Work at SourceForge, help us to make it a better place! We have an immediate need for a Support Technician in our San Francisco or Denver office.

Close

#352 biblStruct for Patent citations

AMBER
closed-fixed
Kevin Hawkins
5
2013-04-12
2012-03-30
Javier Pose
No

We are implementing a project for encoding our patent and non-patent literature according to the TEI standard.

For doing so, we would need to have a very precise bibliographical reference (very important in the patent literature) of patent documents.
The current TEI standard does not allow us to encode the patent bibliographical citations. In the patents, the patent documents are cited according to a very well defined encoding for which the main elements are:

- Identification of a Patent Authority
- Identification of a Patent Number
- Identification of a Date
- Identification of a Kind Code

Therefore, we would need to have the following structure in TEI for encoding the bibliographic information of patents:

<biblStruct type="patent¦utilityModel¦designPatent¦plant" status="application¦publication">
<monogr>
<authority>
<orgName type="national¦regional"><orgName>
</authority>
<idno type="docNumber"></idno>
<date type=""applicationDate¦publicationDate"></date>
<imprint>
<idno type="kindCode"></idno>
</imprint>
</monogr>
</biblStruct>

I would like to add some examples, to show the importance of having this structure for our project:

1) Normally in the patent documents, the citation of other patents is one of the most important information.
This citation could identify the priority patents, related patents or simply are patents cited in the document.
The bibliographical reference to these patents is done without indicating any title, but using the patent standard bibliographical codification.
See the following examples (I attached a file with the corresponding images)

E1) In this text (from a patent) another patent is cited by: "Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 223883/1974
E2) in this example you can see how normally the bibliographical information of the patents is provided:
E3) also non-patent literature uses very often this kind of citation, see the following example:

2) I would like also to indicate that there are different citation manual styles which explicitly avoid to use the title and other information to cite the patents:

Bluebook Citation:
U.S. Patent No. 6,885,550 (issued Apr. 26, 2005).

APA Citation:
Williams, D. (2005). U.S. Patent No. 6,885,550. Washington, DC: U.S.

ACS Citation:
Williams, D. U.S. Patent 6,885,550, 2005.

Discussion

1 2 3 .. 6 > >> (Page 1 of 6)
  • Javier Pose
    Javier Pose
    2012-03-30

    Patent citation Examples

     
  • Laurent Romary
    Laurent Romary
    2012-04-15

    I see this as quite convincing. Would it make sense, once the change in biblStruct is made to add such a patent citation example in the guidelines. Would be good to show the variety of applications....

     
  • James Cummings
    James Cummings
    2012-06-29

    • assigned_to: nobody --> kshawkin
     
  • Kevin Hawkins
    Kevin Hawkins
    2012-08-06

    Thank you, Javier, for providing so much background information.

    Using the encoding structure you propose, it appears that the following changes would need to be made to the P5 content models:

    a) Add @status to <biblStruct> by way of adding this element to the att.docStatus class.

    b) Allow <authority> as a child of <monogr>.

    In addition, we would add some examples of patent citations to section 3.11 of the Guidelines.

    While you give various possible values of @type and @status on various elements, I think you'll agree that we shouldn't limit the values on these elements since these elements can be used for other things.

    Javier, does this all sound right?

    I see no reason not to implement this. If other members of Council agree with this, I suggest we do two things:

    1. One of the Council members can implement the changes to the content models.

    2. We ask Javier to provide suggested changes to the prose of section 3.11.

     
  • Javier Pose
    Javier Pose
    2012-08-16

    Hi,
    many thanks for your answer.
    Basically the changes that you enumerate are right but there are also two additional small changes:

    1) Currently, the element <idno> is only allowed inside the <monogr> IF it goes after the element <title>.
    This seems to be an arbitrary restriction. In the case of patents, most of the times the bibliographic citation does not have the title of the patent, so it should also be alloed to have the element <idno> inside <monogr> without restrictions.
    2) It would also be needed to allow the element <idno> inside <imprint> in order to encode the patent code.

     
  • Kevin Hawkins
    Kevin Hawkins
    2012-08-29

    Pardon the delay in getting back to this. I completely missed that your sample was suggesting <idno> in two separate places that it is not currently allowed. However:

    1) How would the semantics of biblStruct/monogr/idno be different from biblStruct/idno? That is, why exactly did you want to make <idno> a child of <monogr> rather than a sibling for the patent number? I am quite reluctant to allow this element in two places for fear of causing the kind of confusion we have for <biblScope> in <biblStruct> (see http://purl.org/TEI/FR/3555190 in case you're interested).

    2) Why do you want to put the patent code inside <imprint> instead of as a sibling of the other <idno>? You could distinguish the two with @type.

     
  • Javier Pose
    Javier Pose
    2012-08-30

    Hi,
    many thanks for your comments.

    I will try to explain the reasons why we propose the to have the information of the patent kindCode (<idno type="kindCode"></idno>) in the element <imprint>:

    The element <imprint> groups information relating to the publication or distribution of a bibliographic item.

    This is exactly what the kindCode of a patent document means because it informs about the publication or distribution of the patent (!).

    Basically a patent is identify with a set of metadata (basically a patent authority and patent number) and the patent publication is further characterized by the additional "kindCode". Therefore, the kindCode provides the information relating to the publication or distribution of the patent (for example if it is a patent published after a search of the patent examiner, or patent published during the examination procedure...).
    A patent, during its life cycle, is published "physically" several times, each version corresponding to additional corrections and refinements. It appears thus appropriate to put the identifier corresponding to the publication under the element grouping information related to publication of the bibliographical item, so imprint. One can refer to a patent, or to a particular patent publication.

    Regarding your two questions I will now answer them, the arguments being basically already provided in the explanation above:

    Regarding (1), in our proposal, the idno corresponding to the patent number (<idno type="docNumber">...</idno>) specifies the patent as a separate stand-alone bibliographical entity, which correspond to an independent item which can be cited as such. This sort of bibliographic information is normally grouped in the monogr section together with information like inventors, similarly as a book or a report. The patent number is actually relatively similar to a volume of a serial publication, the serie being the granting patent authority (e.g. patent publication 000001 from the USPTO). It does not appear to us consistent to put the a similarly semantic idno under biblStruct for patent, and under monogr for a book.

    Regarding (2), the TEI indicates that <imprint> groups information relating to the publication or distribution of a bibliographic item. As explained before, a patent is identify with a set of metadata, and a patent publication by the additional "kind code". A patent, during its life cycle, is published "physically" several times, each version corresponding to additional corrections and refinements. It appears thus appropriate to put the identifier corresponding to the publication under the element grouping information related to publication of the bibliographical item, so imprint. One can refer to a patent, or to a particular patent publication.

     
  • Kevin Hawkins
    Kevin Hawkins
    2012-09-02

    I see what you are saying about (1). Now that I look over section 3.11.1 of the Guidelines, I am reminded that even in a simple <biblStruct>, usually all components of the citation are wrapped in <monogr>. While a few elements are allowed outside of <analytic>, <monogr>, and <series>, these appear to be for exceptional purposes where the information outside of these elements refers to more than one of them. So I now agree that it makes sense for a patent number to be inside <monogr>. And since you have patent citations that lack titles, we should no longer require <title> inside <monogr> to support this usage.

    Regarding (2), thank you for the explanation of what a patent kindCode is. You hadn't actually explained it before, and nothing about the term "kind code" indicated to me that it relates to the publication or distribution of the patent document. (I would have guessed that a kind of patent is a classification along the lines of "physical device", "business process", etc.) However, from your description, it sounds like such a code isn't really an "identifier used to identify some object" (from the definition of <idno>); rather, it's akin to how <term> is used within <keywords>, no? That is, I actually think it might make more sense to use <term> for (2). What do you think?

    So at this point I am prepared to support the following four changes to P5 content models to support citations of patents:

    a) Add @status to <biblStruct> by way of adding this element to the
    att.docStatus class.

    b) Allow <authority> as a child of <monogr>.

    c) No longer require <title> inside <monogr>.

    d) Allow <term> as a child of <imprint>.

    As before, if other members of Council agree
    with these changefs, I suggest we do two things:

    1. One of the Council members can implement the changes to the content models.

    2. We ask Javier to provide suggested changes to the prose of section 3.11 and examples of patent citations illustrating (a) through (d) above.

     
  • Kevin Hawkins
    Kevin Hawkins
    2012-09-02

    Javier, if it's easier to discuss by Skype, I'd be happy to do that. My user is kshawkin. I could speak Wednesday or later.

     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2012-09-16

    On a quick reading of this proposal, I am rather appalled by the suggestion that <title> should become optional. Any bibliographic entry must have a title, surely? Even in the abbreviated references above, would it be wrong to regard the title as (e.g.) "Us Patent No xxxxx" ?

     
1 2 3 .. 6 > >> (Page 1 of 6)