What specific patents list Lori A. Frantzve as inventor and what do those patent documents reveal about her business activities?
Executive summary
Patent databases and public filings show Lori A. Frantzve named as a co‑inventor on multiple patent documents—principally a 2002 published application for computer‑aided organizational assessment (US20020137015A1), a 2011 published application for infrastructure risk assessment (US20110071872A1), and international family documents for a vulnerability/risk logic analysis methodology (WO2006065862A2/A3)—typically paired with Lawrence R. Guinta and assigned at times to corporate entities such as Intellimet, Inc. and AZ‑Tech/IMET Laboratories, indicating a focus on enterprise assessment, risk diagnostics and related software/systems development rather than consumer products [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. The specific patents and applications that list Lori A. Frantzve as inventor
Public patent listings identify Lori A. Frantzve as a named inventor on several records aggregated by databases such as Justia and PatentGuru, with specific patent publications including US20020137015A1 (computer‑aided methods and apparatus for assessing an organizational process or system) and US20110071872A1 (system and method for infrastructure risk assessment and/or mitigation), and international filings in the WO2006 series for a criticality/vulnerability/risk logic analysis methodology (WO2006065862A2/A3), frequently co‑credited with Lawrence R. Guinta [5] [6] [1] [2] [3] [4].
2. What these patent documents say they cover—product and technical scope
The patent documents describe software and information‑handling systems for assessing organizational processes, infrastructure reliability and cyber/business vulnerability—covering methods to collect production and operational data, model responses to disturbing events, adjust and graphically display adjusted production data, determine reliability scores and recommend mitigation actions—language consistent with enterprise diagnostics, inventory/asset management and decision support platforms rather than physical hardware consumer goods [1] [2] [7] [4].
3. What the assignments and corporate names imply about business activities
Filing and assignment data in the records link the inventions to corporate entities: the 2002 publication was assigned to Intellimet, Inc., and the 2011 application shows an assignment to AZ‑Tech International, d/b/a IMET Laboratories, with the patent documents explicitly naming Frantzve and Guinta as assignors—this suggests the inventions were developed in a corporate or research‑service context and that Frantzve’s inventive work was connected to companies offering enterprise assessment, risk analysis or lab/diagnostic services rather than as isolated personal inventions [1] [2].
4. Patterns of co‑authorship and the nature of the collaboration
Across the documents the recurring co‑inventor is Lawrence R. Guinta, indicating a consistent collaboration or team; databases that index inventors (Justia, PatentGuru, Patent classification indexes) list both names together and place some of the work in nonmedical diagnostics or 706/911 classifications, which are commonly used for algorithmic diagnostic platforms and analytics—supporting a profile of Frantzve as a technical collaborator on analytic systems for organizational and infrastructure reliability [5] [8] [7].
5. What the patents reveal about actual business operations and what they do not show
The patents reveal that Frantzve participated in creating software/methods for assessment, risk analysis and decision‑support, and that these inventions were tied to corporate entities (Intellimet, AZ‑Tech/IMET), but patent filings do not by themselves prove market deployment, commercial success or operational roles within those companies; litigation and enforcement records show no patent litigation tied to Frantzve in RPX Insight, which limits visible evidence of monetization or aggressive IP enforcement [9]. The public records examined do not provide detailed personnel titles, revenue, or client lists, so conclusions about day‑to‑day business leadership or commercial scale must be qualified by that absence [9] [5].
6. Alternative interpretations and implicit agendas in the record
One interpretation is that Frantzve is a technical inventor working with Guinta to develop enterprise diagnostic/IP assets that were placed into corporate entities for commercialization; an alternative is that these are research/prototype filings retained by small consulting or lab firms without large commercial follow‑through—assignment to companies can reflect either active commercialization or protective IP consolidation. Sources used (Justia, Google Patents, PatentGuru, RPX Insight) are neutral primary patent indexes and do not offer corporate promotional spin, but they also do not disclose internal business motives or the extent of commercialization beyond assignment metadata [5] [3] [8] [9].