Worldwide Nanotechnology Development: A Comparative Study of USPTO, EPO, and JPO Patents Yiling Lin Advisor: Hsinchun Chen Dec, 2006
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
Content Map Analysis
Citation Network Analysis
A fundamental technology.
Critical for a nation’s technological competence.
Its R&D status attracts various communities’ interest.
A technology document
An open source
Patent Offices in the World
USPTO, EPO and JPO issue nearly 90 percent of the world’s patents (Kowalski et al., 2003).
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.
Research Design Patent parsing Data acquisition USPTO database Research status analysis Topic coverage Collected by keywords Content map Citation Network Patent publication Patent importance/ strength of a repository Number of patents Average number of cites EPO database JPO database Knowledge diffusion Collected by keywords JPO dataset EPO dataset USPTO dataset Patent status checking EPO+JPO patent JPO patent Patent status
Basic Bibliographic Analysis
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
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:
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/).
For example, a link from “Country A” to “Country B” means 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.