Use of Classification at the EPO

Pasquale FogliaDG1 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

• Wish List and some Inconvenient Truths

• Conclusion

Introduction - myself

• Pasquale Foglia• EPO Examiner and Classifier (15y)• EPO Classification Board Electricity (2000-2006)

• DG1 (Operation) Director in AVM Cluster

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

Introduction

Intro (2) - One tool ?

Introduction Image: courtesy Wenger

Intro (3) - For best results use specialised tools !

Introduction

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

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

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

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

ECLA, FI/FT

IPC

Search at EPO

EPO Search (3): Relevance of FI/FT classification

16%

42%

42%

Families classified in ECLA (4,9m)

Families classified in FI/FT (4,8m)

Families classified in ECLA and FI/FT (1,8m)

EPO SR citing JP = ~ 17 % (~ 25.000 SR/Y steady )

Search at EPO

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

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

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

EPO Search Reports in Organic Chemistry (last 5y)

93458; 12%

143596; 19%

630866; 82%

50138; 6%

C section Organic chemistry (35% of C)

All SR ~= 775.000

Search at EPO: stats

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

EPO Search Reports: What do we cite?

EPO SR produced in the last 5 years (tot. 775.000)

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

US EP WO DE XP JP GB FR AT IT CA CN RU KR

N°

of

Se

arc

h R

ep

ort

s

CN=2500, RU=2150, KR=1800

EC classified Pat: 95%

NPL: 24%

JP: 17%

1%

EPO Citation Statistics

Patent Publication Statistics (from WPI and EPODOC)

The % of only-IPC classified families is slowly increasing, and the country-of-origin split is rapidly changing: KR+CN share is increasing

Published families (all)

7%

35%

9%

5% 3%

41%

Pat w ECXP w ECJPSU/RUKRCN

Families published until 2002

39%

9%

36%

11%

4%

1%

Families published last 5 years

46%

1%

34%

2%

8%8%

16%

18%

17%

Publication Statistics

Patent Publications (families)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

x100

0

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KR patents

CN patents

EC classified patents

KR+CN = ~24% of this patent doc

over last 9 years

Publication Statistics

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

% of EPO Search Reports citing CN, KR docs

0,00%0,05%0,10%0,15%0,20%0,25%0,30%0,35%0,40%0,45%0,50%

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

SR citing KR

SR citing CN

800

EPO Citation Statistics

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%

43%

26%

28%

4%

EC class JP KR CN

EPO Citation Statistics Image: courtesy Sony

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

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

Facing Reality: Application of "Additional Information" IPC

Patents Published during Reformed IPC (2006/2007 - 87% of total)

0100000

200000300000400000

500000600000700000

800000900000

JP US CN DE WO KR EP RU

% of above Patents bearing "Additional Information" classification

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

JP US CN DE WO KR EP RU

Average: 7%does it matter when doing a search?

IPC: some inconvenient truths

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 !

ECLA, FI/FT

IPC

• 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

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

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)

Every cockroach is beautiful to its mother, but...

Reformed IPC

Conclusion (2/3) Image: courtesy Disney-Pixar

... many bugs make quite a powerful bunch !

Reformed IPC

Thank You!

Conclusion Image: courtesy Disney-Pixar