US 7930287

Here is a concise summary of US patent 7930287:

US Patent 7930287: Systems and methods for compound searching

• Title: Systems and methods for compound searching
• Current Assignee: OL Security LLC (originally Michelli Capital LLC)
• Inventors: Brian Galvin, Alan McCord, Donald R. Boys
• Filing Date: March 14, 2008
• Issue Date: April 19, 2011
• Abstract: The patent describes a search service that includes a network-connected server, a data repository, and software. This service provides an interactive interface to a user, determines the purpose of a search through iterative interaction, develops search criteria, submits these criteria to one or more standard search engines, and collects the search results on behalf of the user.

Plain-language overview of independent claims:

• Claim 1 (System): This claim describes a server-side system. It involves a network-connected server executing software. This system provides an interactive interface to a user's computing device. Through a multi-step, iterative conversation, where the system asks clarifying questions about an initial search query and receives answers, it determines the user's search purpose and develops precise search criteria. These criteria are then used to query one or more standard search engines, and the results are collected by the system.

• Claim 10 (Method, server-side): This claim outlines a method performed by a server. It involves interacting with a computing device via an interactive interface. The core of the method is determining a search's purpose through an iterative exchange: receiving an initial query term, presenting a first refining question, receiving a first answer, then presenting a second refining question, and receiving a second answer. Based on this refined purpose, search criteria are developed, submitted to standard search engines, and the results are collected.

• Claim 26 (Method, client-side): This claim describes a method from the perspective of the user's computing device. It involves connecting to a server and displaying an interactive interface provided by that server. The user's device obtains input describing the search's nature through an iterative process, which includes providing a search term, answering at least two clarifying questions from the server, and sending this input back to the server. Finally, the device receives search results from the server.

• Claim 28 (System, client-side): This claim describes a client-side system, such as a mobile appliance, laptop, or desktop computer. It has a network interface to connect to a server offering a search service and display hardware to show the interactive interface. This interface is specifically designed to iteratively gather user input (including a search term) to clarify the search purpose. It requests and receives at least two items of clarification from the user, sending each clarification back to the search service for further processing.

• Claim 31 (System, means-plus-function): This claim describes a system using "means-plus-function" language. It includes:

  1. Means for determining a search's purpose from a client device, which involves receiving a query term, and then iteratively requesting and receiving at least two separate items of refining information from the client.
  2. Means for obtaining search results from at least one search engine based on this determined purpose.
  3. Means for processing these search results before they are sent back to the client device.

USPTO and CAFC Docket Search:

• USPTO Status: The patent US7930287B2 is currently "Active" and is projected to expire on June 17, 2028.
• CAFC 2026 Dockets: A search of litigation data indicates that this patent family has ongoing litigation. Specifically, there are US cases filed in the Delaware District Court in 2026, including case numbers 1:26-cv-00466, 1:26-cv-00461, and 1:26-cv-00397.

As of April 26, 2026, the following litigation is known to involve US Patent 7930287:

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, but the current assignee is OL Security LLC.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court.
• Case Number(s): 1:26-cv-00466, 1:26-cv-00461, and 1:26-cv-00397.
• Filing Date: The specific filing dates for these 2026 cases are not provided in the snippet, but they were filed in 2026.
• Outcome/Current Status: The cases are "ongoing litigation" and "US cases filed in Delaware District Court."

It's important to note that while the provided information mentions these specific cases, a comprehensive understanding of all litigation would typically require direct access to court dockets, such as through PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records), which incurs fees for access to detailed case information.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review) on file for US Patent 7930287 as of the most recent data ingest. This indicates the patent has not been subjected to PTAB challenges, meaning all claims remain untested by this specific administrative process.

Strategic summary

As no PTAB proceedings have been filed against US Patent 7930287, all 31 claims of the patent (Claims 1-31) remain UNTESTED by the PTAB. There are no claims that have been canceled or sustained through IPR, PGR, or CBM trials.

The absence of PTAB proceedings means there is currently no estoppel landscape under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for this patent. A defendant facing assertion of this patent today would generally have all prior art grounds available for potential PTAB challenge, assuming they meet the statutory requirements for filing such a petition. There are no patterns of repeated petitions by the same entity, aggressive appeals by the patent owner, or involvement by defensive aggregators like Unified Patents to report via PTAB activity.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US7930287, a potential defendant has several options:

• Consider filing an IPR: If facing assertion of this patent, evaluating the claims against prior art to determine the viability of an Inter Partes Review petition could be a strong defensive strategy. This would provide an opportunity to challenge the patentability of the claims before the PTAB.
• Prior Art Search: Conduct a thorough prior art search, focusing on the patent's priority date of March 14, 2008, to identify potential grounds for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, which would be essential for an IPR.
• Monitor PTAB Filings: Continuously monitor the PTAB's E2E system for any newly filed petitions related to US7930287, as the landscape can change rapidly.

Inventors

• Brian Galvin: Employer at the time of filing is not explicitly stated in the provided information. As of September 2010, Brian Thomas Galvin (CRD# 5804241) was registered with Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.. It is not clear if this is the same Brian Galvin, nor his employer in March 2008.
• Alan McCord: Employer at the time of filing is not determinable from the provided information.
• Donald R. Boys: Employer at the time of filing is not determinable from the provided information. There is a "Donald J. Taylor" who worked for the IRS between 2002 and 2008, but this is not the named inventor "Donald R. Boys".

The patent application was filed by Michelli Capital LLC, and the inventors assigned their interest to Tethys Prime, Inc. on April 22, 2008, which was then assigned to Michelli Capital Limited Liability Company on August 27, 2008. This pattern of inventors assigning their rights to an entity shortly after the priority date, rather than being employees of the original assignee at the time of filing, is not inherently unusual but can sometimes precede portfolio transfers.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent US7930287B2 is Michelli Capital LLC.

Based on the available information, "Michelli Capital LLC" (the original assignee for the patent) appears distinct from "Michelli Weighing & Measurement." "Michelli Weighing & Measurement" is described as a provider of test and measurement services and equipment, founded in 1947, and was acquired by Summit Park in 2023. This company is actively shipping products and providing services. However, the patent assignee is "Michelli Capital LLC," which often implies an investment or holding company rather than an operating entity directly involved in product sales. There is no information to suggest that Michelli Capital LLC, the patent owner, shipped a product embodying the claims of US7930287. Its primary line of business, as a "Capital" entity, would likely involve investments or intellectual property management. Its current status (as Michelli Capital Limited Liability Company) is that its interest in the patent was assigned to OL Security LLC in December 2015.

Assignment timeline

The following assignment records are found for US7930287:

• 2008-04-10 to 2008-04-22 (executed) / recorded 2008-04-22 — Reel 020839/0267

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: GALVIN, BRIAN; MCCORD, ALAN; BOYS, DONALD R. (inventors)
  • Assignee: TETHYS PRIME, INC., WASHINGTON
  • Correspondent: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Context: Transfer of inventor rights to an initial corporate entity.

• 2008-07-10 (executed) / recorded 2008-08-27 — Reel 021448/0992

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: TETHYS PRIME, INC.
  • Assignee: MICHELLI CAPITAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DELAWA
  • Correspondent: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Context: Transfer from the initial corporate entity to the eventual original assignee of the patent.

• 2015-08-26 (executed) / recorded 2015-12-22 — Reel 037346/0985

  • Conveyance: MERGER
  • Assignor: MICHELLI CAPITAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
  • Assignee: OL SECURITY LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DELAWARE
  • Correspondent: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Context: Transfer of patent ownership, potentially via a merger or as part of a larger asset transfer, to the current assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7930287
    2008 : Filed by Michelli Capital LLC
         : Inventors assigned to Tethys Prime
         : Tethys Prime assigned to Michelli Capital LLC
    2011 : Issued to Michelli Capital LLC
    2015 : Assigned to OL Security LLC
    2026 : Litigation filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The transfer from Michelli Capital Limited Liability Company to OL Security Limited Liability Company (Reel 037346/0985) exhibits this signal. Michelli Capital LLC, while sharing a name component with an operating company, appears to be an IP holding entity. OL Security LLC's primary business appears to be providing security guard services, which is completely unrelated to "systems and methods for compound searching" as claimed in the patent. This strongly suggests that OL Security LLC is a licensing-only entity with respect to this patent.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Unclear. While OL Security LLC's business of providing security guards is unrelated to the patent's subject matter, it is not listed on the provided public NPE lists (Acacia Research Corp, Marathon Patent Group, etc.). However, its current activity in litigation in Delaware District Court (cases 1:26-cv-00466, 1:26-cv-00461, 1:26-cv-00397) suggests an assertion strategy.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. The provided snippets do not specify correspondent details for each assignment record, so recurrence cannot be confirmed.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. The assignments are spaced out: 2008 (inventors to Tethys, Tethys to Michelli Capital) and 2015 (Michelli Capital to OL Security). There are not multiple consecutive transfers within a short period through chained LLCs.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The last assignment to OL Security LLC was recorded on 2015-12-22 (executed 2015-08-26, Reel 037346/0985). The known litigation cases were filed in 2026, which is much longer than 6 months after the transfer.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication in the provided information that Michelli Capital LLC or any prior owner filed for bankruptcy leading to the patent transfer.
7. Privateering — Unclear. There is no information in the provided snippets (such as SEC filings or specific news coverage) to confirm or deny privateering activity.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The current assignee, OL Security LLC, is not a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is based on two strong signals. Firstly, the current assignee, OL Security LLC, is identified through job postings as a company providing physical security guard services, which is entirely unrelated to the "systems and methods for compound searching" claimed in US7930287. This constitutes a clear shell-entity pattern, where a patent is held by an entity with no apparent operating business in the field of the patent. Secondly, the presence of active litigation filed in 2026 in the Delaware District Court (cases 1:26-cv-00466, 1:26-cv-00461, 1:26-cv-00397) indicates an assertion strategy. The transfer of the patent from Michelli Capital Limited Liability Company to OL Security Limited Liability Company was recorded on 2015-12-22 (Reel 037346/0985), indicating a change in ownership well before the 2026 litigation.

For verification, see USPTO Assignment Center search for US7930287.

The USPTO Patent Public Search tool is the definitive resource for identifying prior art. Using its advanced search functionalities is crucial for thorough prior art analysis.

Here's an analysis of the prior art cited in US Patent 7930287, focusing on potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Anticipation means that a single prior art reference discloses every element of a claimed invention.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 7930287

The patent US7930287 explicitly incorporates by reference U.S. Pat. No. 6,285,999 issued to Lawrence Page, describing the PageRank system. This makes it a highly relevant piece of prior art for understanding the foundational search engine technology that US7930287 aims to improve upon.

1. U.S. Pat. No. 6,285,999 (PageRank System)

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 6,285,999 to Lawrence Page, titled "Method for node ranking in a linked database".
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed January 10, 1997; Issued September 4, 2001.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a method for scoring nodes (e.g., web pages) in a linked database (e.g., the World Wide Web) based on the link structure. It assigns a rank to each node by considering the number and importance of other nodes that link to it. This "PageRank algorithm" is a fundamental component of many search engines for ordering search results.
• Potential Anticipation for US7930287 Claims:
  • Claims 1, 10, 26, 28, 31 (portions related to "search engines" and "ranking"): While US7930287 focuses on an intermediary service that interacts with standard search engines, U.S. Pat. No. 6,285,999 anticipates the underlying technology of "search engines" that generate "ranked" results. Claims in US7930287 that generally refer to "one or more search engines" or "re-ranking pages returned ranked by the one or more search engines" (e.g., Claim 5, Claim 13, Claim 18) build upon the existence of systems like PageRank. U.S. Pat. No. 6,285,999 doesn't anticipate the iterative interaction or composite report generation aspects of US7930287, but it establishes the state of the art for search result ranking.

2. US20020059201A1 (Work James Duncan)

• Full Citation: US20020059201A1 to Work James Duncan, titled "Method and apparatus for internet-based human network brokering".
• Publication Date: May 16, 2002.
• Brief Description: This application generally relates to methods and apparatus for internet-based human network brokering. While not a direct search engine, it touches upon systems for connecting users to information through an online interface.
• Potential Anticipation for US7930287 Claims: The connection here is less direct for anticipation of the core "iterative search refinement" of US7930287. However, general aspects of providing an "interactive interface to a computing device connected to a network" (Claim 1) or "interfacing via an interactive interface to a computing device" (Claim 10) might find some overlap in broad terms. Specific details of iterative search query refinement are unlikely to be anticipated.

3. US20050278317A1 (William Gross)

• Full Citation: US20050278317A1 to William Gross, titled "Personalized search engine".
• Publication Date: December 15, 2005.
• Brief Description: This application describes a personalized search engine, which suggests that it considers user-specific information to modify search results. This has some conceptual overlap with US7930287's mention of "client transaction history and other criteria, such as keywords in titles of the pages returned" for processing results (e.g., Claim 6, Claim 14).
• Potential Anticipation for US7930287 Claims:
  • Claims 6 and 14 (re-ranking based on search history or profile): This patent likely anticipates the general concept of using user profiles or search history to personalize or re-rank search results. The specific "iterative interaction" to develop the initial search criteria in US7930287 might not be anticipated, but the application of user data to refine results is a potential overlap.

4. US20060271524A1 (Michael Tanne)

• Full Citation: US20060271524A1 to Michael Tanne, titled "Methods of and systems for searching by incorporating user-entered information".
• Publication Date: November 30, 2006.
• Brief Description: This application generally covers methods and systems for searching that incorporate user-entered information. This has a more direct relevance to US7930287's focus on refining search criteria based on user input.
• Potential Anticipation for US7930287 Claims:
  • Claims 1, 10, 26, 31 (determining purpose through user interaction/refinement): This patent is highly relevant as it describes systems incorporating user-entered information for searching. It may anticipate aspects of "determining a purpose for a search through iterative interaction" (Claim 1, Claim 10) or "obtaining, through iterative interaction, input that describes a nature of a search" (Claim 26). The specific two-step clarifying question process outlined in US7930287 would need careful comparison to determine exact anticipation.

5. US20070174279A1 (Adam Jatowt)

• Full Citation: US20070174279A1 to Adam Jatowt, titled "Page re-ranking system and re-ranking program to improve search result".
• Publication Date: July 26, 2007.
• Brief Description: This application describes a system and program for re-ranking search results to improve their relevance.
• Potential Anticipation for US7930287 Claims:
  • Claims 2, 5, 11, 13, 18, 31 (processing/re-ranking search results): This patent directly addresses re-ranking search results, which is a key component of US7930287 (e.g., "process the search results to generate processed results" in Claim 2, "re-ranking pages returned ranked by the one or more search engines" in Claim 5). The specifics of how the re-ranking is done might differ, but the concept itself is likely anticipated.

6. US20080133505A1 (Yahoo! Inc.)

• Full Citation: US20080133505A1 to Yahoo! Inc., titled "Search results presented as visually illustrative concepts".
• Publication Date: June 5, 2008 (Note: This is after the priority date of US7930287, which is March 14, 2008, therefore it is not prior art for novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) or (a)(2). However, it could be relevant for obviousness if its effective filing date is before March 14, 2008, or as a reference for the state of the art).
• Brief Description: This application focuses on how search results are presented, specifically using visual illustrations.
• Potential Anticipation for US7930287 Claims: Given its publication date is after the priority date of US7930287, it is unlikely to anticipate any claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102. However, it may represent a related development in the field.

7. US20080235187A1 (Microsoft Corporation)

• Full Citation: US20080235187A1 to Microsoft Corporation, titled "Related search queries for a webpage and their applications".
• Publication Date: September 25, 2008 (Note: This is after the priority date of US7930287, which is March 14, 2008, therefore it is not prior art for novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) or (a)(2). Similar to the Yahoo! reference, it could be relevant for obviousness if its effective filing date is before March 14, 2008, or as a reference for the state of the art).
• Brief Description: This application deals with generating related search queries for a webpage.
• Potential Anticipation for US7930287 Claims: Similar to the Yahoo! reference, due to its publication date being after the priority date of US7930287, it is unlikely to anticipate any claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Important Note on 35 U.S.C. § 102: For a prior art reference to anticipate a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, it must disclose every single element of that claim, either explicitly or inherently. The analysis above highlights potential areas of overlap and where a more detailed claim-by-claim comparison would be necessary to determine actual anticipation. The publication dates for US20080133505A1 and US20080235187A1 are after the priority date of US7930287, meaning they are not anticipatory art under current 35 U.S.C. § 102 (post-AIA), unless they have an earlier effective filing date. For pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102, these could be considered depending on specific subsections, but for simplicity and common practice, later publication dates typically preclude anticipation.

The obviousness of US patent 7930287 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 can be analyzed by considering combinations of prior art references that would have motivated a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) to combine them to achieve the claimed invention. The core innovation of US7930287 lies in an intermediary search service that iteratively interacts with a user to refine a search purpose through a sequence of clarifying questions, generates search criteria from this refined purpose, submits these criteria to one or more standard search engines, and then collects and potentially processes the results.

The priority date for US7930287 is March 14, 2008.

Relevant Prior Art References and Their Teachings:

1. US20060271524A1 (Tanne): Tanne teaches "methods of and systems for searching by incorporating user-entered information". Specifically, a search query is obtained from a user and then "augmented with additional information which is supplied by the user in response to a prompt". The prompt "may include a request for information about a previously entered search term or criteria" and can include "predefined questions". The augmented search query is then "forwarded to a search engine". Tanne also describes "processing the search results to enhance a relevancy ranking of the search results".

2. US6947930B2 (Overture Services, Inc.): This patent describes "systems and methods for interactive search query refinement". It allows a user to enter an initial query and receive results, including "one or more secondary result sets from which the user can interactively select to dynamically refine the initial query". This demonstrates an iterative process of refinement based on user interaction.

3. US20020059201A1 (Work James Duncan): Work teaches a method for searching by "sending the search request to multiple search engines over the Internet". This reference establishes the concept of using multiple search engines.

4. US20050278317A1 (Gross): Gross describes a "personalized search engine that automatically modifies search results to be more relevant to a particular user... by analyzing user history data". This teaches personalizing and re-ranking results based on user profiles or history.

5. US20070174279A1 (Jatowt): Jatowt presents a "page re-ranking system and re-ranking program to improve search result" by associating a re-ranking value based on "user context". This reinforces the concept of re-ranking results to improve relevancy.

Obviousness Analysis and Motivation to Combine:

The independent claims of US7930287 (Claims 1, 10, 26, 28, 31) are largely directed to an intermediary system and method that provides an interactive interface for refining a user's search query through iterative interaction involving at least two clarifying questions and answers, then using this refined query to search one or more standard search engines, and finally processing the collected results.

A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the time of the invention would have been motivated to combine these known elements to create a more effective and user-friendly search experience, directly addressing the difficulties acknowledged in the background art of US7930287 regarding users' inability to formulate effective search criteria and the challenge of returning relevant results from conventional search engines.

1. Initial Query and Iterative Refinement (Claims 1, 10, 26, 28, 31):

   • Tanne (US20060271524A1) directly teaches receiving an initial search query and augmenting it with "additional information... supplied by the user in response to a prompt". These prompts are described as "requests for information about a previously entered search term or criteria" and can be "predefined questions". This fundamentally covers the interactive process of presenting clarifying questions and receiving answers to develop search criteria.
   • While Tanne specifies "at least one prompt", extending this to a sequence of "at least one first clarifying question... and... at least one second clarifying question" as recited in the claims, would be a straightforward design choice for a POSA seeking to achieve a more thorough and precise understanding of a user's complex search purpose. The patent itself highlights the need for a "substantially richer and more detailed service". If a single prompt or clarification is insufficient to determine the user's intent (as illustrated by the Lincoln assassination example in the patent's description), it would be an obvious next step to present further clarifying questions in an iterative manner.
   • Overture (US6947930B2) further reinforces the concept of iterative query refinement through user interaction, where users "interactively select to dynamically refine the initial query". A POSA would recognize that both explicit textual prompts (Tanne) and interactive selection from presented options (Overture) are means for iteratively refining a search query based on user feedback.

2. Developing Search Criteria and Submitting to Standard Search Engines (Claims 1, 10, 31):

   • Once the search purpose is refined through iterative interaction (as taught by Tanne and Overture), Tanne (US20060271524A1) explicitly teaches that the "augmented search query is then forwarded to a search engine". This covers the development of search criteria and submission to a search engine.
   • The claims specify "one or more search engines." The concept of submitting a search query to multiple search engines to gather a broader set of results was well-known in the art, as evidenced by Work (US20020059201A1), which describes "sending the search request to multiple search engines".
   • Motivation to combine: A POSA would be motivated to combine the query refinement techniques of Tanne/Overture with the multi-engine search capability of Work to provide a comprehensive service. If the goal is to offer a "greatly enhanced search capability" and a "substantially richer and more detailed service" (as per US7930287's stated purpose), then gathering results from multiple sources after a precise query formulation would be an obvious and desirable outcome.

3. Collecting and Processing Search Results (Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 31):

   • The collection of search results is inherent in any search system.
   • The processing of results, including re-ranking, selecting subsets, or preparing reports, is also explicitly taught in the prior art. Tanne (US20060271524A1) teaches "processing the search results to enhance a relevancy ranking". Gross (US20050278317A1) teaches automatically modifying search results for relevancy by "analyzing user history data", which supports the re-ranking aspects of claims 6 and 14 that use search history or profiles. Jatowt (US20070174279A1) also teaches re-ranking based on "user context".
   • Motivation to combine: After collecting results from one or more standard search engines (Work), it would be obvious to a POSA to apply known processing and re-ranking techniques (Tanne, Gross, Jatowt) to improve the quality, organization, and relevance of the presented results, especially for a system designed to act as an intermediary to deliver a "comprehensive search report".

Conclusion:

The combination of Tanne (US20060271524A1) for iterative query refinement using prompts, augmented by the multi-engine search capabilities of Work (US20020059201A1), and further enhanced by the result processing and re-ranking techniques of Tanne (US20060271524A1), Gross (US20050278317A1), and Jatowt (US20070174279A1), would render the claims of US7930287 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine these elements would stem from the recognized need to overcome the limitations of conventional search engines by providing a more guided, precise, and comprehensive search experience. The specific recitation of "at least one first clarifying question... and... at least one second clarifying question" is merely a routine implementation or an obvious extension of Tanne's teaching of "at least one user-presented prompt" to further refine a user's search intent in an iterative process.