Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sources of inventive novelty: two patent classification schemas, same story

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An essential feature of a modern patenting system is a classification schema for organizing, indexing and coding the technical information contained in a patent. Patent classification systems make it possible for patent examiners and prospective inventors to search through existing patents in order to find information pertinent to evaluating a patent application’s purported novelty. Patent classification systems also support the construction of a taxonomy for the various sources of inventive novelty embodied in patented inventions. Until 2013 the U.S. Patent Office utilized the United States Patent Classification system and since then it has used the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system; these two systems implement very different classification logics with the CPC aiming at greater granularity. Here we examine the extent to which the two patent classification systems generate similar historical narratives as to the sources of inventive novelty. Despite the differences in classification principles, common patterns are revealed regardless of which classification system is used to identify technologies. Invention is primarily a cumulative process where new inventions are developed from combining existing technologies. Refinements (the re-use of existing technologies) and combinations of previously existing technological functionalities predominate in the patent record, while inventions embodying previously unseen technologies are very rare. The rate at which inventions representing non-refinements have been introduced into the stock of inventions has kept pace with the generation of inventions representing refinements, thereby feeding the combinatorial process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A prior literature looked into the differences between the International Patent Classification (IPC) system, on which the CPC is largely based), and the USPC. See, for example, Adams (2001).

  2. The number of claims in a patent varies for many reasons but cost is one factor since the filing fee for a patent application permits the inclusion of up to three independent claims and as many as twenty claims total; extra claims incur additional fees. Cost also factors into the number of patent claims because attorney fees are generally tied to the number of claims.

  3. We do not use the classification schema of the IPC since the IPC technology master dataset codes only dates back to 1978. US Patents with direct comparison across the 2 schema include Utility patents for which there are USPC and CPC codes.

  4. https://www.uspto.gov/video/cbt/cpc-structure/index.htm.

  5. The discussion is an abridged version of the fuller discussion in Strumsky et al. (2012) and Strumsky and Lobo (2015).

  6. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8728474.PN.&OS=PN/8728474&RS=PN/8728474.

  7. This is the amount that Merck & Co. agreed to pay Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Ono Pharmaceuticals to resolve a patent infringement litigation case involving the patent. (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-merck-settlement-bristolmyers/merck-bristol-myers-agree-to-settle-keytruda-patent-suit-idUSKBN1542VO).

References

  • Adams, S. (2001). Comparing the IPC and the US classification systems for the patent searcher. World Patent Information, 23, 15–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allan, K. (2002). Natural language semantics. Oxford: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, J. R., & Lemley, M. A. (2002). The growing complexity of the United States patent system. Boston University Law Review, 82, 1–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. (1959). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, B. (2007). The structure of invention. Research Policy, 36, 274–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basalla, G. (1989). The evolution of technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, C. (2006). Pattern recognition and machine learning. New York: Springer.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, R., Richerson, P. J., & Henrich, J. (2013). The cultural evolution of technology. In P. J. Richerson & M. H. Christiansen (Eds.), Cultural evolution: Society, technology, language, and religion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, W. B. (Ed.). (2005). Technology in world history (Vols. 1–7). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copeland, A., & Fixler, D. (2012). Measuring the price of research and development output. Review of Income and Wealth, 58, 166–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couzin-Frankel, J. (2013). Cancer immunotherapy. Science, 342, 1432–1433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Rassenfosse, G., & Jaffe, A. (2017). Patent citation data in social science research: Overview and best practices. Advances in Information Science, 68, 1360–1374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derry, T. K. (1961). A short history of technology from the earliest times to A.D. 1900. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickens, D. T. (1994). The ECLA classification system. World Patent Information, 16, 28–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Patent Office. (2017). Guide to the CPC (Cooperative Patent Classification). www.cooperativepatentclassification.org/publications/GuideToTheCPC.pdf.

  • Eusebi, C. A., & Silberglitt, R. (2014). Identification and analysis of technology emergence using patent classification. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falasco, L. (2002a). Bases of the United States patent classification. World Patent Information, 24, 31–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falasco, L. (2002b). United States patent classification: System organization. World Patent Information, 24, 111–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 30, 682–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guan, J., & Liu, N. (2015). Invention profiles and uneven growth in the field of emerging nano-energy. Energy Policy, 76, 146–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrigan, K. R., Di Guardo, M. C., Maku, E., & Velez, B. N. (2016). Using a distance measure to operationalise patent originality. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2016.1260106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, C. G., Arens, R., & Srinivasan, P. (2010). Comparison of IPC and USPC classification systems in patent prior art searches. In Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on patent information retrieval. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

  • Jürgens, B., & Herrero-Solana, V. (2017). Monitoring nanotechnology using patent classifications: An overview and comparison of nanotechnology classification schemes. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 19, 151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-017-3838-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kappos, D. (2012). Full speed ahead for 2012. https://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/full_speed_ahead_for_2012.

  • Kelly, R. (2013). The lifeways of hunter-gatherers: The foraging spectrum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, D., Cerigo, D. B., Jeong, H., & Youn, H. (2016). Technological novelty profile and invention’s future impact. European Physics Journal Data Science, 5, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogler, D. F., Rigby, D. L., & Tucker, I. (2013). Mapping knowledge space and technological relatedness in US cities. European Planning Studies, 21, 1374–1391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kranzberg, M. (1967). Technology in Western civilization: The emergence of modern industrial society, earliest times to 1900. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layton, E. T. (1974). Technology as knowledge. Technology and Culture, 15, 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemley, M. (2012). Point of novelty. Stanford Public Law working paper no. 1735045.

  • Leydesdorff, L., Kogler, D. F., & Yan, B. (2017). Mapping patent classifications: Portfolio and statistical analysis, and the comparison of strengths and weaknesses. Scientometrics, 112, 1573–1591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, J., & Wood, K. L. (2017). The growing complexity in the invention process. Research in Engineering Design, 28, 421–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacNamee, R. C. (2013). Can’t see the forest for the leaves: Similarity and distance measures for hierarchical taxonomies with a patent classification example. Research Policy, 42, 855–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mokyr, J. (1990). The lever of riches: Technological creativity and economic progress. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, S. C., Sandner, P. G., & Welpe, I. M. (2015). Monitoring innovation in electrochemical energy storage technologies: A patent-based approach. Applied Energy, 137, 537–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogburn, W. F. (1922). Social change. New York: Dell Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson, O. (2000). Knowledge as a set in idea space: An epistemological view on growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 5, 253–275.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Pacey, A. (1990). Technology in world civilization: A thousand-tear history. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigby, D. L. (2015). Technological relatedness and knowledge space: Entry and exit of US cities from patent classes. Regional Studies, 49, 1922–1937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romer, Paul. (2010). What parts of globalization matter for catch-up growth? American Economic Review, 100, 94–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotkin, I. J., & Dood, K. J. (1999). A history of patent classification in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Arlington: Patent Documentation Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmookler, J. (1966). Invention and economic growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenmakers, W., & Duysters, G. (2010). The technological origins of radical inventions. Research Policy, 39, 1051–1059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M. (1986). Technological organization and settlement mobility: An ethnographic examination. Journal of Anthropological Research, 42, 15–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, H. J. E. (2014). Categorizing the useful arts: Past, present, and future development of patent classification in the United States. Law Library Journal, 106, 563–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, C., Holmyard, E. J., Hall, A. R., & Williams, T. I. (Eds.) (1954–1959). A history of technology (Vols. I–V). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Strumsky, D., & Lobo, J. (2015). Identifying the sources of technological novelty in the process of Invention. Research Policy, 44, 1445–1461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strumsky, D., Lobo, J., & van der Leeuw, S. (2012). Using patent technology codes to study technological change. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 21, 267–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. (2016). BASCOM global internet services v. AT&TMobility LLC, 827 F .3d 1341.

  • United States Patent and Trademark Office. (1946). The classification of patents. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Patent and Trademark Office. (1966). Development and use of patent classification systems. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Patent and Trademark Office. (1996). Examination guidelines for computer-related inventions. Washington, DC: United States Patent and Trademark Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Patent and Trademark Office. (2005). Handbook of classification. Washington, DC: United States Patent and Trademark Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Patent and Trademark Office. (2012). Overview of the U.S. patent classification system. Washington, DC: United States Patent and Trademark Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Usher, A. P. (1954). A history of mechanical inventions. New York, NY: Dover Publication.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., & Jones, B. (2013). Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science, 342, 468–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoven, D., Bakker, J., & Veugelers, R. (2016). Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators. Research Policy, 45, 707–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vijvers, W. (1990). The international patent classification as a search tool. World Patent Information, 12, 26–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman, M. L. (1998). Recombinant growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113, 331–360.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, G. (1855). What is technology?. Edinburgh: Sutherland and Knox.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youn, H., Strumky, D., Bettencourt, L. M. A., & Lobo, J. (2015). Invention as a combinatorial process: Evidence from US patents. Journal of the Royal Society Interface. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2015.0272.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    José Lobo

  2. School for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Deborah Strumsky

Authors
  1. José Lobo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Deborah Strumsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José Lobo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lobo, J., Strumsky, D. Sources of inventive novelty: two patent classification schemas, same story. Scientometrics 120, 19–37 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03102-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03102-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation