Abstract
This paper presents a relatively simple, objective and repeatable method for selecting sets of patents that are representative of a specific technological domain. The methodology consists of using search terms to locate the most representative international and US patent classes and determines the overlap of those classes to arrive at the final set of patents. Five different technological fields (computed tomography, solar photovoltaics, wind turbines, electric capacitors, electrochemical batteries) are used to test and demonstrate the proposed method. Comparison against traditional keyword searches and individual patent class searches shows that the method presented in this paper can find a set of patents with more relevance and completeness and no more effort than the other two methods. Follow on procedures to potentially improve the relevancy and completeness for specific domains are also defined and demonstrated. The method is compared to an expertly selected set of patents for an economic domain, and is shown to not be a suitable replacement for that particular use case. The paper also considers potential uses for this methodology and the underlying techniques as well as limitations of the methodology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Atkinson, K. (2008). Toward a more rational patent search paradigm. Proceedings of the 1 st ACM workshop on Patent Information Retrieval, pp. 37–40.
Baillie, J. (2002). Introduction to patent searching. Resource document. Boston Public Library. http://www.bpl.org/research/govdocs/patent_handout.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2012.
Benson, C. L., & Magee, C. L. (2012). A framework for analyzing the underlying inventions that drive technical improvements in a specific technological field. Engineering Management Research, 1(1), 2–14. doi:10.5539/emr.v1n1p2.
Campbell, R. (1983). Patent trends as a technological forecasting tool. World Patent Information (1979), 137–143.
Criscuolo, P. (2006). The ‘home advantage’ effect and patent families. A comparison of OECD triadic patents, the USPTO and the EPO. Scientometrics, 66(1), 23–41.
D’hondt, E. (2009). Lexical issues of a syntactic approach to interactive patent retrieval. The Proceedings of the 3 rd BCSIRSG Symposium on Future Directions in Information Access. pp. 102–109.
Fujii, A. (2007). Enhancing patent retrieval by citation analysis. Proceedings of the 30 th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. doi:10.1145/1277741.1277912.
Fujita, S. (2004). Revisiting the document length hypothesis – NTCIR-4 CLIR and patent experiments at Patolis. Proceedings of NTCIR-4 Workshop.
Gerken, J. M., & Moehrle, M. G. (2012). A new instrument for technology monitoring: novelty in patents measured by semantic patent analysis. Scientometrics, 91(3), 645–670. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0635-7.
Graf, E., Frommholz, I., Lalmas, M., & van Rijsbergen, K. (2010). Knowledge modeling in prior art search. Advances in Multidisciplinary Retrieval. pp. 60–71.
Hall, B., & Jaffe, A. (2001). The NBER patent citation data file: lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER Working Paper Series, p. 8498.
Joho, H., Azzopardi, L., & Vanderbauwhede, W. (2010). A survey of patent users. Proceedings of the third symposium on Information interaction in context. pp. 13–22.
Larkey, L. (1999). A patent search and classification system. Proceedings of the fourth ACM conference on Digital Libraries. pp.179–187. doi:10.1145/313238.313304.
Lopez, P., & Romary, L. (2010). Experiments with citation mining and key-term extraction for prior art search. CLEF 2010-Conference on Multilingual and Multimodal Information Access Evaluation.
Magdy, W., & Jones, G. J. F. (2010). PRES: a score metric for evaluating recall-oriented information retrieval applications. SIGIR ‘10 Proceedings of the 33 rd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. pp. 611–618.
Mahdabi, P., Keikha, M., Gerani, S., & Landoni, M. (2011). Multidisciplinary Information Retrieval. Building queries for prior-art search (pp. 3–15). Berlin, Springer.
Michel, J. (2001). Patent citation analysis. A closer look at the basic input data from patent search reports. Scientometrics, 51(1), 185–201.
Patsnap. (2012). Patsnap patent search and analysis. Retrieved May 15, 2012, from http://www.patsnap.com.
Takaki, T., Fujii, A., & Ishikawa, T. (2004). Associative document retrieval by query subtopic analysis and its application to invalidity patent search. Proceedings of the 13 th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management-CIKM’04, p. 399.
Trajtenberg, M. (1987). Patents, citations and innovations: tracing the links. NBER Working Paper Series, p. 2457.
Trajtenberg, Manuel. (1990). A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. The Rand Journal of Economics, 21(1), 172–187.
Wang, S.-J. (2011). The state of art patent search with an example of human vaccines. Human Vaccines, 7(2), 265–268. doi:10.4161/hv.7.2.14004.
Xue, X., & Croft, W. B. (2009). Automatic query generation for patent search. Proceeding of the 18 th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management-CIKM’09, p. 2037.
Acknowledgments
We are pleased that Professor Trajtenberg still had access to his patent set and grateful that he cooperatively shared it with us. We also thank Subarna Basnet for useful input on an earlier draft. The research was supported by the SUTD/MIT International Design Center.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Benson, C.L., Magee, C.L. A hybrid keyword and patent class methodology for selecting relevant sets of patents for a technological field. Scientometrics 96, 69–82 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0930-3
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0930-3