1 / 30

Use of Classification at the EPO

Use of Classification at the EPO. Pasquale Foglia DG1 Director, EPO. WIPO, IPC Workshop 5 February 2008. Outline. Introduction IPC at the EPO Classification Systems available at EPO EPO Search: general methodology and special cases Documentation and Citation Statistics

susan
Download Presentation

Use of Classification at the EPO

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Use of Classification at the EPO Pasquale Foglia DG1 Director, EPO WIPO, IPC Workshop 5 February 2008

  2. Outline • Introduction • IPC at the EPO • Classification Systems available at EPO • EPO Search: general methodology and special cases • Documentation and Citation Statistics • Wish List and some Inconvenient Truths • Conclusion

  3. Introduction - myself • Pasquale Foglia • EPO Examiner and Classifier (15y) • EPO Classification Board Electricity (2000-2006) • DG1 (Operation) Director in AVM Cluster

  4. Intro (1) - Can one tool do it all ? Introduction

  5. Intro (2) - One tool ? Introduction Image: courtesy Wenger

  6. Intro (3) - For best results  use specialised tools ! Introduction

  7. IPC at the EPO • DG1 Structure (Clusters, Directorates) • Internal distribution of patent applications to Directorates, then technical Teams (using "preclassification", together w ECLA) • "A2" publications (18 months after PR) of EP applications • Base for ECLA • Statistics, Forecasts, Planning • Search (!) IPC at EPO

  8. Classification systems available at the EPO IPC-2006: Core level, Advanced level IPC (editions 1-7) ECLA (+ ICO, KW) US Patent Classification FI, FTerms Classification at EPO

  9. EPO Search(1): How do we do it? • Classification is used in the vast majority of the technical fields (essential for e.g. searching concepts or processes) • ECLA is often used in combination with other classifications, e.g. FI/FT (UCLA less used) • The best mix of classification tools is quite variable, and field-dependent, e.g. specialised databases • IPC is a necessary tool for the residual documentation Search at EPO

  10. EPO Search(2): Using classification • First search in a superset defined by using your most precise classifications, e.g. ECLA • Then search in the relevant residual IPC superset (i.e. IPC set minus (ECLA set, 'wrong' IPC set*) "déjà vu" functionality) * we'll see that later IPC ECLA, FI/FT Search at EPO

  11. Families classified in ECLA and FI/FT (1,8m) Families classified in FI/FT (4,8m) Families classified in ECLA (4,9m) EPO Search(3): Relevance of FI/FT classification EPO SR citing JP = ~ 17 % (~ 25.000 SR/Y steady ) Search at EPO

  12. A detailed study (1): FI/FT consultation stats • Section B* (Mechanics) • About 40 subclasses investigated • For each of them, a quantitative analysis was carried out to establish the ratio between: • the % of EP Search Reports citing JP docs • the % of JP documents classified in that subclass • Results: • few ratios below 0,8 • most ratios around 1 or more • most ratios stable or increasing over 2004-2006 period • Interpretation: • effective usage of FI/FT together with ECLA in "deep indexing"-intensive fields * additionally, also a few tens of subclasses in A, C and D were involved Search at EPO

  13. A detailed study (2): Stats on CN and KR citations • The previous analysis was extended to CN and KR patents • NB: • whereas JP was in most subclasses > 20% (up to 50%) • CN or KR docs was in most cases 1% to 5% • in most of those fields indexing is important • Result: • for both CN and KR the ratio is consistently well below 1 • Interpretation: • (in the investigated fields) the EPO cannot access better 'added value' information* on CN and KR documentation • some years ago, it was the same with JP doc * does it exist? Search at EPO

  14. EPO Search(5): Classification is not used... • ... in part of Organic Chemistry: • C07C • C07D • C07H • C07J • A61K31 • used instead: CAS, Beilstein (with graphical user interfaces for defining molecular structures) • T049: ECLA simplified to IPC AL T049 Search at EPO

  15. Organic chemistry (35% of C) C section All SR ~= 775.000 EPO Search Reports in Organic Chemistry (last 5y) Search at EPO: stats

  16. Biochemistry: a(nother) special case • C12Q1 • G01N33/50-98 • C12N • C07K • A61K38, 39, 48 • A01K67/027, 033 • ~46.000 SR in the last 5y • (similar split as previous graph) • Search: Sequence listing + ECLA/ICO Classification (often neither of the two is enough on its own) Search at EPO

  17. EC classified Pat: 95% NPL: 24% JP: 17% 1% CN=2500, RU=2150, KR=1800 EPO Search Reports: What do we cite? EPO SR produced in the last 5 years (tot. 775.000) EPO Citation Statistics

  18. Patent Publication Statistics (from WPI and EPODOC) 17% 18% 16% The % of only-IPC classified families is slowly increasing, and the country-of-origin split is rapidly changing: KR+CN share is increasing Publication Statistics

  19. Patent Publications (families) KR+CN = ~24% of this patent doc over last 9 years Publication Statistics

  20. Theoretical level of CN, KR citations • JP doc = 35 % • SR with JP cited = 17 % (~2:1 ratio) • CN+KR doc = 8% (all) ; 16% (last 5y) • → • SR with CN or KR cited = ~ 4% (at least) • the reality is (next slide)… Statistics

  21. % of EPO Search Reports citing CN, KR docs 800 EPO Citation Statistics

  22. Example: G09G - Displays • Almost all patents: JP or KR PR • World leaders: Samsung, LG, Pioneer, Panasonic, ... • Plasma displays • One (1!) IPC group: G09G3/28 • 8.740 families • 28% KR patents not EC or FT classified • Last 5 years: 511 EPO SR • SR with KR docs: 16 • 3% • SR with JP docs: 283 • 55% EPO Citation Statistics Image: courtesy Sony

  23. Better Patent Search: not only IPC classification! • In general, added-value systems need improvements: • share internal classification schemes and doc inventory for search • better availability (in format and language) of national patent publications, e.g. Utility Models • better translation engines • easy availability of references and citations • (categorised) full-text, controlled keywords, extended abstracts in English • relevant information (e.g. sequence listings) must be published according to the required standards EPO Wish List

  24. Reformed IPC: some inconvenient truths • The Reform has not addressed/overcome some fundamental problems of the IPC • IPC is rarely used for search (at the EPO…) • CL: anybody cares? • Invention Information/Additional Information • not consistently applied (next slide) • cheer up: ECLA Reform has received a similar lukewarm welcome among EPO classifiers/searchers (~ 12% of subclasses) • Not harmonised IPC application(next slide) • Full compulsory Reclassification? IPC: some inconvenient truths

  25. Facing Reality: Application of "Additional Information" IPC Average: 7% does it matter when doing a search? IPC: some inconvenient truths

  26. IPC ECLA, FI/FT Facing Reality: Not harmonised use of IPC • Possibly the most serious problem of the IPC (even more than the size of the groups) • One -expensive- trick to reduce noise used by a few EPO examiners is "negative" classification • → Harmonisation would be better ! • implemented by using (controlled) keywords • sporadically allocated to documents that are normally not classified in ECLA (e.g. RU, CN) and stumbled upon during searches • the KW is composed of an IPC symbol followed by an "X" • meaning: the document bearing it should not have been classified in that IPC group (according to EPO interpretation...) Negative Set IPC: some inconvenient truths

  27. So, do we still need the IPC? For what? • Paradoxically, due to the rapid increase of % of patents only published with IPC, its importance is growing! • Though, not (only) for Search • Where is the IPC in the Toolbox analogy? • The IPC is ... the BOX ! • IPC is the only binding element among a (growing) plethora of unrelated and specialised tools • As any "universal" language, it's incomplete and imprecise, but it's very much needed for e.g. concordance, navigation, link IPC: a fundamental question

  28. IPC Community: a message in a bottle • Face reality: nature (and patent offices, and classifiers, and searchers) follow the path of minimum resistance • Make pragmatic choices: • Keep what's used / Involve Stakeholders / Innovate • Timely improve where needed: Technology Watch! • Reclassification: some AL projects (H04W) are at a stand-still: implement what's possible rather than nothing at all • Other classifications may be locally more precise: acknowledge this fact, coordinate among them and help the user: external links, references, navigation facilities, ... • IPC CL for NPL (Non-Patent Literature): can WIPO convince publishers? • Broader cooperation is needed: EPO is ready to help! Conclusion (1/3)

  29. Every cockroach is beautiful to its mother, but... Reformed IPC Conclusion(2/3) Image: courtesy Disney-Pixar

  30. ... many bugs make quite a powerful bunch ! Reformed IPC Thank You! Conclusion Image: courtesy Disney-Pixar

More Related