WO2008127337A1 - Examen en propriété intellectuelle - Google Patents

Examen en propriété intellectuelle Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO2008127337A1
WO2008127337A1 PCT/US2007/066698 US2007066698W WO2008127337A1 WO 2008127337 A1 WO2008127337 A1 WO 2008127337A1 US 2007066698 W US2007066698 W US 2007066698W WO 2008127337 A1 WO2008127337 A1 WO 2008127337A1
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
examiner
application
prior
art
applications
Prior art date
Application number
PCT/US2007/066698
Other languages
English (en)
Inventor
Ray J. Mueller
Andrew Van Luchene
Dean Alderucci
Original Assignee
Leviathan Entertainment
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Leviathan Entertainment filed Critical Leviathan Entertainment
Priority to PCT/US2007/066698 priority Critical patent/WO2008127337A1/fr
Publication of WO2008127337A1 publication Critical patent/WO2008127337A1/fr

Links

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
    • G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling

Definitions

  • MMOGs massive multi-player online games
  • MMORPGs massive multi-player online role playing games
  • MMOGs massive multi-player online games
  • MMORPGs massive multi-player online role playing games
  • Players of these games customarily access a game repeatedly (for durations typically ranging from a few minutes to several days) over a given period of time, which may be days, weeks, months or even years.
  • Many of these games purport to give intellectual property rights to the players in their virtual creations.
  • these games lack a structured system for evaluating and granting such rights.
  • FIG. 1 is a block diagram depicting a system 100 of an embodiment of the present invention.
  • Fig. 2 is an embodiment of a method of assigning an application to an examiner according to one embodiment of the application.
  • FIG. 3 is a block diagram depicting a system 200 of an embodiment of the present invention.
  • Fig. 4 is an embodiment of a method of a method of examining an application according to an embodiment of the invention.
  • FIG. 5 is a block diagram depicting a system 300 of an embodiment of the present invention.
  • Fig. 6 is a block diagram depicting a system 400 of an embodiment of the present invention.
  • Fig. 7 is a block diagram depicting a system 500 of an embodiment of the present invention.
  • Fig. 8 is an embodiment of a method of assigning an application to an examiner according to one embodiment of the application.
  • Fig. 9 is a block diagram depicting a system 600 of an embodiment of the present invention.
  • Fig. 10 is an embodiment of a method of reviewing an application or patent according to an embodiment of the application.
  • FIG. 11 is a block diagram depicting a system 700 according to an embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIG. 12 is a block diagram of a system 800 according to an embodiment of the present invention.
  • a patent is a means for protecting the rights of an inventor. It is a property right granted to an inventor by a governing entity or by a regional office or other third party acting for a governing entity or group of government entities. This right allows the inventor to exclude anyone else from commercially exploiting the inventor's invention for a set time period. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention.
  • Various embodiments of the present invention address this issue by providing methods and systems for assigning applications to an examiner for examination.
  • Such a system may be used to select the examiner with the most relevant expertise, distribute workloads more evenly, evaluate efficiency and accuracy, as well as increase the resources available for evaluating applications and issued patents.
  • These systems and methods may be used in the real world as well as in virtual worlds and provide a means for automating all or part of the selection process.
  • Agent- includes the agent responsible for filing a patent application.
  • Alternate Language- includes words that can be used as alternates for words in a patent application.
  • Artificial Intelligence- includes any computer program that uses neural nets and genetic algorithms.
  • Assignee Name- includes the meaning defined by the USPTO guidelines.
  • Assignee City- includes the meaning defined by the USPTO guidelines.
  • Assignee State- includes the meaning defined by the USPTO guidelines.
  • Assignee Country- includes the meaning defined by the USPTO guidelines.
  • Attorney- includes the attorney responsible for drafting and/or filing a patent application.
  • Attorney Name- includes the meaning defined by the USPTO guidelines.
  • Date Stamp- includes an electronic, unalterable stamp on an electronic file indicated the date that the file was created or received by a computer system.
  • Date of Invention- includes the date a patent application has with a first time stamp.
  • Degree of infringement- includes the statistically measured amount that a product or technical white paper infringes an issued patent application.
  • Dollar Value- includes a dollar amount that is defined as the value of a patent license of a patent.
  • End User- includes any user of a system including an inventor, researcher, attorney, or agent who is interacts wiuth the system, e.g., by creating, enhancing, researching, filing, prosecuting, licensing, or invalidating a patent application.
  • An end user may be required to be a member of a central system.
  • Electronic notification- includes an email or other means of digitally sending a message with a date and time stamp to an electronic address.
  • Examiner- includes a patent examiner.
  • Issued Patent- includes the meaning defined by the USPTO guidelines.
  • Filing Date- includes the time stamp of the date that a patent application was submitted to the patent office.
  • Filed Patent- includes a patent application that is filed with the USPTO.
  • File Wrapper- includes all files associated with a patent application including but not limited to: the patent application, a certified search, notes of distinguishing language, notes of rejection, notes of additional distinguishing language, record of interview, additional prior art references, and all electronic notifications associated with a patent application.
  • First Office Action- includes the meaning described in the USPTO guidelines.
  • Genetic Algorithm- includes a computer algorithm that is capable of modifying and improving itself over time.
  • Infringement- includes that a product or technical white paper practices the invention protected by the claims of an issued patent.
  • Interview- includes an electronically recorded conversation between an end user and a patent examiner.
  • Invention Class- includes the meaning described in the USPTO guidelines.
  • Invention Subclass- includes the meaning described in the USPTO guidelines.
  • Invention Claims- includes the meaning described in the USPTO guidelines.
  • Inventor Name- includes the meaning described in the USPTO guidelines.
  • Inventor City- includes the meaning described in the USPTO guidelines.
  • Inventor Country- includes the meaning described in the USPTO guidelines.
  • Issued Patent- includes the meaning described in the USPTO guidelines.
  • Literature Prior Art- includes prior art for a patent application other than patents.
  • Missing Parts- includes the meaning described in the USPTO guidelines.
  • Non-Obviousness Score- includes a score given to a patent application by a central system that relates the obviousness of the invention disclosed by the patent application to prior art cited by the central system.
  • Notes- includes any language added to a prior art record by an end user.
  • Novel— includes the meaning described in the USPTO guidelines.
  • Novelty Score- includes a score given to a patent application by a central system that related the novelty of the invention disclosed in the patent application to prior art cited by the central system.
  • Office Action includes the meaning described in the USPTO guidelines.
  • Online Chat Room- includes any electronic correspondence medium that allows for a real time, electronic conversation between a patent examiner and an end user.
  • Patent Application- includes any document created to describe and invention by an end user.
  • Patent Application Data- includes data contained in a patent application.
  • Patent Application Date- includes the time stamped date that a patent application was entered into a central system.
  • Patent Examiner- includes a person responsible for reviewing the patent application and deciding if the patent can be issued.
  • Patent examination queue- includes the queue of patent applications that are assigned to a patent examiner that require office actions or reexaminations.
  • Patent invalidator- includes an end user who is attempting to invalidate an issued patent.
  • Patent License- includes a legal right to use an invention disclosed in an issued patent.
  • Patent Licensee- includes an end user who is licensing an issued patent.
  • Patent Office- includes the United State Patent and Trademark Office and any other Intellectual Property authority, virtual or real in this or any other world.
  • Patent Prior Art- includes prior art that is filed and issued patents.
  • Patent Value score- includes a score assigned by an artificial intelligence system that demonstrates the strength of the claims of an issued patent in light of prior art.
  • PCT Information - includes the meaning described in the USPTO guidelines.
  • Potential Licensee- includes an end user who may want to license an issued patent.
  • Prior Art- includes any document with a time stamp prior to the time stamp of a patent application.
  • Prior Art Data- includes data that is prior art.
  • Priority Date includes the meaning described in the USPTO guidelines.
  • Product- includes a created thing that can be protected by or that can infringe the claims of an issued patent.
  • Reexamination- includes a second examination of a patent after it has been issued.
  • Score- includes a score assigned by an end user or by a central system to a particular piece of prior art as it relates to a particular patent application.
  • Research Report- includes a report assemble by a researcher or a central system that contains prior art related to a patent application.
  • Researcher- includes a person who manually researches prior art databases to find prior art related to a patent application.
  • Score- includes a numerical value assigned to something as it relates to something else.
  • Second Office Action includes the meaning described in the USPTO guidelines.
  • Second examination- includes reexamination.
  • Status Change- includes a change in status of a patent application as it moves through the patent process. Changes in status can include but are not limited submitting the application for examination, receiving a certified search for the application, placing the patent application in an examiner queue, receiving an office action for the patent application, receiving a notice of allowance for the patent application, receiving a notice of missing parts for the patent application; receiving a patent number for the patent application, and receiving an indication of interest from a potential licensee for the patent application.
  • Submitted Patent Application- includes a patent application that an end user submits to the central system for examination.
  • Patent Application- includes an application that comes after a patent application.
  • Technical white paper- includes a text description of a product that describes the parts of the product and how they work together.
  • Time Stamp- includes an unalterable recording of the time a document was created by, entered into, or received by a system.
  • Web-Based Application- includes an application that is accessible on the
  • the application will be stored on a central server and accessed via other computers.
  • Web-Based Form- includes an electronic form used to enter information by and end user into a web-based application.
  • Unpublished Prior Art- includes prior art that is not available to the general public, but that can be viewed by employees of the central system.
  • Usefulness Score- includes a score given to a patent application based on its usefulness as defined by the USPTO guidelines.
  • Automating the process in whole or in part may streamline the application process, save examiners' time and increase productivity by allowing examiners to focus on higher value added activities such as examination or training rather than administrative tasks. Furthermore, spending large amounts of time on administrative duties such as assigning applications can erode skills, reduce efficiency and impair employee mentoring and development. Automating will increase the time available for other tasks, helping to address some of the issues such as a backlog of applications or delays in examination that are currently plaguing patent offices.
  • a database may be created of all of the examiners and their histories. Such information may be used to create a profile of a patent examiner. This profile may be used to determine the examiner(s) with the most relevant experience in regards to each application received.
  • Profiles may include information regarding previous applications that the examiner has examined, the patent applications in the examiner's queue for examination, the examiner's efficiency rating, the prior art cited in the previous and/or waiting applications, the examiner's education, the examiner's particular area of expertise, the length of time it takes the examiner to examine an application, the examiner's grade or level, the examiner's current workload, the examiner's seniority, the examiner's previous experience, the examiner's training, the number of reissues in previously filed applications, the number of appeals filed, the results of appealed applications, or any combination thereof.
  • the elements of a profile may be assigned a number and a total score for an examiner may be generated.
  • the elements may be weighted.
  • the weighting of the elements may change depending on the use of the score. For example, the weighting may change depending on the information in the application. Some areas of technology may require more outside knowledge than others. In those instances, the examiner's previous education may carry more weight than other elements of a profile. In technology areas that require less specific knowledge, other elements of the profile may carry more weight.
  • the score generated may be a relevance score relating to the examiner's area of expertise in relation to a particular application.
  • the patent examiners with the highest relevance scores are then reviewed for workload.
  • workload is evaluated prior to determining relevance of experience. For example, examiners may not be eligible to receive an application for examination if the score they receive for their current workload is too high.
  • Workload may be evaluated based on the number of applications the examiner is currently reviewing, the average length of time the examiner takes to process an application, the expected length of time to process a new application, or any combination thereof.
  • determinations may be made by the examiner, his peers or the public. In other embodiments, determinations may be made using artificial intelligence and genetic algorithms.
  • scores from different sources may be aggregated. Such an aggregation may or may not be weighted.
  • the workload scores of examiners should be effectively equal.
  • applications that are waiting to be examined may be reassigned.
  • continued inequities in workloads may influence hiring decisions. For example, a supervisor may be notified if there is a continuing increase in applications in a particular area. Such notification may trigger a hiring listing or further investigation into the trend.
  • the examiner with the most closely related relevance score and the workload score indicating the most availability may then be assigned the application.
  • the comparison of the relevance score and workload score may be weighted. In other embodiments, for example in particularly specialized fields, the workload score may be disregarded.
  • the system may be designed to receive feedback.
  • Such feedback may be used to increase the accuracy of the assignment and the weighting of the scoring.
  • the assigned examiner may submit their time estimate for reviewing the application. This time estimate may be shorter or longer than that calculated by the system.
  • the examiner could determine that he or she does not have the necessary expertise in the field of the application and may request reassignment of the application.
  • Such feedback could be incorporated into the algorithm to add to the efficiency of the system. Feedback may be used to continuously update the system, update it periodically, or may be used as part of a multivariate or regression analysis to alter the way information is processed.
  • patent applications and/or office actions may be reviewed by a peer or other third party.
  • a patent attorney that is unaffiliated with a particular case could review an examiner's work and provide feedback in the form of a numeric score and/or comments.
  • Applications could be assigned to patent attorneys who volunteer for such service, or all patent attorneys may be required to review a set number of applications in a specific time period. In some embodiments, the patent attorneys who provide such services may be compensated.
  • Such compensation may be payment of a fee, reduction of patent office fees for the applications that patent attorney files, acceleration of examination for that patent attorney's applications, or any combination thereof.
  • an issued patent may be submitted for review by a potential licensee or patent invalidator. Such a request may provide assurance for the licensee as to the validity and/or strength of a particular patent.
  • Fig. 1 provides an exemplary system 100 that may be used to provide the embodiment described above.
  • system 100 may include examiner server 102,
  • Application server 104 and Patent attorney server 106 are provided.
  • Examiner server 102 may include programs such as patent examiner profile generation programs 110, and various associated databases such as patent examiner database 112, and patent examiner queue 114.
  • Application server 104 may include programs such as patent application profile generation program 120 and patent application assignment program 122 as well as databases such as patent application database 124.
  • Patent attorney server 106 may include programs such as patent attorney profile generation program 130, patent application assignment program 132 and payment program 134 as well as patent attorney database 136.
  • Applications for examination may be submitted by any means possible.
  • applications may be submitted electronically.
  • applications may be submitted on paper.
  • applications may be submitted by facsimile. All applications may be assigned using the system described above, or such a system may be used for particular classes of applications.
  • patent application database 124 Information regarding applications and/or the application themselves may be stored, for example, in patent application database 124.
  • a database may include information such as application ID, application data, certified search ID, distinguishing language data, application class, application subclass, end user ID, file date, application score, application length, and application claims.
  • a profile of the application may be generated, for example using patent application profile generation program 120.
  • a profile score for a patent application may be calculated, for example, using some or all of the following steps:
  • Patent examiner database 112 may include information such as, but not limited to, patent examiner history which may include information such as, examiner ID, examiner profile, examiner work load, previous examinations, examiner education, examiner experience, examiner training and examiner score.
  • a profile for an examiner may be calculated, for example, using patent examiner profile generation program 110.
  • Patent examiner profile generation program 110 may be configured, for example, to use some or all of the following steps:
  • the current workload of an examiner may be taken into consideration.
  • Such information may be stored, for example in patent examiner queue database 114.
  • Patent examiner queue database 114 may include information such as examiner ID, application ID 1-N, target completion date 1-N, priority fee 1-N, queue score.
  • the current workload of an examiner may be taken into consideration using, for example, some or all of the following steps:
  • workload may be taken into consideration prior to the selection of examiners with the closes relevance scores. For example, using some or all of the following steps:
  • an application may be assigned to an examiner using some or all of the steps in Fig. 2 wherein when an application is received its class is determined. Once the class is determined, the profiles of examiners in that field are accessed and the relevance scores of those examiners are retrieved. The examiners with the most relevant experience are determined and their queue scores are retrieved. If the examiners have comparable workloads, the queue scores are ignored. If the examiners have differing queue scores, the application is assigned to the examiner with the lowest queue score and the most relevant experience unless there is a significant difference in the relevance scores in which case the queue scores may be disregarded. [00136] In some embodiments, examination of an application may benefit from collaboration.
  • Such a collaborative system may add to the strength of issued patents by providing additional insight and critique.
  • Examined applications may be reviewed by a peer or a third party at any point during the examination process.
  • an application may be reviewed, initial comments made and the application reassigned to a second examiner for additional input.
  • an application may be reviewed just prior to issuance of a notice of allowance.
  • issued patents may be reviewed and subject to recall during a specific time period, for example during the first six months or the first five years after issuance.
  • Patent attorney database 136 may include information such as, but not limited to, patent attorney ID, patent attorney profile, applications profiled, experience, education, years in practice, patent attorney score, previous applications reviewed, timeliness of review, conflicts, current clients, firm affiliation, or any additional information considered relevant to assigning an application to a particular patent attorney.
  • a profile for a patent attorney may be calculated, for example, using patent attorney profile generation program 130.
  • Patent attorney profile generation program 130 may be configured, for example, to use some or all of the following steps:
  • patent attorney profile score Once a patent attorney profile score is generated, it may be compared to the score of a particular application. Patent attorneys with the most relevant score may then be assigned an application for review using, for example, patent application assignment program 132.
  • patent attorneys may receive remuneration for applications they review. Remuneration may include payment of a fee, reduction of patent office fees, acceleration of examination of pending applications, or any combination thereof.
  • review of a certain number of applications in a specific time period may be mandatory.
  • review may be voluntary.
  • Information regarding the payments received or the type or amount of payment may be calculated, for example, using payment program 134.
  • Protection of intellectual property is becoming increasingly important in virtual worlds as well as in the real world. Massive multi player online games (MMOGs) or massive multi-player role-playing games (MMORPGs) are computer game which are capable of supporting hundreds, thousands, or millions of players simultaneously.
  • MMOGs massive multi player online games
  • MMORPGs massive multi-player role-playing games
  • this type of game is played in a giant persistent world where the game continues playing regardless of whether or not real players are logged in.
  • Players commonly access these games through a network such as the Internet, and may or may not be required to purchase additional software or hardware in order to play the game.
  • networks allow for people all over the world to participate and interact with each other in a virtual environment.
  • Fig. 2 provides an exemplary system 200 that may be used to register virtual ideas, concepts and designs as described above.
  • system 200 may include a patent office server 202, and a game environment server 204.
  • Patent Office Server 202 may include patent examination and registration program 210, and patent examiner profile generation program 212.
  • Patent Office Server 202 may further include a plurality of databases such as registered patent database 224, a patent examiner queue database 214, and examiner database 226.
  • Game environment server 204 may include programs such as item creation and patent registration program 216, create item from patent program 218, patent application profile generation program 220 and patent application assignment program 240 as well as various databases such as player database 228, player character database 230, available skills database 232, available NPC database 234, available natural resources database 236, and patent application database 238.
  • Patents may be used as blueprints for the design and building of any object to be used in a virtual environment.
  • the types of patents that may be registered and the type of virtual objects that may be built may depend in part on the virtual environment in which the character resides.
  • Each design for a virtual object may generate one or more patents.
  • Patents may contain all or some of the design elements of a concept or may contain a general outline of the object sought to be replicated.
  • patents may be based on a combination of digital images, information from the design database, other blueprints, and/or computer readable code.
  • patent application database 2308 may include information such as creator, game environments in which it may be used, ID, assignee, class, status, content, registration date, expiration date, number of times used, allowable quantity, skills needed, import and export restrictions, and materials needed.
  • registered patent database 224 may include, for example, creator, licensing structure, royalty payments, valuation, game environments in which it may be used, game environments in which it has been used, ID, assignee, class, status, content, registration date, expiration date, number of times used, allowable quantity, skills needed, import and export restrictions, and materials needed
  • the registration of a patent application may require examination of the patent application in order to determine that it does not infringe anyone else's patent, and/or to verify that it does not infringe any virtual or real world patents, registrations, copyrights or trademarks. Such an examination may occur by any means applicable, for example through a governing entity or through a patent office.
  • a patent may be analyzed using various rules based expert systems or genetic algorithms to determine the degree of difference between one design and another. If the degree of difference is not of an adequate percentage, the patent application can be rejected by the patent office system of the game server. Such an analysis may take place, for example, using patent examination and registration program 210.
  • system 200 may be configured to determine if an application can be registered by performing steps such as:
  • examination is performed by an examiner.
  • examiners are hired and governed by laws and rules, such as the laws and rules of the United States of America, the USPTO, Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, European Patent Convention, European Patent Office, Japan Patent Office, World Intellectual Property Organization, African Regional Intellectual Property Organization, Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Eurasian Patent Organization, European Patent Office, German Patent Office, Indian Patent Office, IP Australia, Japan Patent Office, Organisation Africaine de Ia Propriete Intellectuelle, Irish Patent Office, State Intellectual Property Office of China, Intellectual Property Office of Taiwan, Intellectual Property Office of Singapore, Intellectual Property Office of Philippines, United Kingdom Patent Office or by laws, rules and regulations established by the game manufacturer, one or more players in the game designated for such purpose, any other body elected by the players and/or appointed by the game manufacturer, and/or any other entity that is duly authorized to a
  • the role of examiner may be performed by NPCs.
  • examiners may be other characters.
  • examiners may be players.
  • a virtual or real fee can be charged to a player character who wants to register an application.
  • Such fees may be fixed or variable or fixed and variable at different points in the game and may be determined arbitrarily, based on the resources needed to make the object in the application, the complexity of the application, the number of applications the character has previously registered, the availability of examiners, the backlog for registration and/or examination, market prices, real world examination fees, or any combination thereof.
  • examiners can be volunteers.
  • a profile of the application may be generated, for example using patent application profile generation program 220.
  • a profile score for a patent application may be calculated, for example, using some or all of the following steps:
  • Patent examiner database 226 may include information such as, a patent examiner history which may include information such as, but not limited to, examiner ID, examiner profile, examiner work load, previous examinations, examiner ID, examiner class, examiner skills, examiner qualifications, examiner subclass, examiner education, examiner experience, and examiner score.
  • a profile for an examiner may be calculated, for example, using patent examiner profile generation program 212.
  • Patent examiner profile generation program 212 may be configured, for example, to generate a profile using some or all of the following steps:
  • the scores of a patent application and the examiner may be compared to locate the examiner with the most relevant experience.
  • An application may be assigned to an examiner, for example, using some or all of the following steps:
  • the current workload of an examiner may be taken into consideration.
  • Such information may be stored, for example in patent examiner queue database 214.
  • Patent examiner queue database 214 may include information such as examiner ID, application ID 1-N, target completion date 1-N, priority fee 1-N, queue score.
  • the current workload of an examiner may be taken into consideration using some or all of the following steps:
  • a patent application may be assigned to an examiner using a combination of the relevance score and the queue score, or just the relevance score or just the queue score. In some embodiments, applications may be reassigned if an examiner's queue score gets too high. Assignment of an application to a particular examiner may take place using, fur example, patent application assignment program
  • an application may be examined.
  • examination may take place using a combination of examiners and algorithms.
  • the server may select the most closely related patents and present them to an examiner for the final determination regarding registerability.
  • Such a method may use some or all of the following steps:
  • examination may occur using a method such as that outlined in Fig. 4 where an initial screening is made comparing an application to registered patents. If the threshold of similarity is not exceeded, the application is registered. If the threshold is exceeded, an examiner is selected to review the application and the application to be registered and the similar patents(s) are given to an examiner to the selected examiner. If the examiner disagrees with the assessment, the examiner may register the application. If the examiner agrees with the assessment that the application and patents are too closely related, a rejection may be sent to the creator or other character seeking to register the application. The creator or other character seeking to register the application may then present arguments regarding the differences between the application and patents. If the examiner is convinced, the application may be registered. If the examiner is not convinced, registration may be denied. [00161] Patents may be used to create virtual objects in the virtual environment.
  • only registered patents may be used. In other embodiments, there may be ways around the registration requirement.
  • only the creator of the patent or characters designated by the creator of the patent may request objects be made using the patent.
  • the requesting character's assets may be inventoried to determine if they possess the necessary materials and skills to make the requested virtual object.
  • players and/or characters may need to have particular types of accounts in order to assemble objects from patents. Information regarding the character and the player controlling the character may be stored, for example in player database 228 and player character database 230, respectively.
  • Player database 228 may include information such as, but not limited to, player ID, the character(s) controlled by the player, blueprints imported, design concepts, objects created, billing information, account information and personal information.
  • Player character database 230 may include information such as, but not limited to, character ID, player ID, assets, skills, obligations, objects created, objects requested, raw materials, natural resources, attributes, rates for use of skills, patents invented, patents owned, and game environment access.
  • virtual objects may only be constructed with natural resources and raw materials that are found in that game environment.
  • additional natural resources and raw materials may be brought in from other game environments.
  • Information regarding natural resources and raw materials may be stored, for example in available natural resources database 236.
  • Available natural resources database 236 may include information such as, but not limited to, resource ID, resource descriptor, last market value, maximum allowed, issued to date, remaining to be issued, permit price, available date range, renewability, and resource attributes 1-n.
  • Characters may also be inventoried to determine if they have the necessary skills to construct a virtual object. If they do not have the necessary skills, the requesting character may request the game server, an NPC or another character assemble the object.
  • Information regarding the skills and NPCs available in a particular environment may be stored for example, in skill database 232 and NPC database 234 respectively.
  • Skill database 232 which may contain information such as the skill ID, type, conditions for use, available era(s), characters with skills, NPCs with skills, skill levels, and use of skills.
  • NPC database 234 may include information such as NPC ID, type, location, conditions for use, license or permit fee, available eras, costs for use, and skills.
  • the particular characters or NPCs with the necessary skills may not exist in that game environment.
  • an object may need to be assembled. Assembly may take place using any means applicable, for example item creation and patent registration program 216.
  • a character may only be able to request the formation of virtual objects that they have the ability to assemble.
  • a player character may only be able to request the formation of virtual objects that they can use.
  • a player character may request the formation of any virtual object.
  • Virtual objects may be created by any means applicable. For example, in one embodiment, virtual objects may be created using create item from patent program 218.
  • a patent application is received by a patent office or other examining entity, it is assigned to a technology center, art group, or other subsection of the receiving office which specializes on the particular field of the invention.
  • the application is then more specifically classified and assigned to an Examiner by a senior examiner or other reviewing entity.
  • the Examiner plans a search by identifying the field of search, selecting the tool(s) to perform the search and determining the appropriate search strategy.
  • the field of search includes local and international patents and patent applications as well as nonpatent literature.
  • a profile may be generated taking into consideration the field of invention, class, subclass, abstract, claims, inventorship, any additional relevant information or any combination thereof. Such a review may be manual or automated.
  • a review may be run using a simple table based method, quantitative and qualitative approaches to decision analysis, a rules based system, or artificial intelligence techniques, for example neural net, Bayesian algorithm, genetic algorithms, pattern recognition, expert systems, case based reasoning, fuzzy systems, hybrid intelligent systems, evolutionary computation, concept processing or any combination thereof.
  • a rules based system for example neural net, Bayesian algorithm, genetic algorithms, pattern recognition, expert systems, case based reasoning, fuzzy systems, hybrid intelligent systems, evolutionary computation, concept processing or any combination thereof.
  • the review may generate a score for the application which may be used in determining a search strategy. Scores may include factors such as the subject matter of the invention, the class, the area of technology, the newness of the technology, the art cited in the application, the art cited in any parent application, art submitted in an information disclosure statement, other applications filed by the inventor(s), publications by the inventor(s), citations in the publications of the inventor(s), art in other applications filed by the inventor(s), key words in the application, field of the application, any other relevant material, or any combination or subset thereof. [00168] The score of the application may then be compared to the scores of other applications, or to the scores of databases available for searching. In some embodiments, the search strategy or file wrappers for similar applications or applications in the same art may be reviewed to determine appropriate databases or search strategies.
  • a search strategy may be run in any of a number of databases including databases containing patent documents, foreign patent documents and non-patent literature.
  • Profiles of databases may be determined based on any of a number of criteria such as the field of a particular database, the appropriateness of particular databases, the contents of particular databases, the accuracy of particular databases, how current particular databases are, the number of times other examiners have used particular databases, the breadth of a particular database, the focus of a particular database, the ease of use of a particular database or any combination thereof.
  • Databases may be selected manually or using automated means.
  • numeric scores for databases may be calculated using simple table based methods, quantitative and qualitative approaches to decision analysis, a rules based system, or artificial intelligence techniques, for example neural net, Bayesian algorithm, genetic algorithms, pattern recognition, expert systems, case based reasoning, fuzzy systems, hybrid intelligent systems, evolutionary computation, concept processing or any combination thereof.
  • scores may be relevance scores, or scores for other purposes.
  • particular databases may be more appropriate for particular fields of art. For example, in certain fields, most of the inventions may be modifications on prior patented inventions and therefore searches may be limited to patent databases. In other fields, there may be relatively few existing patents and therefore searches may be performed in databases that include non-patent literature.
  • Pubmed was developed by the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the U.S. National Institute for Health. It would therefore be an appropriate database to search regarding technology in medicine, nursing, dentistry, veterinary medicine, the health care system, and the preclinical sciences. Pubmed would, however, receive a low relevance score in relation to an application regarding vehicle engines. [00171] Once the database is selected, the search may be run to locate relevant prior art.
  • prior art may be scored as relevant using simple table based method, quantitative and qualitative approaches to decision analysis, a rules based system, or artificial intelligence techniques, for example neural net, Bayesian algorithm, genetic algorithms, pattern recognition, expert systems, case based reasoning, fuzzy systems, hybrid intelligent systems, evolutionary computation, concept processing or any combination thereof.
  • a rules based system for example neural net, Bayesian algorithm, genetic algorithms, pattern recognition, expert systems, case based reasoning, fuzzy systems, hybrid intelligent systems, evolutionary computation, concept processing or any combination thereof.
  • Such methods may evaluate multiple criteria including common words and phrases in the patent application and the prior art; the class and sub class of the patent application and the prior art; the amount of time the prior art was considered by the end user or patent examiner on the same or similar patent applications; the notes an end user or patent examiner has attached to the prior art; the number of times the prior art has been cited by other publications in the field; the office actions performed by the system or patent examiners utilizing the same prior art on similar patent applications; the patent application data of the patent application and the data of the prior art; the number of examiners and/or end users who have reviewed or cited the prior art for similar patent applications in the past; the seniority, grade, or ranking of patent examiners who have cited the prior art in similar patent applications; the number of times the prior art data is cited in similar patent applications; the number of times the prior art data is accessed by end users and patent examiners to conduct searches on similar patent applications, or any combination thereof.
  • the search may be run by the submitter or an external service prior to submission of the application to the patent office. In other embodiments, the search may be run prior to assigning the application to an examiner.
  • the elements of any particular score may be weighted. In further embodiments, the weighting of the elements may change depending on the use of the score. For example, the weighting may change depending on the information in the application. With relatively new references, the number of examiners and/or end users who have reviewed or cited the prior art may be discarded as irrelevant, or weighted more heavily if a high number of examiners and/or end users have accessed a new reference. In some embodiments, the score of the prior art may be used to determine its relevance.
  • the results may be compiled in a certified prior art search with a ranked listing of the most relevant prior art.
  • Such prior art searches may be supplemented by manual searches performed by an examiner.
  • a manual search may be performed initially and then supplemented by an automated search.
  • prior art searches are performed when an application is received by the patent office. In other embodiments, prior art searches may be performed prior to submission of the application to the patent office. In some embodiments the submitter of the application may be required to provide comments to distinguish the invention over the prior art located whether the prior art is identified before or after submission of the application. In further embodiments, a search is run periodically during the pendency of the application to ensure that all potential references have been found, to ensure that no new art has been entered into the system, and to take into consideration any additional comments or references that have been submitted in reference to the application.
  • the end user can be notified automatically or at the discretion of the examiner.
  • the end user may be given the opportunity to distinguish the new prior art over the invention prior to receiving a formal rejection.
  • such commentary may only be provided if an examiner has not yet issued any formal action on the application. Such commentary may be used to refine prior art searches and/or may alter the relevancy scores of the prior art that has already been identified.
  • manual searches may be conducted that supplement or add to the search performed by the automated system.
  • References identified in a manual search that have not been identified in an automated search may be added to the automated search providing feedback and a means for refining the algorithms used to perform automated searches.
  • Artificial intelligence systems or neural nets can acquire the necessary tools to perform prior art searches by any means applicable.
  • refinement is acquired by reviewing the search strategies of previously filed applications.
  • File wrappers of previous patent applications including prior search strategies can be examined to develop rules for conducting searches on subsequently submitted applications.
  • techniques such as crossover and mutation may be used to create a self-improving search tool.
  • pending applications may be published.
  • pending applications may be unpublished. Either or both published and unpublished applications may be used as references against a pending application.
  • the end user may be informed that such an application exists.
  • the end user must rely on the patent examiner to examine the unpublished prior art and notify him if it is an issue for the pending application.
  • the end user can request that the unpublished application be published.
  • the end user may request a second examiner compare the unpublished prior art and the currently pending application.
  • unpublished references if unpublished references are used, they could be automatically reviewed by two or more examiners prior to citation in a rejection.
  • the application and the unpublished reference may be randomly assigned to another examiner in the same art unit.
  • Review by additional examiners may or may not be anonymous.
  • the initial or subsequent examiner may know the identity of the other examiner(s).
  • the review may be blind. In the event that the review is blind, the examiners may still be able to discuss the application and the unpublished prior art through blind drops, anonymous email, anonymous instant messaging or any other means of communication which would conceal their identities.
  • comments may be submitted by examiners, end users submitting the references with an application, or third parties. Comments may concern the relation of the references to a particular application, summaries of the references, general observations of the references, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments such comments may be public. In other embodiments, comments may be available to other examiners. In further embodiments, comments may be accessed by the system in determining the relevance of a reference as prior art against a pending application. [00180] In some embodiments, comments may be reviewed by other inventors, researchers, patent attorneys, the general public, and/or examiners who may challenge the application or comments by submitting their own comments.
  • comments and the weight they receive from the system may depend on the submitter. For instance, comments from submitters who have established a track record of insightful submissions may be given more weight than comments from first time submitters. In other embodiments, comments from established practitioners, judges, professors, retired examiners, experts in a particular field, etc. may be given more weight than comments from the general public.
  • the credentials of a particular commentator could be submitted with the comments and verified by the system or obtained independently, for example through a review of databases or other electronic information. In another embodiment, examiners could evaluate the usefulness of any particular comment and such feedback could increase or decrease the weight of the comment from any particular commentator. Feedback may be used to continuously update the system, update it periodically, or may be used as part of a multivariate or regression analysis to alter the way information is processed.
  • applications may be submitted to the inventors or authors of relevant prior art for review.
  • the comments provided by other inventors or researchers in the field could be used to distinguish the prior art or as the basis for a rejection in a subsequent action issued by the patent office.
  • any comments submitted regardless of the source could be weighted.
  • Weighting may depend on the number of applications the inventor has filed, the number of articles authored, the journals in which such articles were published, the value of previously submitted comments, the institution with which the inventor or author is associated, the number of applications the examiner has examined, the seniority of the examiner, the number of cases a judge has tried, the education of the examiner, the education of the inventor, the education of the author, any other variable which may effect the quality of the comments by the inventor, or any combination thereof.
  • Fig. 5 provides an exemplary system 300 that may be used to provide the embodiment described above.
  • system 300 may include Examiner server 302, Application server 304 and Search server 306.
  • Examiner server 302 may include a review program 314, and a patent examiner profile generator 316. Examiner server 302 may additional included databases such as examiner database 312.
  • Application server 304 may include programs such as patent application profile generator 324 and databases such as application database 320 and end user database 322.
  • Search server 306 may include information such as certified search program 330, as well as various databases such as certified search database 332 and prior art database 334.
  • Applications for examination, whether initial examination or subsequent review, may be submitted by any means possible.
  • applications may be submitted electronically.
  • applications may be submitted on paper.
  • applications may be submitted by facsimile.
  • Information regarding the application received may be stored, for example, in application database 320.
  • Application database 320 may include information such as application ID, application data, certified search ID, distinguishing language data, application class, application subclass, end user ID, file date, application score, application length, and application claims.
  • Such information may be used to compile a profile for the application and a score using, for example, patent application profile generator program 324.
  • a profile score for a patent application may be calculated, for example, using some or all of the following steps:
  • the score for the patent application may be used in selecting the most appropriate database for selecting the most appropriate databases in which to run a search for prior art as well as in making determinations as to the relevance of prior art. Such searches may be performed before or after an application is formally submitted and or assigned to an Examiner.
  • the search system for identifying prior art may use simple table based method, quantitative and qualitative approaches to decision analysis, a rules based system, or artificial intelligence techniques, for example neural net, Bayesian algorithm, genetic algorithms, pattern recognition, expert systems, case based reasoning, fuzzy systems, hybrid intelligent systems, evolutionary computation, concept processing or any combination thereof.
  • Prior art searches may be run in any database available.
  • searches may be run in a database such as prior art database 334.
  • Prior art database 334 may include information such as prior art ID, prior art type, prior art date, prior art contents, prior art notes, note taker ID, and prior art note dates.
  • the certified search program 330 may be programmed to perform searches using file wrapper data from previously examined applications. Such information may be transmitted using some or all of the following steps:
  • the results of a prior art search may be improved by inputting the results of a manual search into the program such as certified search program 330. Such improvements may be made using some or all of the following steps:
  • Searches may be run before or after an application is assigned.
  • search as conducted using a program such as certified search program 330.
  • Such searches may be conducted using some or all of the following steps:
  • the results of a search may be stored by any means possible.
  • such information may be stored in certified search database 332.
  • Such a database may include information such as search ID, researcher ID and a list of the prior art references found.
  • a search and first office action may be issued prior to the application being assigned to an Examiner.
  • an automated system could process the application, input the relevant information and output a set of relevant prior art documents.
  • the end user may be required to respond or distinguish the application from the prior art identified by the system prior to further processing of the application or review by an examiner though there may also be a means for appeal.
  • lesser fees may be applied for the initial search. End users may determine not to pursue the application further based on the results of the initial, automated search.
  • additional fees may be charged to have the application reviewed by a human examiner.
  • the results of the search may be given along with the application to the appropriate Examiner.
  • Examiners may be assigned by any means applicable.
  • profiles of examiners are created and the relevancy of their experience is matched to appropriate applications.
  • Information on particular examiners may be stored, for example in patent examiner database 312.
  • Such a database may include information such as examiner ID, examiner profile, examiner work load, previous examinations, examiner education, examiner experience, examiner training and examiner score, or any combination thereof.
  • Patent examiner profile generation program 316 may be configured, for example, to use some or all of the following steps:
  • the score for an examiner may be compared to the score for an application to determine the most appropriate examiner for a particular application.
  • the results of the search and or any comments by an examiner are sent to the end user.
  • Information regarding the end user may be stored, for example, in the end user database such as end user database 322.
  • Such a database may include information such as end user ID, end user profile, end user billing information, end user correspondence and end user score.
  • An end user may respond to the prior art produced by the search as well as any comments by the Examiner.
  • a subsequent search may be run to ensure that all relevant prior art has been found. Particularly in areas of high technology, there may be a lag in the publication of literature and its entry into a database.
  • a refreshing of the search results may be run using, for example, some or all of the following steps:
  • the first office action may be supplemented or reissued.
  • Such an issuance may be automated or performed by an Examiner using some or all of the following steps:
  • the prior art located may be unpublished.
  • the end user may request that the prior art be published in order to be used by the Examiner, and/or a second review of the application and the prior art by an additional examiner may be requested or automatically initiated.
  • additional examination could be initiated using review program 314.
  • Review program 314 may use some or all of the following steps:
  • an additional review of unpublished materials cited against an application must be requested by the end user.
  • a request must be submitted by the end user.
  • such a request may trigger some or all of the following steps:
  • Subsequent office actions may follow similar patterns with additional searches or comments from the examiner.
  • Such commentary may be supplied by the end user, examiners or third parties.
  • applications may be published for comment prior to issuance.
  • examiners who use particular references in rejecting an application may append commentary to the reference such as a summary, the particular relevance of the prior art, or any additional information that may be useful in other searches, or as part of the record of the application being examined.
  • Commentary may also be provided by third parties. Third parties may additionally submit prior art for consideration after reviewing application along with comments regarding its similarity to the prior art. This may be particularly useful in areas of rapidly evolving technology where it may be difficult for an examiner to remain appraised of all of the changes in the art.
  • Comments may be ranked or weighted depending on the commentator. Such a weighting may depend on the standing of the commentator and/or the usefulness or frequency of previous comments submitted by that commentator. Commentary may be published or unpublished by the central system and may or may not be accessible to the general public.
  • Fig. 6 provides an exemplary system 400 that may be used to provide the embodiment described above.
  • system 400 may include Examiner server 402,
  • Application server 404 Search server 406 and Commentary server 408.
  • Examiner server 402 may include a patent examiner profile generator
  • Examiner server 402 may additionally include one or more databases such as
  • Application server 404 may include programs such as application profile generator 424 and databases such as application database 420 and end user database
  • Search server 406 may include information such as certified search program 430, as well as myriad databases such as certified search database 432 and prior art database 434.
  • Commentary server 408 may include programs such as commentary ranking 444 and commentator ranking 446 as well as databases such as commentary database 440 and commentator database 442.
  • Applications for examination, whether initial examination or subsequent review may be submitted by any means possible.
  • applications may be submitted electronically.
  • applications may be submitted on paper.
  • applications may be submitted by facsimile.
  • applications may be published upon receipt.
  • applications may remain unpublished until issuance.
  • applications may be opened for commentary. Commentary may occur at any point during the application process or may be limited to particular points in the application process. For example, commentary may be submitted just prior to issuance, at the beginning of the application process, after the first office action has been issued, or at any other relevant time period.
  • commentary may be limited to the claims.
  • commentary may be limited to the body of the application.
  • commentary may be stored in commentary database 440 which may include information such as application or literature commented on, comments, commentator ID, commentator ranking, comment ranking, usefulness of comment, or any other additional information which would increase the usefulness of the comments received.
  • information regarding the application received including any commentary may be stored, for example, in application database 420.
  • Application database 420 may include information such as application ID, application data, certified search ID, distinguishing language data, application class, application subclass, end user ID, file date, application score, application length, commentary and application claims.
  • Such information may be used to compile a profile for the application and a score using, for example, patent application profile generator program 424.
  • a profile score for a patent application may be calculated, for example, using some or all of the following steps: 1. Receive patent application.
  • the application may be sent out for commentary.
  • the score of the patent application may be used in determining the most appropriate expert or experts to whom the application should be submitted for review. Such experts may volunteer, be elected or appointed to such positions. In some embodiments, such positions may be paid.
  • Commentator database 442 may include information such as commentator ID, education, experience, inventions, publications, employer, applications filed, applications reviewed, usefulness of previous comments, current research, ranking, or any combination thereof.
  • Commentators and or their comments may receive a ranking.
  • a ranking may be based on commentator education, experience, inventions, publications, employer, applications filed, applications reviewed, usefulness of previous comments, current research, number of previous comments, accuracy of previous comments, or any combination thereof.
  • Such information may be used to score the usefulness of a particular comment or comments from a particular commentator using commentary ranking program 444 and commentator ranking program 446.
  • commentators may be able to submit prior art which may be useful in determining the patentability of the invention. Such information may or may not be reviewed by an examiner for usefulness.
  • the prior art may be stored, for example in prior art database 434 and tagged to be connected with the application.
  • the end user may be required to distinguish the prior art submitted by the commentator.
  • the identified prior art may be used to refine search algorithms for prior art searches.
  • the score for the patent application may additionally be used to select the most appropriate database for selecting the most appropriate databases in which to run a search for prior art as well as in making determinations as to the relevance of prior art. Such searches may be performed before or after an application is formally submitted and or assigned to an Examiner.
  • the search system for identifying prior art may use simple table based method, quantitative and qualitative approaches to decision analysis, a rules based system, or artificial intelligence techniques, for example neural net, Bayesian algorithm, genetic algorithms, pattern recognition, expert systems, case based reasoning, fuzzy systems, hybrid intelligent systems, evolutionary computation, concept processing or any combination thereof.
  • Prior art searches may be run in any database available.
  • searches may be run in a database such as prior art database 434.
  • Prior art database 434 may include information such as prior art ID, prior art type, prior art date, prior art contents, prior art notes, note taker ID, and prior art note dates.
  • the certified search program 430 may be programmed to perform searches using file wrapper data from previously examined applications. Such information may be transmitted using some or all of the following steps:
  • the results of a prior art search may be improved by inputting the results of a manual search, commentary, or third party submissions into a program such as certified search program 430.
  • improvements may be made using some or all of the following steps:
  • Searches may be run before or after an application is assigned.
  • search as conducted using a program such as certified search program 430.
  • Such searches may be conducted using some or all of the following steps:
  • the results of a search may be stored by any means possible.
  • information may be stored in certified search database 432.
  • Such a database may include information such as search ID, researcher ID, commentator ID, examiner ID and a list of the prior art references found.
  • a search and first office action may be issued prior to the application being assigned to an Examiner.
  • an automated system could process the application, input the relevant information and output a set of relevant prior art documents.
  • the prior art documents could be supplemented by information or comments from commentators.
  • the end user may be required to respond or distinguish the application from the prior art identified by the system and respond to the commentator's comments prior to further processing of the application or review by an examiner though there may also be a means for appeal.
  • lesser fees may be applied for the initial search. End users may determine not to pursue the application further based on the results of the initial, automated search and/or based on the information received from commentators.
  • additional fees may be charged to have the application reviewed by a human examiner.
  • the results of the search may be given along with the application to the appropriate Examiner.
  • Examiners may be assigned by any means applicable.
  • profiles of examiners are created and the relevancy of their experience is matched to appropriate applications.
  • Information on particular examiners may be stored, for example in patent examiner database 412.
  • Such a database may include information such as examiner ID, examiner profile, examiner work load, previous examinations, examiner education, examiner experience, examiner training and examiner score, or any combination thereof.
  • a score for an examiner may be calculated, for example, using patent examiner profile generation program 416.
  • Patent examiner profile generation program 416 may be configured, for example, to use some or all of the following steps:
  • the score for an examiner may be compared to the score for an application to determine the most appropriate examiner for a particular application.
  • the results of the search and or any comments by an examiner or third party are sent to the end user.
  • Information regarding the end user may be stored, for example, in the end user database such as end user database 422.
  • Such a database may include information such as end user ID, end user profile, end user billing information and end user score.
  • An end user may respond to the prior art produced by the search as well as any comments by the Examiner and/or commentator.
  • a subsequent search may be run to ensure that all relevant prior art has been found. Particularly in areas of high technology, there may be a lag in the publication of literature and its entry into a database.
  • a refreshing of the search results may be run using, for example, some or all of the following steps:
  • an initial search may be run prior to publication.
  • an application may be opened for commentary.
  • Such commentary may be used to supplement the search and may include additional prior art submitted by commentators.
  • the first office action may be supplemented or reissued.
  • Such an issuance may be automated or performed by an Examiner using some or all of the following steps: 1. Receive request to review additional prior art.
  • a second Office action may be drafted by the preliminary examiner or by a subsequent examiner.
  • a second Office action may be generated using some or all of the following steps:
  • Decentralizing patent examination may decrease costs, increase competitiveness, decrease bureaucracy, and relievo the backlog of applications that is frustrating many patent systems.
  • Such a system may be used to distribute workloads more evenly, evaluate efficiency and accuracy, as well as increase the resources available for evaluating applications and issued patents,
  • Decentralizing examination would allow for increased review of applications and a fluidity in the examination process that would be adaptable to increasing and/or decreasing demands on a patent system without the problems created by having a central administration directly recruit, hire and train new examiners.
  • the biggest barrier to decentralizing the examination process is the confidentiality of patent applications. However, since most applications publish within eighteen months of filing, this is becoming less of an issue.
  • assignment to an outside examiner could be limited until after the application is published. In other embodiments, applications which will not publish may only be examined by centralized examiners. In a further embodiment, all information in an application may be confidential until the application issues. In some embodiments, in the event that an application is unpublished, all inventor or assignee data may be purged from the application before it is assigned to an outside examiner.
  • decentralized examination may take place by directly assigning applications to outside examiners on a contract basis or other flexible means.
  • outside agencies may be staffed with examiners and contracts may be created between a centralized agency and the outside agency which would be responsible for all hiring and employment related matters.
  • entities that wish to examine applications may register with a central office. Entities may submit information regarding the areas of art in which they have qualified examiners, the types of patents they are willing to examine or reexamine, rates, the number of applications they can handle or any other relevant information.
  • a database may be created of all of the examination entities and their histories. Such information may be used to create a profile of examining entities.
  • This profile may be used to determine the examining entity with the examiners with the most relevant experience, the efficiency of an examining entity, the turnover rate, the appeal rate and the workload of any particular examining entity. Histories of examining entities may include information regarding applications the examining entity has previously examined, current employees, education of current employees, area of specialization, timeliness, number of applications reviewed, results of reviews, number of applications appealed, the results of appeals, current applications being considered, efficiency ratings or any combination thereof.
  • databases may be created of all examiners and their place of employment, whether independent or through an agency.
  • Profiles of specific examiners may include previous applications that the examiner has examined, the patent applications in the examiner's queue for examination, the examiner's efficiency rating, the prior art cited in the previous and/or pending applications, the examiner's education, the examiner's particular area of expertise, the length of time it takes the examiner to examine an application, the examiner's grade or level, the examiner's seniority, the examiner's previous experience, the examiner's training, the number of reissues in previously examined applications, the number of reviews, the results of reviewed applications, the number of appeals filed, the results of appealed applications, or any combination thereof.
  • an examiner's effectiveness may be evaluated and included in a profile. Effectiveness may be determined by any combination of variables such as the speed of the examiner, the accuracy of the examination, the number of times a ruling is appealed or overturned, the number of times an application is invalidated, ranking submitted by applicants, peers, and other interested parties, or any combination thereof.
  • all examiners may be required to be certified by a centralized agency. In other embodiments, training may be undertaken by the examining entities. The levels of certification and/or the types of certification may be included in the profile of each examiner.
  • the elements of a profile may be assigned a number and a total score for an examining entity and/or examiner may be generated.
  • the elements may be weighted.
  • the weighting of the elements may change depending on the use of the score. For example, the weighting may change depending on the information in the application. Some areas of technology may require more outside knowledge than others. In those instances, the examiner's previous education may carry more weight than other elements of a profile. In technology areas that require less specific knowledge, other elements of the profile may carry more weight.
  • the score generated may be a relevance score relating to the examiner's area of expertise in relation to a particular application.
  • the submitted application is compared to the score generated by the examining entity profile and/or the patent examiner profile. Examining entities and/or examiners whose profiles are comprised of those patent applications and prior art references that are most relevant to the patent application being submitted are given the highest relevance scores.
  • the current queues of examining entities and examiners are reviewed for workload and a queue score is determined.
  • workload is evaluated prior to determining relevance of experience. For example, examiners may not be eligible to receive an application for examination if the score they receive for their current workload is too high. Workload may be evaluated and a queue score may be calculated based on the number of applications the examiner is currently reviewing, the average length of time the examiner takes to process an application, the expected length of time to process a new application, or any combination thereof.
  • determinations may be made by the examiner, his peers or the public. In other embodiments, determinations may be made using artificial intelligence and genetic algorithms.
  • scores from different sources may be aggregated. Such an aggregation may or may not be weighted.
  • the workload scores of examiners should be effectively equal. In order to address an imbalance or inequity, applications that are waiting to be examined may be reassigned to other examiners.
  • the examining entity or examiner with the most closely related relevance score(s) and the workload score indicating the most availability may then be assigned the application. In some embodiments, such a decision may be made by the central office. In other embodiments, applications may be assigned to a particular examining entity and the examining entity may control distribution to a particular examiner. In some embodiments, the comparison of the relevance score and workload score may be weighted. In other embodiments, for example in particularly specialized fields, the workload score may be disregarded.
  • the system may be designed to receive feedback.
  • Such feedback may be used to increase the accuracy of the assignment and the weighting of the scoring.
  • the assigned examiner may submit their time estimate for reviewing the application. This time estimate may be shorter or longer than that calculated by the system.
  • the examiner could determine that he or she does not have the necessary expertise in the field of the application and may request reassignment of the application.
  • An examiner or examining entity could also indicate the appropriateness of the assignment.
  • Such feedback could be incorporated into the algorithm to add to the efficiency of the system. Feedback may be used to continuously update the system, update it periodically, or may be used as part of a multivariate or regression analysis to alter the way information is processed. [00243] Once an application is assigned to an examiner or examining entity, the end user may be informed.
  • the end user may be informed as to the examining entity or examiner charged with examining the application.
  • the identity of the examining entity and/or the examiner may be anonymous.
  • the end user may additionally be informed of the number of applications ahead of their application.
  • applications can be moved ahead in the queue. Acceleration of examination may take place through the payment of additional fees, through the provision of services for the patent office, for example, through a peer review program, or some combination thereof.
  • an end user may file a series of continuation-in-part applications prior to the examination of the first application.
  • the filing of the first application may secure the application's place in an examiner's queue.
  • each subsequent related application may be stored with the first application.
  • the examiner reaches the parent application in the examination queue, the end user can be notified and may select any of the continuation-in-part applications for examination. The remaining applications may be abandoned, or placed back in the examiner's queue.
  • an end user may desire to communicate with an examiner.
  • Such communication may take place by any means possible.
  • such communication may be in person.
  • such communication may be in writing, by phone, facsimile, electronic mail, in a chat room, or in any other medium for communication.
  • the examiner may be anonymous. Anonymity may be preserved through the use of aliases, online chat rooms, anonymous e-mail encryption, or any combination thereof.
  • the request for real time communication may be submitted to a central system. An end user may supply a list of times available for the communication, or may wait to receive a list of times available from the examiner. A transcript of the interview and/or a summary of the interview may become part of the application file.
  • an examiner may issue one or more rejections of the claims in the application in view of the prior art.
  • one examiner may be responsible for the examination of the application.
  • the application may be sent to a second examiner for review or additional commentary.
  • the number of rejections that may be issued may vary depending on the application, the fees paid, the number of claims, a combination thereof, or may be constant.
  • an issued patent may be reexamined. Such a reexamination may take place at the request of the end user, a potential licensee, a patent invalidator, or other third party.
  • additional prior art may be submitted with the request for review. Such a request may provide assurance for the owner and/or licensee as to the validity and/or strength of a particular patent.
  • the review is undertaken by the initial examiner. In other embodiments, the review is undertaken by a different examiner.
  • the application may be assigned to an examiner at a different examining entity then the original examiner. In another embodiment, the application may be assigned to a different examiner at the same examining entity.
  • requests may be handled by a central patent examination office.
  • Requests for reexamination may be accompanied by a fee. Such a fee may be constant for all requestors, or may vary depending on the requestor.
  • there may be graduated fees depending on the number of times an application has been reviewed. Such fees may increase or decrease depending on the number of times an application has been reviewed.
  • an application may only be reviewed a certain number of times.
  • each licensee or other third party may request a review. [00248] In the event that the subsequent examination determines that an application is invalid, the patent application may be assigned to an additional examiner for review.
  • the additional examiner determines that the application is valid, the subsequent examiner is overruled. If the additional examiner determines that the patent is invalid then the initial examiner is overruled. In some embodiments, the subsequent and/or initial examiner may be able to defend their decision regarding patentability. In another embodiment, review of patentability may be made by the courts. In the event a patent is invalidated, such information may be entered into the central system. [00249] In the event that a patent is found to be invalid, a note may be made in the examiner's file. In some embodiments, the examiner may receive a demerit. If a certain number of invalidations occur, an examiner may be required to receive retraining.
  • an examiner may be prohibited from examining applications in a particular field. In a further embodiment, an examiner may be prohibited from examining applications. In additional embodiments, if an examining entity has a certain number of patents invalidated, they may be barred from receiving more applications.
  • a note may be made in the examiner's file.
  • Such examiners and/or the examining agency may receive merit bonuses or other recognition for their examination.
  • Such information may additionally be added to the profile of the examiner and/or examining agency.
  • patent applications and/or office actions may be reviewed by a peer or other third party. Requests for such review may be made by holders of prior art cited against an application, the applicant or end user, the system or a third party. Such requests for review may be sent to other examiners or non- examiners. For example, a patent attorney that is unaffiliated with a particular case could review an examiner's work and provide feedback in the form of a numeric score and/or comments. Applications could be assigned to patent attorneys who volunteer for such service, or all patent attorneys may be required to review a set number of applications in a specific time period. In some embodiments, the patent attorneys who provide such services may be compensated. Such compensation may be payment of a fee, reduction of patent office fees for the applications that patent attorney files, acceleration of examination for that patent attorney's applications, or any combination thereof.
  • such a request for a review may be made by the system as a means of verifying the examination process and ensuring fidelity of applications. Determinations as to which applications to submit for outside review may be based on the disparity in the relevancy scores between the examiner and the application, the examiner's efficiency rating, the complexity, length and technology of the application, the number of office actions received or continuations filed, notes attached to the application, at random, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, information received from the review may be used for training automated systems used in assigning, searching and distributing applications.
  • Fig. 7 provides an exemplary system 500 that may be used to provide the embodiment described above.
  • system 500 may include central server 502,
  • End user server 504 Application server 506, Examiner server 508, and Review server
  • Central server 502 may include programs such as patent application assignment and reassignment 512, interview program 514, certified search program 518 and various databases such as examination agency database 516.
  • End user server 504 may include an end user database 520 and end user application database 522.
  • Application server 506 may include programs such as patent application profile generation program 530, patent application management program 534 and patent application database 532.
  • Examiner server 508 may include programs such as examiner profile generation program 540, as well as various databases such as examiner database 542, and examiner queue database 544.
  • Applications for examination, whether initial examination or subsequent review, may be submitted by any means possible.
  • applications may be submitted electronically.
  • applications may be submitted on paper.
  • applications may be submitted by facsimile.
  • Information regarding applications and/or the application themselves may be stored, for example, in patent application database 532.
  • Such a database may include information such as application ID, application data, certified search ID, distinguishing language data, application class, application subclass, end user ID, file date, application score, application length, priority, related applications, and application claims.
  • a profile of the application may be generated, for example using patent application profile generation program 530.
  • a profile score for a patent application may be calculated, for example, using some or all of the following steps:
  • the score for a patent application may then be compared to the score for an examination agency.
  • Information on an examination agency may be stored, for example in examination agency database 516.
  • Examination agency database 516 may include information such as agency ID, agency subject matter, the efficiency of an examining entity, the turnover rate, applications the examining entity has previously examined, current employees, education of current employees, area of specialization of examining entities, number of applications reviewed, results of reviews, number of applications appealed, the results of appeals, current applications being considered, efficiency ratings or any combination thereof.
  • an application may be assigned to a specific examiner in an agency by comparing the profile or relevance score of an examiner with the profile of an application.
  • Information regarding examiners may be stored, by any means applicable, for example in patent examiner database 542.
  • Patent examiner database 542 may include information such as, but not limited to, patent examiner history which may include information such as, examiner ID, examiner profile, examiner work load, previous examinations, examiner education, examiner experience, examiner training and examiner score.
  • a profile for an examiner may be calculated, for example, using patent examiner profile generation program 540.
  • Patent examiner profile generation program 540 may be configured, for example, to use some or all of the following steps:
  • the scores of a patent application and the examiner may be compared to locate the examiner with the most relevant experience.
  • An application may be assigned to an examiner by a central office or by the examining agency.
  • applications may be assigned using patent application assignment and reassignment program 512.
  • Such a program may, for example, be configured to use some or all of the following steps:
  • the location of each application and its status may be tracked using, for example, patent application management program 534.
  • the current workload of an examiner may be taken into consideration.
  • Such information may be stored, for example in patent examiner queue database 544.
  • Patent examiner queue database 544 may include information such as examiner ID, application ID 1-n, target completion date 1-n, priority fee 1-n, queue score.
  • the current workload of an examiner may be taken into consideration using, for example, some or all of the following steps:
  • workload may be taken into consideration prior to the selection of examiners with the closes relevance scores. For example, using some or all of the following steps:
  • Assignment of an application may be done by a central office or by an examining agency or entity.
  • the current workload of an examining entity may be taken into consideration by the central office prior to assigning an application or group of applications to the examining entity.
  • applications may be assigned to an examining agency using some or all of the steps in Fig. 8.
  • an application is received by a central office. Its class and subclass is determined and an application score is generated.
  • An application score may be generated manually, or using a variety of automated means including, but not limited to, simple table based method, a rules based system, or artificial intelligence techniques, for example neural net, Bayesian algorithm, genetic algorithms, pattern recognition, expert systems, case based reasoning, fuzzy systems, hybrid intelligent systems, evolutionary computation, concept processing or any combination thereof.
  • Information regarding an end user may be stored, for example in end user database 520.
  • a database may include information such as end user ID, assignee ID, end user profile, end user score and end user billing information.
  • Information regarding the applications an end user has filed may be stored, for example in end user application database 522.
  • End user application database 522 may include information such as end user ID and application ID.
  • an end user may be informed regarding the number of applications in the queue ahead of the end user's application, for example using information from examiner queue database 544.
  • the end user may be informed of the examiner and/or examining entity examining the application.
  • such information may be kept confidential.
  • interview program 514 may use some or all of the following steps to schedule the interview:
  • interview program 514 may facilitate anonymous discussions between the end user and the examiner. For example, such discussions may be facilitated using some or all of the following steps:
  • summaries of the interview may be kept with the application.
  • transcripts of the interview may be kept with the application.
  • both a summary and a transcript of the interview may be kept with the application.
  • Searches of prior art may be run before or after an application is assigned.
  • a search can be conducted using a program such as certified search program 518.
  • Such searches may be conducted using some or all of the following steps:
  • the results of searches may be stored with an application in patent application database 532.
  • results of the search and or any comments by an examiner are sent to the end user.
  • Information regarding the end user may be stored, for example, in the end user database such as end user database 522.
  • An end user may respond to the prior art produced by the search as well as any comments by the examiner. Subsequent rejections may follow similar patterns with additional searches or comments from the examiner until the application is determined to be allowable and issues.
  • a review system may be used to ensure the high quality of granted patents.
  • a review system may be used to reassure potential investors, licensees, the owner of the patent, or other third parties.
  • individuals or companies may wish to know the strength of a patent as part of the due diligence process. Such due diligence could be performed in preparation for an initial public offering, or on behalf of a licensee or acquirer of a patent portfolio.
  • Such third parties may wish to have an application reexamined by a subsequent examiner to verify the decisions made by the initial examiner.
  • Fig. 9 provides an exemplary system 600 that may be used to provide the embodiment described above.
  • system 600 may include Central server 602,
  • End user server 604 Application server 606, and Examiner server 608.
  • Central server 602 may include programs such as patent application assignment and reassignment 612, interview program 614, demerit/merit assignment program 616, patent review program 618 and various databases such as examination agency database 614.
  • End user server 604 may include an end user database 620 and end user application database 622.
  • Application server 606 may include programs such as patent application profile generation program 630, patent application management program 634 and patent application database 632.
  • Examiner server 608 may include programs such as examiner profile generation program 640, as well as various databases such as examiner database 642, and examiner queue database 644.
  • a review system may be initiated to ensure the high quality of granted patents.
  • a review system may be initiated to review applications just prior to issuance or after issuance. Such a review may be particularly useful in areas of rapidly evolving technology, providing prior art that an examiner may not have located independently. Review may also be requested by patent invalidators, potential licensees, or as part of other due diligence processes. In some embodiments, review may be requested by the owner of the patent who may have identified a new piece of prior art they wish to have considered.
  • Information regarding applications and/or the application themselves may be stored, for example, in patent application database 632.
  • a database may include information such as application ID, application data, certified search ID, distinguishing language data, application class, application subclass, end user ID, file date, application score, application length, priority, related applications, prior art, application claims, and date of issuance.
  • requests for review may be submitted by the system.
  • Such requests may be based on a combination of variables such as the difference in the relevancy score between the examiner and the application, the examiner's efficiency rating, the examiner's experience level, the complexity of the application, the newness of the technology, the length of the application, the number of amendments made to the claims, the prior art, the extent of notes by the examiner, randomly, or any combination thereof.
  • holders of a patent may identify new prior art that they wish to have considered.
  • requests may be submitted by third parties such as potential purchasers or licensees.
  • Requests for review may require the payment of additional fees. Such fees may be fixed or variable. In some embodiments, the fees may increase or decrease depending on the number of times the patent has been reviewed and/or the type of requestor. For example, requests from the end user or applicant may be more expensive then requests from a potential licensee or vice versa.
  • the request for review may be sent to the initial examiner. In other embodiments, the request for review may be sent to a subsequent examiner.
  • the request may be sent to the initial examiner.
  • the request may be sent to a subsequent examiner.
  • Decisions regarding who may examine the patent and/or application or management of the review(s) of a patent and/or application may be controlled, for example, using patent application management program 234.
  • the profile of a patent may be recalculated, for example using patent application profile generation program 630.
  • Such recalculations may take into account refinements in the profile process, permitting advancement and retraining of the methods used to create the profile including, but not limited to, automated means including, but not limited to, simple table based method, a rules based system, or artificial intelligence techniques, for example neural net, Bayesian algorithm, genetic algorithms, pattern recognition, expert systems, case based reasoning, fuzzy systems, hybrid intelligent systems, evolutionary computation, concept processing or any combination thereof.
  • a profile score for a patent may be calculated, for example, using some or all of the following steps:
  • the request for review may be sent to the same examination agency. In other embodiments, requests for review must be sent to a different examination agency. In some embodiments, there may be agencies that specialize or which only perform reviews of issued patents.
  • the score for a patent may be compared to the score for an examination agency.
  • Information on an examination agency may be stored, for example in examination agency database 614.
  • Examination agency database 614 may include information such as agency ID, agency subject matter, the efficiency of an examining entity, the turnover rate, applications the examining entity has previously examined, current employees, education of current employees, area of specialization of examining entities, number of applications appealed, the results of appeals, current applications being considered, efficiency ratings or any combination thereof.
  • a patent may be assigned to a specific examiner in an agency. For example, in one embodiment, only senior examiners may perform such a review. Information regarding examiners may be stored by any means applicable, for example in patent examiner database 642.
  • Patent examiner database 642 may include information such as, but not limited to, patent examiner score, and patent examiner history which may include information such as, examiner ID, examiner profile, examiner work load, previous examinations, examiner education, examiner experience, and examiner training.
  • a profile for an examiner may be calculated, for example, using patent examiner profile generation program 640.
  • Patent examiner profile generation program 640 may be configured, for example, to use some or all of the following steps:
  • the scores of the patent and the examiners may be compared to locate the examiner with the most relevant experience.
  • a patent may be assigned to an examiner by a central office or by the examining agency.
  • applications may be assigned using patent application assignment and reassignment program 610.
  • Such a program may, for example, be configured to use some or all of the following steps:
  • Information on the requestor may be stored, for example in end user database 620.
  • a database may include information such as end user ID, inventor ID, assignee ID, end user profile, end user score and end user billing information.
  • Information regarding the applications an end user has filed or requested to be reviewed may be stored, for example in end user application database 622.
  • End user application database 622 may include information such as end user ID and application ID.
  • an end user may be informed regarding the number of patents or applications in the queue ahead of the end user, for example using information from examiner queue database 644 which may include information such as the number of applications waiting to be examined and the average length of time for examination.
  • the end user may be informed of the examiner and/or examining entity examining the application.
  • such information may be kept confidential.
  • Review of a patent may take place using, for example patent review program 618. Such a program may use some or all of the following steps to perform a review.
  • interview program 612 may use some or all of the following steps to schedule the interview:
  • interview program 612 may facilitate anonymous discussions between the end user and the examiner. For example, such discussions may be facilitated using some or all of the following steps:
  • summaries of the interview may be kept with the application and/or patent.
  • transcripts of the interview may be kept with the application.
  • a review by an additional examiner may be initiated.
  • the additional examiner may be from the same or a different examining entity then the initial and additional examiners, and may be selected using methods similar to those described above for selecting other examiners.
  • the tiebreaker examiner must have additional training or experience.
  • the tiebreaker examiner must be a primary examiner.
  • a review by the additional examiner selected to break the tie may be preformed, for example, using patent review program 618 which may be configured to use some or all of the following steps.
  • demerits may be given to the initial examiner. If the demerits exceed a certain number, the examiner may be required to receive retraining or may be prevented from examining applications in a particular field. The awarding of demerits may be included in the examiner's history and become part of the examiner's profile. In some embodiments, demerits may be awarded using demerit/merit assignment program 616. Demerit/merit assignment program 616 may use some or all of the following steps:
  • demerits may be awarded to the subsequent examiner and a merit award may be given to the initial examiner.
  • the awarding of merit may be included in the examiner's history and become part of the examiner's profile.
  • merit may be awarded using demerit/merit assignment program 616.
  • Demerit/merit assignment program 616 may use some or all of the following steps:
  • examination of an application may benefit from peer review. Such review may be by another examiner, or by a third party. In other embodiments, it may be useful to have reviews or comments on prior art. Such comments may be submitted by examiners, end users submitting the references with an application, or third parties. Comments may concern the relation of the references to a particular application, summaries of the references, general observations of the references, or any combination thereof. In additional embodiments, reviews of applications and/or office actions may be undertaken by patent attorneys or agents.
  • Fig. 11 provides an exemplary system 700 that may be used to provide the embodiment described above.
  • system 700 may include central server
  • End user server 704 End user server 704, Application server 706, examiner server 708, and review server 710.
  • Central server 702 may include programs such as patent application assignment and reassignment 712, application review program 718, certified search program 714 and various databases such as examination agency database 716.
  • End user server 704 may include an end user database 720 and end user application database 722.
  • Application server 706 may include programs such as patent application profile generation program 730, patent application management program 734 and patent application database 732.
  • Examiner server 708 may include programs such as examiner profile generation program 740, as well as various databases such as examiner database 742, and examiner queue database 744.
  • Review server 710 may include various programs such as patent attorney profile generator program 750, payment program 754, patent application assignment program 756 and databases such as patent attorney database 752.
  • examination of an application may benefit from collaboration. Such a collaborative system may add to the strength of issued patents by providing additional insight and critique.
  • Examined applications may be reviewed by a peer or a third party at any point during the examination process.
  • an application may be reviewed, initial comments made and the application reassigned to a second examiner for additional input.
  • an application may be reviewed just prior to issuance of a notice of allowance.
  • issued patents may be reviewed and subject to recall during a specific time period, for example during the first six months or the first five years after issuance.
  • a profile score for a patent application may be calculated, for example, using some or all of the following steps:
  • Patent application data may be stored, for example, in patent application database 732.
  • a database may include information such as application ID, application data, certified search ID, distinguishing language data, application class, application subclass, end user ID, file date, application score, application length, priority, related applications, and application claims.
  • the score for a patent application may then be compared to the score for an examination agency.
  • Information on an examination agency may be stored, for example in examination agency database 716.
  • Examination agency database 716 may include information such as agency ID, agency subject matter, the efficiency of an examining entity, the turnover rate, applications the examining entity has previously examined, current employees, education of current employees, area of specialization of examining entities, number of applications appealed, the results of appeals, current applications being considered, efficiency ratings or any combination thereof.
  • an application may be assigned to a specific examiner in an agency by comparing the profile or relevance score of an examiner with the profile of an application. Information regarding examiners may be stored, by any means applicable, for example in patent examiner database 742.
  • Patent examiner database 742 may include information such as, but not limited to, examiner score and patent examiner history which may include information such as, examiner ID, examiner profile, examiner work load, previous examinations, examiner education, examiner experience, and examiner training.
  • a profile for an examiner may be calculated, for example, using patent examiner profile generation program 740.
  • the scores of a patent application and the examiner may be compared to locate the examiner with the most relevant experience.
  • An application may be assigned to an examiner by a central office or by the examining agency. In some embodiments, applications may be assigned using patent application assignment and reassignment program 712. [00315] Once an application is assigned, an end user may be notified.
  • Information regarding an end user may be stored, for example, in end user database 720.
  • a database may include information such as end user ID, assignee ID, end user profile, end user score and end user billing information.
  • Information regarding the applications an end user has filed may be stored, for example in end user application database 722.
  • End user application database 722 may include information such as end user ID and application ID.
  • an end user may be informed regarding the number of applications in the queue ahead of the end user, for example using information from examiner queue database 744 which may include information such as examiner ID, number of applications waiting to be processed and average length of time for examination.
  • the end user may be informed of the examiner and/or examining entity examining the application.
  • such information may be kept confidential.
  • Searches of prior art may be run before or after an application is assigned.
  • search as conducted using a program such as certified search program 714.
  • Such searches may be conducted using some or all of the following steps:
  • the results of searches may be stored with an application in patent application database 732.
  • the results of the search and or any comments by an examiner are sent to the end user.
  • Information regarding the end user may be stored, for example, in the end user database such as end user database 722.
  • An end user may respond to the prior art produced by the search as well as any comments by the Examiner. Subsequent rejections may follow similar patterns with additional searches or comments from the examiner until the application is determined to be allowable and issues.
  • an application or a patent may be flagged for additional review using for example application review program 718. Additional review may be performed by another examiner or an outside party such as a patent attorney. Some patent attorneys may focus their practice entirely on the review of filed applications or may do so in conjunction to their own practice.
  • Patent attorney database 752 may include information such as, but not limited to, patent attorney ID, patent attorney profile, applications profiled, experience, education, years in practice, patent attorney score, previous applications reviewed, timeliness of review, conflicts, current clients, firm affiliation, or any additional information considered relevant to assigning an application to a particular patent attorney.
  • a profile for a patent attorney may be calculated, for example, using patent attorney profile generation program 750.
  • Patent attorney profile generation program 750 may be configured, for example, to use some or all of the following steps:
  • patent attorney profile score may be compared to the score of a particular application. Patent attorneys with the most relevant score may then be assigned an application for review using, for example, patent application assignment program 756. The placement of each patent and its status may be tracked using, for example patent application management program 734.
  • the reviewer may be sent a summary of the application or patent, or the application or patent itself if it has published in order to run a conflict check. In the event that the reviewer has a conflict, they must refuse the assignment.
  • patent attorneys may receive remuneration for applications they review. Remuneration may include payment of a fee, reduction of patent office fees, acceleration of examination of pending applications, or any combination thereof.
  • review of a certain number of applications in a specific time period may be mandatory.
  • review may be voluntary.
  • Information regarding the payments received or the type or amount of payment may be calculated, for example, using payment program 754.
  • the comments from the review may be viewed by the examiner, the examiner's supervisor, a central authority, or may be made public. In some embodiments, the examiner may use the comments to provide further rejections and/or refine an office action. In other embodiments, the comments from a reviewer may call into question the validity of a patent, requiring reexamination.
  • the present disclosure provides a system for ex parte or inter partes patent invalidation.
  • prior art submissions especially when a hyperlink or other reference is submitted instead of an actual document, are retrieved by the system, either manually or automatically.
  • the source or referenced hyperlinked document including any and all relevant documents associated with such source or referenced hyperlinked document may be stored using any suitable means, including, for example, in a time and date stamped and/or encrypted file(s). This allows for the capture and future identification of the state and content of such documents at or nearly at the time of submission or at the earliest opportunity thereafter. Accordingly, in the event that the source document is deleted or modified, the saved record(s) can be accessed to determine the state of the document at the time of submission.
  • the system may either reject the assertion of the prior art and/or may warn the end user and/or request that the end user supply such missing or invalid files.
  • the system may proceed and only storing the hyperlink or other references, but may also make a recorded note of the fact that the document could not be found, validated and/or imported.
  • the patent examiner may not consider such prior art and/or may only consider it in searching for other similar art and/or may consider such submissions, for example, based upon the reputation and past performance / reliability of the end user submitting such prior art data.
  • existing or new search tools may be provided to permit end users to search for submitted notes, documents, prior art and/or comments.
  • end users may desire to use a search engine that has been modified to provide specific features relating to searching for prior art.
  • Exemplary methods for providing patent and prior art searches are disclosed in U.S. Patent Application Nos. 11/671,380, "Automated Patent Searches” filed February 5, 2007; 11/693,555 “Providing Certified Patent Searches Conducted by Third Party researchers” filed March 29, 2007; and 11/697,447 entitled “Enhanced Patent Prior Art Search Engine,” filed April 6, 2007; each of which is hereby incorporated by reference.
  • additional features and functions may be desirable.
  • the prior art documents that are submitted, and/or the fact of their submission cannot be viewed or accessed by anyone except the examiner assigned to the case and/or authorized end users.
  • the submitted prior art documents, and the fact of their submission may be made public or made available to only certain parties or individuals.
  • Who is granted access to this information may or may not depend on factors such as whether or not a particular application has published, issued, or otherwise been made public, or whether the application was submitted via an alternative or experimental system, such as a "fast track” or "expedited examination” program.
  • end users or any person or third party may submit prior art, hyperlinks to prior art, and/or commentary regarding such prior art submissions and/or notes regarding the issued or pending patent application.
  • Exemplary methods to provide attachment of notes into documents and/or associate notes with documents, or words, or other data are disclosed in US Patent Application Nos. 11/690,095 "Facilitating Certified Prior Art Note Taking and Method for Using Same," filed March 22, 2007; 11/697,480 entitled “Note Overlay System,” filed April 6, 2007; and 11/697,486 entitled “Document Examiner Comment System,” filed April 6, 2007; each of which is incorporated herein by reference.
  • a database of such submissions may be created and/or a blog may be established for such purposes.
  • a patent examiner or other designated party reviews the application for patentability and/or reviews the prior art documents and/or notes or commentary submitted by end users or any third parties. If the examiner elects to use or cite a prior art document and/or note or commentary to reject a patent application, the first end user or entity and/or others who submitted the prior art and/or notes or commentary may be paid a fee and/or such end user or entity may receive higher priority, respect, or trust when submitting subsequent prior art, notes and/or commentary. By providing a fee or other benefits to end users or entities, an environment conducive and supportive of prior art submissions is thereby established.
  • fees are paid to one or more end users and/or entities that submit prior art, opinions, notes and/or commentary. In come cases, fees are higher or different for those whose prior art, notes and/or commentary are cited, used, or are instrumental in isolation and/or in combination with other prior art, notes and/or commentary, in the examination and/or rejection, and/or invalidation of a pending or issued patent.
  • Such fees may be determined by any applicable means, including, for example, a set fee per occurrence or usage or recitation of any such prior art, note or commentary, and/or variable fees, and/or free market forces, and/or by rule, law or regulation passed or imposed by any duly authorized governing body. For example, a rule or regulation imposed by the USPTO or other governing agency, including, for example, a foreign patent agency, and/or fees may be established via a learning system designed for such purposes.
  • a genetic algorithm may be implemented that tests various fee structures for different forms, quantities and qualities of prior art, notes and/or commentary submissions, as the system tries various pricing models, the genetic algorithm may use a "fitness test" to determine if there is any relationship between such fees and the resulting quantity and/or quality of any such prior art, notes and/or commentary submissions. If such a relationship exists, a genetic algorithm could exploit this information to optimize the results and pricing models accordingly.
  • fees may be shared among two or more persons, end users, or entities, e.g., the USPTO and a web site hosting company.
  • end users that submit prior art may be scored based upon any applicable means, including, for example, on the number of times the prior art and/or notes or commentary they submit is used in a patent application examination and/or is cited and/or is principally or secondarily responsible for issued or pending claims being rejected or invalidated.
  • scores may be assigned manually by, for example, patent examiners, and/or via automated means. For example, as, or if, a patent examiner submits an opinion, and such opinion cites any such prior art, notes or commentary as supporting documentation or as a source or foundation of any such opinion, then the system could record any such citation and/or opinion and/or its source or foundation and/or supporting arguments.
  • such a system could also include information about the end user or entity or person that originally or first submitted such materials and/or other information about any one or more end users that submitted such materials.
  • Such scores could be used for a variety of beneficial purposes, including, providing any future examiner(s) with additional information about information supplied by any such end user or entity. This additional information may encourage or discourage an examiner from using the end user's or entities' submissions. For example, if a given end user has proven reliable in providing prior art, notes and/or commentary, patent examiners may be encouraged to review such reliable end user's submissions first and/or exclusively and/or ahead of other less reliable sources.
  • end user or entity may be barred from further submissions and/or such submissions may be rejected or discounted by the system and/or such poor scores or historical underperformance may be made available to future examiners so that such examiners may opt to not review such materials and/or if such a review is conducted, it may be conducted with benefit of such knowledge of such past poor performance.
  • scores and/or rankings are determined by any suitable means, including by submissions made by any authorized party, which may include any one or more of: patent examiners, patent attorneys, end users, entities, third parties, peer review committees, organizations or groups created for such purposes, etc. Scores may be recorded individually or in the aggregate, for example, there may be scores assigned by patent examiners that are kept separate from all other scores, and/or patent attorneys may also have a separate score, and/or examiner and attorney scores may be combined or averaged, while layperson scores or rankings may be held separately.
  • all, some, or groups of submitted or calculated scores are held separately, and/or in detail such that subsequent review for such scores and their accuracy can be determined. For example, if a certain end user's prior art turns out to be instrumental in overturning or rejecting a patent, the system could review the scores previously attached to such end user. If the scores accurately reflected the eventual quality or relevancy of such prior art as submitted by end users, then the person or application providing such score or rank may be determined as a more reliable source or application to provide such ranking.
  • scores are only assigned when an outcome is know, i.e., after the end user's submission has either been used or rejected for use by, for example, a patent examiner.
  • relevancy scores may be determined, in whole or in part, through the use of automated means.
  • other methods to determine relevancy between and among documents and/or websites are well known within the prior art, including, for example, the methods discussed in the book entitled "Text Databases and Document Management: Theory and Practice, by Amita Goyal Chin, which is incorporated by reference.
  • examiners can request and/or pay for submissions from prior art submitters that are based, in part, on their scores. Fees for such requests may be determined by any applicable means, including, free market forces and/or based upon, in whole or in part on the scores. In certain cases, such fees may be shared between or among two or more persons, entities and/or organizations, e.g., the USPTO and the end user that submitted prior art.
  • end users e.g., individuals that submit prior art
  • an individual that submits prior art in more than one field of use may prove more or less reliable depending upon the field of use. Therefore, a database of scores may be established and tracked in order to better understand and predict past and future prior art, notes and/or commentary usefulness and/or relevancy.
  • any one or more affected and/or interested parties may be notified of such events via any applicable means such as via e-mail or an alert.
  • a third party end user submits prior art to a published pending patent application, the inventor(s) and/or assignees and/or inventor's attorneys may be sent an alert or notice of such submission.
  • an AI system can use the prior art submitted by third party submitters to provide search tool enhancements to a search engine used by examiners and the public when examining and drafting patent applications.
  • An exemplary tool for preparing submitting documents via the Internet is disclosed for example, in U.S. Patent Application No. 11/627,263 "Automated Web- Based Application Preparation and Submission" filed January 25, 2007, which is incorporated herein by reference.
  • merchants or advertisers may desire to associate one or more advertisements to any patent application or prior art information, including, for example, links or advertisements tied to any one or more of the following, any data, words, figures, images, graphics, icons, etc.
  • Merchants or advertisers may wish to include advertising messages or other marketing content using hyperlinks or other methods. Exemplary methods for including advertising, including charging for such advertising, including the rental, license, purchase or placement of hyperlinks or other applications, modules or other information in such documents are disclosed in U.S. Patent Application Nos.
  • patent applications before displaying any prior art, patent application, advertisement and/or before presenting a list of prior art, patent applications, including words and/or documents, e.g., from a lexicon of words, and/or any other search results information or data, it may be desirable to ascertain certain additional information about such search request regarding, e.g., prior art, an end user, a patent application, advertisement and/or other request for information.
  • the system may determine that it is necessary, desirable or generally useful to present one or more survey questions to aid in determining which prior art, patent applications, words, documents, advertisements, or other information should be presented, e.g.,.
  • the system might either provide a definition of "case” to include legal cases, and/or the system may also provide an advertisement for one or more attorneys seeking clients, and/or the system may present prior art that includes the word "case” and/or has relevancy to a patent application within a given field of use, etc.
  • the system may present additional qualifying questions, i.e., additional questions to further narrow the search results and or the sort display results.
  • end users can also link articles to a patent application or prior art submission.
  • an interested third party or end user may wish to submit a magazine article to a patent examiner that is presently reviewing a patent application.
  • Such submission may be in the form of a note, which may include a hyperlink to the source materials.
  • the system could compare two or more prior art submissions and remove or delete duplicate entries, and/or reference the two and/or sort them such that they appear generally adjacent to one another.
  • prior art contributed to different sections of a patent can have different relevance weights for subsequent searches by end users and spiders or web crawlers.
  • prior art contained within the prior art and claims sections may carry a generally higher weight or ranking than prior art associated with the abstract section of the patent application.
  • the number of times a document is downloaded, cross referenced, hyperlinked, or contributed to may have an effect on its search relevance to spiders, web crawlers, end users, and/or to its ranking. For example, if within a single prior art submission, there are five hundred entries, but numerous end users repeatedly review entry numbers: 7, 212, and 327, such three entries may be move up partially to the top of the prior art submission or to the top of the submission and/or such entries may be flagged as potentially being generally more relevant than other less frequently accessed/reviewed entries. The order of such entries may be determined, in whole or in part, by the number of times accessed, the nature or qualifications or other attributes of those accessing such entries, e.g., entries accessed more frequently by a patent examiner may carry more weight than by third parties.
  • certain end users may have special privileges or restrictions regarding access to or use of the notes system and/or one or more of its features and/or benefits.
  • an Inventor/Assignee/Attorney may have a special log in that allows them to post prior art submissions, which other end users or third parties cannot.
  • the system validates that the end user has a special relationship to the prior art submission, document, action or method stop and/or is otherwise authorized to perform a given task or tasks and provides senior editing and prior art, notes and document adding or other privileges / restrictions to that end user log on.
  • Such privileges and/or restrictions include, but are not limited to, the ability to:
  • the system can permit an end user to attach prior art and/or a note to a group of documents, e.g. patent applications.
  • a group of documents e.g. patent applications.
  • an end user can select a group of patents and/or sections of that group of patents and provide prior art and/or notes for the group or sections from that group.
  • a single prior art submission and/or note or part of a note can be simultaneously associated with or otherwise linked to more than one document.
  • all or some prior art, documents, notes, hyperlinks, entries and revisions shall carry a time and date stamp.
  • a time and date stamp and/or change tracking may be encrypted to prevent unauthorized or fraudulent modifications.
  • change tracking would permit end users and/or only certain authorized end users to determine the various states of any such prior art, documents, definitions, notes, images, video, audio, documents, or text, etc., at the time of each such change, update or modification.
  • the priority of ideas e.g., within a patent application may be determined by an authorized end user, e.g., a patent examiner or a court of competent jurisdiction.
  • such change tracking may retain a copy of the data before and after any such change or update.
  • spiders or WebCrawlers or other applications that scan prior art, documents, opinions, notes or web pages, can comb through, i.e., examine, digital articles and documents and automatically create notes for a document based on how the document is discussed in other documents and/or notes.
  • end users may desire to search prior art, notes, opinions, words, documents or databases, for example, a patent database, to find relevant prior art, opinions, notes, words, documents, e.g., patents and/or prior art that may require lexicon updates and/or definitions, synonyms and/or antonyms. Exemplary methods for providing patent and prior art searches are disclosed in U.S. Patent Application Nos.
  • end users may desire to prioritize the processing of their prior art or other submissions, documents, notes, opinions, reviews, commentary or other tasks or items submitted to a queue. In such cases, methods to provide for prioritization may be desirable. Exemplary methods for priority queuing documents are disclosed for example in U.S. Patent Application Nos.
  • surveys, notes, advertisements and hyperlinks may be interchangeable terms, e.g., a survey can be a note, and a note can be a survey or a survey can include an advertisement or vice versa.
  • a visual representation of relationships and/or relevancy between two or more of: patent applications, prior art, notes, opinions, documents and/or other data may be created to aid end users in accessing, searching, reviewing or analyzing any such information, documents and/or data.
  • a prior art map may be produced showing, e.g., at the top, the name or ID of a pending patent application, then, a map to all submitted prior art, and/or other documents.
  • Such map may include relevancy information, e.g., more relevant items may be color coded, or a line connecting such more relevant items may have a thicker line or may be sorted or appear closer to the source patent application document, etc.
  • a visual map showing such representations may be made by any applicable means, including methods described herein and/or methods disclosed in US Patent Application No. 11/697,443 entitled "Self-Teaching Thesaurus,” filed April 6, 2007.
  • prior art when end users submit prior art, such prior art may undergo a review and/or approval process.
  • Such processes may be manual and/or automated.
  • prior to attaching or associating any prior art to any given patent application or other document(s) such prior art may first require a review by a patent examiner or other designated or authorized third party, and/or such prior art may be accessed, e.g., via a hyperlink, to determine if it exists and if it can be captured, encrypted, imaged and/or stored with an optional time/date stamp.
  • Such approval process may be accomplished via any applicable means, including those disclosed / described herein.
  • a video game may include a virtual patent office, wherein such patent office may review one or more patent applications, and wherein one or more end users, players, or player characters and/or other third parties, may submit one or more sources, documents, hyperlinks, etc., that may serve as prior art.
  • exemplary methods and systems for providing protection of intellectual property in a virtual environment are disclosed, for example, in U.S. Patent Application Nos.
  • virtual patent examiners (which may or may not be real world patent examiners too), may be used to provide patent opinions regarding a player's or player character's patent application for a virtual object.
  • the disclosed invention could be also be used for the creation of agreements between or among real or virtual end users, players, player characters or other third parties. In such cases, methods to ensure that agreements are enforceable and that advertising fees are collected in such virtual environments are desirable. Exemplary methods for providing such contract enforcement and collection of fees are disclosed, for example, in U.S. Patent Application Nos.
  • comments, opinions and/or notes may also be used to provide feedback regarding game play, enjoyment, features, desired features, discovered errors, and/or any other form of communication and/or ranking information.
  • comments, opinions and/or notes may also be used to provide feedback regarding game play, enjoyment, features, desired features, discovered errors, and/or any other form of communication and/or ranking information.
  • a typical data processing system generally includes one or more of a system unit housing, a video display device, memory, processors, operating systems, drivers, graphical user interfaces, and application programs, interaction devices such as a touch pad or screen, and/or control systems including feedback loops and control motors.
  • a typical data processing system may be implemented utilizing any suitable commercially available components to create the gaming environment described herein.
  • a system 800 may comprise a plurality of various hardware and/or software components such as those described below. It will be appreciated that for ease of description, the variously described hardware and software components are described and named according to various functions that it is contemplated may be performed by one or more software or hardware components within the system. However, it will be understood that the system may incorporate any number of programs configured to perform any number of functions including, but in no way limited to those described below. Furthermore, it should be understood that while, for ease of description, multiple programs and multiple databases are described, the various functions and/or databases may, in fact, be part of a single program or multiple programs running in one or more locations. [00367] Exemplary programs include:
  • AI Search Improvement Program 815 [00368] Exemplary database architecture includes:
  • Patent Application Database 821 which may be configured to collect, store, and interrelate data such as:
  • Hyperlinks e.g., document locations 1 - N
  • End User Database 822 which may be configured to collect, store, and interrelate data such as:
  • Card Holder e.g., Bank Name
  • Card Type e.g., Visa
  • Prior Art Database 823 which may be configured to collect, store, and interrelate data such as:
  • Group Database 824 which may be configured to collect, store, and interrelate data such as:
  • Hyperlink Database 843 which may be configured to collect, store, and interrelate data such as:
  • Hyperlink e.g., URL
  • Database 825 which may be configured to collect, store, and interrelate data such as:
  • Billing Database 826 which may be configured to collect, store, and interrelate data such as:
  • Examiner Database 827 which may be configured to collect, store, and interrelate data such as:
  • Qualifications Database 828 which may be configured to collect, store, and interrelate data such as:
  • Skills Database 829 which may be configured to collect, store, and interrelate data such as:
  • Billing Terms and Conditions Database 830 which may be configured to collect, store, and interrelate data such as:
  • Accounts Receivable Database 831 which may be configured to collect, store, and interrelate data such as: 1.
  • Transaction Database 832 which may be configured to collect, store, and interrelate data such as:
  • Examiner Rules Database 833 which may be configured to collect, store, and interrelate data such as:
  • Billing Rules Database 834 which may be configured to collect, store, and interrelate data such as:
  • Fees - Rules Database 835 which may be configured to collect, store, and interrelate data such as:
  • Thesaurus Notes Database 836 which may be configured to collect, store, and interrelate data such as:
  • Alert Event Rules Database 837 which may be configured to collect, store, and interrelate data such as: 1. Alert Event Rule ID
  • Search Database 838 which may be configured to collect, store, and interrelate data such as:
  • Map Database 839 which may be configured to collect, store, and interrelate data such as:
  • Type ID e.g., word or document, etc.
  • Alert Database 840 which may be configured to collect, store, and interrelate data such as:
  • Alert Contents one or more of:
  • Alert Methods Database 841 which may be configured to collect, store, and interrelate data such as:
  • Alert Recipient Database 842 which may be configured to collect, store, and interrelate data such as:
  • Alert Recipient ID e.g., end user ID
  • Receive End User Preferences / Feedback / Usage Tracking Information including: a. Filter Criteria or Rules b. Sort Criteria or Rules c. Relevancy Information d. Weighting Factors, Criteria or Rules e. Security Preferences f. Feedback / Tracking Preferences g. Notes h. Usage habits / patterns i. Display preferences [00405] Create / Maintain Prior Art (Document) Database

Abstract

La présente invention concerne de nouveaux moyens de sélection et d'affectation des demandes de brevets à examiner. L'invention décrit divers moyens automatiques et non automatiques permettant de sélectionner un examinateur qualifié sur la base de plusieurs critères dont notamment le passé de l'examinateur, sa charge de travail actuel, et le sujet de la demande. L'invention concerne également des moyens pour ajuster la charge de travail des examinateurs et garantir la qualité des demandes soumises à examen.
PCT/US2007/066698 2007-04-16 2007-04-16 Examen en propriété intellectuelle WO2008127337A1 (fr)

Priority Applications (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
PCT/US2007/066698 WO2008127337A1 (fr) 2007-04-16 2007-04-16 Examen en propriété intellectuelle

Applications Claiming Priority (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
PCT/US2007/066698 WO2008127337A1 (fr) 2007-04-16 2007-04-16 Examen en propriété intellectuelle

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO2008127337A1 true WO2008127337A1 (fr) 2008-10-23

Family

ID=39864213

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/US2007/066698 WO2008127337A1 (fr) 2007-04-16 2007-04-16 Examen en propriété intellectuelle

Country Status (1)

Country Link
WO (1) WO2008127337A1 (fr)

Cited By (4)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20090094086A1 (en) * 2007-10-03 2009-04-09 Microsoft Corporation Automatic assignment for document reviewing
CN109447475A (zh) * 2018-10-31 2019-03-08 武汉中威创治信息科技有限公司 一种科研成果管理系统
US11283727B2 (en) 2017-01-27 2022-03-22 Triangle Ip, Inc. Thin data warning and remediation system
CN114742386A (zh) * 2022-03-31 2022-07-12 烟台市勘察设计审查服务中心有限责任公司 一种智能化勘察设计图审查方法、系统、装置及存储介质

Citations (6)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20020082890A1 (en) * 2000-12-22 2002-06-27 Bracchitta John A. Intellectual property management method and apparatus
US20040073627A1 (en) * 2001-03-02 2004-04-15 Toshihiko Amano Patent or utility model information retrieval management system using the internet
US20050010467A1 (en) * 1999-05-14 2005-01-13 Dietz Janice Gold Engagement of non-employee workers
US20060095310A1 (en) * 2004-11-01 2006-05-04 Benson Jan S Categorizing work in a work system
US20070016431A1 (en) * 2005-07-15 2007-01-18 Sbc Knowledge Ventures L.P. Method and apparatus for managing intellectual property
US7191139B2 (en) * 2000-04-15 2007-03-13 Mindloft Corporation System for cataloging, inventorying, selecting, measuring, valuing and matching intellectual capital and skills with a skill requirement

Patent Citations (6)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20050010467A1 (en) * 1999-05-14 2005-01-13 Dietz Janice Gold Engagement of non-employee workers
US7191139B2 (en) * 2000-04-15 2007-03-13 Mindloft Corporation System for cataloging, inventorying, selecting, measuring, valuing and matching intellectual capital and skills with a skill requirement
US20020082890A1 (en) * 2000-12-22 2002-06-27 Bracchitta John A. Intellectual property management method and apparatus
US20040073627A1 (en) * 2001-03-02 2004-04-15 Toshihiko Amano Patent or utility model information retrieval management system using the internet
US20060095310A1 (en) * 2004-11-01 2006-05-04 Benson Jan S Categorizing work in a work system
US20070016431A1 (en) * 2005-07-15 2007-01-18 Sbc Knowledge Ventures L.P. Method and apparatus for managing intellectual property

Cited By (6)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20090094086A1 (en) * 2007-10-03 2009-04-09 Microsoft Corporation Automatic assignment for document reviewing
US11283727B2 (en) 2017-01-27 2022-03-22 Triangle Ip, Inc. Thin data warning and remediation system
US11323388B1 (en) 2017-01-27 2022-05-03 Triangle Ip, Inc. Machine learning based signal generation
US11902182B2 (en) 2017-01-27 2024-02-13 Triangle IP Thin data warning and remediation system
CN109447475A (zh) * 2018-10-31 2019-03-08 武汉中威创治信息科技有限公司 一种科研成果管理系统
CN114742386A (zh) * 2022-03-31 2022-07-12 烟台市勘察设计审查服务中心有限责任公司 一种智能化勘察设计图审查方法、系统、装置及存储介质

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
US20070219967A1 (en) Patent Invalidation
Greer Transforming central government: the next steps initiative
US20070220041A1 (en) Prior Art Notes Associated with Patent Applications
US20070219853A1 (en) Patent Examiner Selection
WO2012072651A1 (fr) Procédé et système de collaboration
WO2008130397A1 (fr) Système de commentaire basé sur des notes de propriété intellectuelle
US20070219987A1 (en) Self Teaching Thesaurus
Gramatikov A handbook for measuring the costs and quality of access to justice
Hartlapp Measuring and comparing the regulatory welfare state: Social objectives in public procurement
WO2008127337A1 (fr) Examen en propriété intellectuelle
Lanyi et al. Tools for Assessing Corruption and Integrity in Institutions: A Handbook
KR20040107971A (ko) 기술평가 방법 및 그 시스템
Davis Library networks, cooperatives and consortia: A national survey
Sithole Implementation of e-procurement by the Gauteng Department of Infrastructure Development and its impact on the development of small and medium construction firms
Wu et al. Technological innovation assessment of business‐to‐business electronic marketplaces
Peng The paradox of technical governance: A public opinion survey’s political process and its results
KR102491396B1 (ko) 빅데이터 기반 다차원 특허 분석 서비스 제공 방법 및 장치
WO2008127340A1 (fr) Outils de rédaction, de préparation et de soumission de demandes de brevets
WO2008127338A1 (fr) Moteur renforcé pour la recherche de l'état de la technique des brevets
Lin Adequacy of e-filing adoption by Malaysian courts
Khan The Determinants of Tax Non-compliance: Evidence from Malaysia
Azman The determinants of tax non-compliance: Evidence from Malaysia/Azman Gul Zaman Khan
Wong Factors contribute to default in service charge payment for strata residential in Klang valley area
Kamau Abracadabra! Or When and How Will the Kenyan ABS Law Be Born?
Xatula A Study of Procurement and Administration in the Department of Health in the Eastern Cape

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application

Ref document number: 07760704

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1

NENP Non-entry into the national phase

Ref country code: DE

122 Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase

Ref document number: 07760704

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1