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.