Conducting a Patent Search
1. A note on syntax
One point that we must emphasize is that you must make sure you are familiar with the search language for the database you are using. Unfortunately, none of the different search engines use the exact same search language. If you assume that you can use the same syntax from one patent searching site to another, you are going to have a problem. Often, that problem will be obvious because a syntax error will be reported when you try to run the query. However, you may not get an error! Your query might run just fine, but since the syntax is different, the query will not mean what you intended it to mean. You will get results for a different query than you intended (which almost certainly means you will miss relevant references), and if you don't realize what you did, you may never even know. Learn the syntax of the site you use!
2. Boolean Logic
Boolean logic (named after the mathematician George Boole) refers to logical relationships between sets. For our purposes, those sets are the sets of results from a search engine.
For instance, a search for "bicycle" might return one set of references, while a search for "wheel" would return a different set of references (some of which probably overlap with the "bicycle" references). But, what if we want a set of results that encompasses the references for both of those terms? We use Boolean commands to tell the search engine to combine the two sets.
The commands used in Boolean logic include "and", "or", and "not" (the USPTO web site uses "ANDNOT" in place of NOT, but we will use NOT here for the purposes of clarity - just realize that you will need to use ANDNOT when actually searching at the USPTO web site). In the example above, if we wanted to all references that contained "bicycle" or "wheel", the search would simply be: bicycle OR wheel.
It would be incorrect to construct the search as: bicycle AND wheel. Why? Use of the "AND" command would only return references that contained both the word "bicycle" and the word "wheel". That is very different than returning all results that contain "bicycle" OR "wheel".
And this query: bicycle NOT wheel, would mean yet something else. It would mean the set of all references to bicycle, with any overlapping references from the set of "wheel" results removed.
We assume that most people are familiar with Boolean operators, and their use in search engines. However, the reason the topic bears discussion is that, while the examples above are quite simple, extremely complex searches can be constructed using Boolean operators. The use of the operators, along with the use of parentheses, if necessary, must be done carefully to make sure that you are constructing the search that you think you are constructing. Here is a more complex example:
bicycle AND wheel NOT (spokes OR seat)
What does that mean? It means the set of all references which contain both bicycle and wheel, but which do not contain either spokes or seat. Note the use of parentheses to indicate grouping. If the query was written without the parentheses, it would mean something different:
bicycle AND wheel NOT spokes OR seat
Without the parenthesis you have requested all references which contain bicycle and wheel, but not spokes, or references which contain seat but not spokes. The first query returns a few thousand results, while the second query returns a few HUNDRED THOUSAND results! So, they are quite different.
The moral of the story: Be careful when constructing your searches. They will get even more complicated when you start adding in date terms, class and subclass terms, and all sorts of other variables. Make sure you asked the search engine what you intended to ask it, and always examine your search results critically so that if any logical errors have occurred, you will detect them.
While technically perhaps not a part of Boolean logic, wildcard characters are important enough, and universal enough, that we will discuss them here. A wildcard character is a special character which means "any character or characters". Wildcards are very helpful in increasing the flexibility of your search queries. Let's examine a hypothetical example:
You are doing a search for a new kind of steel and one of the important points is that it is extremely light compared to other similar materials of the same strength. You have decided that you must use "light" in your keywords, but you realize that there are many forms of the word "light", including "light", "lighter", "lightest", and perhaps "lightweight". You want to be sure that you find any possible form of the word. Since you just learned about the Boolean operator "or", you know you could write such a search like so:
light OR lighter OR lightest OR lightweight
But, that becomes very cumbersome. And what if you forgot one??? Wildcards make this easy. You can write it like so:
light*
The wildcard character says to the search engine "Find me anything that starts with 'light', followed by any other characters (or no other characters)."
A lot simpler, right? The only drawback is that it can be less specific that using all those "or" commands. When you write it all out with "or", you know exactly what it is looking for. When you use wildcards, there might be words that match that you did not think about and are not relevant to your search. In this case, any patents containing "lighting" would be found also. So would any patents containing "lighthouse", or worse yet "lights" - there are probably thousands of patents containing the word "lights". So, maybe this particular use of wildcards isn't a good idea.
That does not mean you should not use wildcards. It just means you need to be careful. If your use of wildcards causes you to accidentally include some common word that is not relevant to your search, you could waste a lot of time. But, if used wisely, they can ease the construction of your queries and make them more comprehensive.
Word stemming can often substitute for wildcards, and will be discussed later.
3. Keyword Searching
Keyword searching is the heart of a good patent search (although class/subclass "hand" searches have their place also). You can use Boolean logic, date ranges, class and subclass designations, and a variety of other commands to construct just about any search you can imagine.
Assuming that you are familiar with Boolean logic, and the search syntax (a summary of our syntax is available elsewhere), the next thing to do is decide on keywords. Determining the best keywords to use requires some thought, and is very important to getting good search results.
Always remember this: The inventors may not have used the words that come first to your mind. Think of every possible way to describe the invention. Think of words that any patent on the topic absolutely MUST contain, and then words that the patents PROBABLY contain - but they might not. It is crucial to develop a good list, and then implement the searches with appropriate logic. For instance, assume that we are searching for an invention having to do with bicycle tires. The word "bicycle" is almost certainly in any relevant patent. Is the word "tire" in any relevant patent? Probably - but maybe not. Maybe the inventor uses the word "wheel" instead. Or maybe even "rim" (although they are not really the same - do not assume that everyone uses words perfectly accurately).
So, the search that you would want to use might look like this:
bicycle AND (rim OR wheel OR tire)
Understand? If this is not clear to you let us know - we will give you a crash course in search logic and you will be all set.
Once you construct your search, see how many results you get. You will always have a limited amount of time that has been authorized for a search. Most likely it will be 6-12 hours on a patentability search. Given this fact, YOU CANNOT LOOK THROUGH MANY THOUSANDS OF TITLES. There simply is not time. So, if you perform a search and it returns over a couple thousand results, you probably need to rethink your keywords and target your search a bit more carefully. In the above example, the search "bicycle AND (rim OR wheel OR tire)" returned 3000 results, what would you do? I would modify the search like this:
bicycle AND tire
and then see how many results that came back with. Tire is the most important keyword after bicycle. If that cuts it down to somewhere under 1500, then you have an amount that you can probably get through in a reasonable amount of time. If you have more time after you finish reviewing the results of that query, you might try:
bicycle AND wheel ANDNOT tire
Why the "ANDNOT tire"? Because that prevents you from getting any of the same results you got the first time around - it would be a huge waste of time to look through redundant results.
Note: This was a simple example. Often, there will 10 or 20 keywords that you might want to use, and instead of constructing a single search that returns a thousand results, you will use multiple searches, each with different sets of keywords, that each return a few hundred results or less.
4. Advanced Keyword Syntax and Techniques
a. Quotes
b. Word Stemming
Word stemming is a language related tool, which determines the root of a word first, and then retrieves all possible variants.
When you search with word stemming ON, documents in your results list would have both the root word, and the variants of the root word. With word stemming OFF, your search is limited to the exact word.
For both quick search and expert search, word stemming is turned ON by default.
|
Search term
|
Word stemming
|
Matching results would have the word(s)
|
|
Compose
|
On (searches for variants of compose)
|
Compose, composes, composed, composing, composable, composition etc
|
|
Composition
|
Off (searches for exact word)
|
Composition
|
|
Composition
|
On (searches for variants of the root word "compose")
|
Composition, Compositions, Compose, composes, composed, composing, composable etc
|
|
Metallic
|
Off (searches for exact word)
|
Metallic
|
|
Metallic
|
On (searches for variants of the root word "metal")
|
Metallic, Metal, Metals etc.
|
c. Search Term Weighting
Some of your search terms would be more important than others. Search term weighting helps you to tell the search engine which term is more important, and how important it is over the other term.
FreePatentsOnline uses the "^" (caret) operator to facilitate search term weighting. Combine this with relevancy sorting option to display the most accurate results at the top of the list.
The caret - "^" should be followed by a whole number that indicates the relative importance increase. For example, "^2" means that the word is twice as important as a word with no caret, while "^3" means three times as important, etc.
Note: Ensure that there is no space left between the keyword and the weighting operator.
|
Query
|
Interpretation
|
|
DNA^5 or RNA
|
DNA is 5 times more important to the relevancy of documents than RNA. Finds all documents with either DNA or RNA, or both, but all other factors remaining the same, rank documents with DNA higher.
|
d. Wildcards
Truncation or Wildcard searching allows you to retrieve documents containing variations of a search term. Wildcard symbols can be used to replace a single letter or a part of a word, or one or more numbers.
FreePatentsOnline use two wildcards: ? to replace exactly one character or number. * to replace zero or multiple characters or numbers.
|
Query
|
Results list would have
|
|
Analy?e
|
Analyse and Analyze
|
|
Sul*ur
|
Sulphur and Sulfur
|
|
Harbo*r
|
Harbor and harbour
|
5. Class/subclass searching
You can find the relevant classes/subclasses, and enter them into the Advanced Search (the search syntax for that would be "ccl/xxx/xxx"). This will return all patents in a given class/subclass. You then scan every title, and read documents of interest in more detail. This is often called a "hand search".
To search an entire class, use a wildcard for the subclass (ccl/xxx/*). This would allow you to see all patents under a particular class, but would be impractical for a class that contains a large number of patents.
This seems a lot simpler than keyword searching, right? You do not have to try and guess what words are in relevant patents. You do not have to try and figure out many alternative ways of describing the same device. But, there is a catch. Just like you can never be sure what words an inventor used, you can never be certain in what class/subclass a relevant patent will be found. Often there are multiple possibilities because of classes overlapping, and sometimes you may even find outright mistakes, where a patent is filed in a class in which is just should not be. A good keyword search will find a relevant patent, no matter which class or subclass it is in. You will NEVER find an erroneously classified patent via a class search.
Alas, some people like class/subclass searches (and they do have their place, when trying to be as thorough as possible, to augment keywords searches, but they are not a substitute for keyword searching). This is probably a result of old habits dying hard: a few years ago there was no such thing as keyword search and so hand searches were the norm.
How do you know what the most relevant classes are? The most common way to figure this out is to do a keyword search first, and use the classes/subclasses listed on documents found during that search. You can also keyword search the class/subclass definitions, or ask an examiner (covered previously).
6. Date Range Searching
Let's pretend we want to do a Validity search on patent, 1,234,567, filed on August 7, 1994, that claims "a lighter, more aerodynamic design for a bicycle rim by using an oval cross-sectional shape". We have decided that the keywords we want to search on initially are "bicycle" and "rim". What is the syntax for the search we want to construct? Remember, nothing filed after August 7, 1994 counts, because we have to prove the present inventor WAS NOT THE FIRST to invent such a thing, so all relevant prior art must pre-date his application. The search is thus:
APD/1/21/1790->8/17/1994 AND bicycle AND rim
That means, "All patents applied for between January 21, 1790, and August 17, 1994, that contain the words bicycle and rim". Why 1790? That is the first year that the U.S. patent office existed. You can use 1790 always, just to be safe, or, in a high-tech field, you can use a more recent year if you are sure it pre-dates the development of the technology. "APD" is the abbreviation for Application Date here and at the USPTO. Again, know the syntax of the search engine you are using!
7. Assessing Search Results
Now that you have constructed your search, you find that there are hundreds or thousands of results. How do you know what is useful and what to ignore? To answer that question, we need a bit of background on patent law (DO NOT CONSTRUE THIS, OR ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS SITE, AS LEGAL ADVICE. SEEK APPROPRIATE COUNSEL).
The Test for Obviousness
When a patent examiner reviews an invention, the most difficult task he is faced with is deciding if the invention is "unobvious". As an aid to addressing this issue, the following theoretical question is posed: "Given an inventor with average skill in the appropriate arts, average creativity, and a complete knowledge of the prior art, would he have come up with this invention?" If the answer is yes, then the invention may be judged an obvious extension of existing technology, and therefore not patentable.
Note that the use of the phrase "a complete knowledge of the prior art" means just that - complete. The hypothetical inventor is assumed to have knowledge of each and every piece of prior art known to man that is relevant to the invention under examination.
So, the criterion for "unobviousness" is not simply knowing facts that someone else did not know. It is more a question of inspiration; of exceeding the average level of creativity possessed by the hypothetical inventor.
Isn't this quite a subjective criterion? Absolutely, but that is how it is done. The objective is to prohibit people from obtaining patents on trivial modifications of existing inventions. For instance, if you had invented a new kind of bicycle, would it be fair for someone else to be granted a patent for a bicycle that was identical to yours, except that they had chosen to specify that it was made of a different material, or perhaps had a frame whose angles differed by tiny amounts (and they had no data to prove that these tiny changes improved the functioning of the bicycle in any substantial way)?
No, that would not be fair. And they would never get a patent due to such trivial changes, because their "invention" would be judged an obvious extension of yours.
The Doctrine of Equivalents
The concept of the Doctrine of Equivalents goes hand-in-hand with the test for obviousness. The Doctrine of Equivalents is a mechanism which broadens the scope of claims to include subject matter that is not explicitly claimed, but which would be considered equivalent by an expert in the field.
For instance, let's go back to our hypothetical bicycle patent. We had stated our claims as:
Claim 1: A lighter, more aerodynamic design for a bicycle rim by using an oval cross-section.
Claim 2: The rim of Claim 1 where the cross-sectional piece is formed from aluminum.
Suppose those were our only two claims. Now suppose that a competing bicycle manufacturer made a rim almost identical to ours, but they made the rim out of another high-strength, lightweight allow, such as titanium, or magnesium.
We sue them, alleging that such a trivial modification should not permitted. Our argument is that it should be obvious to anyone familiar with bicycle rims and the materials out of which they are made, that making the same rim, but out of a different alloy, is still an infringement of our patent. They have done nothing novel. In fact, the different alloy they used is even well-known to those in the bicycle industry, so the modification required no creativity at all.
Their counter-argument is this: "You had an opportunity to state in your claims exactly what your patent was to legally cover. If you had desired to do so, you could have included magnesium and titanium along with aluminum in your Claim 2. Or, you could have rephrased your Claim 2 to state that the rim was formed from aluminum or any other high-strength, lightweight alloy. You didn't. You should not be allowed to claim that our modification infringes on your patent when it was your own lack of forethought or bad writing that caused you to omit the proper language which would have made it clear that you intended to claim more materials than just aluminum".
Who is right? There is no clear-cut answer to that question. Both sides have legitimate points. In fact, this murky issue is so important that the Supreme Court has addressed it at least twice in recent history, once in 1997 and once in 2002, both times affirming the use of the Doctrine of Equivalents. Of course, like the test for obviousness, just what is "equivalent" and what is not, is a judgment call that must be made on a case-by-case basis.
The main difference between the test for obviousness and the Doctrine of Equivalents is in when they come into play. The test for obviousness comes up during the process of examining a new patent application. The Doctrine of Equivalents is not used for patent applications. Rather, it is applied to the claims of an existing patent by the court system when deciding whether someone is infringing.
So what does all this have to do with patent searching? Quite a bit. The point behind all this is simply this: When conducting a search, you do not need to find prior art that EXACTLY mimics the invention in the disclosure. If you find the exact invention in the prior art, it is said that the prior art "anticipates" the invention. Anticipation is great when it happens, but most of the time you are going to find prior art that is close, but not an exact match. And that's fine - because of the obviousness test, and the Doctrine of Equivalents, extremely similar prior art may serve just as well as anticipation.
Enough Background! What is relevant and what is not???
Now that you understand how patent examiners and judges determine whether one invention is unallowably close to another invention, how do you, the patent searcher, decide what prior art to cite when conducting a patent search?
Just like the application of the obviousness test or the Doctrine of Equivalents is a judgment call, so is what prior art to cite. However, you have a much easier time of it than a patent examiner or a judge. Why? Because rather than trying to be fair, you are trying to be thorough. When an examiner or a judge is in doubt, they still have to come to a decision, no matter how tough it is. You do not, because you follow this simple rule: If in doubt, cite it. It is much worse to leave out a relevant reference than it is to waste a bit of time by citing a reference that may later be determined to not be relevant.
i. Inventions with Few Features
Note that most disclosures only have a few points on which you will be searching. For instance, the disclosure might describe a bicycle, but the search would not be on an entire bicycle, but rather on a specific piece of a bicycle which was novel, such as an improved rim or an improved pedal. The disclosure should make it clear what aspects of the device are the subject of the search.
In the normal case of a disclosure with no more than a handful of important points on which to search, anything that parallels an important feature in the disclosure is relevant. The prior art that you cite does not need to parallel every aspect of the invention; it may share only one important feature. So, if you believe that you have found prior art that anticipates an aspect of the disclosure, or if you believe that a judge or examiner would consider it an obvious modification of the disclosure, cite it.
Note that it is better to find a single piece of prior art that addresses all facets of the disclosure, but that is not always possible, so you cite several patents that, together, build up a case for each point in the disclosure being anticipated or obvious.
ii. Inventions with Many Features
You may want to search on an invention that has numerous important aspects. This can occur with a complex invention with many supposedly-novel aspects, or in patents that seek to patent a multi-step process.
So what happens where the invention is a 10-step process, and not all of these steps are necessarily novel (though some may be), but the combination of these particular steps in that particular order is novel? Do you cite every piece of prior art that mentions any of the steps in any context? Probably not - it's a judgment call.
iii.Where Can Prior Art Come From?
The simple answer is: anywhere! For instance, when searching patents for prior art, it does not matter if you find relevant information in the Background, in the Abstract, in the Summary of the Invention, in the Detailed Description, in the Figures, or in the Claims. If relevant information is present, you can use it.
From the standpoint of efficiency, you will usually have a pretty good idea if anything worthwhile is going to be found in a given patent by reading the Abstract, and then the Summary of the Invention. If those sections look promising, but you haven't found exactly what you are looking for, use your browser to search for specific words in the patent - often the quote you want is buried in the Detailed Description and there is no point in reading a 50 page patent to find that one gem when you can use the "find" function on your web browser.
Similarly, when looking for prior art in non-patent literature, the information can come from anywhere (subject to the date requirements of certain types of searches). A web site is fine. A technical journal is fine. A book is fine. Even product literature or promotional material is fine. Anything that serves to document, in reasonable detail, that the concepts you are searching for already exist (or already existed before a given date when dealing with Validity searches) should be cited.
How are patents organized?
There are many patent offices around the world, and their patent classification systems are not the same. Luckily, most of the systems are based on very similar principles. And, knowledge of the United States Patent Office (USPTO) system and the European system is all that is required for the vast majority of patent searches.
1. The USPTO patent classification system
a. Understanding the "Dot" System
The United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) classifies patents by subject matter. There are hundreds of different categories, and each of the categories has many sub-categories (and often, each of the sub-categories has sub-categories). A partial listing of one class might look like this:
Class 330 AMPLIFIERS
1R - WITH DIVERSE-TYPE ART DEVICE
1A - With process control system
2 - WITH AMPLIFIER CONDITION INDICATING OR TESTING MEANS
3 - WITH PLURAL DIVERSE-TYPE AMPLIFYING DEVICES
4 - WITH MASER-TYPE AMPLIFYING DEVICE
4.5 - PARAMETRIC AMPLIFIERS
4.6 - .Traveling wave type
4.7 - ..Electron beam device
4.8 - .Gyromagnetic type (e.g., ferrite)
4.9 - .Semiconductor type (e.g., with semiconductor diode)
5 - WITH SOLID ELEMENT WAVE PROPAGATING AMPLIFYING DEVICE
In this example, the class is 330. 330 is all about "Amplifiers". Each entry under 330 is a sub-category listing specific features of amplifiers. The location of a patent is written as its class, followed by a slash, and then its subclass, like so: 330/4.
What would you expect to find in a patent that was classified as 330/4? You would expect to find an amplifier (because everything under class 330 must be an amplifier), using a maser-type amplifying device (since that is the definition of subclass 4). It makes no difference if you know what a maser-type amplifying device is; this is just an example.
Now, what if you had an amplifier with a maser-type amplifying device that also had a process control system (the definition listed for subclass 1A)? How would you know where to look for related inventions? Would you look in 330/4, or would you look in 330/1A?
The answer is "both". There is no way of knowing under which class/subclass the USPTO examiners decided to file an invention. And, a single invention can be filed under more than one class/subclass (in fact, most inventions are filed in several classes/subclasses).
This is one of the most important challenges of patent searching: Thoroughly understanding the classification system, and wisely choosing which classes/subclasses appear to be most relevant to the search you are performing. If you choose poorly, there may be another class/subclass filled with dozens of patents relevant to your search, and you may miss them.
Don't worry too much though - there are ways of making sure that you are looking in the correct classes/subclasses, and we will explain how to do this in a bit.
You may have noticed the dots in front of the definitions for subclasses 1A, and 4.6 - 4.9. What are they? The dots indicate additional hierarchy levels in the class/subclass structure. In this example, the class (330) is at the highest level; everything else falls under class 330. But only some of the subclasses are directly under class 330. For instance, subclass 1R is directly under class 330. So are subclasses 2, 3, 4, 4.5, and 5. You know this because they have no dots in front of their definitions which would indicate additional steps down in the hierarchy structure. Subclass 1A on the other hand, is not directly under class 330. Rather, subclass 1A actually falls under subclass 1R. So, you could think of subclass 1A as being sub-subclass 1A.
Now look at subclass 4.7. It has two dots in front of its definition. That means it is still further down the classification tree. 4.7 is under 4.6, which is under 4.5, which is under class 330. So 4.7 is actually a sub-sub-subclass. But, all those "subs" would get to be confusing, so they just call them subclasses and distinguish the different levels with dots - the more dots, the lower it is in the hierarchy. If you are trying to figure out what class or subclass a given category falls under, go up the listing from the category of interest to the first class or subclass with one less dot.
It works just like an outline, but dots are used in place of Roman numerals, and other traditional outline level designations.
It is extremely important to understand this hierarchical system. If you do not understand the classification system, it is absolutely impossible to know if you are looking in right places when you do a search.
Here is an actual screen-shot of another partial class listing, with annotations:
b. Subclasses are Not Cumulative
Be aware that upper level subclasses do not contain all the patents of the subclasses below them. In the example above, subclass 2 is indented under subclass 1. This does not mean that, if you did a search of subclass 1, you would find all the patents in subclass 2, plus some additional ones that were specific to subclass 1. It does not work that way. You must search the subclass at the lowest relevant level of the hierarchy. Patents are only filed in the upper levels of the hierarchy when there is no appropriate lower level in which to file them. To illustrate this concept, here is a very simple imaginary example:
Class 999 Cars
1 - .with blue paint
2 - ..with metallic paint
3 - .with red paint
4 - .with black paint
Where would you look for a car with blue metallic paint? Only 999/2. Because there is a specific subclass for blue metallic paint, all patents should be filed in that subclass. Filing mistakes aside, if you look in 999/1, you will find nothing - that is not the proper place, even though it is also for blue paint.
Where would you look for a car with green paint? In the main class, 999. This is because there is no subclass with an appropriate definition, leaving the examiner with no option other than to file the patent in the top level. So, only patents that do not have a more concise subclass available are filed in a given place. Or, to say this another way, patents are filed in the most detailed subclass available - so that is where you must look for them. Higher level classes and subclasses are only for patents which cannot be filed in a lower level subclass.
c. Class and Subclass Definitions
A class and subclass searching and definitions are coming soon!
One tidbit of information to keep in mind for US classes/subclasses is that letters after a subclass (such as the "1A" and "1R" in the Amplifier example above) are special designations used for USPTO internal purposes. Because they are not official classes, they are ignored for definition purposes. In other words, 330/1R is often treated as if it were just 330/1. This distinction is of little importance, but it can be confusing if you do not know that sometimes the end letter is simply ignored.
2. Foreign Patent Classification Systems
There are two other classification systems in common use in Europe. These systems are called the "IPC" (International Patent Classification) and the "ECLA" (European Classification).
The format of these classifications is as follows. A sample IPC would be C12N 7/00; it consists of a section (letter-C), class (numbers-12), subclass (letter-N), main group (numbers-7), a slash, and the subgroup (numbers-00). However, it may be as short as a section and class.
ECLA is really an extended version of the IPC system. ECLA adds addition letters or numbers on to the end of the IPC classification on to the end to allow for more categories, and thus hopefully more accurate categorization.
While the categories themselves are different from those found at the USPTO, the concept of searching the IPC or ECLA classifications is the same. Note that many US patents will have their foreign classifications listed on them as well, and this can be a helpful guide when trying to determine what foreign classes to search.
A guide to the IPC can be found at http://www.wipo.int/classifications/fulltext/new_ipc/index.htm and the IPC can be searched via keyword here: http://www.wipo.int/search/en/. Note that ECLA codes cannot currently be searched by keyword. However, the ECLA codes are so similar to the IPC codes that this is largely unnecessary.
3. Help with Patent Classification
One method of making sure that you know which classes are relevant to a particular invention is simple (at least when it comes to US Patents): Ask! USPTO examiners are very willing to help you. The USPTO examiners are experts at classifying the inventions in their particular area, so it is good to get their opinion on where to search even if you think you have already located the best classes.
USPTO examiners have a duty of confidentiality. So, you can tell them whatever you want about the invention and they are not allowed to tell anyone else. Also, this is part of their job, so don't feel like you are imposing (but be VERY POLITE!). Many search firms contact examiners as a matter of course to get their opinions on what classes should be searched -- so the examiners expect it.
How do you go about doing this? First, you need to figure out what you think the most relevant class/subclass is. A good way to know this is to look at the classifications of the patents that you found in a keyword search, if you did the keyword search first. Or, take a few minutes to find some patents related to something similar to the disclosure invention, and see where they are classified. Once you have that information, there is a web page where you can look up what "Art Unit" handles a given Class or Subclass. An "Art Unit" is just a group of examiners that work on related subject matter.
So, let's say that you determine that the most relevant class/subclass for your search is 359/009 (Lasers and Holograms). You would go to this web page:
http://pair.uspto.gov/final/images/ArtSearch.html
and enter "359" in the class blank. Press the button, and you get a table that lists all of the Art Units that work on class 359. Scan down the subclass column, and you will see that Art Unit 2872 handles subclass 9. With that information in hand, you then visit this web page:
http://pair.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/final/employee_loc.pl?action=querypg
In the "Search by Organization" blank, enter 2872. That gives you a list, with phone numbers, of all the examiners that work in Art Unit 2872. So, you just pick one, give them a call, and say "Hi, I'm working on a novelty search about an invention which has these features... I think that I should be searching Class 359 Subclass 9, but I just wanted to make sure. What do you think?"
Sometimes they will say "Yes, you are correct". Sometimes they will give you some additional places to search. And sometimes they will say "I think you have the wrong Class/Subclass. You might want to try 283/86 (Printed matter with holograms), but my Art Unit doesn't work on that Class/Subclass, so try giving them a call".
This is really a detailed explanation for a simple step - just bookmark those web pages and it should only take 10 minutes or so.
Note that occasionally the USPTO's database is unavailable and the Art Unit search will not work. If that happens, you may find appropriate phone numbers on this page as well:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/info/pat-tech.htm
4. Understanding Patent Numbers
When searching patents, you will encounter a variety of different patent numbering formats. For instance, you may see the same U.S. patent referred to as "6,000,000" or "US06000000" or even "US6000000B1."
Each of these designations means the same thing, but different databases present the numbers differently. The "B1" on the end of the last example simply stands for "granted patent", which brings us to the topic of Kind Codes.
There are many different designations, called Kind Codes, which can be appended to patent numbers and patent application numbers. Each Kind Code has a specific meaning, and while often not relevant for the purposes of patent searching, you should understand that Kind Codes exist so that you are not confused by them. Following is a table listing all current U.S. Kind Codes. Some of the table comments address the fact that the use of Kind Codes has not been consistent throughout history, so older patents may use different designations than current patents.
Note that foreign Kind Codes look similar, but they do not always have the same meanings. So, DO NOT assume that "A1" in the US means the same thing as "A1" elsewhere.
|
Kind Code
|
Kind of Document
|
Comments
|
|
A1
|
Published Patent Application
|
Pre-grant publications begin to be published in March 2001. Format for publication number includes the year of publication followed by 7 digits. Example: US20030005000 A1
|
|
A2
|
Republication of Patent Application
|
|
|
A9
|
Corrected Publication of Patent Application
|
|
|
B1
|
Patent
|
Patent having no previously published pre-grant publication. Example:US6000000 B1. Patents published before January 2001 retain the Kind code A.
|
|
B2
|
Patent
|
Patent having previous pre-grant publication; new B2s begin to be published after March 2001.
|
|
C1, C2, C3
|
Reexamination Certificate
|
Reexam Certificates published prior to 2001 retain the codes B1, B2, etc.
|
|
E
|
Reissue Patent
|
Example: USRE12345E.
|
|
H
|
Statutory Invention Registration (SIR)
|
Example: USH1234H.
|
|
P1
|
Published Plant Patent Application
|
Pre-grant publications begin to be published in March 2001
|
|
P2
|
Plant Patent
|
Patent having no previously published pre-grant publication. Example: USPP12345P2. Plant patents published before January 2001 retain the Kind code P.
|
|
P3
|
Plant Patent
|
Patent having previous pre-grant publication; P3s begin to be published after March 2001
|
|
P4
|
Republication of Plant Patent Application
|
|
|
P9
|
Corrected Plant Patent Publication
|
|
|
S
|
Design Patent
|
Example: D123456S
|
In addition, you will come across US patents with completely different numbering formats, including things such as D123456 (the "D" indicates that it is a design patent), PP01234 ("PP" indicates a plant patent), and RE12345 ("RE" stands for reissue).
It behooves you to have a basic understanding of these different numbering schemes. As patent searches rarely involve design patents or plant patents, reissues will be the most relevant to your searching (though even they will be rare). A reissue occurs when something in a previously-granted patent is found to be in error, and the patent must therefore be amended.
Finally, a document that you will rarely encounter, but should know that it exists, is the Statutory Invention Registration (SIR). The SIR is a document that allows an inventor to put an invention into the public domain. The SIR is not a patent, and does not afford any patent rights to the inventor. What it does do, however, is prevent anyone else from patenting the invention. SIR's replaced a previous type of document called a "Defensive Publication". Defensive publications no longer exist, but may be recognized by their unique numbering scheme, which starts with a "T", as in T998008.
Patent numbers are assigned sequentially by issue date (but SIRs are numbered sequentially by application date).
Following is a table the lists the first number for each type of patent issued in a given year. This information can help you perform "common sense" checks on your search results. For instance, if you are doing a Validity search, and your references must pre-date another patent with a priority date of Jan 1, 1990, and you see that you have included a reference to US patent, you know something might be amiss, because that patent was issued (not applied for) in 2001. Technically, you could be correct. The Priority Date on the patent could be before 1990 in certain circumstances, but it is unlikely.
|
Issue Year
|
1st Utility
|
1st Design
|
1st Plant
|
1st Reissue
|
1st Statutory Invention Registration
|
|
1983
|
44366579
|
D267440
|
PP04970
|
RE31115
|
Did not exist
|
|
1984
|
4423523
|
D272009
|
PP05168
|
RE31479
|
Did not exist
|
|
1985
|
4490855
|
D276949
|
PP05380
|
RE31783
|
H000001
|
|
1986
|
4562596
|
D282020
|
PP05622
|
RE32061
|
H000007
|
|
1987
|
4633526
|
D287540
|
PP05846
|
RE32323
|
H000182
|
|
1988
|
4716594
|
D293500
|
PP06075
|
RE32569
|
H000396
|
|
1989
|
4794652
|
D299180
|
PP06501
|
RE32814
|
H000563
|
|
1990
|
4890335
|
D305275
|
PP07089
|
RE33138
|
H000720
|
|
1991
|
4980927
|
D313301
|
PP07408
|
RE33510
|
H000863
|
|
1992
|
5077836
|
D322878
|
PP07761
|
RE33786
|
H001007
|
|
1993
|
5175886
|
D332170
|
PP08082
|
RE34154
|
H001124
|
|
1994
|
5274846
|
D342818
|
PP08527
|
RE34493
|
H001270
|
|
1995
|
5377359
|
D353932
|
PP09026
|
RE34814
|
H001389
|
|
1996
|
5479658
|
D365671
|
PP09413
|
RE35136
|
H001512
|
|
1997
|
5590420
|
D377107
|
PP09776
|
RE35418
|
H001623
|
|
1998
|
5704062
|
D388585
|
PP10172
|
RE35708
|
H001701
|
|
1998
|
5704062
|
D388585
|
PP10172
|
RE35708
|
H001701
|
|
1999
|
5855021
|
D403485
|
PP10743
|
RE36021
|
H001766
|
|
2000
|
6009555
|
D418273
|
PP11169
|
RE36479
|
H001826
|
|
2001
|
6167569
|
D435713
|
PP11728
|
RE37006
|
H001930
|
|
2002
|
6334220
|
D452599
|
PP12314
|
RE37489
|
H002008
|
|
2003
|
6502244
|
D468073
|
PP13447
|
RE37954
|
H002057
|
Know What You are Looking For
Before we talk about the specifics of different patent searches, we need to define a very important patent searching concept: the "disclosure". The disclosure refers to the document which explains the invention or concept on which you are going to search. Depending on the search type, and your role in the patent search process, the disclosure may take different forms.
If you are an inventor conducting your own search, you might not have a disclosure at all. You might just have an idea in your mind as to what you are looking for. If you are a professional patent searcher, you will likely have a disclosure from your client or employer. If you are an inventor and have not written a disclosure, we suggest you do, even if just to get your own thoughts in order - it will help you search more effectively.
The disclosure for Novelty searches and Infringement searches describes the proposed inventions or products. The disclosure may be anything from informal document with rudimentary sketches of the invention to a complete patent application with professional drawings, or even an existing patent.
Based on the disclosure, you should be able to answer this question: What are the novel points of this invention? The reason for this is that you are going to be searching for prior art relevant to the aspects of the invention that are novel - which is not necessarily the entire invention.
For instance, given a disclosure about a bicycle with non-slip pedals, the points of novelty might be the particular shape of the pedals, or the materials that the pedals are made of, or some type of locking mechanism that keeps your feet from coming off. Of course, the disclosure may talk about bicycles in general, and the diagrams may include pictures of entire bicycles, not just pedals. That does not mean that any patent about bicycles is relevant. You must understand which features are common knowledge and simply present to put the invention in context versus which features are potentially patentable.
In a State-of-the-Art Search, the objective is often to find out what other people in the field are doing. A State-of-the-Art search may not be based on a specific invention at all, but rather the disclosure may simply be something like "Find all patents that discuss the use of magnesium alloys in bicycle frames".
The disclosure for a Validity search will normally be an existing patent. You will be given a patent number, and you will need to look the patent up, read it, and thoroughly understand the patent - particularly the Claims.
While disclosures may take different forms depending on the exact situation, it is always imperative that you know what you are looking for. It will save time, help make your search results concise, and help ensure that you do not miss anything relevant.
Patent Search Types and Methodologies
There are many different types of patent searches, including Novelty searches (also called Patentability searches), Infringement searches (also called Clearance, Freedom to Operate, or Right To Use searches), Validity searches (also called Invalidity, or Enforcement Readiness searches), and State of the Art searches (also called Collection searches). Each type of search has a different purpose, and demands a different search strategy.
1. Novelty Searches
The Novelty search, also referred to as a Patentability search, is the most common type of patent search. Novelty searches are conducted when an inventor has an invention which he is interested in patenting, and wishes to determine if anyone has previously invented anything similar or identical.
Novelty searches generally have no date constraints on the prior art. In other words, if you find prior art that reads on the invention, it does not matter whether the prior art is from yesterday or 100 years ago - it is relevant. The reason for this lack of date constraints has to do with patent law: Anything that has already been disclosed to the public, in any manner, at any time, cannot be patented.
2. Validity Searches
The idea behind a validity search is that the Patent Office may have issued the patent (or allowed specific claims contained in the patent) in error. Examiners are pretty good at what they do, but they are not infallible and they are often operating under severe time constraints. They may have missed a relevant piece of prior art, and this resulted in them granting a patent with claims that never should have been allowed.
The situation with a Validity search is often that a company has made a product that infringes upon another company's patent, and they are being sued as a result. One way to win an Infringement case is to invalidate the patent in question. If a patent search can locate prior art that reads on the claims of the patent in question, those claims will be struck from the patent. The patent owner then loses his legal right to sue over products that would infringe on those claims.
Whereas a written description of the invention forms the basis of a novelty search, validity searches are done on existing patents, and that patent will serve as the disclosure.
Note that with a Validity search, the idea is to find prior art that is relevant to the validity of the CLAIMS of the subject patent. Read that again: the CLAIMS. Not the general idea. Not the entire patent, but each claim, one by one. As a result, this is normally a more time-consuming search than a novelty search.
A successful Validity search finds references that the Patent Office missed (you might think this is rare - but it is not), and thereby provides evidence that the claims should have been disallowed on the grounds that someone had already come up with the invention before the patent in question was filed.
Pay close attention to the word "filed". The application filing date is very important in Validity searches because it determines the priority date (sometimes called a "get behind" date, for reasons that should become apparent) of the patent. It doesn't matter when a patent issued - it matters when it was filed. You must prove, for each claim, that inventions were known which were so similar to the claim in question, before the filing date of the present patent, that the claims should not have been allowed.
Or, in layman's terms, you are attempting to prove that the inventor of the patent in question was actually NOT the first person to come up with this invention. Only the first inventor can hold a valid patent.
Let's use a fictional example to illustrate what we mean:
U.S. Patent 9,999,999, in Claim 1, claims a computer chip that is faster and generates less heat than any other chip on the market. The patent was filed for on 1/1/2002, and granted on 2/1/2003.
In searching the prior art, you find two pieces of prior art that contain information which is very similar to claim 1 of the subject patent. Piece "A" is an article from a computer magazine, dated 11/01/2001. Piece "B" is a patent which was filed for on 4/1/2002 and issued on 12/1/2002.
Which of these references is relevant? The answer is "A". Piece "A" came before the filing date of the patent in question. Although Piece "B" issued before the patent in question, it was not filed before the patent in question. Only the filing date matters, because that documents who conceived the invention first, not who got it through the approval process the fastest.
Note: In general, when conducting a Validity search you do not cite any prior art that has already been cited on the front of the subject patent. This prior art in listed on the patent because it has already been reviewed by USPTO examiners and, since the patent was granted, the examiners obviously felt that those references were not similar enough to the invention at hand to stop the patent from issuing. In some cases the examiners may have been wrong, but proving that is an uphill battle as compared to finding prior art of which the examiners were unaware.
Note that while it is the CLAIMS of the subject patent with which we are concerned (in other words, we are searching on the claims), the art cited may come from anywhere (just like in a Novelty search). Relevant art does not have to be from the claims of other patents.
Let's now revisit the idea of dependent and independent claims. Remember our fictional example where Claim 1 read "A lighter, more aerodynamic design for a bicycle rim by using an oval cross-sectional shape", and Claim 2 read "The rim of Claim 1 where the cross-sectional piece is formed from aluminum?".
If you were doing a validity search and you had to prioritize finding prior art to invalidate one of these claims, which would you choose?
Well, if you find prior art that invalidates Claim 1, then there is no oval rim to be made of aluminum! Claim 2, being dependent on Claim 1, is destroyed by destroying Claim 1. For this, and other reasons, independent claims are normally the targets in a Validity search - it is more efficient to try and invalidate independent claims because you automatically get the dependent ones in the process. You will know a claim is independent if it has no reference to another claim in it.
3. Infringement Searches
Also called "Right-to-Use Searches", "Clearance Searches", or "Freedom-to-Operate Searches", the point of this type of search is to prove that a proposed product or invention does not violate any active patents (or conversely, to at least be aware that it does, and make the appropriate business decision).
Keep these things in mind for an Infringement search:
-
You are normally only searching patents. Non-patent literature is normally not necessary, since the issue is whether or not the client would infringe an in-force patent.
-
You must carefully read the Claims of each patent you find that might be relevant. Remember, it is the Claims, not the descriptions found elsewhere in a patent, which determine what it would take to infringe that patent.
-
Only in-force patents are of concern, so make sure you limit your date range to the last 20 years.
As we have already stated, Infringement searches are generally conducted by trying to prove that no in-force patents exist with claims that would cause the client a problem.
But, what if you are confident that such an invention or patent already does exist, but it is over 20 years old? A viable alternate in some very specific cases might be to try and prove that the invention is in the public domain, and therefore safe to use. This would be done by showing that the invention had at one time been disclosed, but that the disclosure occurred over 20 years ago.
4. State-of-the-art searches
The term "State-of-the-Art Search" often means different things to different people. Therefore, if you are a professional patent searcher it is crucial to understand what the client is asking for before beginning this type of search (as it is with any search, but perhaps more so here). Generally, a State-of-the-Art Search is designed to quickly allow someone to see what is currently being developed in a given field. During such a search, the searcher picks patents representative of a specific technology, but does not cite every patent having to do with the technology, as there would be a great deal of redundancy. However, sometimes a client may want each and every patent on a given technology. This type of search is more properly called a Collection Search, but the terms are often used interchangeably.
Quick Search
Quick search lists the most common search fields. You can search for a word or a simple phrase or patent number in any of the listed fields. You can search in more than one field at a time. You can also use wildcards to enhance your searches in quick search (see wildcards for tips and examples for searching with wildcards). Boolean operators and nesting are not allowed in quick search. Quick search also has additional features like word stemming, sort order and date range to further enhance your search. In both quick search and expert search, the collection searched is defaulted to US patents. To change the collection searched, just select the required collection from the collection options provided.
Expert Search
Expert search helps you create complex queries to search multiple fields using field abbreviations. You can also include boolean operators, nesting and wildcards in your expert search query. To add value to your searches, FreePatentsOnline incorporates proximity searching and search term weighting features in expert search. Word stemming, sort order and date range options are available to further enhance your search. In both quick search and expert search, the collection searched is defaulted to US patents. To change the collection searched, just select the required collection from the collection options provided.
Sort Order
You can select to sort the documents in your results list either chronologically or according to their relevancy. If you select chronological sort order, documents in the results list would be arranged chronologically, with most recently published documents on the top of the list. You can also select to sort the documents in the results list according to their relevancy. Relevancy sorting is based on a "relevancy score" assigned to each document. Relevancy score is based on frequency and positioning of keyword(s) in the document. Relevancy score ranges from 0 to 1000. Documents with higher relevancy score would be placed at the top of the list.
Boolean Operators
Boolean operators help you combine words or phrases to broaden or narrow your search. You can use boolean operators to specify what you want and what you do not want while searching. FreePatentsOnline allow AND, OR and NOT operators.
|
Boolean Operator
|
Example
|
Function
|
|
AND
|
Mobile and Telephone
|
Finds documents which have both mobile and telephone.
|
|
OR
|
Mobile or Telephone
|
Finds documents which have either mobile or telephone or both.
|
|
NOT
|
Mobile not Telephone
|
Finds documents which have only mobile. The NOT operator excludes telephone completely.
|
Order of precedence for boolean operators is:
-
NOT
-
AND
-
OR
Which means that in a query with NOT, AND and OR, terms connected by NOT would be processed first, followed by terms connected by AND and lastly, those connected with OR. Example: auto or manual and gear - Since AND is processed before OR, the query would be interpreted as auto or (manual and gear). Note: FreePatentsOnline search engine is not case sensitive for boolean operators.
Nested Queries/Creating queries with Parentheses or Brackets
You can enclose search terms and their operators in parentheses or brackets to specify the order in which they should be processed. Information within parentheses is read first and then information outside parentheses. If there are more than one set of parentheses, the innermost set of parentheses would be read first, then the next and so on until the whole query is interpreted. The order of precedence for parenthesis and boolean operators is:
-
Parentheses
-
NOT
-
AND
-
OR
|
Nested query
|
How it is interpreted (following order of precedence)
|
|
Hair and dye or colorant
|
(Hair and dye) or colorant
|
|
(one or two and layer) and insulation
|
(one or (two and layer)) and insulation
|
Proximity Searching
Proximity searching helps you to specify how near/distant you want your search terms to be. You can specify the distance or nearness of the terms searched as whole numbers. The proximity operator in FreePatentsOnline is "~". The proximity operator should be followed by a whole number indicating the proximity of the search terms. For example, "~10" means within ten words of each other. Note: Ensure that your keywords are enclosed in inverted commas, and there is no space left between the inverted commas and the proximity operator.
|
Query
|
Results list would have
|
|
"Enzyme peptide"~3
|
Documents with both enzyme and peptide, where both are within 3 words of each other.
|
|
"fermentation bacteria milk"~5
|
Documents where the words fermentation, bacteria and milk, are present within 5 words of each other.
|
Start here if you already know to search at the USPTO
The search language used by FreePatentsOnline.com is extremely similar to that of the USPTO. This is no accident. The search at the USPTO is fairly robust (although subject to some limitations, which we will discuss momentarily). It allows keyword searching across a large number of fields, date range searching, and it allows the combining of multiple search criteria with complex Boolean logic. In addition, the use of a similar syntax to the USPTO's search makes the learning curve to use our search engine trivial for the many IP professionals already familiar with the USPTO syntax. For users already familiar with the USPTO's search syntax, we briefly describe the added features of our search.
Differences from the USPTO:
In general, we have designed our search language so that a search that works at the USPTO will work on our search engine (this may not be true for some of the more rarely-used fields at the USPTO -- a complete list of the fields we support can be found below, and on the search page). However, while a search constructed using the USPTO's language will generally work on our search engine, if you limit yourself to using just the USPTO syntax you will be missing out on a great deal of the power of our search engine. Luckily, learning to use all the extra power of the FreePatentsOnline search engine only requires knowing about two extra commands, plus a button on the advanced form.
The Button: Word Stemming
Usage example: With word stemming on, 'metal' will also locate other forms of the word, including 'metals', 'metalized', and 'metallic'. Word stemming is a method of determining the root of a word, and then all possible variants. This is accomplished with a sophisticated formula called the Porter Stemming Algorithm. When it comes to the technical terms often required to express patent concepts, no dictionary even comes close to containing all the words that would be needed. So, rather than rely on an incomplete dictionary, the Porter Stemming Algorithm uses the rules of English (our apologies to those searching non-English documents, this function only works for English at this time) to find words that contain common roots. Now you don't have to miss documents because you were looking for a "metal widget" while the inventor chose to call it a "metallic widget." (Yes, you could use Boolean logic to construct the query "metal OR metals OR metallic OR metalized" but do you really want to do that every time? And are you sure you thought of all the forms of the word? Really sure?). Note that the effect of word stemming on the number of results is fairly significant. The statistics will vary from word to word, but for instance, a search on the word "metal" with word stemming on returns about 16% more results than with word stemming off. You certainly do not want to miss 16% of the potentially relevant documents in your prior art searches! Word stemming is set to "on" by default, and can be turned off by clicking the appropriate button under the search box.
The '~' Command: Proximity Searching
Usage example: "aluminum widgets"~10. Proximity searching is a way to find words that are near each other, rather than a literal phrase in which the words must be right next to each other. Unfortunately for patent searchers, it's easy to say the same thing many different ways -- even when using the same key words. What if you want to find patents about aluminum widgets? You would rather not search for 'aluminum AND widget', because with both "aluminum" and "widget" being very common words (ok, widget probably isn't really that common, but you get the point), that search could return far too many patents to look through in a reasonable amount of time. You could search for the phrase "aluminum widget?" (with the '?' allowing for widget OR widgets), but that is going to miss a ton of patents. What if the inventor said "widgets made of aluminum", or "aluminum may be used to make said widgets", or "the widgets may be made from any of the group comprised of aluminum, bronze, steel, titanium or copper"? You wouldn't find any of those by searching for a literal phrase. That's where proximity searching comes to the rescue. The query "aluminum widget"~10 would find every one of those, while at the same time excluding documents where aluminum and widget were so far apart that they probably had nothing to do with each other. '~' finds words that are in proximity to each other, and you can control how close the two words must be to count as a successful match. The number that follows the '~' indicates how many words are allowed to be between the two keywords. We suggest that 10 is a good distance to start with, but you may find that other values work better for your needs.
The '^2' Command: Search Term Weighting
Usage example: cat^2 OR dog. You may know that some of the search terms you are using are more important than others. If that is the case, the '^' command lets you increase the relative weight of a particular word. Then, the relevancy ranking formula uses this information to return the most accurate results at the top of the list. The caret "^" should be followed by a whole number that indicates the relative importance increase. For example, "^2" means that the word is twice as important as a word with no caret, while "^3" means three times as important, etc.
The '*' and '?' Command: Wildcard Searching
Usage example: electron*, su?. Wildcards are used to match patterns. The single character wildcard '?' represents a single character query. (e.g. su? will search for words like sub, sun, sum etc). The string wildcard '*' represent multiple character queries. (e.g. medic* will search for words like medic, medicine, medicant, medicinal, medicate, etc). The USPTO uses '$' for wildcard searching instead of '*'. However '$' should be the last character in the word. FreePatentsOnline.com allows you to position the wildcards anywhere inside a word, except at the beginning. You can also combine '*' and '?' (e.g. dep?n* would search for words like depend, dependent, dependence, depending etc). Wildcard searches that create too many word matches may sometimes result in a "search-too-broad" error. It is therefore advisable to be more specific when using wildcards. (e.g. elec* would search for words like elect, elects, electron, electrons, electric, electrical, electricity etc. If you are only interested in patents dealing with electronic, use "electron*" to eliminate the other words. Note: Word stemming should be OFF when using wildcard searches.
Summary of Differences from USPTO Syntax:
Once you understand word stemming, proximity searching, search term weighting and wildcard searching you have mastered the main differences between the USPTO and our site. These search abilities are deceptively simple -- don't underestimate their power to find just what you want to find.
Start here if you already know how to search at Delphion
The main difference between Delphion and this site is that we follow the USPTO's convention of specifying a field name by putting it in front of the word, followed by a slash, like so: IN/smith. That means find the word "smith" in the Inventor's Name (IN) field. The equivalent command when using Delphion would be "smith IN". That's really the only change you need to make, except of course be sure to use our field name abbreviations. Also, make sure you understand our syntax for proximity searching and search term weighting.
