Text mining techniques for patent analysis.

Abstract Patent documents contain important research results. However, they are lengthy and rich in technical terminology such that it takes a lot of human efforts for analyses. Automatic tools for assisting patent engineers or decision makers in patent analysis are in great demand. This paper describes a series of text mining techniques that conforms to the analytical process used by patent analysts. These techniques include text segmentation, summary extraction, feature selection, term association, cluster generation, topic identification, and information mapping. The issues of efficiency and effectiveness are considered in the design of these techniques. Some important features of the proposed methodology include a rigorous approach to verify the usefulness of segment extracts as the document surrogates, a corpus-and dictionary-free algorithm for keyphrase extraction, an efficient co-word analysis method that can be applied to large volume of patents, and an automatic procedure to create generic cluster titles for ease of result interpretation. Evaluation of these techniques was conducted. The results confirm that the machine-generated summaries do preserve more important content words than some other sections for classification. To demonstrate the feasibility, the proposed methodology was applied to a realworld patent set for domain analysis and mapping, which shows that our approach is more effective than existing classification systems. The attempt in this paper to automate the whole process not only helps create final patent maps for topic analyses, but also facilitates or improves other patent analysis tasks such as patent classification, organization, knowledge sharing, and prior art searches

Patent data driven innovation logic

Innovation research is conventionally conducted with creativity techniques such as TRIZ, Mind Mapping, Brainstorming, etc. (Dewulf, Baillie 1998). Patent research is typically used to research novelty or prior art, and legal studies. This thesis is at the intersection of creativity techniques, and patent data analysis. It describes how to utilise patent data for distilling Innovation Logic and conducting innovation research. Using the patent research tool PatentInspiration (© AULIVE Software NV), the 4 different stages of the Innovation Logic approach have been subjected to text analysis in patent literature. The specific text patterns were identified and documented on several case studies, with one case study across the whole thesis: the toothbrush. The opportunities and limitations of Patent Data Driven Innovation Research have been documented and discussed. This methodology has been demonstrated within a proposed structural approach to problem solving, technology marketing and innovation research. Furthermore, the potential of artificial idea generation and artificial creativity was examined and debated for the purpose of computer aided creativity. This thesis examines and confirms three claims: CLAIM 1: PROPERTIES AND FUNCTIONS CAN BE ADJECTIVES AND VERBS IN PATENT LITERATURE CLAIM 2: PATENT DATA ANALYSIS AUGMENTS THE FULL INNOVATION LOGIC PROCESS CLAIM 3: ARTIFICIAL INNOVATION METHODS CAN BE FUELED BY PATENT DATA Patent data can be text mined, acting as a global brain consisting of over 100 million invention documents. It is possible to use this existing data to reverse engineer thinking methodologies, allowing scientists and engineers to solve new problems, invent new products or processes, or find new markets for existing technologies. Patent Data Driven Innovation Logic will demonstrate a systematic innovation approach that combines the force of contemporary data mining methods on patent literature, with a structured innovation research methodology.Open Acces

Graph Representation Learning Towards Patents Network Analysis

Patent analysis has recently been recognized as a powerful technique for large companies worldwide to lend them insight into the age of competition among various industries. This technique is considered a shortcut for developing countries since it can significantly accelerate their technology development. Therefore, as an inevitable process, patent analysis can be utilized to monitor rival companies and diverse industries. This research employed a graph representation learning approach to create, analyze, and find similarities in the patent data registered in the Iranian Official Gazette. The patent records were scrapped and wrangled through the Iranian Official Gazette portal. Afterward, the key entities were extracted from the scrapped patents dataset to create the Iranian patents graph from scratch based on novel natural language processing and entity resolution techniques. Finally, thanks to the utilization of novel graph algorithms and text mining methods, we identified new areas of industry and research from Iranian patent data, which can be used extensively to prevent duplicate patents, familiarity with similar and connected inventions, Awareness of legal entities supporting patents and knowledge of researchers and linked stakeholders in a particular research field.Comment: 7 Pages, 12 Figures, 7 Table

Innovation through pertinent patents research based on physical phenomena involved

One can find innovative solutions to complex industrial problems by looking for knowledge in patents. Traditional search using keywords in databases of patents has been widely used. Currently, different computational methods that limit human intervention have been developed. We aim to define a method to improve the search for relevant patents in order to solve industrial problems and specifically to deduce evolution opportunities. The non-automatic, semi-automatic, and automatic search methods use keywords. For a detailed keyword search, we propose as a basis the functional decomposition and the analysis of the physical phenomena involved in the achievement of the function to fulfill. The search for solutions to design a bi-phasic separator in deep offshore shows the method presented in this paper

Discovering shifts in competitive strategies in probiotics, accelerated with TechMining

[EN] Profiling the technological strategy of different competitors is a key element for the companies in a given industry, as well to technology planners and R&D strategists. The analysis of the patent portfolio of a company as well as its evolution in the time line is of interest for technology analysts and decision makers. However, the need for the participation of experts in the field of a company as well as patent specialists, slows down the process. Bibliometrics and text mining techniques contribute to the interpretation of specialists. The present paper tries to offer a step by step procedure to analyze the technology strategy of several companies through the analysis of their portfolio claims, combined with the use of TechMining with the help of a text mining tool. The procedure, complemented with a semantic TRIZ analysis provides key insights in disclosing the technological analysis of some competitors in the field of probiotics for livestock health. The results show interesting shifts in the key probiotic and prebiotic ingredients for which companies claim protection and therefore offers clues about their technology intention in the life sciences industry in a more dynamic, convenient and simple way.The authors would like to thank the contribution of the research institute IRTA, to the TRIZ company triz XXI and to Fernando Palop and their wise insights and guidance. The authors thank the usage of Search Technology s VantagePoint and IHS-Markit s Goldfire.Vicente Gomila, JM.; Palli, A.; De La Calle, B.; Artacho Ramírez, MÁ.; Jimémez, S. (2017). Discovering shifts in competitive strategies in probiotics, accelerated with TechMining. Scientometrics. 111(3):1907-1923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2339-5S190719231113Abbas, A., Zhang, L., & Khan, S. (2014). A literature review on the state-of-the-art in patent analysis. World Patent Information, 37, 3–13.Allen, H., Levine, T., Bandrick, M., & Casey, T. (2012). Treatment, promotion, commotion: Antibiotic alternatives in food-producing animals. Trends in Microbiology, 21(3), 114–119.Animal Task Force. (2013). Research & innovation for a sustainable livestock sector in Europe. http://www.animaltaskforce.eu/Portals/0/ATF/horizon2020/ATF%20white%20paper%20Research%20priorities%20for%20a%20sustainable%20livestock%20sector%20in%20Europe.pdf . Accessed September 4, 2016.Abramson, D. (2011). Patent strategies for life sciences companies to navigate the changing patent landscape. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 17, 358–364.Banan-Mwine Daliri, E., & Lee, B. H. (2015). New perspectives on probiotics and disease. Food Science and Human Wellness, 4, 56–65.Bubela, T., Gold, R., Gregory, G., Cahoy, D., & Castle, D. (2013). Patent landscaping for life sciences innovation: Toward consistent and transparent practices. Nature Biotechnology, 31, 202–206.Chih-Hung, H. (2013). Patent value assessment and commercialization strategy. Technology forecasting & Social Change, 80, 307–319.Choi, S., Yoon, J., Kim, K., Lee, J. Y., & Kim, C.-H. (2011). SAO network analysis of patents for technology trends identification: A case study of polymer electrolyte membrane technology in proton exchange membrane fuel cells. Scientometrics, 88, 863–883.Collins, M. D., & Gibson, G. (1999). Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics: Approaches for modulating the microbial ecology of the gut. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 69(suppl), 1052S–1057S.Ernst, H. (1998). Patent portfolio for strategic technology management. Journal of Engineering Technology Management, 15, 279–308.Ferraro, G., & Wanner, L. (2011). Towards the derivation of verbal content relations from patent claims using deep syntactic structures. Knowledge-Based Systems, 24, 1233–1244.Foligné, B., Daniel, C., & Pot, B. (2013). Probiotics from research to market: The possibilities, risks and challenges. Current Opinion in Microbiology, 16(3), 284–292.Gerken, J., & Moehrle, M. (2012). A new instrument for technology monitoring: Novelty in patents measured by semantic patent analysis. Scientometrics, 91, 645–670.Grant, R. (2006). Contemporary strategic analysis (5th ed.). ISBN 1-405-1999-3.Grant, E., Van den Hof, M., & Gold, R. (2014). Patent landscape analysis: A methodology in need of harmonized standards. World Patent Information, 39, 3–10.He, J., Yamanaka, T., & Kano, S. (2016). Mapping university receptor based on claim embodiment quantitative analysis: A study of 31 cases form the University of Tokio. World Patent Information, 46, 49–55.IHS Goldfire. www.ihsmarkit.com . Accessed November 2016.Kaushik, G. (Ed.) (2015). Applied environmental biotechnology: Present scenario and future trends. Springer. ISBN 978-81-322-2122-7.Kim, B., Miller, D., & Mahoney, J. (2016). The impact of the timing of patents on innovation performance. Research Policy, 45(2016), 914–928.Kume, H. (2010). From low power to no power through energy harvesting: Powering up the battery-free world. Nikkei Elctronics Asia; October 31, 2010; Accessed November 2011.Lanjouw, J., & Schankerman, M. (1999). The quality of ideas: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. 7345. National Bureau for Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, USA. http://www.nber.org . Accessed September 2016.Lee, C., Kim, J., Kwon, O., & Woo, H. G. (2016). Stochastic technology life cycle analysis using multiple patent indicators. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 106(2016), 53–64.Mogee, M. E. (1991). Using patent data for technology analysis and planning. Research-Technology Management, 34(4), 43–49.Niwa, S. (2016). Patent claims and economic growth. Economic Modelling, 54, 377–381.Noh, H., Jo, Y., & Lee, S. (2015). Keyword selection and processing strategy for applying text mining to patent analysis. World Patent Information, 42, 4348–4360.O’Callaghan, T. F., Ross, R. P., Stanton, C., & Clarke, G. (2016). The gut micorbiome as a virtual endocrine organ with implicaitons for farm and domestic animal endocrinology. Domestic Animal Endocrinology, 56, S44–S55.Pargaonkar, Y. (2016). Leveraging patent landscape analysis and IP competitive intelligence. World Patent Information, 45, 10–20.Park, H., Yoon, J., & Kim, K. (2012). Identifiying patent infringement using SAO based semantic technological similarities. Scientometrics, 90, 515–529.Park, H., Yoon, J., & Kim, K. (2013). Identification and evaluation of corporations for merger and acquisition strategies using patent information and text mining. Scientometrics, 97, 883–909.Porter, M. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review. January 2008. 1–17. Reprint R0801E. www.hbrreprints.org .Porter, A. L., & Cunningham, S. (2005). Tech Mining. Hoboken: Wiley Interscience.Porter, A., & Newman, N. (2011). Mining external R&D. Technovation, 31, 171–176.Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32003R1831 .Rose, C., Cronin, J., & Schwartz, R. (2007). Communicating the value of your intellectual property to Wall Street. Research Technology Management, 50(2), 36–40.Schrezenmeir, J., & De Vrese, M. (2001). Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics—Approaching a definition. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 73(2), 361s–364s.Soranzo, B., Nosella, A., & Filippini, R. (2016). Managing firm patents: A bibliometric investigation into the state of the art. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 42, 15–30.Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15, 285–305.The patent guide; A handbook for analyzing and interpreting patent data. UK Intellectual patent office.Tong, X., & Frame, D. (1994). Technological performance with patent claims data. Research Policy, 23, 133–141.VantagePoint. www.theVantagePoint.com . Accessed September 20, 2016.Verberne, S., D’hondt, E., & Oostdijk, N. (2010). Quantifying the challenges in parsing patent claims. In The 1st international workshop on Advances in Patent Information Retrieval (AsPIRe’10), Milton Keynes, UK.Verbitsky, M. (2004). Semantic TRIZ, triz-journal.com. http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/2004/ .Vicente-Gomila, J. M. (2014). The contribution of syntactic-semantic approach to the search for complimentary literatures for scientific or technical discovery. Scientometrics. doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1299-2 .Vicente-Gomila, J. M., & Palop, F. (2013). Combining tech-mining and semantic-TRIZ for a faster and better technology analysis: A case in energy storage systems. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(6), 725–743.Wang, M., Chiu, T., & Chen, W. (2009). Exploring potential R&D collaborators based on patent portfolio analysis: The case of biosensors. In PICMET 2009 Proceedings, August 2–6, Portland, Oregon, USA.Wang, J., Lu, F., & Loh, H. (2015). A two-level parser for patent claim parsing. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 29, 431–439.Weenen, T. C., Pronker, E. S., Commandeur, H. R., & Claasen, E. (2013). Patenting in the European medical nutrition industry: Trends, opportunities and strategies. PharmaNutrition, 1, 13–21.Xie, Z., & Miyazaki, K. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of keyword search strategy for patent identification. World Patent Information, 35(1), 20–30.Yang, Y., & Choct, M. (2009). Dietary modulation of gut microflora in broiler chickens: A review of the role of six kinds of alternatives to in-feed antibiotics. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 65, 97–114.Yang, S.-Y., & Soo, V.-W. (2012). Extract conceptual graphs from plain texts in patent claims. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 25, 874–887.Yoon, J., Park, H., & Kim, K. (2013). Identifying technological competition trends for R&D planning using dynamic patent maps: SAO-bassed content analysis. Scientometrics, 94, 313–331

Modeling technological topic changes in patent claims

© 2014 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology. Patent claims usually embody the most essential terms and the core technological scope to define the protection of an invention, which makes them the ideal resource for patent content and topic change analysis. However, manually conducting content analysis on massive technical terms is very time consuming and laborious. Even with the help of traditional text mining techniques, it is still difficult to model topic changes over time, because single keywords alone are usually too general or ambiguous to represent a concept. Moreover, term frequency which used to define a topic cannot separate polysemous words that are actually describing a different theme. To address this issue, this research proposes a topic change identification approach based on Latent Dirichlet Allocation to model and analyze topic changes with minimal human intervention. After textual data cleaning, underlying semantic topics hidden in large archives of patent claims are revealed automatically. Concepts are defined by probability distributions over words instead of term frequency, so that polysemy is allowed. A case study using patents published in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) from 2009 to 2013 with Australia as their assignee country is presented to demonstrate the validity of the proposed topic change identification approach. The experimental result shows that the proposed approach can be used as an automatic tool to provide machine-identified topic changes for more efficient and effective R&D management assistance