Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:17:57.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PROBLEMS: EASY TO SAY BUT DIFFICULT TO WRITE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Vito Giordano ,
Marco Consoloni ,
Filippo Chiarello  and
Gualtiero Fantoni
Vito Giordano*
Affiliation:
School of Engineering, Department of Energy, Systems, Land and Construction Engineering, University of Pisa, Italy; B4DS - Business Engineering for Data Science lab, University of Pisa, Italy
Marco Consoloni
Affiliation:
School of Engineering, Department of Energy, Systems, Land and Construction Engineering, University of Pisa, Italy; B4DS - Business Engineering for Data Science lab, University of Pisa, Italy
Filippo Chiarello
Affiliation:
School of Engineering, Department of Energy, Systems, Land and Construction Engineering, University of Pisa, Italy; B4DS - Business Engineering for Data Science lab, University of Pisa, Italy
Gualtiero Fantoni
Affiliation:
School of Engineering, Department of Civil and Industrial Engineering, University of Pisa, Italy; B4DS - Business Engineering for Data Science lab, University of Pisa, Italy
*
Giordano, Vito, University of Pisa, Italy, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Patents are an invaluable source of data that can be beneficial for Engineering Design (ED). Patenting is one of the main means for disclosing the inventive process. For this reason, the description of the problem solved should also be included in any patents.

The ED literature lacks a proper definition of a problem, resulting in a fragmented scenario. Prior studies have employed Text Mining (TM) to extract problems from patents. We argue that TM can assist ED researchers in understanding how problems are articulated in text. Based on the literature, we propose two hypotheses: (1) problem-related text exhibits a negative sentiment polarity compared to other sections of patents; (2) problem-related keywords identified in the literature are predominantly used to describe problems rather than other aspects.

We analyse Japanese patents to validate our hypotheses, since they explicit Problem and Solution in the abstract. Finally, we compare our results with a set of problem-related sentences extracted from USPTO patents.

Our study reveals a higher positive sentiment in problem-related sentences compared to solution-related ones and highlights the inadequacy of using problem-related keywords alone to differentiate between the two.

Keywords

Patent AnalysisText miningKnowledge managementSemantic data processingConceptual design
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 2945 - 2954
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Becattini, N., Cascini, G., & Rotini, F. (2011), “Correlations between the evolution of contradictions and the law of identity increase”, Procedia Engineering, 9, 236–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.03.115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonaccorsi, A., Apreda, R., & Fantoni, G. (2020), “Expert biases in technology foresight. Why they are a problem and how to mitigate them”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 151, 119855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cascini, G., Fantoni, G., & Montagna, F. (2013), “Situating needs and requirements in the FBS framework”, Design Studies, 34(5), 636–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2012.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiarello, F., Fantoni, G., & Bonaccorsi, A. (2017), “Product description in terms of advantages and drawbacks: Exploiting patent information in novel ways”, In DS 87-6 Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17) Vol 6: Design Information and Knowledge, Vancouver, Canada, 21-25.08. 2017 (pp. 101–110).Google Scholar
Chikkamath, R., Parmar, V. R., Hewel, C., & Endres, M. (2021), “Patent Sentiment Analysis to Highlight Patent Paragraphs”, arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.09741. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2111.09741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devlin, J., Chang, M. W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2018), “Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding”, arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1810.04805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giordano, V., Puccetti, G., Chiarello, F., Pavanello, T., Fantoni, G. (2022), “Unveiling the Inventive Process from Patents by Extracting Problems, Solutions and Advantages with Natural Language Processing”, Available at SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4223458Google Scholar
Guarino, G., Samet, A., & Cavallucci, D. (2022), “PaTRIZ: A framework for mining TRIZ contradictions in patents”, Expert Systems with Applications, 117942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, M., & Liu, B. (2004), “Mining and summarizing customer reviews”, In Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 168–177).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeong, C., & Kim, K. (2014), “Creating patents on the new technology using analogy-based patent mining”, Expert Systems with Applications, 41(8), 3605–3614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.11.045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. H., & Choi, K. S. (2007), “Patent document categorization based on semantic structural information”, Information processing & management, 43(5), 1200–1215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2007.02.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S., & Yoon, B. (2021), “Patent infringement analysis using a text mining technique based on SAO structure”, Computers in Industry, 125, 103379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2020.103379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liang, Y., & Tan, R. (2007), “A text-mining-based patent analysis in product innovative process”, Trends in computer aided innovation, 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-75456-7_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melluso, N., Fantoni, G., & Martini, A. (2023), “The ABC (Affordance-Bias-Cognition) Reasoning of Product Use Interaction: A Text Mining Approach”, In Design Computing and Cognition’22 (pp. 51–66). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20418-0_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moehrle, M. G., Walter, L., Geritz, A., & Müller, S. (2005), “Patent-based inventor profiles as a basis for human resource decisions in research and development”, R&d Management, 35(5), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2005.00408.xGoogle Scholar
Organization, W. I. P. (2004), “WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law and Use”, 489. World Intellectual Property Organization.Google Scholar
Puccetti, G., Giordano, V., Spada, I., Chiarello, F., & Fantoni, G. (2023), “Technology identification from patent texts: A novel named entity recognition method”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 186, 122160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Souili, A., Cavallucci, D., Rousselot, F., & Zanni, C. (2015), “Starting from patents to find inputs to the problem graph model of IDM-TRIZ”, Procedia Engineering, 131, 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.12.365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suh, N. P. (1998). Axiomatic design theory for systems, “Research in engineering design”, 10(4), 189–209, https://doi.org/10.1007/s001639870001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiwana, S., & Horowitz, E. (2009), “Extracting problem solved concepts from patent documents”, In Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on Patent information retrieval (pp. 43–48). https://doi.org/10.1145/1651343.1651356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanni-Merk, C., Cavallucci, D., & Rousselot, F. (2009), “An ontological basis for computer aided innovation”, Computers in Industry, 60(8), 563–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2009.05.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar