IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v77y2008i2d10.1007_s11192-007-1973-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploration of the evolution of nanotechnology via mapping of patent applications

Author

Listed:
  • Masatsura Igami

    (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
    National Institute of Science and Technology Policy)

Abstract

This study explored the evolution of nanotechnology based on a mapping of patent applications. Citations among patent applications designated to the European Patent Office were intensively analysed. Approximately 4300 nanotechnology patent applications linked through citations were mapped. Fifteen domains of nanotechnology patent applications were found in the map in 2003. The domains cover a wide range of application fields; they are domains related to measurement and manufacturing; electronics; optoelectronics; biotechnology; and nano materials. Maps in several reference years registered the evolution of nanotechnology, where the breadth of application fields has been broadening over time. Direct and indirect knowledge flows among different domains of nanotechnology are seemingly small at the present. Each domain of nanotechnology is likely pushing the technological frontier within its own domain. The exception is sensing and actuating technologies on the nanometre scale. Direct and indirect knowledge flows to/from this domain describe their vital role in nanotechnology. Countries’ specialisation was also analysed. Patent applications from the United States and the European Union cover a wide range of nanotechnology. Inventive activities in Japan are, however, strongly focusing on electronics. Intensive knowledge creation in specific technologies was found in Switzerland and Korea.

Suggested Citation

  • Masatsura Igami, 2008. "Exploration of the evolution of nanotechnology via mapping of patent applications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(2), pages 289-308, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:77:y:2008:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-007-1973-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-007-1973-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-007-1973-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-007-1973-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scheu, M. & Veefkind, V. & Verbandt, Y. & Galan, E. Molina & Absalom, R. & Förster, W., 2006. "Mapping nanotechnology patents: The EPO approach," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 204-211, September.
    2. Masatsura Igami & Ayaka Saka, 2007. "Capturing the Evolving Nature of Science, the Development of New Scientific Indicators and the Mapping of Science," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2007/1, OECD Publishing.
    3. Joachim Schummer, 2004. "Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 59(3), pages 425-465, March.
    4. Meyer, Martin, 2006. "Are patenting scientists the better scholars?: An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1646-1662, December.
    5. Harhoff, Dietmar & Scherer, Frederic M. & Vopel, Katrin, 2003. "Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1343-1363, September.
    6. Martin Meyer, 2000. "What is Special about Patent Citations? Differences between Scientific and Patent Citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 49(1), pages 93-123, August.
    7. Masatsura Igami & Teruo Okazaki, 2007. "Capturing Nanotechnology's Current State of Development via Analysis of Patents," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2007/4, OECD Publishing.
    8. Colin Webb & Hélène Dernis & Dietmar Harhoff & Karin Hoisl, 2005. "Analysing European and International Patent Citations: A Set of EPO Patent Database Building Blocks," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2005/9, OECD Publishing.
    9. Unknown, 1986. "Letters," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 1(4), pages 1-9.
    10. Narin, Francis & Hamilton, Kimberly S. & Olivastro, Dominic, 1997. "The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 317-330, October.
    11. Jacques Michel & Bernd Bettels, 2001. "Patent citation analysis.A closer look at the basic input data from patent search reports," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(1), pages 185-201, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Goio Etxebarria & Mikel Gomez-Uranga & Jon Barrutia, 2012. "Tendencies in scientific output on carbon nanotubes and graphene in global centers of excellence for nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(1), pages 253-268, April.
    2. R. Karpagam & S. Gopalakrishnan & M. Natarajan & B. Ramesh Babu, 2011. "Mapping of nanoscience and nanotechnology research in India: a scientometric analysis, 1990–2009," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(2), pages 501-522, November.
    3. Jun Peng Yuan & Wei Ping Yue & Cheng Su & Zheng Wu & Zheng Ma & Yun Tao Pan & Nan Ma & Zhi Yu Hu & Fei Shi & Zheng Lu Yu & Yi Shan Wu, 2010. "Patent activity on water pollution and treatment in China—a scientometric perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(3), pages 639-651, June.
    4. Guang Yu & Ming-Yang Wang & Da-Ren Yu, 2010. "Characterizing knowledge diffusion of Nanoscience & Nanotechnology by citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 81-97, July.
    5. Bo Wang & Shengbo Liu & Kun Ding & Zeyuan Liu & Jing Xu, 2014. "Identifying technological topics and institution-topic distribution probability for patent competitive intelligence analysis: a case study in LTE technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 685-704, October.
    6. Douglas Henrique Milanez & Leandro Innocentini Lopes Faria & Roniberto Morato Amaral & Daniel Rodrigo Leiva & José Angelo Rodrigues Gregolin, 2014. "Patents in nanotechnology: an analysis using macro-indicators and forecasting curves," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1097-1112, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yashuang Qi & Na Zhu & Yujia Zhai & Ying Ding, 2018. "The mutually beneficial relationship of patents and scientific literature: topic evolution in nanoscience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 893-911, May.
    2. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    3. Adam B. Jaffe & Gaétan de Rassenfosse, 2017. "Patent citation data in social science research: Overview and best practices," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(6), pages 1360-1374, June.
    4. Wagner, Stefan & Wakeman, Simon, 2016. "What do patent-based measures tell us about product commercialization? Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 1091-1102.
    5. Koch, Leonie & Simmler, Martin, 2020. "How important are local knowledge spillovers of public R&D and what drives them?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    6. Su, Hsin-Ning & Moaniba, Igam M., 2017. "Investigating the dynamics of interdisciplinary evolution in technology developments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 12-23.
    7. Inchae Park & Yujin Jeong & Byungun Yoon, 2017. "Analyzing the value of technology based on the differences of patent citations between applicants and examiners," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 665-691, May.
    8. Satoshi Yasukawa & Shingo Kano, 2015. "Comparison of examiners’ forward citations in the United States and Japan with pairs of equivalent patent applications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1189-1205, February.
    9. Jyun-Cheng Wang & Cheng-hsin Chiang & Shu-Wei Lin, 2010. "Network structure of innovation: can brokerage or closure predict patent quality?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 735-748, September.
    10. Martin Kalthaus, 2020. "Knowledge recombination along the technology life cycle," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 643-704, July.
    11. Leten, Bart & Kelchtermans, Stijn & Belderbos, Ren, 2010. "Internal Basic Research, External Basic Research and the Technological Performance of Pharmaceutical Firms," Working Papers 2010/12, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    12. Christoph Grimpe & Roberto Patuelli, 2011. "Regional knowledge production in nanomaterials: a spatial filtering approach," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 46(3), pages 519-541, June.
    13. Leonie Koch & Martin Simmler, 2020. "How Important are Local Knowledge Spillovers of Public R&D and What Drives Them?," EconPol Working Paper 42, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    14. Yuandi Wang & Xiongfeng Pan & Yantai Chen & Xin Gu, 2013. "Do references in transferred patent documents signal learning opportunities for the receiving firms?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 731-752, May.
    15. Yuan Zhou & Fang Dong & Yufei Liu & Liang Ran, 2021. "A deep learning framework to early identify emerging technologies in large-scale outlier patents: an empirical study of CNC machine tool," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 969-994, February.
    16. Jurriën Bakker & Dennis Verhoeven & Lin Zhang & Bart Van Looy, 2016. "Patent citation indicators: One size fits all?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 187-211, January.
    17. Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro & Ignacio Fernández-de-Lucio & François Perruchas & Pauline Mattsson, 2009. "What do patent examiner inserted citations indicate for a region with low absorptive capacity?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(2), pages 441-455, August.
    18. Roberto Patuelli & Andrea Vaona & Christoph Grimpe, 2010. "The German East‐West Divide In Knowledge Production: An Application To Nanomaterial Patenting," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 101(5), pages 568-582, December.
    19. Amalia Mas-Bleda & Mike Thelwall, 2016. "Can alternative indicators overcome language biases in citation counts? A comparison of Spanish and UK research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2007-2030, December.
    20. von Wartburg, Iwan & Teichert, Thorsten & Rost, Katja, 2005. "Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1591-1607, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:77:y:2008:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-007-1973-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.