Comparing the number of patent applications for each technical field is also beneficial as a subject of patent analysis. Let's create a patent map with patent applicant (same as example 1) on the x axis and FI classification on the y axis this time.
For patent classifications such as FI, candidates can be displayed by clicking on "candidate display" button. Depending on the size of the aggregation target, you can create a patent map by summing up in each section such as "section" or "class". In this time, in order to prepare a patent map for patent applications of major electronics company companies, it is assumed that the technical field to which the patent application is applied is expected to be diverse, so it would be appropriate to first create a patent map at the section level .
A patent map that summarizes the number of patent applications of each company for each patent classification is as follows. However, since patent classifications are given to one patent document more than once, it is necessary to pay attention to occurrence of duplicate count. For example, the number of patent applications filed by companies that develop products across multiple patent classifications will be compiled to a greater extent.
Since it is difficult to understand in this state, let us compare and compare patent maps of the number of patent applications. Then, only Matsushita Electric Works notices that the share of patent applications in Section E is high. In addition, you can confirm at a glance by creating a patent map on how many applications are being made to each field of each company.
Let's dig deeper into a specific patent classification (G "physics") this time. Display patent map wizard again and select class as FI classification hierarchy as patent classification,
Let's display candidates immediately. Then, classifications other than patent classification G of the patent map to be created this time, such as H01 and H04, are displayed as many candidates and will not display candidates for patent classification G.
In this case, after inputting "G" into the input field on the right side of the hierarchical combo box (H 04 is input in gray), let's try to click the candidate display button, then only the patent classification starting with G is candidate It is displayed as.
Let's create a patent map with up to FI counts G21 as many cases. Also, sort the y axis in order of classification name (sequential number of G0x).
When you create a patent map under this condition and plot with a bar chart, 100%, it becomes as follows. Patent applications belonging to category G21 "Nuclear Engineering" are only in Toshiba and Hitachi. Since there are only two companies among the electric machinery companies that were analyzed this time, we have patent applications related to nuclear power plants, so it seems that patent applications are also being made only from these two companies.
Let's create a patent map for the breakdown of G21
When you create a patent map at the lower level of G21C, you can see that the difference in number of patent applications between Toshiba and Hitachi is mainly attributable to G21C "Reactor (analog computer for that ...)". Let's further compare patent maps of the number of patent applications in the lower layer of G21C and compare them.
When you create a patent map, you can see immediately that the difference in the number of applications is attributable to G21C17 "Monitoring: Exam".
Let's create a patent map on the lower level of G21C17. Then, the difference in patent applications of Toshiba and Hitachi of G21C17/00 is remarkable. However, we need to wait a bit for patent analysis work.
Because G21C17/00 counts the number of all subgroups after G21C17/XX as patent classification, it is inappropriate as subject of this subgroup analysis (G21C17/10, C17/02, C17/06, C17/12 are double-counted in G21C17/00).
Let's create a patent map of the number of patent applications by removing G21C17/00. Then it is immediately apparent that there is a difference in the number of patent applications between Toshiba and Hitachi with regard to patent applications belonging to G21C17/10 "Fuel Element ...".
Let's also create a patent map with facet symbols at the lower level of G21C17/10. As a whole, Toshiba has more patent applications, but in the lower layers than G21C17/10, it was found that there is no area where the proportion of each patent classification of patent applications is significantly different between Toshiba and Hitachi.
When comparing the trends in the number of patent applications by Toshiba and Hitachi in G21C17/10 in time series, some knowledge may be obtained with this number difference. Let's create a population of Toshiba and Hitachi FI classification G21C17/10 and create a patent map in chronological order.
As a result of creating a patent map, it is clear that Toshiba consistently has advantages as a patent application number since 1991. It is interesting that the trends in the number of patent applications since 1994 seem to be synchronized between the two companies.
Utilizing the patent map, we were able to narrow down the population subject to patent analysis to 335 at this point. Even in the time series transition, we could not understand the characteristics of the difference in patent application number, so it seems difficult to conduct further patent analysis globally.
From this point onward, it is necessary to browse 335 patent search populations one by one and to grasp the tendency of each company's patent application. It is possible to grasp the patent application tendency of a small scale patent population efficiently by utilizing patent text mining for 300 population or less population.
This time we visualized the patent for 110 "patent publications" extracted by G21C17/10. In conducting the final patent document browsing, it can be said that it is often useful for at least the examiner of the JPO to look through patent publications that are guaranteed inventive at the time of patent application. In this case, since distribution of patent documents of Hitachi and Toshiba are similar, it is necessary to browse patent documents one by one in order to grasp the final technical trend.
Color coding by patent applicant