Title: Worldwide Nanotechnology Development: A Comparative Study of USPTO, EPO, and JPO Patents
1Worldwide Nanotechnology Development A
Comparative Study of USPTO, EPO, and JPO Patents
- Xin Li Yiling Lin
- Hsinchun Chen
- Dec 2006
2Outline
- Introduction
- Background and Research Objectives
- Research Design
- Dataset
- Basic Bibliographic Analysis
- Content Map Analysis
- Citation Network Analysis
- Conclusions
3Introduction
Introduction
- Nanotechnology
- A fundamental technology.
- Critical for a nations technological competence.
- Revolutionizes a wide range of application
domains. - Its RD status attracts various communities
interest. - Patent analysis has been widely used to assess a
fields research and development status. - (Huang et al., 2003a, Huang et al., 2004 )
studied the longitudinal patent publications of
different countries, institutions, and technology
fields in the nanotechnology field. - (Huang et al., 2005) studied the impact of
National Science Foundations funding on
nanotechnology patents.
4Introduction
Introduction
- Our previous research shows that
- The US is the main contributor to the
nanotechnology field. - Japan and some European countries, such as
Germany and the United Kingdom, play an important
role in worldwide nanotechnology research. - Many patent analysis studies are based on the
patents filed in the US Patent and Trademark
Office (USPTO) database. - Although the USPTO covers many of the patents in
the nanotechnology field, the European Patent
Office (EPO) and Japan Patent Office (EPO) also
document large amounts of nanotechnology patents. - Little research/information available about
- The nanotechnology research status reflected by
the patents in the EPO database and JPO database. - Comparisons of the characteristics of the patents
filed in the three repositories.
5Our Research
Introduction
- Our research focuses on the nanotechnology field
and is a comparative study of nanotechnology
patents filed in USPTO, EPO, and JPO. - The nanotechnology research in German, P. R.
China, South Korea, and France are also very
active. Their patent offices documented many
nanotechnology patents (mostly in their own
language). But in this research we focus on the
patents documented in EPO and JPO, which have
been translated into English. - We use basic bibliographic analysis, content map
analysis, and citation network analysis
techniques.
6Patent Analysis
Background and Research Objectives
- Patent publication status has been used in
evaluating technology development (Karki, 1997
Oppenheim, 2000 Narin, 1994) in different
domains - Nanotechnology field (Huang et al., 2003a Huang
et al., 2004 Huang et al., 2005) - Gastroenterology field (Lewison, 1998)
- Taiwan high-tech companies (Huang et al., 2003b)
7Patent Offices in the World
Background and Research Objectives
- There are several governmental (e.g., USPTO) or
intergovernmental (e.g., EPO) patent offices
which control the granting of patents in the
world. - USPTO, EPO and JPO issue nearly 90 percent of the
worlds patents (Kowalski et al., 2003). - In the nanotechnology field, the United States,
the European group, and Japan dominate the patent
publication in the USPTO filed patents (Huang et
al., 2003a). - The inventors may file their patents in different
patent offices.
8Three Major Patent Offices
Background and Research Objectives
- USPTO Patents
- US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) more than
6.5 million patents with 3,500 to 4,000 newly
granted patents each week. - EPO Patents
- European Patent Office (EPO) more than 1.5
million patents with more than 1,000 newly
granted patents each week. - European Patent Office provides an online patent
search system, esp_at_cenet, which contains the
structured patent information from EPO, JPO,
USPTO, and other countries patent offices. - JPO Patents
- Japan Patent Office (JPO) more than 1.7 million
patents with 2,000 to 3,000 newly granted patents
each week.
9Patent Offices Effect
Background and Research Objectives
- The patent offices have different procedures and
policies which affect the patent publication
process. - USPTO patents have more citations per patent due
to the different rules governing citation
practices (Bacchiocchi et al., 2004). - In the USA, the duty of candor rule requires
applicants to disclose all the prior related work
of which they are aware. - At the European Patent Office, there is no such
rule. Most EPO patent citations were added by the
examiners. - The USPTO has less rigorous patent applications
standards than the EPO (Quillen et al., 2002). - The USPTO has a significantly higher grant rate
than EPO and JPO.
10Patent Offices Effect (cont.)
Background and Research Objectives
- The home advantage effect can be another factor
that affects the composition of the patents in
one repository. - Domestic applicants, proportionate to their
innovative activities, tend to file more patents
with their home country patent office than
foreign applicants do (European Commission,
1997). - Both EPO and USPTO patents have the home
advantage effect (Criscuolo P, 2005). - The patents in USPTO, EPO, and JPO databases have
the home advantage effect both in the whole
dataset and in high-tech areas (Ganguli, 1998).
11Utilizing Different Patent Offices Repositories
Background and Research Objectives
- To obtain a comprehensive understanding of a
technology areas development, it is necessary to
study the patents filed in different patent
offices repositories.
12Utilizing Different Patent Offices Repositories
Background and Research Objectives
- In some other domains, a few previous studies
combine different patent offices data for their
research - Balconi et al. (2004a 2004b) studied Italian
professors contribution in the firms in
science-based technological classes using the
patents filed in USPTO and EPO. - Lukach et al. (2001) studied inter-firm and
intra-firm knowledge diffusion patterns using
patents published in EPO and USPTO by Belgian
Companies. - In the nanotechnology field, many previous
studies use a single patent repository. - Huang et al. (2003a, 2004) assessed
nanotechnology research status from 1976 to 2003
using USPTO patents. - Meyer (2001) assessed the interrelationships
between science and technology in the
nanotechnology field using USPTO patents.
13Research Gap
Background and Research Objectives
- Few studies employ multiple repositories to
reveal the nanotechnology fields RD status. - Results of past patent analysis studies may be
biased by the characteristics of different
databases.
14Research Objectives
Background and Research Objectives
- Assess the nanotechnology development status
represented by USPTO, EPO, and JPO patents. - Compare and contrast the differences in the
nanotechnology patents in the three repositories.
15Research Design
Research Design
We develope a framework to assess the RD status
of a a science and engineering domain based on
the patents in the three repositories USPTO,
EPO, and JPO.
USPTO dataset
Patent parsing
Data acquisition
Research status analysis
USPTO database
Number of patents
Patent publication
Collected by keywords
EPO dataset
Average number of cites
Patent importance/ strength of a repository
EPO database
EPOJPO patent
Collected by keywords
Topic coverage
Content map
JPO patent
JPO dataset
Citation Network
Knowledge diffusion
Patent status
JPO database
Patent statuschecking
16Research Design
Research Design
- The framework contains three steps
- Data acquisition
- Retrieve patents from the three repositories.
- Patent parsing
- Parse the free-text data to structured data.
- Research status analysis
- Analyze the patents at different analytical unit
levels, i.e., country (country group), assignee
institution, and technology field (represented by
third level IPC categories) .
17Data Acquisition
Research Design
- Retrieve the patents from the three repositories
- A list of keywords can be used to search for
patents related to a domain from the three
repositories. - USPTO
- USPTO provides online full-text access for
patents issued since 1976. - The patents can be searched using almost all the
data fields of a patent. - EPO
- esp_at_cenet provides online full-text access to EPO
patents issued since 1978. - The patents can be searched based on title,
abstract, and some of the bibliographic data. - JPO
- Patent Abstracts of Japan (PAJ) is the official
patent database of JPO, which contains the
patents issued since 1976. - The PAJ database is difficult to spider. But its
patents and patent applications can be searched
from esp_at_cenet. - Need to use the PAJ database to differentiate
granted patents from patent applications.
18Research Status Analysis
Research Design
- We assess a fields research status using the
following indicators. - Patent publication trend
- Number of patents by country in each year
- Number of patents by country group in each year
- Number of patents by assignee institution in each
year - Number of patents by technology field in each
year - Patent impact
- Average number of cites by country
- Average number of cites by assignee institution
- Average number of cites by technology field
- Topic coverage
- Content map analysis
- Knowledge diffusion
- Country citation network analysis
- Institution citation network analysis
- Technology field network analysis
19Data Limitations
Research Design
- The three repositories have different data
fields, which need to be considered during the
analysis. - There is no assignee country information in JPO
patents. We can't perform the "assignee country
analysis" and "country group analysis" on the JPO
patents. - There is no citation information in JPO patents.
We can't perform the citation network analysis on
the JPO patents. - In previous studies we used US Patent
Classifications to represent technology fields.
Since USPTO, EPO, and JPO all have International
Patent Classification (IPC), in this research we
use IPC classifications to represent technology
fields. - The United States Patent Classification has 462
first-level categories. - IPC has 120 level-2 classifications and 631
level-3 classifications. To be comparable to our
previous research, we use level-3 IPC in this
study.
20Analysis Performed
Research Design
21Data Collection
Dataset
- Keyword list
- A nanotechnology-related keyword list provided by
domain experts (Huang et al., 2003 2004). - Patent search/retrieval
- In our previous research, we retrieved
nanotechnology patents by searching the
nanotechnology-related keyword list in patent
title, abstract, and claims (title-claims
search) and in all patent data fields
(full-text search) from USPTO database (Huang
et al., 2003 2004). - Because of the limitation of the search function
of esp_at_cenet, we collected the nanotechnology
patents in EPO and JPO by searching the
nanotechnology-related keyword list in patent
title and abstract (title-abstract search). - To be comparable with the patents retrieved from
EPO and JPO, we collected the data using
title-abstract search from USPTO database in
this research.
22Data USPTO Patents
Dataset
- Comparing with "full-text" search and
"title-claims" search, title-abstract search
provides fewer search results but with higher
accuracy. - From title-abstract search
- 5,363 unique patents were collected.
- Submitted by 2,196 assignee institutions, 8,405
inventors, and 46 countries.
23Data USPTO Patents (cont.)
Dataset
- Top 20 nanotechnology patent assignees (with
average patent age) and countries based on
title-abstract search of patents published from
1976 to 2004
24Data EPO Patents
Dataset
- EPO nanotechnology patent collected by
title-abstract search in esp_at_cenet. - 2,328 EPO patents were collected.
- Submitted by 1,168 assignee institutions, 5,400
inventors, and 43 countries.
25Data EPO Patents (cont.)
Dataset
- Top 20 nanotechnology patent assignees (with
average patent age) and countries based on
title-abstract search of patents published from
1978 to 2004
26Data JPO Patents
Dataset
- JPO patent collection
- The patents collected by title-abstract search
in esp_at_cenet contain both JPO patent applications
and JPO registered patents. - The patents status are retrieved from the JPO
database to filter out patent applications. - 923 JPO registered patents were collected.
- Submitted by 348 assignee institutions and 1,729
inventors.
27Data JPO Patents (cont.)
Dataset
- Top 20 nanotechnology patent assignees based on
title-abstract search of patents published from
1976 to 2004
28Data USPTO, EPO, and JPO Patents
Dataset
- The numbers of nanotechnology patents published
in USPTO, EPO and JPO by year (log scale)
- The numbers of nanotechnology patents in USPTO
and EPO roughly show a pattern of straight line,
indicating exponential increases of the
nanotechnology patents. - After 1993, the number of nanotechnology patents
published in JPO becomes stable.
29I. Basic Analysis- USPTO Patents by Country
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
- Top 20 nanotechnology patent assignee countries
in USPTO (title-abstract search) and their
patents by year, 1976-2004 (log scale)
- Many countries had an increasing trend of
nanotechnology patent publication - The United States published more nanotechnology
patents than other countries in USPTO. The US
nanotechnology patents showed an exponential
growth trend. - Between 1994 and 2002, Japan nanotechnology
patents showed a slower increasing speed. - Germany patents in USPTO were continuously
increasing. - After 2002, the number of nanotechnology patents
published by France experienced a decrease.
30Basic Analysis- EPO Patents by Country
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
- Top 20 nanotechnology patent assignee countries
in EPO (title-abstract search) and their
patents by year, 1978-2004 (log scale)
- The United States filed more nanotechnology
patents than other countries. The US
nanotechnology patents showed an exponential
increase trend. - The Japan patents kept at the same level between
1989 and 2000. After 2000, there was a rapid
growth of Japan patents. - Germany patents remained at the same level after
2000. - France patents were consistently increasing in
EPO.
31Basic Analysis- USPTO Patents by Country Group
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
- Assignee country group analysis by year,
1976-2004 (title-abstract search) (log scale)
- The United States filed more patents than the
other three groups. - The European Group, Japan, and the Others group
had similar numbers of nanotechnology patents in
each year.
32Basic Analysis- EPO Patents by Country Group
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
- Assignee country group analysis by year,
1978-2004 (title-abstract search) (log scale)
- The numbers of patents filed by the United States
and European group countries were at the same
level. - The numbers of patents filed by Japan and Other
countries were at the same level after 1998.
These two groups patents are fewer than the
patents filed by the other two country groups.
33Findings - Patents by Country and Country Group
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
- USPTO and EPO assignee country analysis
- Many of the top 20 assignee countries had an
increasing trend of nanotechnology patent
publication. - The United States filed more nanotechnology
patents than other countries. Its patents showed
an exponential increasing trend. - Some countries showed different publication
trends in the two repositories. - USPTO and EPO assignee country group analysis
- In USPTO, the United Sates published more patents
than the other three country groups. - In EPO, the United Sates published a similar
number of patents to European group countries. - The United States filed much more nanotechnology
patents in USPTO than in EPO. - European group countries filed more patents in
EPO than in USPTO.
34Basic Analysis- USPTO Patents by Assignee
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
- Top 10 nanotechnology patent assignee
institutions in USPTO (title-abstract search)
and their patents by year, 1976-2004
- Most of the top assignees were United States
companies/ institutions. - Some institutions, such as IBM and Micron
Technology, Inc showed a decrease in recent
years nanotechnology patent publication. - Most institutions started publishing
nanotechnology patents in 1990s, while IBM, The
United States of America as represented by the
Secretary of the Navy, Eastman Kodak Company,
and Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company
started in 1970s.
35Basic Analysis- EPO Patents by Assignee
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
- Top 10 nanotechnology patent assignee
institutions in EPO (title-abstract search) and
their patents by year, 1978-2004
- The top 10 assignees consisted of
companies/institutions from the United States,
Koreas, Japan, etc. - Samsung Electronics Co Ltd had a steady
increase in patent publication after 2001 - Some institutions, such as Eastman Kodak Co
and Japan Science Tech Corp experienced a
decrease in recent years.
36Basic Analysis- JPO Patents by Assignee
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
- Top 10 nanotechnology patent assignee
institutions in JPO (title-abstract search) and
their patents by year, 1976-2004
- Most of the top assignees were Japanese
companies/ institutions. - Many of assignee institutions in JPO experienced
a decrease in recent years, such as Nippon
Electric Co, Agency Ind Science Techn, Tokyo
Shibaura Electric Co, etc. - Japan Science Tech Corp and Nat Inst for
Materials Science continued to have active
patent publications in recent years.
37Findings - Patents by Assignee
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
- Home advantage effect
- In the three patent databases, many of the top
nanotechnology patent assignee institutions are
companies that belong to the same region as the
patent office.
38Basic Analysis- USPTO Technology Fields
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
- Top 10 technology fields according to the number
of patents published between 1976 and 2004 based
on US Class (title-abstract search)
39Basic Analysis- USPTO Technology Fields
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
- Top 10 US classification technology fields by
year (1976-2004) (title-abstract search)
- Most of the top 10 technology fields had an
increasing trend of patent publication. - Comparing with other technology fields, the
number of patents in technology field 250
Radiant energy did not change much after 1989. - Technology field 257Active solid-state devices
experienced a rapid growth since 1999.
40Basic Analysis- USPTO Technology Fields
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
- Top 10 technology fields according to the number
of patents published between 1976 and 2004 based
on IPC (title-abstract search)
- Technology field H01L had the most
nanotechnology patents published, almost double
the amount of the second largest technology field
A61K.
41Basic Analysis- USPTO Technology Fields
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
- Top 10 IPC technology fields by year (1976-2004)
(title-abstract search)
- Most of the top 10 technology fields had an
increasing trend of patent publication. - The technology fields H01L Semiconductor
devices electric solid state devices
experienced much faster growth than other
technology fields. - The patents published in technology field A61K
Preparations for medical, dental, or toilet
purposes each year became stable after 1996. - Some of the technology fields in the two systems
have similar meanings and similar development
trends, for example, H01L in IPC and 438 in USPC.
42Basic Analysis- EPO Technology Fields
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
- Top 10 technology fields according to the number
of patents published between 1978 and 2004
(title-abstract search)
43Basic Analysis- EPO Technology Fields
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
- Top 10 technology fields by year (1978-2004)
(title-abstract search)
- Most of the top 10 technology fields had an
increasing trend of patent publication. - After 2000, technology fields A61K
Preparations for medical, dental, or toilet
purposes, H01L Semiconductor devices electric
solid state devices, and C01B Non-metallic
elements compounds thereof" showed faster growth
than the other technology fields. - The patent publication of technology field
G01B Measuring length, thickness, or similar
linear dimensions measuring angles measuring
areas measuring irregularities of surfaces or
contours was quite consistent in recent years,
which is different from the other technology
fields.
44Basic Analysis- JPO Technology Fields
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
- Top 10 technology fields according to the number
of patents published between 1976 and 2004
(title-abstract search)
45Basic Analysis- JPO Technology Fields
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
- Top 10 technology fields by year (1976-2004)
(title-abstract search)
- Many of the technology fields experienced a
decrease in recent years. - Technology field C01B Non-metallic elements
compounds thereof had a steady growth in patent
publication.
46Summary USPTO/EPTO/JPO Technology Fields
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
- The three repositories have several top
technology fields in common, e.g., A61K,
H01L, H01J, G01B, and G01N. - Although the top 10 technology fields are very
similar in the three repositories, their rankings
(and numbers of patents published) are
significant different.
47Findings - Technology Fields
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
- In USPTO, technology field H01L had many more
nanotechnology patents than other fields. In EPO
and JPO there was no dominate technology field
among the top 10 technology fields. - USPTO, EPO and JPO have many top technology
fields in common. - Most of the JPO top technology fields experienced
a decrease in recent years, which was different
from the technology fields in USPTO and EPO. - In USPTO patents, the top technology fields were
mainly related to biomedical research, material
research and semiconductor research. - In EPO patents, the top technology fields were
mainly related to biomedical research, chemistry
research, material research, and semiconductors
research. - In JPO patents, the top technology fields were
mainly related to biomedical research and
material research and semiconductor research.
48Basic Analysis- Average Number of Cites by Country
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
- USPTO top 10 countries with more than 10 patents
based on the average number of cites measure
(1976-2004) (title-abstract search)
- EPO top 10 countries with more than 10 patents
based on the average number of cites measure
(1978-2004) (title-abstract search)
49Basic Analysis- Average Number of Cites by
Assignee Institution
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
- USPTO top 10 assignee institutions with more than
10 patents based on the average number of cites
measure (1976-2004) (title-abstract search)
- EPO top 10 assignee institutions with more than
10 patents based on the average number of cites
measure (1978-2004) (title-abstract search)
50Basic Analysis- Average Number of Cites by
Technology Field
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
- USPTO top 10 technology fields with more than 10
patents based on the average number of cites
measure (1976-2004) (title-abstract search)
- EPO top 10 technology fields with more than 10
patents based on the average number of cites
measure (1978-2004) (title-abstract search)
51Findings - Average Number of Cites
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
- In general, USPTO countries, assignees, and
technology fields had a higher average number of
cites than those in EPO. - USPTO requires inventors to cited previous works
in their patents. - EPO patent citations were mostly assigned by the
examiners. - Although five out of the ten highly cited
countries (The United Sates, Japan, Switzerland,
France, and Israel) are the same in USPTO and
EPO, their rankings are significantly different. - The United States and Japan published most of the
patents with very high average number of cites in
both repositories. - The difference between USPTO and EPO highly cited
technology fields shows the different focuses and
strengths of the nanotechnology patents in the
two repositories. However, technology fields
H01J and G01B appear in both top 10 lists
with large numbers of patents and high average
number of cites.
52II. Content Map Analysis
Content Map Analysis
Documents
Topic Similarity
Visualization
Topics
Topic Relation Analysis
Keyword Extraction
Arizona NounPhraser
SOM Algorithm
- Technology topics ,represented by keywords in the
documents, are extracted using a Natural Language
Processing tool, the Arizona Noun Phraser, which
can identify the key noun phrases based primarily
on the linguistic patterns of free texts. - The technology topics map are organized by the
multi-level self-organization map algorithm (Chen
et al., 1996 Ong et al., 2005) developed by the
Arizona Artificial Intelligence Lab. This
algorithm calculates the topic similarities
according to the co-occurrence patterns of key
phrases in document titles and abstracts. - The topics are positioned geographically on a
graph according to their similarity by the topic
map interface.
53Topic Map Interface
Content Map Analysis
- Two components
- A folder tree
- A hierarchical content map
- Each node in the tree, corresponding to a region
in the map, is a topic (keyword) identified from
the document. - Conceptually closer technology topics were
positioned closer geographically. - Numbers of documents that were assigned to the
different levels of topics are presented after
the topic labels. The sizes of the topic regions
also generally correspond to the number of
documents assigned to the topics.
54Content Map Analysis (USPTO)
Content Map Analysis
- USPTO Content Map (1976-1989) (title-abstract
search)
55Content Map Analysis (USPTO)
Content Map Analysis
4.18 5.39 6.03 6.51 6.93 7.33
7.75 8.23 8.86 9.32 10.07
NEW
REGION
-0.80 0.41 1.05 1.53 1.95 2.35
2.77 3.25 3.88 4.34 5.09
NEW
REGION
- USPTO Content Map (1990-1999) (title-abstract
search)
- USPTO Content Map (2000-2004) (title-abstract
search)
56Findings Content Map (USPTO)
Content Map Analysis
- From 1976 to 1989, the major research topics of
USPTO nanotechnology patents included carbon
atoms, optical fibers, and thin films. - From 1990 to 1999, several new research topics
appeared from 1990 to 1999, including aqueous
solutions, composite materials, laser beams,
nucleic acids, optical waveguide, organic
colvents, reverse osmosis, self-assembled
monolayer, semiconductor substrate, silicon
carbide, and substrate surfaces. - From 2000 to 2004, the numbers of patents related
to several topics had increased significantly,
such as aqueous solutions, composite
materials, carbon nanotubes, nucleic acids,
self-assembled monolayer, and thin films.
Some new topics also became major research topics
in this time period, such as atomic force
microscope, clay materials, dielectric
layers, nanocomposite materials, naphtha
stream, polymeric materials, and
semiconductor devices.
57Content Map Analysis (EPO)
Content Map Analysis
-1.88 -0.67 -0.04 0.44 0.86 1.26
1.68 2.16 2.80 3.26 4.01
NEW
REGION
- EPO Content Map (1990-1999) (title-abstract
search)
- EPO Content Map (2000-2004) title-abstract
search
58Findings Content Map (EPO)
Content Map Analysis
- From 1978 to 1989, EPO had only 97 nanotechnology
patents, which are not enough to generate a
meaningful content map. - From 1990 to 1999, EPO nanotechnology patents
covered the topics aqueous solutions, atomic
force, carbon nanotubes, magnetic core,
metal oxides, and thin films. - From 2000 to 2004, the research topics aqueous
solutions, metal oxides, and thin films had
significant increase. The new topics included
gate electrode, low dielectric,
nanocomposite materials, nanoparticulate
compositions, and ploymer compositions.
59Content Map Analysis (JPO)
Content Map Analysis
-3.33 -2.12 -1.48 -1.00 -0.58 -0.18
0.24 0.72 1.35 1.82 2.56
NEW
REGION
- JPO Content Map (1990-1999) (title-abstract
search)
- JPO Content Map (1999-2004) (title-abstract
search)
60Findings Content Map (JPO)
Content Map Analysis
- From 1978 to 1989, JPO had only 31 nanotechnology
patents, which are not enough to generate a
meaningful content map. - From 1990 to 1999, the major topics of JPO
nanotechnology patents were atomic force
microscope, laser beams, silicon substrate,
and thin films. - From 2000 to 2004, the topics atomic force
microscope, and thin films were still major
research topics. The new research topics include
Carbon nanofibers, gate electrodes, heat
treatment, and quantum dots.
61Findings Content Map
Content Map Analysis
- USPTO patents had broader topic coverage than EPO
and JPO. - Many of the EPO and JPO topics were related to
research tools/methods (e.g., atomic force
microscope, thin films, and scanning
tunneling microscope) and physics research
(e.g., carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibers,
magnetic core, metal oxides, and transition
metal) - Many USPTO topics were related to physics
research (e.g., carbon nanotubes, laser
beams, optical waveguide, and self-assembled
monolayer), biomedical research (e.g., nucleic
acids, organic colvents, pharmaceutical
compositions, and reverse osmosis), and
electronic research (e.g., dielectric layers,
semiconductor devices and semiconductor
substrate).
62III. Citation Network Analysis
Citation Network Analysis
- In this research, the patent citation networks
are studied at three abstract analytical unit
levels countries, institutions, and technology
fields. - In this research, the top 100 links of each
network (according to the number of citations
between the nodes) are used to create the core
networks. - These citation networks are visualized using an
open source graph drawing software, Graphviz,
provided by ATT Labs (Gansner and North, 2000)
(available at http//www.research.att.com/sw/tool
s/graphviz/). - In the citation networks, direction of the links
represents the direction of the citations. For
example, a link from Country A to Country B
means that country As patents cited country Bs
patents and the number beside the link is the
total number of these citations. - It allows us to identify the salient knowledge
diffusion patterns among the analytical units.
63Citation Network Analysis- USPTO Countries
Citation Network Analysis
64Citation Network Analysis- EPO Countries
Citation Network Analysis
65Findings Country Citation Network
Citation Network Analysis
- In the USPTO dataset, the United States is the
most significant citation center on the network.
Japan, Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom,
China (Taiwan) and Germany are the secondary
citation centers and constructed a cluster with
close citations. - In the EPO dataset, the United States, France,
Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom are large
citation centers and construct a citation cluster
on the network. - In both repositories, the countries have close
citation relationships. In EPO most assignee
countries have more than one citing/cited
country. In USPTO several countries only have
citation relationship with the United States.
Many of the countries that only had citations
with the United States were relatively new in the
nanotechnology domain.
66Citation Network Analysis- USPTO Institutions
Citation Network Analysis
67Citation Network Analysis- EPO Institutions
Citation Network Analysis
68Findings Institution Citation Network
Citation Network Analysis
- Both institution citation networks have many
disconnected components. - In USPTO, IBM, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, The Regents of the University of
California, and Molecular Imaging Corporation
are the major companies/institutions in the
largest citation cluster. - In EPO, IBM, Hitachi Europ Ltd, Seiko Instr
Inc, Matsushita Electric Ind Co Ltd, etc. are
the major citation centers in the first citation
cluster. Lucent Technologies Inc, Iljin
Nanotech Co Ltd, Ise Electronics Corp, etc.
construct the other a large citation cluster.
69Citation Network Analysis- USPTO Technology
Fields (US class)
Citation Network Analysis
70Citation Network Analysis- USPTO Technology
Fields (IPC)
Citation Network Analysis
71Citation Network Analysis- EPO Technology Fields
Citation Network Analysis
72Findings Technology Field Citation Network
Citation Network Analysis
- In all three technology field citation networks,
the technology fields have close citation
relationships. - In the USPTO technology field citation network
represented by USPC, the technology fields that
are most often citing and being cited by other
fields were 435 Chemistry molecular biology and
microbiology, 428 Stock material or
miscellaneous articles, and 427 Coating
processes. - In USPTO, the large citation centers of
technology fields represented by IPC include
H01L Semiconductor devices electric solid
state devices not otherwise provided for, G01N
Investigating or analysing materials by
determining their chemical or physical
properties, B32B Layered products, i.e.
products built-up of strata of flat or non-flat,
e.g. cellular or honeycomb, form, and H01J
Electric discharge tubes or discharge lamps.
73Findings Technology Field Citation Network
(cont.)
Citation Network Analysis
- In EPO, technology fields H01J Electric
discharge tubes or discharge lamps, C08K Use
of inorganic or non-macromolecular organic
substances as compounding ingredients, C09D
Coating compositions, e.g. paints, varnishes,
lacquers filling pastes chemical paint or ink
removers inks correcting fluids woodstains
pastes or solids for colouring or printing use
of materials therefor, and C01B Non-metallic
elements compounds thereof are major citation
centers in the technology field citation network.
- In USPTO technology field citation network, a
major citation center usually has citation
relationships with several smaller citation
centers. On the other hand, in EPO, most citation
relations are between the major citation centers.
74Conclusions
Conclusions
- The nanotechnology patents issued by USPTO and
EPO experienced an exponential growth in the past
30 years. But the nanotechnology patent issued by
JPO yearly became stable after 1993. - In USPTO and EPO, the high productivity assignee
countries and their rankings are very similar to
each other. The United States filed the most
nanotechnology patents in both repositories. - The patent published by the four country groups
all had an increasing trend in both USPTO and
EPO. - The United States had much more nanotechnology
patents than the other three groups in USPTO. - European group countries had similar number of
patents as the Untied States in EPO.
75Conclusions
Conclusions
- The top assignee institutions are quite different
in USPTO, EPO, and JPO. However, IBM and
LOreal are high productivity assignee
institutions in all three repositories. - Most of the top assignee institutions in USPTO
and JPO are United States institutions and Japan
institutions, respectively. - 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 and physics research. - Many of the USPTO topics were related to physics
research, biomedical research, and electronic
research. - Both USPTO and EPO assignee country citation
networks have close citation relationships. - The USPTO technology field citation network shows
a clear pattern of knowledge diffusion from the
major citation centers to the smaller citation
centers. The EPO technology field citation
network shows a clear pattern of knowledge
exchange between the major citation centers.
76Future Directions
- Study the inter-repository citation relationships
of the three repositories. - At the repository level
- At the technology field level
- Study the collaboration of the inventors in the
three repositories. - At the country level
- At the assignee level
- Extend our research framework to include the more
patent offices documents, such as Germany, P. R.
China, South Korea, and France.
77References
- 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 ST 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.
78References
- 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 and 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.