[E-trademarks] Regex search
Carl Oppedahl
carl at oppedahl.com
Mon Mar 18 03:31:07 EDT 2024
What she said.
On 3/17/2024 9:56 AM, Pamela Chestek via E-trademarks wrote:
> For one thing, it means that whenever you do a search you have to make
> a decision about whether to use the Advanced syntax or the regex
> syntax. And it appears there are situations where you /must/ use one
> or the other, such as my t-shirt example, which means you have to be
> highly skilled with both. Case in point - use of capitals:
>
> Id Query ResultCount
> 1 GS2:DVD 98307
> 2 GS2:/DVD/ 0
> 3 GS2:/dvd/ 98307
>
> If you don't remember that the search string in regex must be
> lowercase, and enter the term as it actually appears in the ID, you
> may have just screwed the pooch. It's just an invitation to disaster
> because unless you are a master of both you won't realize that your
> query was malformed.
>
> I also mentioned that I haven't found a way to do a proximity search
> in regex. But you can only do pattern matching in regex. So to pattern
> match on a two-word unitary phrase, I guess you have to include two
> different searches, e.g., /CM:("tick tock") AND CM:(/ti[ckqx]/) AND
> CM:(/to[ckqx]/)/ to find the homonyms for "tick tock"?
>
> There are so many examples of unreliable queries - forgetting a colon
> after the field tag, or failing to use all caps for connectors, also
> give you some results and you may not realize they are unreliable. I
> have submitted a request that a malformed query be flagged. It might
> not be possible with the t-shirt example, but it should be possible to
> at least identify syntactical errors.
>
> Pam
>
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> 300 Fayetteville Street
> Unit 2492
> Raleigh, NC 27602
> +1 919-800-8033
> pamela at chesteklegal.com
> www.chesteklegal.com
>
> On 3/16/2024 11:44 AM, Sam Castree via E-trademarks wrote:
>> Just curious, but is there a reason why that particular search would
>> need to use regex at all? Maybe I'm way off (I definitely don't
>> claim to have mastered this system yet), but it seems like
>> a..."normal" expert search would work just fine. GS:"baby bonnet" or
>> whatever.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Sam Castree, III
>>
>> /Sam Castree Law, LLC/
>> /3421 W. Elm St./
>> /McHenry, IL 60050/
>> /(815) 344-6300/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 7:56 PM Pamela Chestek via E-trademarks
>> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>>
>> Indeed, and the help materials couldn't be more terse and the
>> information more difficult to find, other than not to exist at
>> all. I
>> have yet to figure out how (if possible) to search for a two-word
>> expression, like "baby bonnet," using regex.
>>
>> Id Query ResultCount
>> 3 GS2:(/baby/ AND /bonnet/) 2484
>> 2 GS2:/baby bonnet/ 0
>> 1 GS2:"baby bonnet" 43
>>
>> So you're left with trying to remember two similar, but not
>> identical,
>> search systems, including how they treat quotation marks, reserved
>> characters, capitalization, etc.
>>
>> Pam
>>
>> Pamela S. Chestek
>> Chestek Legal
>> 300 Fayetteville Street
>> Unit 2492
>> Raleigh, NC 27602
>> +1 919-800-8033
>> pamela at chesteklegal.com
>> www.chesteklegal.com <http://www.chesteklegal.com>
>>
>> On 3/15/2024 8:40 PM, Richard Schafer via E-trademarks wrote:
>> > The fact that we have to make guesses about how the indexes
>> work shows how poorly the PTO has implemented and documented this
>> system. I wonder if examining attorneys have the same poor
>> explanation about how the indexes work. If they do, that's really
>> bad. If they have a fuller explanation, what possible reason
>> would the PTO have for not making that explanation public?
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Richard A. Schafer | Schafer IP Law
>> > P.O. Box 230081 | Houston, TX 77223
>> > M: 832.283.6564 | richard at schafer-ip.com
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On
>> Behalf Of Neil R. Ormos via E-trademarks
>> > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 6:19 PM
>> > To: E-trademarks Mailing List <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
>> > Cc: Neil R. Ormos <ormos-lists at ormos.org>
>> > Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Regex search
>> >
>> > Pamela Chestek via E-trademarks wrote:
>> >
>> >> Can anyone explain to me why the first two search queries
>> didn't give
>> >> me the same results as the third query? I was in expert mode.
>> >
>> >> GS:/t\-shirt/ 0
>> >> GS:/t[-]shirt/ 0
>> >> GS:t-shirt 511200
>> > When the GS index is used with a regular expression search, the
>> index appears to contain each of the words of the goods and
>> services field in isolation. Spaces and hyphens separate words,
>> but some other punctuation does not. Your regexps do not match
>> because t-shirt does not appear as a single word in the index.
>> >
>> > The GS index behaves differently when used with other types of
>> search.
>> >
>> >
>> <https://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/2024-January/000554.html>
>> >
>> > And the GS2 index also behaves differently.
>> >
>> > GS2:/t[-]shirt/
>> >
>> > returns 61,341 records.
>> >
>> > I know GS2 does some sort of stemming, but I haven't been able
>> to synthesize a complete explanation. If someone has GS2 figured
>> it out, or knows of a document that describes its behavior, I
>> hope they will explain.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > E-trademarks mailing list
>> > E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
>> >
>> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> E-trademarks mailing list
>> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
>> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240318/50a67dae/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4514 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240318/50a67dae/attachment.p7s>
More information about the E-trademarks
mailing list