Patent analysis method and retrieval system based on distinguishing technical means traceability

Abstract

The invention relates to the technical field of electric digital data processing, in particular to a patent analysis method and retrieval system based on distinguishing technical means traceability. The patent analysis method based on distinguishing technical means traceability comprises the steps that 1, a technical file recording a public technical scheme close to a to-be-analyzed technical scheme is obtained through retrieval, or patent analysis reports of other technical schemes, close to the to-be-analyzed technical scheme, in the field are selected to serve as comparison files; 2, comparing the to-be-analyzed technical scheme with a comparison file, and identifying and distinguishing technical means; 3, performing traceability analysis on the different technical means; and identifying the patent infringement risk of the to-be-analyzed technical scheme. The method has the beneficial effects that the workload is small, the acceptance check is convenient, the accuracy of retrieval is not interfered by an unsubstantially examined or invalid patent protection range, the coverage range is large, and the retrieval can be accepted.

Description

TECHNICAL FIELD

[0001] The present application relates to the technical field of electric digital data processing, in particular to a patent analysis method and a retrieval system based on traceability of different technical means. BACKGROUND

[0002] Industrial technologies can be divided into public technologies, patented technologies, secret technologies and future technologies according to the ownership of rights. In the current environment, the ownership of rights of various industrial technologies is not clear enough. The existence of tens of millions of valid patents (hundreds of millions of right claims) makes it impossible for us to clearly identify the ownership of the rights of industrial technologies, causing great disturbance to freedom to operate (FTO) analysis.

[0003] The birth of the claim is to facilitate the judge to accurately identify whether there is a patent infringement, so it is generally accepted to identify the ownership of the technology according to the claim. The current freedom to operate (FTO) analysis also generally relies on the claim, using a search formula to narrow the database range, and then browsing the patents in the narrowed database range to determine whether the technical solution to be analyzed falls within the protection scope of the claims of these patents. This patent infringement search analysis method is referred to as a browsing search. With the increase in the number of patents, it becomes more and more difficult to identify patent infringement risks using this search method.

[0004] The freedom to operate (FTO) analysis using the browsing search has the following disadvantages: First, it is easy to miss the basic technology patents. The browsing search must use a search formula to narrow the range, which is easy to miss patents whose classification numbers do not match the technical solution to be analyzed, such as basic field technologies. For example, the classification number used in the search of kitchen utensils is A47J, but the classification number of the motor on the kitchen utensil is H02K. If only A47J is searched, the impact of the infringement risk of the motor will undoubtedly be missed, unless every supplier of the material can provide a freedom to operate (FTO) analysis report; if the classification numbers of various basic fields are included, the database range cannot be narrowed. On the other hand, we cannot guarantee that the classification numbers of all patent documents are correctly divided; Second, the search workload is large, and it is difficult to verify the accuracy of the search. The browsing search usually involves a very large number of files, and it is like the efforts of the Foolish Old Man Moving the Mountains to read all the patent files one by one. Teamwork is often required to complete the task. The freedom to operate (FTO) analysis report made by the browsing search is difficult to verify for accuracy, so insurance companies usually dare not provide insurance services for products that do not infringe the intellectual property rights of others, but only provide insurance services for products that are not infringed by others. However, for enterprises, the risk of intellectual property rights does not come from whether the product is copied by others, but from the risk of infringement compensation and production suspension caused by the error of freedom to operate (FTO) analysis; Third, the accuracy of the search is easily affected by the scope of protection of patents that have not undergone substantive examination or can be invalidated. The scope of protection for design patents, utility model patents, and invention patents before authorization is undetermined. These patents usually appear to have a broad scope of protection, but if they undergo invalidation proceedings, the scope of protection for most patents will be narrowed; moreover, different invalidation proceedings may lead to different results. Patents under examination can file divisional applications at any time, and divisional applications can re-draft claims, which is unpredictable when determining the scope of protection based on the patent title. In general, the scope of protection defined by the claims of most patents is actually uncertain and has limited reference value. For example, a patent discloses many technical solutions and requests a postponement of examination until seven years later when the patent will be granted. During these seven years, others may make circumventing designs based on the scope of protection of the patent. However, before the patent is granted, the applicant / author files a divisional application for the patent, re-drafting the claims, rendering the circumventing designs ineffective. In this case, the Free Implementation (FTO) analysis of the comprehensive search will be useless. Fourth, non-inheritable searches. If the technical solution to be analyzed involves adding technical features, a new search must be conducted. Free Implementation (FTO) analysis is generally conducted before project initiation, during R&D, and before sales. The technical solutions encountered at each stage typically contain many common technical features and few distinguishing technical features. If a later-searched technical solution has distinguishing technical features compared to a previously searched one, the previous search work cannot be inherited, and a new search is required. During each search, if infringement risks are found, IPR will require R&D personnel to modify the technical solution. Modifications are often achieved by adding and / or deleting technical features. Once technical features are added, the previous search work cannot be inherited, and a new search is required. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the modified technical solution will be free of infringement risks, potentially leading to a cycle of continuous searching. Summary of the Invention

[0005] The purpose of this invention is to provide a patent analysis method with advantages such as low workload, convenient acceptance inspection, accuracy of retrieval not being affected by patent protection scope that has not been substantively examined or may be invalidated, wide coverage, and successive retrieval.

[0006] This invention provides a patent analysis method based on differential technical means for tracing patent origins, the method comprising: Step 1: Search for and obtain technical documents that describe public technical solutions that are similar to the technical solution to be analyzed, or select patent analysis reports of other technical solutions in the field that are similar to the technical solution to be analyzed as prior art documents; Step 2: Compare the technical solution to be analyzed with the reference documents to identify the distinguishing technical methods; Step 3: Conduct source tracing analysis on each different technical means; thereby identifying the patent infringement risk of the technical solution to be analyzed.

[0007] The beneficial effects of this invention are: it eliminates the need to review all patents, thus reducing the workload of the search. Only the identification of any missing distinguishing technologies and the accuracy of the source analysis of these technologies are required for acceptance testing. The patent analysis method provided by this invention excludes all patents lacking inventiveness, eliminating the need to review numerous claims and preventing interference with the accuracy of the search by patents whose protection scope has not undergone substantive examination or is subject to invalidation. No invalidation analysis is required after completing this patent analysis. This invention covers all countries and regions where patent validity is judged based on inventiveness. If a minor improvement is made to the technical solution after patent analysis, only the improved portion needs to be analyzed retrospectively, thus allowing for continued searching. It increases the possibility of collaboration; if used effectively, personnel across the entire technical field can share analysis reports, with each entity only needing to undertake a minimal amount of search and analysis work, whereas a comprehensive search requires each product to produce its own analysis report. The patent analysis method provided by this invention can also identify documents that significantly contribute to innovation, automatically ignoring low-value patents, and can be used to evaluate patent value, applicant's R&D capabilities, or the innovative capabilities of inventors and authors. The patent analysis method provided by this invention can also accurately determine which technical means of the technical solution to be analyzed can be patented, and obtain infringement analysis results and rights confirmation analysis results while performing infringement analysis.

[0008] Furthermore, the retrieval method employs a retrospective retrieval approach; The method for tracing and retrieving information is as follows: S1 defines the database scope by classification number, keywords, applicant / author information, patent number or time information, randomly browses the technical documents within that scope, and selects one technical document that is close to the target document; S2 examines the referenced documents, the referenced documents, other referenced documents of the referenced documents, similar documents, examination information, other technical documents belonging to the same classification number or other technical documents of the same applicant / author, to check whether there are other technical documents that are closer to or conform to the target document; If step S3 only obtains other technical documents that are closer to the target document, then step S2 is performed on the technical document that is closer to the target document. After multiple loops, if the target document still cannot be obtained, it is determined that it cannot be obtained.

[0009] The advantage of adopting the above-mentioned further solution is that the target document can be obtained by reading only a small number of technical documents.

[0010] Furthermore, the public technical solutions include: technical solutions whose duration from publication to implementation of the technical solution to be analyzed is longer than the maximum protection period of a conventional patent.

[0011] The maximum protection period for a conventional patent is typically set at 20 years, but depending on the purpose of the patent analysis and the technical field, 15, 22, or 25 years can also be chosen. The beneficial effect of adopting the above-mentioned further scheme is that as long as a technical solution is found whose duration from publication date to implementation date is longer than the maximum protection period of a conventional patent, it can be proven that all technical means involved in the technical solution were public technology on the implementation date of the technical solution to be analyzed. Even if someone subsequently obtains a patent authorization based on these technical means due to examination errors, this document can be used as evidence to prove that these wrongly authorized patents are invalid.

[0012] Furthermore, when selecting public technical solutions as reference documents, priority should be given to technical solutions that contain more identical technical means as reference documents; When selecting a patent analysis report as a priori document, priority should be given to patent analysis reports that contain many other technical solutions in the same field that share similar technical means. The same technical means here refers to the same technical means found when comparing the selected technical solution with the technical solution to be analyzed.

[0013] The beneficial effect of adopting the above-mentioned further approach is that the more identical technical means obtained by selecting prior art documents, the fewer technical solutions need to be traced and analyzed later, and the less workload is required for patent analysis.

[0014] Furthermore, patent analysis reports for other technical solutions in this field should meet the following characteristics: Patent analysis report of technical solutions that belong to the same or similar technical fields as the technical solution to be analyzed; The analysis report obtained by the method of this invention or the result obtained by other patent analysis methods is an analysis report without infringement risk.

[0015] The beneficial effect of adopting the above-mentioned further solution is that if the prior art is obtained through other means and the analysis report with infringement risk is relatively ambiguous in its representation of the ownership of various technical means, it will reduce the accuracy of this search.

[0016] Furthermore, the technical means include technical features, the technical problems they solve, and the technical effects they achieve; If two technical solutions simultaneously contain a certain technical feature, and the technical problem they solve and the technical effect they achieve are substantially the same, then the technical means in the two technical solutions are the same technical means. The technical solution to be analyzed is compared with the prior art. If the technical solution to be analyzed has a certain technical means, but the prior art does not contain the same technical means, then the technical means is determined to be the distinguishing technical means. If other technical documents contain the same technical means that are different from the technical means, then it is determined that the other technical documents have applied the different technical means.

[0017] Furthermore, the source tracing analysis method includes: retrieving other public technical solutions in the field that contain the distinguishing technical means as public technical proof documents of the distinguishing technical means, or tracing back to the technical document that first applied the distinguishing technical means to the field as the original technical document of the distinguishing technical means.

[0018] The beneficial effects of adopting the above-mentioned further solutions are: if a public technology certificate document for the distinguishing technical means is found, it can be determined that the technical means is public technology, and there is no need to analyze the infringement risk; if the source is traced to the technical document that first applied the distinguishing technical means to the field, it can also be determined who invented the technical means first, and the risk patents related to the technical means can be locked within a very small range.

[0019] Furthermore, when conducting source tracing analysis on distinguishing technical means: one should first attempt to retrieve publicly available technical certification documents for the distinguishing technical means; if such documents cannot be retrieved, then one should attempt to retrieve the original technical documents for the distinguishing technical means. If neither a public technical proof document for the differentiating technical means nor an original technical document for the differentiating technical means can be obtained, the technical solution to be analyzed can be deemed to be an original technical document for the differentiating technical means, and a patent application can be made based on the differentiating technical means.

[0020] The beneficial effect of adopting the above-mentioned further approach is that if the distinguishing technical means are found to be public technology, it can be proven that the technical means will definitely not infringe, and there is no need to continue tracing the source, thus reducing the workload of patent analysis. In fact, in actual patent analysis, 80%-90% of distinguishing technical means are public technology, and a product often only has a very small number of technical means that need to be traced back to the technical document in which the distinguishing technical means were first applied in the field. At the same time, patent infringement analysis and patent confirmation analysis can be completed simultaneously.

[0021] Furthermore, the method for identifying the patent infringement risk of the technical solution to be analyzed is to determine whether the technical solution to be analyzed falls within the protection scope of the original technical document or related risk patent; The relevant risk patents include: other patents that apply the differentiating technical means, whose application date or priority date is between the priority date and the first publication date of the original technical document of the differentiating technical means.

[0022] The beneficial effect of adopting the above-mentioned further solution is that, since the original technical solution cannot be used as evidence of the lack of inventiveness of other patents that apply the different technical means between the priority date and the first publication date of the original technical document of the different technical means, it is necessary to conduct an infringement analysis on this part of the patents.

[0023] Furthermore, when conducting source tracing analysis on each distinguishing technical means, the database scope is first limited to technical documents whose duration from publication date to implementation date of the technical solution to be analyzed is longer than the maximum protection period of conventional patents, or analysis reports indicating that the distinguishing technical means is a public technology; if no public technology proof documents are obtained, this limitation is removed.

[0024] The beneficial effect of adopting the above-mentioned further solution is that if a technical document is found to have a publication date to implementation date of the technical solution to be analyzed that is longer than the maximum protection period of a conventional patent, it can be determined that the distinguishing technical means must not be inventive, and there is no need to continue tracing the source, thereby improving the accuracy of patent analysis and reducing the workload of patent analysis.

[0025] Furthermore, after removing the limitation that the database scope is limited to technical documents whose duration from publication date to the date of implementation of the technical solution to be analyzed exceeds the maximum protection period of conventional patents, if one or more technical documents applying the distinguishing technical means are retrieved, the distinguishing technical means are traced based on the retrieved technical documents. The method of tracing the source is as follows: D1 examines the technical document, its referenced documents, the referenced document, other referenced documents of the referenced document, similar patents, examination information, other technical documents belonging to the same classification number, or other technical solutions of the same applicant / author to check whether there are other patents that disclosed the different technical means earlier. If D2 obtains another earlier technical document that discloses the differentiating technical means, then continue with step D1 on the earlier technical document that discloses the differentiating technical means; if no other earlier technical document that discloses the differentiating technical means can be obtained, then end this step. The D3 comparison revealed the technical documents that disclosed the distinguishing technical means, and determined that the earliest technical document that disclosed the distinguishing technical means was the original technical document of the distinguishing technical means.

[0026] The beneficial effects of adopting the above-mentioned further solutions are: to make full use of the search results and data technology results of others, to quickly locate the true inventor of the technical means, to gradually deepen the technical understanding in this field, and to identify the true inventor of the technical means.

[0027] Furthermore, if during the source tracing analysis it is found that the duration from the date of publication to the date of implementation of the technical solution to be analyzed is longer than the maximum protection period of a conventional patent, and that a technical document containing the distinguishing technical means is included, the source tracing analysis can be stopped, and the technical document can be used as a public technical proof document of the distinguishing technical means.

[0028] The beneficial effect of adopting the above-mentioned further solution is that it can be determined that the distinguishing technical means is necessarily not creative, so there is no need to continue the source tracing analysis, thus reducing the workload of patent analysis.

[0029] The present invention also provides a patent retrieval system, including a database containing technical documents, wherein the system applies the above-mentioned patent analysis method based on the differentiation of technical means for tracing origins.

[0030] The beneficial effect of this patent search system is that it facilitates patent analysis by searchers based on patent analysis methods that trace the origins of patents using distinguishing technical means.

[0031] The present invention also provides a patent search system, including a database containing technical documents, and adding a "first-of-its-kind" tag to the technical documents in the database that are the first to use a certain distinguishing technical means.

[0032] The beneficial effects of this patent search system are: it can quickly identify original technology documents through tags, improve the speed of search and analysis, and reduce the workload of patent analysis.

[0033] Furthermore, risk labels for the distinguishing technical means are added to the relevant risk patents.

[0034] The beneficial effects of adopting the above-mentioned further solutions are: risky patents can be quickly identified through tags, improving the speed of search and analysis and reducing the workload of patent analysis.

[0035] Furthermore, the database also includes patent analysis reports obtained using the aforementioned patent analysis method based on the differentiation of technical means for tracing patent origins.

[0036] The beneficial effects of adopting the above-mentioned further solutions are: facilitating the reference of search and analysis reports in the same field; and improving the accuracy and convenience of patent analysis.

[0037] Furthermore, the number of times technical documents in the statistical database are included in the patent analysis report as original technical documents is statistically analyzed; and a ranking is made based on this to evaluate the patent value, the applicant's R&D capabilities, or the innovation capabilities of the inventors and authors.

[0038] The beneficial effects of adopting the above-mentioned further solutions are: to facilitate accurate evaluation of patent value, applicant's R&D capabilities, or inventor's / author's innovation capabilities.

[0039] Furthermore, analysis tags are added to the patent analysis report for each distinguishing technical means involved.

[0040] The beneficial effect of adopting the above-mentioned further solution is that it makes it easier for searchers to quickly find similar patent analysis reports as comparison documents, thus improving convenience.

[0041] Furthermore, the patent search system adds ownership tags for the corresponding technical means based on the tracing results of the different technical means in the patent analysis report.

[0042] The type of ownership label can be public technology of a certain technical means or patented technology of a certain technical means.

[0043] The beneficial effect of adopting the above-mentioned further solutions is that it facilitates the quick identification of patent infringement risks by the searcher. Attached Figure Description

[0044] Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram of the patent analysis method based on distinguishing technical means for tracing the origin disclosed in this invention. Detailed Implementation

[0045] The present invention will be further described below with reference to the embodiments. Example 1

[0046] like Figure 1 As shown, this embodiment discloses a patent analysis method based on differential technical means for tracing patent origins. The method includes: Check if there are any patent analysis reports that, through this invention or other patent analysis methods, indicate no infringement risk for technical solutions belonging to the same or similar technical field as the solution to be analyzed. If so, prioritize patent analysis reports containing many similar technical means in other technical solutions in the field as prior art documents.

[0047] If two technical solutions simultaneously contain a certain technical feature, and the technical problem they solve and the technical effect they achieve are substantially the same, then the technical means in the two technical solutions are the same technical means.

[0048] If there are no patent analysis reports for other technical solutions in the field that are similar to the technical solution to be analyzed, or if the technical solution involved in the patent analysis report only contains a small number of technical means that are the same as the technical solution to be analyzed, then the prior art can be obtained in the following ways: S1 defines the database scope using classification numbers, keywords, applicant / author information, patent numbers, or time information. The database scope is defined as: technical solutions whose duration from publication date to the date of implementation of the technical solution to be analyzed is longer than the maximum protection period of a conventional patent. The maximum protection period of a conventional patent is usually specified as 20 years, but 15 years, 22 years, or 25 years can also be selected depending on the purpose and technical field of the patent analysis. Randomly browse the technical documents within this range, and prioritize those that contain many of the same technical means as the technical solution to be analyzed. S2 examines the referenced documents, the referenced documents, other referenced documents of the referenced documents, similar documents, examination information, other technical documents belonging to the same classification number or other technical documents of the same applicant / author, to check whether there are other technical solutions that contain more technical means that are the same as the technical solution to be analyzed. If so, they are regarded as other technical documents that are closer to the technical solution to be analyzed. If step S3 only yields other technical documents that are closer to the technical solution to be analyzed, then step S2 is performed on the technical document that is closer to the technical solution to be analyzed. After multiple iterations, the final technical document that is closer to the technical solution to be analyzed is used as the comparison document.

[0049] The technical solution to be analyzed is compared with the prior art. If the technical solution to be analyzed has a certain technical means, but the prior art does not contain the same technical means, then the technical means is determined to be the distinguishing technical means.

[0050] Record the obtained distinguishing techniques in a list, and perform the following source tracing analysis on each distinguishing technique: S1 defines the database scope by classification number, keywords, applicant / author information, patent number, or time information, limiting the database to technical documents whose publication date to the date of implementation of the technical solution to be analyzed is longer than the maximum protection period of conventional patents, or analysis reports indicating that the distinguishing technical means are public technology. Randomly browse the technical documents within this scope and select one technical document in this field; S2 examines the referenced documents, the referenced documents, other referenced documents of the referenced documents, similar documents, examination information, other technical documents belonging to the same classification number or other technical documents of the same applicant / author, in order to verify whether there are other technical documents that apply different technical means or similar means or other technical documents that contain the same technical means that differ from the technical means. If S3 obtains technical documents that apply the differentiating technical means or only obtains other technical documents that are highly similar to the technical solution to be analyzed, then S2 is performed on these technical documents. After multiple iterations, if other technical documents that apply the differentiating technical means are still not obtained, the limitation is cancelled.

[0051] After removing the limitation that the database scope is limited to technical documents whose publication date to the date of implementation of the technical solution to be analyzed is longer than the maximum protection period of conventional patents, the following methods are used to attempt to retrieve the original technical documents of the distinguishing technical means: S1 defines the database scope by classification number, keywords, applicant / author information, patent number or time information, randomly browses the technical documents within that scope, and selects one technical document in the field. S2 examines the cited documents, the cited documents, other cited documents, similar documents, examination information, other technical documents belonging to the same classification number or other technical documents of the same applicant / author, in order to check whether there are other technical documents that have applied different technical means or similar means, or other technical documents that have only obtained some other technical documents that are highly similar to the technical solution to be analyzed, or other technical documents that contain the same technical means that are different technical means. If, in step S3, technical documents that apply the differentiating technical means are obtained, or if only some other technical documents that are highly similar to the technical solution to be analyzed are obtained, then step S2 is performed on these technical documents. If, after multiple iterations, other technical documents that apply the differentiating technical means are still not obtained, then the technical solution to be analyzed can be considered to be the original technical document of the differentiating technical means, and a patent can be applied for based on the differentiating technical means.

[0052] If one or more technical documents that apply the distinguishing technique are retrieved, the distinguishing technique is traced back to its source based on the retrieved technical documents. The method for tracing back the source is as follows: D1 examines the technical document, its referenced documents, the referenced document, other referenced documents of the referenced document, similar patents, examination information, other technical documents belonging to the same classification number, or other technical solutions of the same applicant / author to check whether there are other patents that disclosed the different technical means earlier. If D2 obtains another earlier technical document that discloses the differentiating technical means, then continue with step D1 on the earlier technical document that discloses the differentiating technical means; if no other earlier technical document that discloses the differentiating technical means can be obtained, then end this step. The D3 comparison revealed the technical documents that disclosed the distinguishing technical means, and determined that the earliest technical document that disclosed the distinguishing technical means was the original technical document of the distinguishing technical means.

[0053] If, during the aforementioned source tracing analysis, it is found that the duration from the date of publication to the date of implementation of the technical solution to be analyzed exceeds the maximum protection period of a conventional patent, and that a technical document containing the distinguishing technical means is found, the source tracing analysis can be stopped, and the technical document can be used as a public technical proof document of the distinguishing technical means.

[0054] If a first-in-class technical document is obtained, then relevant risk patents need to be listed based on "other patents that apply the differentiating technical means between the priority date and the first publication date of the first-in-class technical document with the application date or priority date". The claims and validity information of the first-in-class technical document and relevant risk patents should be used to determine whether the technical solution to be analyzed falls within the protection scope of the first-in-class technical document or relevant risk patents.

[0055] The beneficial effects of this embodiment are: it eliminates the need to review all patents, thus reducing the workload of the search. Only the identification of any missing distinguishing technologies and the accuracy of the source analysis of these technologies are required for acceptance testing. The patent analysis method provided by this invention excludes all patents lacking inventiveness, eliminates the need to review numerous claims, and avoids interference with the accuracy of the search by patents whose protection scope has not undergone substantive examination or is subject to invalidation. No invalidation analysis is required after completing this patent analysis. This invention covers all countries and regions where patent validity is judged based on inventiveness. If a minor improvement is made to the technical solution after patent analysis, only the improved portion needs to be analyzed retrospectively, thus allowing for continued searching. It increases the possibility of collaboration; if used effectively, personnel across the entire technical field can share analysis reports, with each entity only needing to undertake a minimal amount of search and analysis work, whereas a comprehensive search requires each product to produce its own analysis report. The patent analysis method provided by this invention can also identify documents that significantly contribute to innovation, automatically ignoring low-value patents, and can be used to evaluate patent value, applicant's R&D capabilities, or the innovation capabilities of inventors and authors. The patent analysis method provided by this invention can also accurately determine which technical means of the technical solution to be analyzed can be patented, and obtain infringement analysis results and rights confirmation analysis results while performing infringement analysis.

[0056] This embodiment also provides a patent search system, including a database containing technical documents. The system applies the aforementioned patent analysis method based on tracing the source of patents using distinguishing technical means. It is used to automatically or semi-automatically generate patent analysis reports. Example 2

[0057] This embodiment provides a patent search system, including a database containing technical documents. A "first-of-its-kind" tag is added to each technical document in the database that represents a first-of-its-kind technique. This tag allows for rapid identification of first-of-its-kind technical documents, improving search and analysis speed and reducing the workload of patent analysis.

[0058] Add risk tags to patents that differentiate their technical methods. These tags allow for rapid identification of risky patents, improving search and analysis speed and reducing the workload of patent analysis.

[0059] The database also includes patent analysis reports obtained using the aforementioned patent analysis methods based on distinguishing technical means for tracing origins. This facilitates referencing search and analysis reports from similar fields, improving the accuracy and convenience of patent analysis.

[0060] This system tracks the number of times technical documents from a statistical database are included as original technical documents in patent analysis reports; and ranks these documents accordingly to evaluate patent value, applicant's R&D capabilities, or inventor's / author's innovation capabilities. This facilitates accurate evaluation of patent value, applicant's R&D capabilities, or inventor's / author's innovation capabilities.

[0061] Add analysis tags to each distinguishing technical means involved in the patent analysis report. This makes it easier for users to quickly find similar patent analysis reports as reference documents, improving convenience.

[0062] The patent search system adds ownership tags to corresponding technical means based on the tracing results of different technical means in the patent analysis report. The ownership tag type can be either public technology or patented technology. This facilitates quick identification of patent infringement risks by the searcher.

Claims

1. A patent analysis method based on tracing by distinguishing technical means, characterized in that, The method comprises: Step 1: retrieve technical documents recording public technical solutions close to the technical solution to be analyzed, or select patent analysis reports of other technical solutions close to the technical solution to be analyzed in the field as comparison documents; Step 2: compare the technical solution to be analyzed with the comparison documents to identify the different technical means; Step 3: perform traceability analysis on each different technical means respectively; and further identify the patent infringement risk of the technical solution to be analyzed.

2. The patent analysis method based on the differentiation technical means tracing according to claim 1, characterized in that, The retrieval method adopts traceability retrieval; The traceability retrieval method is as follows: S1: define the database range through classification number, keyword, applicant / author information, patent number or time information, randomly browse technical documents in the range, and select one technical document close to the target document; S2: check whether there are other technical documents closer to the target document or conforming to the target document by checking the reference documents, cited documents, other reference documents of the cited documents, similar documents, review information, other technical documents belonging to the same classification number or other technical documents of the same applicant / author of the technical document; S3: if only other technical documents closer to the target document are obtained, then perform step S2 on the technical document closer to the target document, and if the target document still cannot be obtained after multiple cycles, it is determined that the target document cannot be obtained.

3. The patent analysis method based on the differentiation technical means tracing according to claim 1, characterized in that, The traceability analysis method comprises: retrieving other public technical solutions in the field containing the different technical means as public technical proof documents of the different technical means, or tracing to the technical document in which the different technical means are first applied to the field as the first technical document of the different technical means.

4. A patent search system comprising a database, the database having incorporated therein technical documents, characterized in that, The system applies the patent analysis method based on traceability of different technical means according to any one of claims 1 to 12.

5. A patent search system comprising a database, the database having incorporated therein technical documents, characterized in that, A first creation label of the different technical means is added to the technical document in the database as the first technical document of the different technical means.

6. The patent retrieval system of claim 5, wherein, A risk label of the different technical means is added to the related risk patent of the different technical means.

7. The patent retrieval system of claim 5, wherein, The database also includes patent analysis reports obtained by the patent analysis method based on traceability of different technical means according to any one of claims 1 to 3.

8. The patent retrieval system of claim 5, wherein, The number of times that the technical document in the database is written into the patent analysis report as the first technical document is counted; and a list is made according to the number, which is used to evaluate the patent value, the R&D capability of the applicant, or the innovation capability of the inventor or author.

9. The patent retrieval system of claim 7, wherein, The patent analysis report is added with the analysis label of each different technical means of the different technical means involved.

10. The patent retrieval system of claim 7, wherein, The patent retrieval system adds the right ownership label of the corresponding technical means according to the traceability result of each different technical means in the patent analysis report.

Images