NanoMapper: A Knowledge Mapping System for Nanotechnology Funding and Developments

1. NanoMapper: A Knowledge Mapping System for Nanotechnology Funding and Developments Daning Hu Xin Li Yan Dang Joyce Chan Dr. Hsinchun Chen Dec 2006

2. Outline • Introduction • Background and Research Objectives • Research Design • System Design • Data Set • System Demo

3. Introduction • Nanotechnology • Is an applied science/ technology field that is multi-disciplinary and encompasses engineering and other work taking place at the nanoscale. • Critical for a nation’s technological competence. • Revolutionizes a wide range of application domains. • R&D status attracts various communities’ interest. • Nanotechnology has experienced rapid growth in recent years. • Previous studies assessed the research status of nanotechnology domain using different open sources. • Patents (Meyer 2001; Huang et al., 2003, 2004) • Public funding (Huang et al., 2005)

4. Introduction • There are few systems open to the public that consolidate the various resources and provide a overall assessment of nanotechnology research status. • Nanotechnology-related research documents are usually distributed in different repositories. • Such information is usually not well structured and is in different formats. • Previous research usually focused on a single data source instead of multiple data sources. • To address these problems, we developed a knowledge mapping system aiming to: • Provide a one-stop online service for the retrieval of nanotechnology research documents. • Provide knowledge mapping tools to analyze nanotechnology research status.

5. Background: Patent Analysis • Patent analysis for nanotechnology • A patent is a special type of technology document which documents the innovations and technology advances. • Patent publication status has been used in evaluating technology development (Karki, 1997; Oppenheim, 2000; Narin, 1994) in different domains. • Meyer (2001) assessed the interrelationships between science and technology in the nanotechnology field using USPTO patents. • In our previous (AI Lab) research, a framework was proposed to assess nanotechnology research and development using bibliographic analysis, content map analysis, and citation network analysis (Huang et al., 2003a, 2004, 2005; Li et al., 2006).

6. Resources for Patent Analysis • There are several governmental or intergovernmental patent offices which control the granting of patents in the world. • Each patent office has different procedures and policies which affect the patent publication process. • The “home advantage” effect can be another factor that affects the composition of the patents in each patent office’s repository. • Domestic applicants, proportionate to their innovative activities, tend to file more patents with their home country patent office than foreign applicants do (European Commission, 1997). • To obtain a comprehensive understanding of nanotechnology development, the information in different patent offices’ repositories is needed. • USPTO, EPO and JPO issue nearly 90 percent of the world’s patents (Kowalski et al., 2003).

7. Background: Public Funding Analysis • Because of nanotechnology’s fundamental impact to a wide range of application domains, nanotechnology has been recognized as a critical research field by several countries. • In 2000, the United States announced the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI, www.nano.gov) (Roco, 2000). • More than 60 countries have adopted national projects or programs for nanotechnology research (Roco, 2005). • Significant public funding has been invested on nanotechnology research. • Previous research analyzed the relationship between public funding and a domain’s development. • The funding documents can be used to reveal the research topics in the domain (Huang et al., 2005, 2006). • The impact of public funding on research output is dependent on the particular technology field (Narin, 1998). • In nanotechnology research: • NSF is a major public funding source of nanotechnology research in the United States. • NSF supported inventors to publish patents with higher average number of cites (Huang et al., 2005).

8. Background: Nanotechnology Knowledge Portals • The high volume and various types of nanotechnology-related information dispersed in different data sources make it difficult for researchers in the domain to access and evaluate development. • Web portals have been built to partially address this problem.

9. Research Gaps • The previous nanotechnology portals collected nano-related news and nano-related websites only. • Although there were several studies on assessing nanotechnology research status using technology documents, few of the portals provide a one-stop access to these documents or provide in-depth analysis of them. • Collecting the documents from multiple repositories; and • Providing search and analytical tools to access and elevate this information. • Patents and funding documents are two of the major technology documents open to the public.

10. Research Objectives • The NanoMapper knowledge mapping system aims to provide: • Access to the nanotechnology patents published in USPTO, EPO, and JPO. • Access to the nanotechnology grants issued by NSF. • Assess the nanotechnology development status represented by the USPTO, EPO, JPO patents and the NSF grants.

11. Data acquisition USPTO patents Parsing Search and Analytic Tools EPO patents USPTO database Patent and Grant Search Collected by keywords JPO patents EPO database EPO+JPO patent Repository Patent/Grant Publication Trend Collected by keywords NSF grants JPO patents JPO patent status JPO database Research Topic Coverage NSF database Collected by keywords Knowledge diffusion Patterns Other databases Collected by keywords Research Design • A framework for building a domain-specific knowledge mapping system

12. Data Acquisition • Keyword list • A nanotechnology-related keyword list provided by domain experts (Huang et al., 2003; 2004). • Patent search/retrieval • We use USPTO, EPO, and JPO as patent data sources. • For USPTO, we retrieved nanotechnology patents by searching the nanotechnology-related keyword list in patent title, and abstract, (“title-abstract” search), in patent title, abstract, and claims (“title-claims” search) and in all patent data fields (“full-text” search) (Huang et al., 2003; 2004). • For EPO, we collected the nanotechnology patents using only “title-abstract” search, because of the limitation of the search function of esp@cenet. • For JPO, we collected the nanotechnology patents/applications using “title-abstract” search in esp@cenet. The patent status information was retrieved from JPO to filter the application out of the dataset. • Grant search/retrieval • We use NSF as a grant data source. • We retrieved nanotechnology grants by searching the nanotechnology- related keyword list in grant title, program, and abstract in NSF.

13. Data Acquisition: Keywords

14. Parsing • Most of the open source data are in free-text, which must be parsed into structured data and stored in a database.

15. Dataset • Nanotechnology related patents • USPTO • Full-text search: 78,609 patents, 18,665 institutions, 91,855 inventors, and 151 countries. • Title-claims search: 13,469 patents, 4,807 institutions, 19,716 inventors, and 57 countries. • Title-abstract search: 5,363 patents, 2,196 institutions, 8,405 inventors, and 46 countries. • EPO • 2,328 patents, 1,168 institutions, 5,400 inventors, and 43 countries. • JPO • 923 JPO patents, 348 institutions, and 1,729 inventors. • Nanotechnology related grants • NSF • 7,774 grants, 9 directorates, 46 NSF organizations, and 332 programs.

16. Search and Analytic Tools • Patent/grant search • Enables users to access the details of patents and grants. • Patent/Grant publication trends • Allows users to conduct bibliographic analysis to assess the patent/grant publication status of different countries/ institutions/etc. • Research topic coverage • Provides content maps for analyzing the topics covered by the patents/grants across different time periods. • Knowledge diffusion patterns • Allows users to visualize and analyze the citation networks at different analytical unit levels using an open source graph drawing software, Graphviz, provided by AT&T Labs (Gansner and North, 2000).

17. System Design

18. System Functionalities • The NanoMapper system provides search tools: • Patent information search functions: • Search by patent number • Search by patent title, abstract and claim • Search by patent issue date, inventor and assignee information, etc. • NSF grant information search functions: • Search by grant number, program information and applicant information, etc. • Combined search function: • Search across the four database (USPTO, EPO and JPO) by title, abstract and claim. • The NanoMapper system also provides analytical tools and information: • Patent/grant statistics • Number of patents/grant by countries/institutions/technology fields • Average number of cites by countries/institutions/technology fields • Topic coverage • Content map analysis • Knowledge diffusion in patent citation networks • Country citation network analysis • Institution citation network analysis • Technology field network analysis

19. System Functionalities (cont.)

20. System Deployment

21. System Demo: Patent Number Search

22. Search Results: Patent Detail

23. System Demo: Patent Quick Search

24. Search Results: Patent List

25. System Demo: Patent Advanced Search

26. System Demo: Patent Overall Statistics

27. System Demo: Patent Trend Analysis

28. System Demo: Patent Trend Analysis (cont.)

29. System Demo: Citation Network Analysis

30. System Demo: Content Map Analysis

31. System Demo: Combined Search

32. System Demo: Combined Search Results

33. References • Bacchiocchi, E. and F. Montobbio (2004). "EPO vs. USPTO citation lags." Working Paper CESPRI 161. • European Commission (1997). Second European Report on S&T Indicators. Bruxelles, European Commission. • Gansner E., North S. An open graph visualization system and its applications to software engineering. Software: Practice and Experience, 30(11): 1203 - 1233 • 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.

34. References • 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. • 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. • Roco M.C., R.S. Williams & P. Alivisatos, (2000). Nanotechnology Research Directions. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. • Roco, M.C., (2005). International perspective on government nanotechnology funding in 2005. J. Nanoparticle Research 7, 707-712. • 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.