ppt
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Worldwide Nanotechnology Development: A Comparative Study of USPTO, EPO, and JPO Patents
Yiling Lin
Advisor: Hsinchun Chen
Dec, 2006
Agenda
Introduction Research Design Basic Bibliographic Analysis Content Map Analysis Citation Network Analysis Conclusions
Introduction
Nanotechnology A fundamental technology. Critical for a nation’s technological
competence. Its R&D status attracts various communities’
interest. Patent
A technology document An open source Strictly structured
Introduction
Patent Offices in the WorldUSPTO, EPO and JPO issue nearly
90 percent of the world’s patents (Kowalski et al., 2003).
Language issue
.
Introduction
Research ObjectivesAssess the nanotechnology developm
ent status represented by USPTO, EPO, and JPO patents.
Compare and contrast the differences in the nanotechnology patents in the three repositories.
Research Design
Patent parsing
Data acquisition
USPTOdatabase
USPTOdatabase
Research status analysis
Topic coverageTopic coverage
Collected bykeywords
Content mapContent map
Citation NetworkCitation Network
Patent publicationPatent publication
Patent importance/strength of a repository
Patent importance/strength of a repository
Number of patentsNumber of patents
Average number of cites
Average number of cites
EPOdatabase
EPOdatabase
JPOdatabase
JPOdatabase
Knowledge diffusionKnowledge diffusion
Collected bykeywords
JPO dataset
EPO dataset
USPTO dataset
Patent statuschecking
Patent statuschecking
EPO+JPO patent
JPO patent
Patent status
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
Patent publication Number of patents by country in each year Number of patents by country group in each year Number of patents by assignee in each year Number of patents by technology field in each
year Patent importance / strength
Average number of cites by country Average number of cites by assignee Average number of cites by technology field
Content Map Analysis
DocumentsDocuments Topic SimilarityTopic Similarity
Keyword ExtractionTopicsTopics VisualizationVisualization
Arizona NounPhraser
Arizona NounPhraser
Topic Relation Analysis
SOM AlgorithmSOM Algorithm
Topic Map Interface
Content Map Analysis (USPTO)
USPTO Content Map (1976-1989)
Content Map Analysis (USPTO)
-0.34 0.08 1.50 1.98 2.40 2.80 3.22 3.69 4.33 4.79 5.54 NEW REGION
•USPTO Content Map (1990-1999)
-1.96 -0.75 -0.12 0.35 0.77 1.17 1.59 2.07 2.71 3.17 3.92 NEW REGION
•USPTO Content Map (2000-2004)
-0.34 0.08 1.50 1.98 2.40 2.80 3.22 3.69 4.33 4.79 5.54 NEW REGION
Findings –Content Map (USPTO)
From 1976 to 1989, the major research topics of USPTO patents included: “carbon atoms,” “laser beams,” “electrodes,” “coating composition,” “pharmaceutical compositions,” “electromagnetic radiation,” and “aqueous solutions.”
From 1990 to 1999, “pharmaceutical compositions,” “laser beams,” “aqueous solutions,” and “carbon atoms” were still major research topics. New research topics included: “thin films,” “nucleic acids,” and “semiconductor devices.”
From 2000 to 2004, “laser beams,” “thin film,” “semiconductor devices,” “pharmaceutical compositions,” “aqueous solutions,” “nucleic acids,” and “carbon atoms” were still major research topics. New topics included: “optical fibers,” “light emitting device,” “carbon nanotubes,” “barrier layers.”
Citation Network Analysis
Analytical unit levels: countries, Institutions technology fields.
The top 100 links of each network are used to create the core networks.
Graphviz, provided by AT&T Labs (Gansner and North, 2000) (available at: http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/).
Knowledge flow For example, a link from “Country A” to “Country B” mea
ns that country A’s patents had been cited by country B’s patents and the number beside the link is the total number of these citations.
Citation Network Analysis- USPTO Countries
Citation Network Analysis- USPTO Technology Fields (IPC)
Citation Network Analysis- USPTO Institutions
Conclusions
The number of patents had an increasing trend. In recent years, several countries had a significant growth in all repositories.
The USA filed much more patents in USPTO than in other repositories, which shows the country effect in patent filing. In both datasets, the US filed the majority of patents.
The European group countries filed similar numbers of patents in both USPTO and EPO, which shows the significant attraction of the USPTO repository to the researchers.
In USPTO and EPO, the patents published in the top technology fields showed upward trends, while those in the JPO dataset did not.
The top 3 technology fields in USPTO also belongs to the top 10 lists of EPO and JPO. EPO and JPO top 10 lists share many common technology fields.
Conclusions
From the content map analysis, USPTO patents cover more topic areas than EPO and JPO. Many of the EPO and JPO topics were related to
research tools/methods. Many of the EPO topics were related to physics
research. USPTO topics covered research in physics,
biomedicine, and electronics. The USPTO repository and EPO repository have
different focuses and strengths in different technology fields, in terms of the cites per patent measure.
In the institution citation network, USPTO institutions have more self-citations than EPO institutions.
Future Directions
Study the inter-citation relationships to identify the knowledge diffusion process between repositories.
Study the collaboration of the inventors in the three repositories.
Extend research framework to include more patent offices’ documents.
References
Bacchiocchi, E. and F. Montobbio (2004). "EPO vs. USPTO citation lags." Working Paper CESPRI 161.
Balconi, M., et al. (2004a). "Networks of inventors and the role of academia: an exploration of Italian patent data." Research Policy 33(1): 127-145.
Balconi, M. and A. Laboranti (2004b). The multidimensionality of the academic performance in the applied sciences end engineering: evidence from a case study, Università di Pavia.
Criscuolo, P. (2005). "The 'home advantage' effect and patent families. A comparison of OECD triadic patents, the USPTO and the EPO." Scientometrics 66(1): 23-41.
European Commission (1997). Second European Report on S&T Indicators. Bruxelles, European Commission.
Ganguli, P. (1998). "Intellectual property rights in transition." World Patent Information 20: 171-80.
Huang, Z., et al. (2003a). "Longitudinal patent analysis for Nanoscale Science and Engineering: Country, institution and technology field." Journal of Nanoparticale Research 5: 333-363.
Huang, M. H., et al. (2003b). "Constructing a patent citation map using bibliographic coupling: A study of Taiwan's high-tech companies." Scientometrics 58(3): 489-506.
Huang, Z., et al. (2004). "International Nanotechnology Development in 2003: Country, Institution, and Technology Field Analysis Based on USPTO Patent Database." Journal of Nanoparticale Research 6(4): 325-354.
References
Huang, Z., et al. (2005). "Longitudinal nanotechnology development (1991-2002): National Science Foundation funding and its impact on patents." Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7: 343-376.
Hullmann, A. and M. Meyer (2003). "Publications and patents in nanotechnology - An overview of previous studies and the state of the art." Scientometrics 58(3): 507-527.
Karki, M. M. (1997). "Patent citation analysis: a policy analysis tool." World Patent Information 19: 269-272.
Kowalski, T. J., et al. (2003). "Dominating global intellectual property: Overview of patentability in the USA, Europe and Japan." Journal of Commercial Biotechnology 9(4): 305-331.
Lewison, G. (1998). "Gastroenterology research in the United Kingdom: funding sources and impact." Gut 43(2): 288-293.
Lukach, R. and J. Plasmans (2001). A Study of Knowledge Spill-overs from the Compatible EPO and USPTO Patent Datasets for Belgian Companies. Belgian Report on Science, Technology and Innovation 2001 - Volume II: The Belgian Innovation System: Lessons and Challenges. M. C. a. B. Clarysse, Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs: 241-267.
Meyer, M. S. (2001). "Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: An exploration of nano-science and nano-technology." Scientometrics 51(1): 163-183.
Narin, F. (1994). "Patent Bibliometrics." Scientometrics 30(1): 147-155. Oppenheim, C. (2000). Do Patent Citations Count? The Web of knowledge. B. Cromin a
nd H. B. Atkins. Medford, Information Today, Inc.: 405-432. Quillen, C. D., et al. (2002). "Continuing Patent Applications and Performance of the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office - Extended." The Federal Circuit Bar Journal 12(1): 35-55.