the user accessed and
studied a particular case, it can then create a programmed alert to
inform such person of future events for such case. The alerts can
be programmed to use any number of desired delivery options as
described below in connection with FIG. 8.
[0140] FIG. 4 illustrates an event/outcome prediction process
implemented in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the
present invention. As seen therein, a prediction engine 400 can
make use of a number input variables or parameters as the basis for
providing a prediction. Any or all of the following can be provided
as input variables 405: a case #; a document from a case; an
Examiner; a Group art unit; a patent; a rejection type; a
draft/proposed document; a draft/proposed case. Other inputs can be
used of course depending on the application.
[0141] In general, the system allows a user to ask questions or
prediction outputs for timing, outcomes and recommendations. As an
example, the user can provide a case number, and ask for a
prediction of timing for the next event in the case, or for timing
of a specific event. More specifically, the user can provide a
reexamination control number, and be informed that the next likely
event is a patent owner response within the next N days.
Alternatively the user can request a prediction of when a
particular event (such as a reexamination certificate issuance) is
likely to occur. In other instances the user can ask about cases
that are still pending to get a sense of their timing, and an
expected issue date for a case. Again other examples will be
apparent from the discussion herein.
[0142] Thus at step 410 the user specifies one or more of the above
variables using any well-known conventional graphical interface.
The input mechanism can make use of any desired input tool, such as
using an numeric input, a text input, a graphical input, etc. In
some instances, as noted, the user can specify a document (by
reference number) or even upload a specific file for the system to
consider.
[0143] During step 415 the system analyzes its databases (see FIG.
5) to look for data to be used to respond to the prediction
request. For example, in the context of asking when a next event is
likely to occur in a case, the system would identify and analyze
the current state of a case, and other cases which have/had similar
states. For instance, the case may in a state where an Requester's
Reply has been received. Other cases in which such event occurred
would then be put into the mix as the data set to be used for
comparison. In addition, the Examiner's profile (including
productivity rate and current loading) could also be considered.
For example, a particular Examiner may be particular fast or slow
in generating Office Actions, or may have a particularly light or
heavy loading of other cases. These could be used as well as part
of the data set for comparison. The documents in the case may also
be considered. As an example, the length of the Reply and the
Patent Owner's statement could be considered, and compared to the
lengths of prior submissions in other cases. Again, it will be
understood that the determination of the comparables can be based
on any number of desired factors, including a target confidence
rate, computation time, etc.
[0144] In addition it is possible to segment a user/subscriber base
in accordance with a user status level, so that different types of
users are given prediction information that is a function of such
level. A user with the highest level, for example, may be provided
a detailed calculation that takes into account a first number of
variables that is much larger than that used for a user with a
lower status level. In the latter case a base simple calculation
might be used from a lesser number of variables. In this respect,
users can elect what type of treatment or information they wish to
receive.
[0145] At step 420 the user can invoke the prediction engine to
process the aforementioned input variable, and, using the
comparables noted above, combined with simple Bayesian logic,
Hidden Markov Modelling or other known technique generate one of
any number of desired prediction results. As noted earlier the
prediction engine 420 also preferably considers loading and
regulatory changes as noted at 422 in rendering a prediction. The
predictions can be logged within a database 570 (FIG. 5) as noted
in step 424 for later referral and/or automatic updating. The
prediction may also be earmarked for alert status at step 426, so
that as a prediction value changes for a prediction, an alert can
be generated to appropriate users. The alert itself can be stored
in a database 590 as noted in FIG. 5.
[0146] The results can be generated/output at step 430 in
accordance with any desired visual scheme appropriate for the data
set, including list form, graphs, charts, etc. Where graphs/charts
are used, the system can annotate the output to indicate
statistical confidence levels and the like for the benefit of the
user. As noted earlier, the prediction type may include one or more
of:
[0147] a) a timing or date for an event 442; this may be expressed
as a date, a number of days, or a window of time; in very basic
instances this can be used to identify the likely date for issuance
of a reexamination certificate, or expected date of issuance of a
still pending application.
[0148] b) an outcome or a percentage likelihood of such outcome or
event 444; this may be expressed as a positive or negative result,
and/or in numeric or visual form for the different possible
outcomes; the results may be classified in the aggregate, or may be
broken down if desired on a claim by claim basis. The outcome may
also indicate whether the system predicts that the claims will
require modification (or amendment) to survive the reexamination
process. In other embodiments the system may identify whether a
pending application is likely to result in an issued patent.
[0149] c) a recommendation or suggestion 446; this may be used by
practitioners and expressed as an express suggestion to add/remove
a rejection type, amend one or more claims, or modify a proposed
document in accordance with insights gleaned from comparable
documents;
[0150] d) an estimate of the number of manhours and/or cost
associated with the case, or which are required to complete the
case. This can be based on evaluating the current state of the
case, the number of documents/pages associated with the case,
studies and/or surveys of average billing rates, reexamination
costs, etc. Large entities may find this information particularly
useful for budgeting and planning purposes, and it will be
understood that the principle could be applied to regular
prosecution as well, so that IP managers can get a firm grasp on
expected upcoming legal expenses needed to support a group of
patent applications.
[0151] While some exemplary predictions were noted above, it will
be apparent that based on the databases maintained in the system
(see FIG. 5) a number of additional predictions can be generated as
desired. Some examples include:
Example #1
[0152] Group Art Units--the system can provide a prediction of all
events expected as output for some or all of a set of cases
currently pending across one or all Group Art units. In effect,
this can be used to forecast a cumulative output of the target
entity within any desired target window.
Example #2
[0153] Group Art Units: Alternatively, the system could predict
when a future, hypothetical unfiled case would be likely finalized
by the target entity. This could be used for planning to evaluate
options vis-a-vis using the reexamination process versus a
litigation action.
Example #3
[0154] Examiner--the system can provide a prediction of all events
expected as output for some or all of a set of cases currently
pending with an Examiner. In effect, this can be used to forecast a
cumulative output of the Examiner within any desired target
window.
Example #4
[0155] Document--the system can provide a prediction for certain
types of documents which can be characterized or associated with a
definite resolution or outcome. The resolution or outcome may be
binary, or may be expressed as percentages, etc. The documents may
be as simple as the result of a petition for an extension of time,
or a more complex document such as the Request itself. The document
in question can be compared statistically to prior documents
similar to it using any number of metrics as part of the
evaluation. In effect, this can be used by interested parties to
understand the expected potential outcomes, and therefore how the
target entity's process should be factored into other proceedings.
For example the prediction tool 400 may estimate--based on
analyzing the content of the Request itself--that the chances of a
particular reexamination succeeding in invalidating a patent are
extremely high or extremely low. This calculation is useful when
the case is relatively young, and can be part of an evaluation
process for estimating the value of an underlying patent,
settlement with a patent owner, etc.
Example #5
[0156] Case--the system can provide a prediction for the resolution
of a particular case at a later stage of proceedings, which, again,
can be characterized or associated with a definite resolution or
outcome. The resolution or outcome again may be binary, or may be
expressed as percentages, pie chart allocations, etc. This may be
based on a number of factors, including as noted a total number (or
at least selected ones of) documents found in the reexamination
proceedings. The documents in question can be compared individually
statistically to prior documents similar to them using any number
of metrics as part of the evaluation, or can be evaluated as a
whole against other collections. As before this can be used by
interested parties to understand the expected potential outcomes,
and therefore how the target entity's process should be factored
into other proceedings.
[0157] In the situation where a case represents a still pending
application, some embodiments of the invention can monitor PTO
documents to identify basic documents such as notices of allowance,
issue date notifications, etc., to provide estimates for when a
particular application will issue as a patent. This feature in
effect acts as a form of early patent radar to alert a user to the
potential impact of new intellectual property. It is expected that
businesses will avail themselves of this option to gain competitive
intelligence, insights, etc., on competitors who may be in the
process of securing new patents in the immediate future.
[0158] Other types of predictions may be based on hypothetical or
simulated cases or documents (or portions thereof) which have not
been filed, for the purpose again of developing optimized
strategies and understandings of the target entity. This type of
"what if" analysis can be used by a myriad of interested persons,
including decision makers, litigation attorneys, prosecution
attorneys, etc., to understand and formulate appropriate
strategies.
Example #6
[0159] Patent--this prediction tool can look at a target patent,
and, based on its characteristics, determine a potential outcome
and timing for a resolution. As is well-known, patents can be
analyzed with respect to a number of different characteristics,
including general technology area, specific classification,
specification word content, claim wording/content, inventor
pedigree, assignee name, priority date, citations, prior art cited,
underlying Examiner, and many other factors known in the art. Using
these characteristics the system can compare the target patent
against all (or some selected group) of patents which have been
subjected to reexamination to determine the probability of success,
timing, etc. It should be noted that the outcomes can be specified
with different degrees of granularity, so that for example,
specific target claims can be examined within the target patent,
along with the patent as a whole.
[0160] The data predictions can be used, of course, in a converse
manner to provide comparative reports to visualize a breakdown of
timing/outcomes for patents based on the above characteristics. For
example, a user can ask to have a plot of claim length versus
rejection rate, rejection type, timing, etc.
Example #7
[0161] Rejections/Type--this prediction tool allows the user to
specify a quantity and type of rejection to determine potential
timing and outcomes. For example the user can identify/compare the
difference between having a single 102 rejection for a claim,
compared to having two or more of the same type. Or, the user can
specify multiple types of rejections (102, 103 and 112). In this
manner the user can review relevant references, claims, etc., and
determine an appropriate strategy for a contemplated filing.
[0162] As above the data predictions for rejections can be used, of
course, in a converse manner to provide comparative reports to
visualize a breakdown of timing/outcomes based on the rejections.
For example, a user can ask to have a plot of rejection types
versus outcomes, timing, etc. The user may use such information to
identify an optimal mix of proposed rejections to make so that they
can ensure a more careful and longer examination period in the
target organization. This can save expected fees, as well, as the
drafter of the reexamination may determine that certain rejections
are unlikely to be successful for a particular patent, and thus if
they are only marginal to begin with they can be removed.
Example #8
[0163] Proposed Document--here the prediction tool allows the user
to provide/upload a document that they propose introducing into a
particular case. The document is analyzed against other comparable
documents to identify characteristics that would tend to indicate
its utility, potential for successful outcome, and timing. Both
statistical and semantic processing can be employed to analyze
word, sentence choices, etc. Natural language processing of
documents to identify similarities and differences is well-known,
and any number of suitable techniques could be employed herein. For
example the user can author/generate a petition for an extension of
time, upload an electronic file with the contents, and have the
system predict a likelihood of success of such petition being
granted. In addition, the system can identify/flag other petitions
that are most like the user's (from a content perspective) to help
him/her identify examples of outcomes that are favorable or
unfavorable.
Example #8
[0164] Proposed Case Request--As with example #7, this prediction
tool can parse a specific type of document, namely, a completed
submission/request, to identify its potential for success, and an
expected timing for resolution. As before, the Request can be is
analyzed against other comparable documents using natural language
techniques to identify characteristics that would tend to indicate
its potential for successful outcome, and timing.
[0165] Again it should be noted that all of the above predictions
may be based on a variety of factors, including a current dynamic
loading experienced by the personnel, historical/seasonal
variations, etc. In a preferred embodiment the system continually
receives feedback 450 of actual events and results from pending
cases, as for example can be determined from database 560 (see FIG.
5) and others below. This information is used to calibrate, fine
tune and alter the prediction engine behavior to better mirror and
reflect real world conditions.
[0166] As can be seen above, the system allows the user to identify
and exploit biases and predilections that would otherwise be
obscured--if not invisible--based on day to day observation of the
workings of the target organization. By analyzing the output and
events in bulk and across the entire organization, the system
identifies event correlations, document correlations, etc., which
are hitherto not seen since the data has not been compiled,
maintained and dynamically evaluated in this manner. Using the
prediction tool the user can also mix and match parameters to
consider multiple constraint dimensions. For example the user can
predict the optimal rejection types for a particular claim in a
particular patent.
[0167] In addition to the USPTO as a target organization that can
be evaluated for predictions, it will be apparent that other types
of entities could be analyzed in the same way. For example,
decisions of the Board of Appeals could be examined in the same
manner, and the personnel of such entity (a panel of judges)
similarly studied to identify correlations in behavior and
processing of submissions (in this case, appeals). Thus, both the
outcome and timing of appeals could be estimated by embodiments of
the invention by analyzing appeal submissions, and a panel of
judges reviewing the submission. Since the panels are frequently
correlated with particular subject matter, it is not difficult to
predict a panel composition for a particular case. In instances
where the applicant requests oral argument the panel composition is
in fact then defined for the user. Thus, given a set of judges, or
an expected set of judges, the invention can be used to predict an
outcome and timing for an appeal.
[0168] In other instances it is possible to further collect data on
the personnel of the entity, such as by observing them in public
when they are hearing oral arguments and the like. The resulting
oral arguments are frequently captured in electronic form, and can
be transcribed to identify content associated with the individuals.
The oral arguments for the CAFC for example are kept in an online
accessible database their website and can accessed there. The
present system can be augmented with appropriate conventional
speech recognition routines and supporting logic (not shown) to
identify a prosody of each individual during a hearing (from the
audio signal) on a continuous basis to determine a prosody or
affinity score of the judge for the party in question. The content
(questions, statements) made by the judge can be similarly
identified using such routines and scored to determine a positive
or negative valence/affinity for the party in question. The
combination of content and prosody score can be used, in
conjunction with historical information for the judges, to
determine a likelihood of a resolution of the case in favor of one
party or the other. Historical information can be compiled for each
judge to identify signature word content choices, key prosody
identifiers, etc., along with outcomes for the cases, and timing
tags to indicate when/for whom the statements were made in the
context of the hearing. For example it may be determined that a
particular judge's use of certain expressions is strongly
correlated with ruling for/against a certain party. By analyzing
these correlations across a wide set of rulings the invention can
be used to study a judicial organization for its predilections and
observable biases.
[0169] In still other embodiments it can be expected that product
reviews, stock reviews, etc., can be predicted from entities that
provide such functions. Other administrative agencies which use
well defined procedures could be modeled as well.
[0170] FIG. 5 illustrates a database system implemented in
accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the present invention.
As alluded to above, a number of specialized and customized
databases are used in the preferred embodiment to support
operations of the analyzer 110. These databases support a number of
records and field definitions, including those provided in Appendix
1, although it is understood that this is not an exhaustive list
and others could be used in commercial embodiments. Furthermore
those skilled in the art will appreciate that other organizational
forms and schema can be used by the databases without departing
from the spirit of the present teachings.
[0171] As seen In FIG. 5, the analyzer 110 builds and updates the
databases using a number of requests and updates 502, which, as
noted above, are generated and controlled through cataloging logic
170 and monitoring logic 180. The user queries (and responses
thereto) 504 against the databases are provided over a network
connection and through an interface 510.
[0172] A first type of database is a mirror/backup database 550.
The purpose of this database is to try and emulate or approximate
the content of database 126 as close as possible. This allows for
creating a second access path to the target organization data
through bandwidth, routing, etc., that does not impose a processing
load on the entity in question, but which may be more optimized for
public consumption. For this reason it is expected that embodiments
of the invention will be attractive to individuals and other
companies who want to access the target organization's data in a
more robust manner, and/or through faster connections, without
worry that the data is not a 100% duplicate. Note that in some
instances it may be desirable to "scrub" database 550 so that
obvious errors are removed, while in some embodiments it may be
required to duplicate the content exactly, including with any
blatant errors.
[0173] In a preferred approach a main system master case file and
document database system 551 is also maintained. This database
(which is comprised of multiple databases) has a structure/format
optimized for ensuring rapid retrieval of relevant documents for
the cases, and thus may vary significantly from that used by the
mirror database 550. Therefore the raw data for each case is
maintained here (with events and links to events), which may be
sanitized or corrected for obvious errors. In addition the original
documents (or links to the documents for retrieval from another
storage system) are stored within this database system to permit
users access to the image files typically associated with PAIR,
such as stored typically in Acrobat PDF versions. Furthermore, as
noted above, text indices are also actively maintained and
constructed for each document OCRd by the system to ensure text
based and search predicate based querying of the underlying content
in the submissions.
[0174] A master case db 515 includes records used by the system
with data that is extracted from the original case records found in
database 126 as well as other data generated by the system to
identify a case. For example each case may be given a system
reference number that is matched to a case submission number for
the target organization (i.e., a control number within the PAIR
context). Other fields within the master case db may include patent
numbers, inventor names, Examiner names assigned to the case,
attorney names, assignees, etc. Result data may be retained for
each case as well, including disposition and histories of claims
rejected, the basis therefore, and final dispositions of the cases,
such as whether the reexamination/reissue resulted in a
certificate, a final rejection, etc. In the case of pending
applications similar information would be maintained as well.
[0175] An Examiner database 520 contains names and other profile
data associated with the personnel of target entity 110, and their
respective work groups (which can be art units). The profile data
may include a list of cases worked on, and other survey data
collected as noted earlier.
[0176] A production/loading database 525 tracks loading of the
organization by case with time and by Examiner. This can be done in
any convenient fashion, including through chronological snapshots
which create a record, for each time period, of the cases being
actively worked on, and the identity of the Examiners involved.
Other techniques for determining the loading can also be used by
correlating other data as noted below. It will be understood that
the time period can be set to any desired value (daily, weekly,
etc.) to monitor the organization's productivity and loading.
[0177] The attorneys and agents working on the cases are also
tracked in database 530. This can include basic information such as
names, addresses, firms, registration numbers, requester/patent
owners represented, number of cases in active status, etc., and can
also include more advanced data such as the identity of all cases
worked on, links and references to documents authored, success or
failure rate in cases, and so on.
[0178] Administrative information associated with the running of
the analyzer is stored in database 535. This can include basic
information about users and subscribers, and may also include more
advanced data identifying the state of the currency of the data in
the system, the level of accuracy measured for the system, and so
on.
[0179] User subscription data is maintained in database 540,
including identifying information, plan level data, account
balances, company affiliations, contact information, profiling
information 260 provided (see FIG. 2) and any other types of data
desired for this purpose.
[0180] Database 552 is used to store crowdsource/vote data as noted
above. Again identifying information for each contributor is kept,
along with an indication of a case and a vote value provided for
such case. For example, a user can provide a "vote" which is
multi-dimensional and specifies: a) that a particular Examiner; b)
will reject a particular case identifier; c) under a particular
theory; d) on a particular date. Other forms of data can be
received and processed as desired, such as a probability of success
predicted for a specific case by the voter, and so on. Other
examples will be apparent to those skilled in the art.
Authentication information can also be maintained to minimize and
reduce vote fraud.
[0181] Events are logged for each case in database 560. In a
preferred approach, this database contains an entry for each event
generated by target entity 110 for any case being processed. The
events are preferably logged with reference to multiple indicia
including some or all of the following: an event number; an
associated case reference number; a system reference id number; an
event classifier (e.g., what type of event occurred) and a time
stamp. Other types of data may also be included if desired,
including an entity responsible for the event, links to any
documents associated with the event, and so on.
[0182] A prediction database 570 is used to maintain prediction
that is either generated in response to user requests, or
auto-generated periodically in response to the former and/or
program conditions as noted above in FIG. 4. For example, a user
may ask to know the expected date between two events in a
particular case. A log of this prediction, along with the
prediction value, is maintained for the user. If a sufficient
number of users request the same or similar data for the case, the
system may be configured to refresh the prediction automatically so
that upon a future invocation the result can be presented faster.
Dedicated caches may be associated with the user's account as well
to make the data even more quickly available. In this manner the
system can appear to perform in an extremely timely manner by
predicting the user's request in advance, and caching the result so
that it is available for access and inspection. The system can also
automatically generate different types of predictions off-line, as
noted earlier, for the same purpose (to expedite presentation of
results) based on some programmed priority logic.
[0183] A database of reexamination submission requesters and/or
patent owners and their identifying information is also preferably
maintained in a database 580. Like the attorney/agent database 530,
other data can be maintained and cross referenced for each
requester/patent owner, such as associated reexam numbers, patent
numbers, assignees, attorney/agents, and so on, along with more
advanced information, such as success rates, number of cases in
active status, etc.
[0184] A patent database 582 may include basic bibliographical
information for the patent as conventionally stored at the USPTO
site, along with cross reference information to reexam numbers,
system reference numbers, etc. The actual patent documents, in
electronic form, can also be stored here. Document links can also
be provided to be able to access and retrieve patent related
documents easily within a graphical interface presented to the
user. File history documents (such as may be present in a prior
prosecution proceeding for the patent) can be maintained in a
database 584.
[0185] In some embodiments it may be desirable to consolidate and
maintain as much information concerning a patent in question as is
feasible to provide a one-stop service. Accordingly additional
types of documents (petitions, appeals, press releases, Internet
content, etc.) can be also stored and text indexed as seen for
database 554. Database 554 may also be linked to (or have data
from) the USPTO's assignment database so that users can be informed
of a current assignee and any prior records of transfer. Since this
is normally kept outside the aforementioned PAIR system, this again
allows for a better one-stop user experience by integrating
multiple otherwise disconnected databases together.
[0186] While some current organizations offer basic patent services
(such as obtaining copies of the patent themselves) it is extremely
impractical if not impossible to easily glean the totality of data
for an issued patent that is subject to reexamination in context,
including for example previous prosecution, prior art cited against
it, the communications with the Examiner, petitions, board
decisions, etc.
[0187] An alert database 590 is used to store notifications which
are sent or will be sent to subscribers. These may be indexed by
subscriber, or case/event number. As noted above, subscribers can
ask to be kept abreast of developments for a particular case, or if
a particular prediction of interest has changed dramatically beyond
a preset threshold. For example, if the timing between two events,
or the likelihood of success is calculated to change by more than
10% the subscriber can be alerted. Users may choose to be alerted
of specific events as well, such as a notice of intent to issue a
reexamination certificate, or a notice of allowance (for a pending
case), an issue date notification (for a pending case) and so on.
Other examples will be apparent to those skilled in the art.
[0188] The alerts pass through an interface 595 where they can be
directed (see FIG. 8) in any known or to be discovered electronic
channel to the users/subscribers 597. As can be seen above, it is
possible and indeed likely that there is overlap in the coverage of
the various databases, and that some of the databases above may be
simply indices, tables or subsets of other databases. By formatting
the data this way it can make the presentation of the data within a
graphical interface much faster nonetheless. While the preferred
approach above is presented in the context of a reexamination
analysis system, it will be understood that other applications will
require different data and schemas. A final decision on the
composition and schema for any implementation will invariably vary
according to system design needs and requirements. Further it will
be understood from the discussion above that these are but examples
of the types and forms of databases that would be used in a
preferred embodiment.
[0189] FIG. 6 illustrates an exceptions handling/analysis process
implemented in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the
present invention, which, in the case of a reexamination analysis
domain, would include submissions such as petitions and the like.
As is well-known, entities involved in reexaminations may file
petitions for any number of reasons seeking relief from the rules
and regulations governing such proceedings. For example a
participant may request for additional time beyond a nominal due
date to file a submission. Alternatively they may ask for a certain
document of prior art to be considered even if it is untimely
filed. In other instances they can ask to be excused from strict
compliance with a page limit in their submission, and so on. Other
examples are known to those skilled in the art, based on a current
state of the Code of Federal Regulations (section 37) and the
Manual of Patent Examining Procedures (MPEP). Other organizations
will have their own specific governing procedures, rules,
protocols, etc., which may be subject to an exceptions submission.
While the present preferred embodiment is directed to a
reexamination filing, it will be understood that the principles can
be extended to locate petitions across a wider universe of filings
within the target organization, including for example pending
applications.
[0190] In general, the petitioner can ask to be excused from any
mandate over which the target organization otherwise has
jurisdiction to enforce. To obtain such relief they are required
specifically to file a petition with the organization/entity and
secure a favorable decision authorizing the rules exception.
Depending on the nature of the petition, it may be handled by
different groups or personnel within the PTO.
[0191] The exceptions handling aspect of the invention is also
unique in that no current publicly accessible system exists for
permitting practitioners and other entities to observe and monitor
a collection of petitions and decisions. Thus, it impossible to
simply search databases 126 for petitions by subject matter, by
filer, by decision, by date, etc., to gain wider scale insights and
understandings into the operation of the USPTO. As seen below,
users can select and filter such submissions quickly and
efficiently to identify outcomes, timing, etc. and obtain reports
on the same in text, chart and/or graphical forms. In addition the
users can easily identify and retrieve the actual decisions by the
organization relating to the petitions, so that a comprehensive
dataset can be presented in one convenient interface to the
user.
[0192] In a preferred embodiment users can identify at step 605 a
particular target type of petition, such as petitions handled by a
specific person/group within the PTO, petitions associated with a
particular case, petitions associated with a particular submitter,
petitions containing certain content (text) or more generally those
classified in accordance with a particular type of relief sought,
or by reference to a resolution (which may be favorable or
unfavorable for example). In both cases the user can be presented
with any convenient form of pulldown menu to select a name, a
subject matter/topic, etc. For instance, users can ask to see
petitions associated with a particular type of relief, such as an
extension of time, extra pages, a prior art submission, a
declaration, etc. Alternatively the users can simply request to see
every petition filed for every case, broken down logically
according to type.
[0193] At step 610 any cases or petitions from a petitions database
619 (which may be information gleaned from one or more databases
discussed in FIG. 5) matching the criteria specified are
identified. In the event a submission resolution time is desired,
the system can also account for load factors 615 as previously
discussed.
[0194] Other identification/analytical data 618 associated with the
petition submissions, such as the name of the submitter, the
associated patent owner, the length or complexity of the document,
and the timing associated with a related decision, can all be
computed or determined as well at step 620, if it is not already
conveniently available. The outcomes can then be summarized as well
at step 625.
[0195] At step 640 the results of the petition/case search can be
presented to the user in any convenient form as noted above.
Comparisons can be made to identify particular correlations or
trends of petitions or decision outcomes, timing with particular
personnel, with particular art units, etc. The resulting report
preferably includes embedded resource locator links to permit the
user to easily find, review and utilize the actual content of the
petitions and decisions, including text, graphics, etc.
[0196] Since the petitions and decision data is stored in both
image form and text (OCRd) form, it can be searched for relevant
text content. Accordingly users of the system are also able, for
the first time: a) to search and consider such documents from a
content perspective; b) to search across an entire set of such
document spanning over multiple cases. For example users can locate
and review petitions which discuss a particular rule, regulation,
etc., or which make mention of a particular patent, person or
precedent across all cases handled by the PTO. This is in contrast
to existing architectures (seen on the top of FIG. 1) which only
permits the user to access a single case at a time, and then, the
data is not in any searchable form by the user. Thus, the present
invention, by capturing the entirety of the organization data in an
accessible form, allows for greater public review and understanding
of the internal processes and predilections of such entity.
[0197] It will be noted that while the discussion for FIG. 6 is
directed specifically to USTPTO Petitions, the present teachings
are broad enough to encompass the operation of other organizations
who have comparable exceptions events. Moreover, while not
specifically shown, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art
that other forms of events, such as decisions/orders by the Board
of Patent Appeals and Interferences, can also be processed as noted
above to provide insights into such entity. As with the general
PAIR system, the BPAI system for finding, reviewing and
understanding precedent is extremely minimal and lacks basic query
functionality, including general text or other simple parameters.
Using the present techniques this data could be extracted, compiled
and organized to permit larger and easier public access and
insights.
[0198] FIG. 8 illustrates an alert process 800 implemented in
accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the present invention.
The intent of this feature is to permit users to be kept informed
of changes in the underlying data or events taking place or
associated with the target entity. While again current systems do
allow for some notification of PTO related events, these are
typically limited to individuals who are registered patents/agents.
The present invention further mass enables and democratizes the
information to make it more accessible and usable by the public. In
addition, current systems do not permit users to search for
channels/cases to subscribe to receive updates.
[0199] At step 805 the user is allowed to designate a set of cases
for which he/she desires to receive alerts. In a preferred
embodiment the user can specify not only specific case numbers, but
also parameters associated with cases, such as patent number,
inventor name, Examiner name, attorney name, requester name, etc.
Any data associated with a submission may be considered to
determine a set of cases to be monitored.
[0200] In some instances it may be desirable to subscribe to
pre-configured specific "channels" 807 organized in some logical
fashion by topic or subject. That channels may be identified with
specific companies, specific Examiners, specific cases, specific
events, etc. Any number of variants will be apparent to those
skilled in the art. Alternatively a user may specify his/her
customized channels 809, which, in some cases may correspond to a
docket of cases that he/she (or their company) is affiliated with
or responsible for. At this point it will be understood that the
set of cases, as defined/filtered by the user, will be associated
with a set of new potential events of interest that are generated
as the target organization processes submissions.
[0201] The user can then specify or configure their requirements
for delivery of the alerts at step 810, including defining
individuals, email accounts, message accounts, portable devices,
etc., which are to receive the alerts. Any number of different
conventional options may be elected here.
[0202] At step 820 the user can specify alert parameters, including
particular types of alerts and/or thresholds 825 that they wish to
impose to filter the set of new potential events. For example, the
"type" of event may be tied to a particular type of document being
associated with an event, such as an Office Action, a Response, a
Petition, etc. Alternatively the event may be based on a press
release or litigation event (which may be derived from a separate
news/litigation database or service) for a company in question that
is associated with one of the cases.
[0203] All such actions, and others apparent to those skilled in
the art, can result in a triggered/candidate alert. The user can
specify that they nonetheless do not want to see such triggered
alerts until a certain number of press releases (a threshold) are
identified (which can be a form of confirmation) in recent news
searches, and so on. In other embodiments the user can request that
they only be sent an actual alert through one of the channels when
the aggregate number of triggered alerts (across all channels)
exceeds some number.
[0204] In addition, users can specify that they wish to be alerted
based on user-defined thresholds which may be associated with a
prediction generated by the process noted above in FIG. 4. For
example, the user can specify that he/she wants to be informed if
the system determines that the prediction for a first case outcome
has changed by more than X % since a prior alert or review by the
user, and/or now is above or below some other variable threshold.
This allows for dynamic updates based not just on content changes,
but also evaluation/prediction changes maintained by the system.
Users can similarly be alerted based on measured changes in an
expert or crowd sentiment garnered below (as seen in FIG. 10).
Again, the user may ask that if a collective community sentiment
and/or expert sentiment varies by more than Y % from a prior value,
or has gone above or a certain value, the user would be provided an
alert to be kept abreast of this change.
[0205] In addition, as alluded to herein, alerts can also be
generated based on predictions made based on a calculation that a
certain target event is likely occur within the organization with a
certain confidence and within a certain time period. For example,
an alert may indicate that a Notice of Allowance is expected with
90% certainty within the next 30 days, and so on. A prediction may
be made that a particular case will be taken up by a particular
Examiner, based on an examination of loading consideration of other
examiners, and the subject matter of the case, and so on. Other
examples will be apparent to those skilled in the art.
[0206] As the alerts are triggered and/or sent they are stored and
updated in a database as seen in step 828. With this type of data
the system can also monitor and develop correlations between users,
channels and alerts to give recommendations to users at step 830
for new channels, cases, companies, alert types, etc. This can be
implemented using any conventional collaborative filtering
algorithm, corroborative filtering algorithm, etc. which uses some
form of prediction. This technique can help users find and identify
other subject matter of interest that they may have overlooked.
[0207] The alerts are then sent/reported to the users at step 840
in accordance with their preferred delivery mechanisms noted above.
The data can be archived as desired for each user as well.
[0208] FIG. 9A illustrates a query process 900 implemented in
accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the present invention.
It will be noted that this figure is merely intended to show the
general aspects of how a query process would be implemented
consistent with the discussions above. Thus at step 910, the user
is permitted to identify any one of a variety of predefined
labels/identifiers for a case, a particular examiner (personnel),
etc. by selecting entries using a conventional pull down list or
similar visual selection tool. Alternatively the user can specify
free form text to be matched by the items in question.
[0209] As seen at step 920, the user is then presented information
from the relevant database (FIGS. 2, 3, 4 6) meeting the query
parameters (terms and/or predicates) in accordance with a filter
and format selected. A review database can be updated at step 925
to track user behavior and selections, which, as noted above, can
be used for a variety of purposes, including deciding priority for
updates, or earmarking potential alerts as seen in step 930.
[0210] Examples of the types of queries and reports possible with
the present system are shown in FIGS. 9B-9G. Other examples will be
apparent to those in the art, and it is understood that this
query/report generator will vary in accordance with the particular
target entity and design requirements. Moreover as noted above the
form of visual output can be varied to suit user interests or
demands.
[0211] For example, FIG. 9B shows that the user can ask for a
report identifying the expected elapsed time between a Start event
and an End event. The two events can be any based on any type of
event associated with the target entity. In the case of a
reexamination, for example, the user could designate the Start
event as the receipt of the request, and the End event as a right
of appeal notice.
[0212] As seen in FIG. 9C, a user has requested a report
identifying an average time required for the PTO to render a
decision on a petition in a reexamination context. The report here
is in graphical form for visual appeal and understanding.
[0213] In FIG. 9E, a similar report has been requested to identify
the total duration of a reexamination proceeding. In this case the
data is presented in table/list form for convenience.
[0214] FIG. 9D shows a typical basic profile report for a person
such as an Examiner, to identify the cases being handled by such
personnel. Again other forms of output and other data could be
shown as well. The entries are preferably coded to permit the user
to then pull up a screen to see the totality of the record for the
case in question, such as shown in FIGS. 7A-7I below.
[0215] FIG. 9F again shows that the user can filter and find
particular cases and/or petitions of interest based on art units,
document coding, etc. For example the user can ask to find any
cases (and documents) in which an entity filed an opposition
petition to a patent owner's petition. Or, if desired, they can
designate a specific sequence of events and their type, to find
related histories so that they may be surveyed and reviewed. These
reports are expected to be useful to help practitioners and other
interested parties understand and assess better the inner workings
of the entity in question (here the PTO).
[0216] FIG. 9G shows a specific example of a report identifying
petitions for extensions of time, and instances where such requests
were granted or denied. Again this information can be used to glean
insights and understandings of the relevant guidelines, thresholds
and rationale used by the entity to evaluate petitions on the
merits.
[0217] From the above it will be understood that these are again
but examples of the types of reports that can be easily extracted
using conventional tools from the data collected in databases shown
in FIG. 5 above.
[0218] FIG. 10 illustrates a crowdsource type prediction process
1000 implemented in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the
present invention. In this instance the term "crowdsource" is
understood in the conventional sense used today, wherein
contributions by a large number of persons are aggregated and
leveraged to derive a better answer or estimate for a problem. This
aspect of the invention allows users to participate and/or review
the contributions by other users to the process of determining the
likelihood of an outcome of an event, timing of the event, and so
on. In some instances it may be desirable to authenticate the
credentials of some contributors (using any convenient mechanism)
to establish their status as an expert in the subject matter. For
example, patent attorneys/agents/litigators (or other experience
persons) may be qualified as "experts" by the system, and have
their insights, votes, etc., tallied separately, or even given more
weight.
[0219] Accordingly at step 1005 the voter is classified according
to their status, which may be one of multiple levels or labels. For
example, a user may be designated as novice, average, expert, etc.
In some instances the user's membership status may be factored into
their voting capability/status.
[0220] At step 1010 the case or event is selected by the user,
along with a relevant time period. Again the selection can be
facilitated using any conventional tools, including the query
interface discussed above. The user for example can vote on
specific cases, or even specific events. As an example the user may
contribute a vote on when an Examiner may render an Office Action,
and/or if the Office Action is expected to be favorable or
unfavorable on a specific claim. Other examples will be
apparent.
[0221] The user is then presented with an entry prediction screen,
which, as noted above, may take any convenient form, including
similar that offered by the Piqqem site. The main difference, of
course, is that instead of predicting the performance of
securities, the present invention allows users to provide
predictions associated with the entity's behavior. In other
embodiments the users may be permitted to vote on related patent
matters, such as the result of a litigation, trial, etc., or the
amount of damages expected to be awarded, the likelihood of an
injunction and so on. Again any factor associated with patents may
be presented for prediction within an interface/voting screen.
[0222] In some embodiments it will be desirable to tally and
recognize contributors based on their prediction performance. As
with other sites which perform this function, the recognition can
be calculated and presented to other members of the site in any
convenient fashion.
[0223] FIGS. 7A-7I illustrate components of a graphical interface
system implemented in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of
the present invention. It will be understood by those skilled in
the art that the depictions, format, functions shown in these
figures are expected to be varied significantly in any commercial
embodiment. Moreover many aspects of the interface have been
stripped down or simplified to facilitate an understanding of the
more salient features.
[0224] Unless otherwise stated, it is intended that the boxes and
content shown in FIGS. 7A-7I would be coded with hyperlinks and
similar capability to allow for ease of access and browsing. In
some instances the interface is expected to have dynamic behavior
which might not be visually depicted in the figures, but will be
understood to be part of the user experience.
[0225] Beginning in FIG. 7A, a user is presented with a main home
page 700 that is displayable within a conventional client web
browser. Home page 700 includes a number of functions and content
which can be accessed by the user by selecting on any of the icons
shown therein using conventional web page coding. These functions
are tied to the description above and for the most part are
self-explanatory. In brief they include: [0226] PTO records--by
selecting this link the user can access/review and browse records
from the PTO in the same manner as they would from accessing the
PAIR site (see FIG. 7E). In effect this aspect of the invention
allows a user to emulate an experience provided by the target
entity's web based interface, albeit with a more flexible
experience since the user can traverse the entity's database using
conventional web based commands. In the case of the PTO records,
for example, this means that the user can traverse records in any
convenient logical form (i.e., by case number, Examiner, etc.)
[0227] Reexams--selecting this link allows the user to
review/search reexamination records using a variety of advanced
search tools and multiple dimensions as discussed above. A detailed
version of this interface is presented to the user as seen in FIGS.
7B-7E. Note that--with minor content/context changes--the Reissues,
Pending Apps, Litigations and Board of Appeals decisions can be
implemented using a similar interface to that shown in FIG. 7B so
they are not shown separately. [0228] Examiners--selecting this
link takes the user to a screen shown generally in FIG. 7F. Here
the user can access and modify profile data for the Examiner in
question. [0229] Attorneys/Agents--selecting this link takes the
user to a screen shown generally in FIG. 7H. Here the user can
access and modify profile data for the attorneys/agents in
question. [0230] Companies--selecting this link takes the user to a
screen shown generally in FIG. 7I. Here the user can access and
modify profile data for the companies in question. [0231]
Documents--selecting this link takes the user to a screen shown
generally in FIG. 7B. Here the user can perform advanced searching
functions as discussed in detail above. [0232]
Predictions/Crowdsourcing--selecting this link takes the user to a
screen shown generally in FIG. 7G. Here the user can access
information on predictions provided by the community, and
contribute as well on the same subjects. [0233] Alerts: selecting
this link takes the user to a screen to configure alerts so that
they can be kept abreast of updates/specific events as noted
above.
[0234] In addition, other dynamic content, culled from the
databases described above (FIG. 5) is presented to the user within
the main screen 700. The entries here can shown in a dynamic window
(programmed through AJAX or similar coding language) so that the
user can see/scroll through them quickly. While certain preferred
items of data are illustrated below, it will be understood that
these are merely examples. The details of any particular embodiment
in a particular domain may use all or some of these, and it will be
understood that additional information can be selectively presented
as well. This includes: [0235] A rolling update of the most
recently filed cases, along with their identifying information {id,
patent #, title, assignee, date, etc.} and preferably with such
data hyperlinked so that it can loaded as desired by the user.
[0236] A rolling update of the most recent events taking place in
the entity/organization. This may be presented in the form: {Case
id, date, event} etc. [0237] Updates on activity in selected cases
chosen/selected by the user. This can be presented in the form:
{Case id, user label, patent #, date, event . . . } [0238] Alerts
for the user based on their selections/filters. This information
can be shown as {alert type, case id, user label, patent #, date}
etc. [0239] News/press releases/litigations: this can be based on a
search of news stories and the like to return relevant items
germane to the entities involved in the cases/events. [0240]
Predictions: this presents information to users of predictions
provided by crowdsourcing items of interest, such as a prediction
for a winner for a patent case.
[0241] As seen in more detail in FIG. 7B, the interface 720 can be
considered as a main search input screen that is a gateway to many
of the functions noted above in FIG. 7A. Again the interface is
preferably presented within a user's browser as part of an online
accessible analysis system. Here a user can request to review
reexamination cases (or whatever records are being kept for the
target entity) in accordance with any number of predefined
criteria. For example, they can ask for cases matching a particular
patent number, Examiner, etc., as discussed above. It will be
understood that the user can specify that multiple filters be
satisfied for the records in question, so that only cases for a
particular Examiner/Assignee combination are retrieved, and so on.
In addition in some embodiments the interface may have additional
logic installed to permit the user to type in a query and have it
auto-completed (using any conventional mechanism) based on the
actual records. In addition, as seen at the bottom of interface 720
the user can specify to consider only records which have documents
matching a general text field entry, or transaction records with
specific codes, etc.
[0242] Interface 730 shows an example of a more elaborate search
implemented by embodiments of the invention. For example the user
can specify a particular type of document (by code), a certain
first phrase, and a logical predicate (search operator such as
within x words) followed by another phrase, and other date
restrictions. Other types of filters can clearly be implemented as
desired.
[0243] FIG. 7C shows an example of an event/case browser 740 that
can be implemented in accordance with the present teachings. This
is preferably what is seen by the user after invoking the search
screen of FIG. 7B, and illustrates an example of a case-level
review tool. The user's search filter/query is preferably shown in
a box above the results.
[0244] In a preferred approach the user can move throughout the
result set using any convenient field, by selecting one or more of
the column labels. For example, the user can scan and review cases
using a control number, a filing date, patent number, inventor,
assignee, status, etc. Other types of high level data could be
presented of course. Sorting of the results can be achieved by
selecting a control field (not shown) associated with the columns
as well.
[0245] It can be seen that the tool 740 permits the user to review
an entire dataset if desired as well in an extreme case where no
filter is imposed. The user can thus immediately and at a glance
move back and forth through a raw dataset of reexamination events
in a manner that is not possible using any conventional tool,
including PAIR. This flexibility allows for the user to emulate the
capability of an internal tool otherwise being the only mechanism
available/required for the purpose of reviewing and analyzing the
organization's data in this fashion. The productivity and time
savings associated with this tool are also substantial, as it
permits an outside user to perform analyses that would otherwise
take several hundred manhours of manual online access to perform
using conventional tools. More importantly embodiments of the
invention take the guesswork and speculation out of the picture by
ensuring, through the automated updates noted above, that the
events published in database 126 from the organization's internal
data are accurately located and extracted.
[0246] FIG. 7D shows an interface 750 that depicts a format for a
single case record. In this screen the user can see effectively all
significant information for a case, including typical
bibliographical data (shown in the top part of the window) and more
detailed transaction and image file wrapper data blended on the
bottom of the window. The transaction and image file wrapper data
can be loosely designated as events in this instance which are also
presented in a convenient location within a single window (without
having to traverse other tabs). It is understood that some entries
may in fact represent multiple documents (for example a set of
exhibits for an information disclosure statement, or a declaration)
and these may also be retrieved or accessed easily and conveniently
within the interface.
[0247] As seen in the right hand side of the interface, the user
can be given different types of selection buttons as well, so that
he/she can navigate seamlessly across different case numbers,
different patent numbers, etc., all within interface 750. This
interface, therefore, integrates multiple elements of the prior art
into a single location to further increase utility, productivity,
etc., as the user does not lose access to fundamental data
concerning the case whilst examining certain materials more
closely. In some instances therefore it may be desirable to open
any desired documents from an image file wrapper directly within
the interface again for the user's convenience. While this
illustrates one embodiment of a case-record review tool, it will be
understood that there can be countless variations on this approach
consistent with the present teachings.
[0248] Embodiments of the present invention can also be configured
to imitate a functional interface presented by the prior art PAIR
system discussed above, to allow a greater number of users access
to this important public data. From direct observation it can be
seen that the PAIR system throttles access to some extent using
CAPTCHAs, timeouts, etc. Since the site has limited resources
available to meet worldwide demand for this important data, it is
apparent that it would benefit the public and the governmental
agency to develop a more robust secondary access channel.
[0249] Thus in FIG. 7E the user can be presented with an interface
760 that effectively emulates the organization and format of the
data as presented in the PAIR system (or any other system that the
invention is intended to model/analyze) online access tool. The
present invention therefore can supply the underlying data in
exactly the same pathway, selection logic and format of the prior
art. To make the system somewhat more user friendly, however, the
interface can be enhanced, as shown, so that the tab designated
"Select New Case" can instead invoke the interface shown in FIG. 7B
(rather than more restricted selection logic shown in FIG. 11B).
This would make the task of finding relevant cases much more
efficient. In addition, the emulation interface 760 can be
programmed so as to not require a periodic CAPTCHA (or re-CAPTCHA)
for the user's convenience.
[0250] Finally, another useful enhancement which can be added to
augment the emulated experience is the addition of an additional
browsing button 762, which can cause successive cases to be
presented within the interface using a single click. The active
logical tab can be highlighted and linked as shown so that for
example, selecting the arrow keys moves backwards/forwards by one
case when the "Application Data" tab is highlighted. In other cases
it may be desirable to skip forwards or backward using
Attorney/Agent as the logical grouping, and so on. In still other
instances it may be desirable to provide additional document
linking or selection logic within the emulated interface. Other
examples will be apparent to those skilled in the art.
[0251] FIG. 7G depicts an embodiment of a community
prediction/voting interface 780 that can be used to effectuate some
of the functions discussed above. As seen there, a user is
identified by name and by status, which, as noted earlier, may vary
in accordance with any number of parameters. The object of the vote
or prediction is highlighted on the top right, along with links to
other pertinent information to educate and assist the user in
determining their vote/prediction contribution.
[0252] The graphical editor allows the user to manipulate a data
entry point in two dimensions, so that in this instance, the user
can specify both a time prediction value (along a horizontal axis)
and an outcome prediction value (along a vertical axis). The graph
can be annotated with convenient labels to assist the user in
inputting his/her vote. In some instances the graph/chart can be
controlled to give visual feedback while the user is inputting
data, to permit him/her to see more distinctly the values they are
contributing for the parameter in question. The user can be shown
his/her prediction along with a crowd prediction, an expert
prediction, etc., using any convenient and conventional visual
output tool appropriate for the data in question. While the example
is shown for a two parameter vote, it will be understood that
additional dimensions of data beyond two could be captured, and for
other prediction value types.
[0253] A representative example of a Personnel Profiling interface
770 is shown in FIG. 7F. The labels here again are self-explanatory
based on the descriptions above. As seen generally here on the left
hand side of the interface, the user can elect to see case data for
the Examiner, recent actions, community profile data, etc. The user
can also see what actions/events are expected next from this
individual. In some cases the user can also contribute profile
data.
[0254] On the right side the user can be presented with a variety
of useful data metrics about the individual, along with a
comparison of their data to their peers. Other types of data could
be studied of course as well. Again it will be understood that the
implementation can be done in any number of variations depending on
the underlying data and events being studied.
[0255] In a similar fashion a representative example of an
attorney/firm Profiling interface 790 is shown in FIG. 7H. The
labels here again are self-explanatory based on the descriptions
above. As seen generally here on the left hand side of the
interface, the user can elect to see case data for the
Attorney/Firm, recent actions, community profile data, etc. In some
cases the user can also contribute profile data.
[0256] On the right side the user can be presented with a variety
of useful data metrics about the attorney/firm, along with a
comparison of their data to their peers. Other types of data could
be studied of course as well. Again it will be understood that the
implementation can be done in any number of variations depending on
the underlying data and events being studied.
[0257] FIG. 7I illustrates a representative example of a
Requester/Patent Owner Profiling interface 795. The labels here
again are self-explanatory based on the descriptions above. As seen
generally here on the left hand side of the interface, the user can
elect to see case data for the entity, recent actions, community
profile data, etc. In some cases the user can also contribute
profile data. Additional data in the form of press releases,
attorneys/representatives used, etc. can also be accessed and
reported.
[0258] On the right side the user can be presented with a variety
of useful data metrics about the attorney/firm, along with a
comparison of their data to their peers. Other types of data could
be studied of course as well. Again it will be understood that the
implementation can be done in any number of variations depending on
the underlying data and events being studied.
[0259] FIG. 12 depicts a patent asset discovery process implemented
in accordance with certain embodiments of the invention. As is
well-known, US Patents are subject to periodic maintenance payments
which are required to keep them in force. Presently these payments
become due at the beginning of the 3rd, 7th and 11th years
post-issuance. If the owner of the patent does not pay the
maintenance fee within a particular window (which presently is 1
year) after the initial maintenance due date the patent becomes
abandoned/lapsed and no longer enforceable against third parties in
an infringement action. These payments, and activities surrounding
them, can be considered as just another type of "event" (as
described above) to be identified and analyzed by embodiments of
the invention.
[0260] In some cases patent assets are intentionally abandoned by
their owners because they are perceived (subjective or objectively)
to have little or no remaining value, or perhaps value that is not
commensurate with the cost of obtaining such value. In some
instances, however, a patent owner may not be aware of the
maintenance fee requirement, or may not receive the fee
notification, and the patent lapses due to inattention. This can
cause valuable assets to be lost due to simple carelessness or lack
of appreciation by the patent owner of the true value of the patent
assets.
[0261] To remedy such mishaps there is a procedure by which patent
owners presently can "revive" patents which have become abandoned
due to lack of maintenance fee payments. To avail themselves of
this option, however the patent owner must meet certain
requirements (such as establishing that the abandonment was
unintentional or unavoidable) and pay an extra petition fee.
Furthermore, in some cases the petition must be filed within 2
years of the abandonment.
[0262] The USPTO puts out an Official Gazette every week (in
electronic and print form) which identifies which a list of patents
have become recently expired. Unfortunately the OG is usually a few
weeks behind, so by the time it is published it is too late to
remedy any missed payments. To assist patent owners, however the OG
does also publish a prospective list of patent numbers which will
require payment in an upcoming period. By manually checking these
two lists patent owners and other interested parties can learn of
patents which have expired and/or which may go expired. This
information is useful as a means of discovering potential assets
that may have gone unappreciated but which may still have useful
value.
[0263] Clearly the above infrastructure is not optimal for
preserving the value of patent assets, or helping third parties
discover valuable patent assets. The method shown in FIG. 12
ameliorates these deficiencies by a discovery service provider who
automates the discovery process, optimizes the timing of the
investigation, and can consider records and information that have
hitherto not been examined using similar tools to those discussed
above for researching the PAIR database. In the present example the
main databases 1212 to be examined include: 1) a database of issued
US Patents; 2) a database of published US patent applications; and
3) a PAIR database containing status information on patents and
patent applications such as described above. It will be understood
that these are but examples, of course, and other databases could
be mined, as well, including those for trademarks, foreign patent
assets, or other types of tangible/intangible properties which are
subject to periodic maintenance fees (or other proactive action by
an applicant) to maintain their extancy.
[0264] At step 1205 a customer or interested party can define their
interest in potential target patent assets (and events surrounding
the same) with reference to any number of criteria to a discovery
service provider. In a preferred embodiment the user can specify
that they wish to examine patents which fall within a certain class
(e.g., class 705), or which belong to a certain entity, or which
related to certain subject matter, contain certain keywords. It
should be apparent that any number of matching criteria can be used
for this purpose.
[0265] At step 1210 additional filters and query logic can be
imposed as needed to properly formulate the query to a database of
potential patent assets. For example, time restrictions may be
imposed to prevent discovery of assets for which there is no
potential revival or use. Alternatively the user may specify that
there are only interested in assets which have a certain priority
date, or which issued within a certain time period, etc. Other
examples will be apparent to those skilled in the art.
[0266] In the event multiple users are to be serviced by examining
the databases, the user/client requests can be consolidated at step
1215 in a master list to avoid duplication of effort. That is, it
is possible that there will overlap in the search coverage, and
more than one user may want to examine a particular database in
more detail. By consolidating requests the system can reduce the
amount of overhead and processing/bandwidth requirements.
[0267] The search can than proceed across multiple databases to
discovery patent items of interest that are on a master list
generated at step 1215. As seen on the bottom of FIG. 12, the
degree of freshness of items can be varied in the search depending
on the desired comprehensiveness. For example, a user may elect to
only examine older items which have already expired (using the path
shown on the far left); or they may elect to also consider items
which have not yet expired, but are likely to go abandoned, as seen
in the middle path; or they may choose to look at pending
applications which have not even issued yet to find items which are
abandoned or indicated to be allowable/issued in the near future;
or they may choose to elect all or a subset of these and some other
variant (not shown). It can be seen that the invention allows the
full gamut and spectrum of possible patent assets to be reviewed to
discover potentially useful assets that have gone abandoned (or are
likely to do so), or which match some other criterion or parameter
desired by the user, such as a particular status state during an
application process.
[0268] As seen on the far left therefore, a first option is
performed there through step 1220. The system takes the master list
as an input and search all patents on it which expired within N
(preferably 2) years of the target date (T0) for failure to pay
maintenance fees. It will be apparent that N and the target date
can be set to any convenient value, but, in most cases, T0 will be
a present date or a future date. For example on January 1 a user
may want to know all the patents which expired 2 years before
February 1. This is because, as a practical matter, it is difficult
to coordinate and prepare a petition on short notice to have a case
revived (if necessary). Some users may also set N to be very small
so that the search is only looking for recent cases. The search for
expiration of patents for failure to pay maintenance fees can be
done using any conventional database, including the USPTO PAIR
system and from offerings by third parties such as DELPHION. Both
of these systems (and others) have logical fields for identifying a
maintenance status of patents.
[0269] In some instances it may be the case, however, that the
indication for the patent is in error because the patent owner has
remedied the deficiency. The data in the OG or other databases may
be "stale" in some cases therefore. To ensure that the user
receives most up to date information on such expired cases and
events for the same, the present invention can also automatically
check a USPTO maintenance database at step 1225 to identify a
status for one or more cases. To do this an automated script (akin
to the one described above for the USPTO PAIR review) can be
employed to work from the master list, one at a time, ascertain
their maintenance status events and record the same in an expired
patent report list.
[0270] At step 1280 any number of desired relevant documents and
data items can be collected based on the report list. For example,
in the case of a report on expired patents the user can be given a
report that includes the patent details, along with information on
the current patent owner (which may be gleaned automatically from
assignment records as noted below) as well as a copy of the patent
in question, maintenance fee payment records, new maintenance fees
due, petition fees required to bring the case into compliance, etc.
Other documents can be collected of course as needed.
[0271] A lead report is generated at step 1285, which is packaged
to include the additional supporting material/data items and
communicated to the user for their consumption. At this point the
user preferably has a full complement of materials to help them
assess the value of the lead patent asset, along with sufficient
lead information to contact the patent owner and, if desired,
procure the same.
[0272] At step 1290 a service provider may update an overall
"watch" list for the user (or the user base) so that a record is
kept for each event and item presented to a user. In some cases
users can be given notifications/alerts of individual events
detected at this point, in the manner described above. This permits
users to profile and identify acquisition leads far in advance of
competitors. For example, a user could be informed through SMS,
email, etc., of a recently discovered asset that has just gone
abandoned (or changed status) since a last iteration through the
applicable database(s).
[0273] In some instances a service provider may be given
instructions by a user to automatically pay a maintenance fee for
the patent if it otherwise meets certain criteria specified by the
user concerning timing, cost, etc. For example the user may specify
that the provider should pay the fee to reinstate (or even
maintain) a patent if the cost is below some threshold, and so long
as the time from expiration does not exceed some time period. This
type of preemptive action may be useful in some cases given the
cost/benefit analysis associated with reviving cases (compared to
the cost of simply maintaining) and as potential leverage in
discussions with the patent owner.
[0274] Returning to step 1230 in the middle of FIG. 12, the user
may also elect a second option to have additional items/events to
be examined for lead generation, including patents that have not
yet been abandoned, but are likely to do so in within a certain
time period. The advantage of this approach (which may be performed
in addition to or in lieu of the prior option) is that the
user/client then has a larger window of time to review the asset,
negotiate with the patent owner, etc. Moreover since the patent
asset has not actually expired there is less potential hazard and
impairment from having to meet a legal threshold for reviving a
case. At step 1235 the system thus finds those patents from the
master list which are due to expire within an upcoming window of
time defined by the target time T0 minus a maintenance window and
some adjustment time delta, which, again can be controlled by the
user. For example the user may want to locate cases which have
already gone past a penalty period (3.5 years, 7.5 years 11.5
years) but are still more than a certain number (delta) days from
expiration in order to give them sufficient margin to conduct their
due diligence.
[0275] In addition it should be apparent that the system can also
learn from prior historical behavior of specific patent owners (or
based on subject matter, anticipated costs, etc.) to identify
entities that are more or less likely to permit an asset to go
abandoned. Accordingly at step 1240 the system can prioritize a
search to identify assets in an ordered priority of expected
likelihood of abandonment. This ordered priority list then is used
at step 1245 to perform an automated search of the patent
maintenance database. If a record is indicated as having been paid,
the system ignores the item. Other ways of prioritizing the
discovery process will be apparent from the present teachings.
[0276] Otherwise, as previously explained for step 1280, a report
and documentation package is prepared for the user for extant
patent assets meeting the desired profile. These leads can be
reported out at step 1285 as before. In some cases at step 1290 the
user/client may ask that the service provider put the asset on a
special watch list. Items on this watch list are monitored by the
service provider within the maintenance database proactively, and
up to the last minute, to determine if the patent owner has paid
the fee. The client may authorize the service provider to pay the
maintenance fee under user-defined parameters, as noted above, to
prevent degradation of the asset. Note that in some cases where the
user "rescues" the asset before it goes abandoned, they may
nonetheless not be able to reach agreement with the patent owner,
in which case they have lost the benefit of the payment without any
return consideration. In many instances, however, due to the value
of finding leads earlier, and the value of such leads, this type of
loss may be more than acceptable in an overall acquisition
program.
[0277] For some types of patent assets the client may also instruct
the service provider to send an urgent communication to the patent
owner to alert them to the impending expiration. This has the
benefit of getting the patent owner's attention and, in the event a
deal is not consummated but the patent asset nonetheless goes
expired, the patent owner will have greater difficulty availing
themselves of the benefit of the rule concerning "unintentional"
abandonment since they were imbued with notice prior to the expiry
of the patent. The user/client therefore is somewhat protected
against the patent owner concluding the opportunity with a third
party since after expiration the asset would be impaired. The user
can thus avoid having the opportunity spoiled by a third party, or
in some instances where infringement exposure exists, the user (or
an affiliated entity) can even avoid the risk of potential
infringement since the patent asset may no longer be revivable
within the requirements of the patent regulations/statutes. This
technique therefore could be used by competitors to mitigate risk
from patents that might otherwise be problematic if they were not
to expire. That is, if the patent goes expired after being notified
of the potential for expiration, or a petition to revive is not
filed before such notification, it is possible the patent cannot be
revived under the present standards. By automating this type of
technique certain entities can reduce their overall exposure to
competitive portfolios by optimizing the chances that these assets
are not revived.
[0278] Returning again to the middle of FIG. 12, the third path
which the user/client can request for lead generation is that
service provider examine prosecution events for published
applications at step 1250 for a certain desired status or event.
Preferably the system also filters out cases which have already
issued at step 1255, although it should be understood that
embodiments could be combined with conventional patent issuance
alert services to supplement their capabilities. For example, some
companies allow users to be alerted in response to certain events
such as when patents issue in certain subject areas,
classifications, etc. The present invention extends the knowledge
reach to a much more advantageous stage or state where the
application has not yet issued.
[0279] This information can be used by a variety of different
entities for a variety of different purposes. For example, a first
company may desire to monitor the expected issuances or allowances
of another company. By seeing which cases are allowed, issued (or
predicted to become such) the invention permits a competitor to
assess whether it has prior art or other materials that are germane
to the application. If it determines that these materials are
relevant it can make the decision to submit/introduce these
materials during the initial examination--as opposed to a post
issuance challenge where the rules and timing may not be favorable.
This improves the overall quality of examination as well since
applications can be expected to be better vetted before they are
issued.
[0280] In other instances the information for events can be mined
for other purposes. For example the filing of a change in attorneys
might be indicative of a quality change at a law firm, or a change
in ownership of the patent application. The ownership change in
turn may be reflective of an ongoing or prospective asset purchase
that is not well-known. An entity status change from small entity
to large entity may also reflect either a merger with (or purchase
by) a larger company, an increase in personnel, or a successful
licensing of the patent application to a larger company.
[0281] Similarly it is well-known that many publicly traded
companies' stock is affected by public announcements of issued
patents. In other instances the rejection of a patent application
on a key aspect of the company's product line may similarly affect
its economic prospects. The present invention can be used to
automatically mine these situations and find prospective
issuances/rejections before they are widely known, giving the
trader an advantage against the rest of the market. Accordingly a
stock trading decision can be based on an automatic identification
and evaluation of events surrounding an application this way. For
example a rejection or notice of allowance of a key application can
constitute a material event that needs to be reported by a company.
By identifying these events automatically and rapidly, the
invention can be used as an input signal to trade particular
equities. Other events and data can be mined of course for similar
reasons, and the invention is not limited in this respect.
[0282] Again at step 1260 the system can perform an optimization or
prioritization operation to identify leads which are most germane
to the user's request. For example, the system could use a priority
date/filing date to conduct the in depth search. Other factors can
be considered as well, for example, the system may be programmed to
use a list of companies whose stock performance varies most
dramatically in response to patent developments (pro or con). By
assessing the most volatile companies first, the invention can thus
find trading opportunities earlier as well.
[0283] At step 1265 the system then proceeds to work from the
prioritized version of the master list to identify the current
status and related events of the selected cases in the USPTO
through the Public PAIR database, or any other convenient database
containing such data. This automated tool works as noted above for
the other software routines which can examine PAIR records to
identify the current status of cases and events surrounding the
same. The system can then consider any one of a number of desired
status codes or events to select them for final inclusion on a lead
list. For example, the application may have a status that the
application has gone abandoned (for failure to respond to an Office
Action for example) or that the application is expected to issue in
the near future (from an issue notification or a notice of
allowance), or that a change in status has been indicated (from
small entity to large entity), or a change in attorneys, etc. While
the assets in this case are merely pending applications, they may
still have significant value to a third party. This aspect of the
invention allows a third party to dig deeper into the USPTO and
identify lucrative leads before they become issued patents through
monitoring of these events.
[0284] The desired status/event codes are thus identified at steps
1271 (abandoned) step 1272 (could be abandoned), has an issue
notice or notice of allowance, change in attorneys, change in
entity status, office action rejection, etc. (step 1275) and so on.
The user has the option therefore of pinpointing and selecting
cases which meet a desired profile, and permit the user the
opportunity to identify events about the patent owner, and exploit
a potential deal for the asset long before it shows up in the
conventional US patent database for publication. For example, an
issue notification event is typically generated several weeks
before an actual issuance date. By availing themselves of the
present invention, interested third parties can identify and
develop leads much further ahead than their competitors. Notice of
Allowances or issue fee payments events are issued even further
ahead of time, and can be similarly mined and exploited as desired
to identify leads.
[0285] As suggested above an IP manager at a company can thus study
and evaluate competitor patent developments before they become
issued, and, as noted, take preemptive action in some cases to
ensure further review of an application in light of new prior art
that may not have been considered. This is a potentially superior
option than having to wait for a patent to issue and then being
forced to deal with it in an adversarial capacity while it enjoys a
presumption of validity.
[0286] In other instances the system may detect that a particular
application *should* have an abandoned status, even if one has not
been specifically identified by the USPTO. This can be determined
from an examination of the prior entries in the file history in
PAIR. By analyzing the file history therefore and comparing it to
other cases an automated system can predict a future event, such as
the fact that an application is likely to go abandoned. This
information, too, is useful since the invention does not have to
rely on an explicit status indicator to classify the asset. Rather,
the invention can assign a tentative status level based on an
assessment of the overall file materials. This information may be
useful to third parties, the patent owner, etc.
[0287] For pending application lead identifications the same steps
as before can be performed to collect relevant materials at step
1280 and populate a lead database. In this instance however the
system may go a step further and collect more detailed information
from the prosecution database in order to give the user/reviewer a
richer picture of what events are transpiring in the USPTO with the
application. As an example, the user could be given any Office
Actions, amendments, petitions, decisions, prior art, status
changes, etc. for the case to help them make an overall assessment
much easier in one convenient package.
[0288] The report is then generated (with supporting documentation)
at step 1285 as before. A watch list can be updated at step 1290 in
the same manner. Here the watch list may include items that the
system suspects (or predicts) beyond a threshold are likely to
change status in an upcoming period, and therefore should be
checked more regularly to see if such status does in fact change.
Accordingly, in the prioritizing search of PAIR (step 1260) this
expected change probability data for each item can be used as a
factor to initiate accesses to the external database. Other uses
will be apparent as well. Again, in selected cases, and to the
extent permissible by law, a user may elect to rectify or cure any
defects to remove an abandonment designation within the file. While
not shown, it is possible that in some cases the service provider
could be given a commission, payment, or some other form of
remuneration for discovery of assets that are acquired by one of
its clients.
[0289] From the above it can be seen that embodiments of the
invention can be used to effectively perform lead generation (and
entity data mining) at a more comprehensive and deeper level than
prior art tools to unearth patent acquisition opportunities. Other
embodiments will be apparent to skilled artisans from the present
teachings.
[0290] FIG. 13 depicts an assignment discovery method implemented
in accordance with one embodiment of the invention. As is
well-known, patent assignments filed with the USPTO are recorded on
microfilm reels. The assignments are indexed, therefore, based on
an reel/frame number combination. Typically each frame corresponds
to a single page of a document that is recorded, and each reel is
used to store hundreds of frames.
[0291] As noted above, the current databases for reviewing
assignments are somewhat difficult to access and cryptic as they
are again maintained at the USPTO. While they permit a user to
search for assignments across a number of parameters, they do not
permit users to easily search and browse by time or entity. For
example, there is no mechanism by which a user can simply ask to
see the most recent assignments (irrespective of entity or patent)
from a certain date. This information is useful since entities may
be affected by the transfer of rights in patent assets, and yet not
receive notice of the same in a timely fashion.
[0292] Accordingly, at step 1305 the invention develops a list of
existing reel and frame numbers from studying the USPTO database.
In one embodiment the system can simply query the database with a
range of reel/frame numbers, starting with 0001/0001 for example,
and automatically incrementing these figures until it reaches a
reel/frame combination that matches a current date (or a most
recent date) and/or that is no longer valid (because there is no
current record corresponding to an entry yet). For example the
system may determine that the most recent reel/frame combination is
MMMM/NNNN; in the next update process the system would pick up from
there and look for a next valid frame/reel combination. Thus the
invention can figure out where the personnel within the
organization have left off and are expected to proceed anew in a
next document recording cycle.
[0293] At step 1310 the entries are logged and maintained in a
separate database that includes all the relevant fields from the
assignment database and preferably additional items as well (such
as US classifications, patent text, etc.).
[0294] As with the reexamination records noted above, the
assignment recordings are thus now accessible through the service
provider and do not require a user to have to navigate through the
USPTO system. With this data the system can provide an interface
(see FIG. 7E) which effectively mimics the USTPO assignment
interface, but which nonetheless is adapted and modified to let
users easily browse back and forth in time within a single reel to
identify consecutively recorded documents by sequence, time,
etc.
[0295] For users who want to do more comprehensive searches and
receive alerts of assignment activity, the system permits a
customer to define their target interests/criteria at step 1315.
The user therefore can specify the name of an entity, a US class
for the patent, a patent number, keywords in the patent, etc. Other
examples and fields can be used of course as well depending on the
desired functionality.
[0296] At step 1320 the system then uses the user defined filter to
construct the desired query. This is then executed against the
assignment database at step 1330, and documents can then be
gathered at step 1335 in the same manner as noted above for FIG.
12. A user lead database can then be updated as well, which
typically consists of records sorted by user and assignments
located/reviewed for example for later perusal, updating, etc.;
other formats can be used of course.
[0297] A report is then generated for the user at step 1340, and
alerts can be provided to those persons who wish to be kept abreast
of new developments in this database based on their customized
criteria as noted above for FIG. 8. For example may want to simply
see a list of all assignments for the most recent day, or only see
materials from a particular entity, or group of entities, or for
specific subject matter, etc. Any number of criteria can be use of
course. As suggested earlier, an investment entity may use this
automated technique to monitor new additions to a company's
portfolio. For administrative purposes a tally can be kept of which
entities, patents or subject matter are most frequently
accessed.
[0298] FIGS. 16A and 16B depict alternative embodiments for
presenting relevant report data to users of the aforementioned
methods. As seen in FIG. 16A, a user can present a query, and
receive a report in the form of a visual graph which may include a
type of heat map 1600. The heat map can include components with a
visual size and shading to denote a result of the query in
convenient perceptible form, so as to complement a conventional raw
data, bar graph, or similar output.
[0299] For example, a typical query can specify whether the user
wants to examine applications that are pending, issued, abandoned,
etc. with a certain date range, and which match a certain class
(705, 710, etc.) or contain one or more user selectable keywords.
The user can further specify whether they want to filter based on a
particular Examiner, entity (i.e., company or individual),
representative (patent attorney, agent, etc. or alternatively ask
for all or a subset. Finally the user can specify the target event
to be identified for the applications, which event may include a
simple indication that that application has been filed, to a more a
more mature event, such as the fact that the application has
received a Notice of Allowance (NOA). Any of the available tags
used by the USPTO within PAIR to designate specific events can be
used for this purpose. Alternatively, as mentioned above, a
transaction record history, or text/content of submissions can be
mined and indexed to respond to the query.
[0300] The user can also filter the output by means of a threshold,
so that for example only matching classes which have a particular
number of applications, target events, etc., or ratio of target
events/applications in excess of some figure are presented in the
output. In other instances a timing relationship can be requested,
to identify average times of prosecution in each of the targeted
classes or categories.
[0301] The resulting heat map 1600 is then presented to the user in
visual form as noted, so that the relative number of applications
matching the query is represented by a size of the corresponding
image block. For example, the number of applications in class 715
could be perceived to be much larger than the number of
applications found in class 700. The sizes of the matching classes
could be normalized and scaled to fit within a defined area of a
window using any number of conventional techniques. While
rectangular blocks are shown, it will be apparent that the heat map
1600 may be embodied in other visual form using a pie chart (with
wedges) or some other polygonic shape.
[0302] A shading of the respective blocks can be used to denote a
magnitude of an absolute or relative number within each class that
matches the target event. Thus, a darker shading may indicate more
matches to the target event, a lesser shading may indicate fewer
matches, and so on. Colors or other indicators may also be employed
of course.
[0303] The raw statistical information may be optionally presented
directly on the heat map, or in some cases might be more
conveniently presented by a mouseover type action as shown in FIG.
16A. As seen therein, a cursor position is detected and an overlay
or other technique is used to present the additional raw data to
the user, such as the fact that there were 1250 applications in
Group 710 during the relevant time frame selected, and of those,
359 had been given a notice of allowance (NOA).
[0304] FIG. 16B describes an alternative embodiment in which the
blocks are not scaled to denote size, but, rather, are arranged in
a spectrum to better denote the relative relationship between the
matching classes with respect to the target event. As is apparent,
this visual query and report may be employed for the purpose of
performing a high level strategic review of the USPTO (or some
other organization) to identify the proliferation of technologies,
productivities or propensities of art units, Examiners, etc., or
even to identify an expertise of particular law firms. Portfolio
analysis is another key area where the invention could be employed
to assess large scale costs, timing, valuations, etc.
[0305] For example, a query can be made to identify and sort areas
within the PTO by a ratio of allowances to patent applications.
This can be used to understand, plan and budget for prosecution
related activities, or make predictions and projections on the
number of cases that may be allowed in a particular set of patent
applications in a portfolio.
[0306] In another instance, the behavior of particular classes of
subject matter can be tracked to identify trends in filings and
allowances. The number of filings can be used for competitive
intelligence to identify areas of exploitation by competitors.
Areas where allowances are higher can be targeted so as to maximize
prosecution efforts in particular areas of technology which have
the highest potential for securing protection.
[0307] Individual examiners can be profiled of course to see an
overall behavior of the organization. The examiners may be sorted
into a spectrum as shown in FIG. 16B (by number of applications,
number of target events, or some relationship between the two) to
illustrate a relative relationship between such personnel.
[0308] Representatives can be similarly examined to identify areas
of expertise, success, etc. For example, a prospective customer may
desire to identify practitioners, firms, etc., who have a large
number (or some threshold number) of applications in a particular
area, and/or who have achieved a certain degree of success in
particular areas. The provided reports allow for an objective
measure of the performance of such individuals and firms to guide
better selection of assistance.
[0309] Competitors (entities) can also be studied, to identify a
breakdown in applications by subject matter area, and corresponding
success (as measured by target events) in such classes (or
technology areas). This information, too, can be used for driving
decision making in companies for patent acquisitions, planning,
etc., by focussing or avoiding areas where examination resistance,
behavior or timing is poor.
[0310] The tools of the invention can also consider changes over
time, so that differences between different periods can be mapped.
For example, a user may inquire and identify which classes,
technology areas, etc., have shown a greatest change in application
numbers, target event/application ratio, etc. This information,
too, can enlighten decision makers to understand which personnel or
subgroups within the entity are changing behavior, or to better
understand a collective behavior of one or more competitors.
[0311] Additional queries and reports can of course be created, and
the above will be understood as simply exemplars. Any number of
combinations of filters and variables can be specified to provide a
desired visual and numerical report of interest. The present
invention, by permitting a deeper and more thorough analysis of the
US patent system, allows for greater insights, planning and
prediction than prior art approaches.
[0312] To implement the above functions a server computing system
used by the described embodiments is preferably a collection of
computing machines and accompanying software modules of any
suitable form known in the art for performing the operations
described above and others associated with typical website support.
The software modules described below (referenced usually in the
form of a functional engine) can be implemented using any one of
many known programming languages suitable for creating applications
that can run on client systems, and large scale computing systems,
including servers connected to a network (such as the Internet).
Such applications can be embodied in tangible, machine readable
form for causing a computing system to execute appropriate
operations in accordance with the present teachings. The details of
the specific implementation of the present invention will vary
depending on the programming language(s) used to embody the above
principles, and are not essential to an understanding of the
present invention.
[0313] From the present teachings it can be seen that embodiments
of the present invention effectively implement solutions to the
problems identified in the prior art, including RFPs put out by the
US government for public access to certain key data in PAIR and
PALM databases that is not otherwise available in bulk or network
access form. New data sets of both complete and current information
can be created, which will have significant value to practitioners
and other entities who rely on decisions from these types of
administrative agencies. One additional benefit of the invention is
the fact that it offloads substantial traffic from US PTO networks,
and thus allows a separate channel of access to benefit the public
at no cost to the government. By opening up this previously
unaccessible information on a wider basis the invention can also
further facilitate the identification of potential technical
experts, prior art, etc.
* * * * *