Two tools are better than one - why combining Ambercite with other tools can improve search quality and productivity
Dec 18 2020 A recent blog has discussed the different types of patent search approaches (as shown in the table shown below), but then suggested that a combination of approaches should produce the best outcome.
Method |
Boolean (Conventional) |
Semantic |
Citation searching |
Principle |
Returns a set of patents that meet a
particular query, which often includes a combination of keyword and class
code terms. |
Searches for patents that have similar keywords
or blocks of text |
Searches for patents that are similar to one or
more starting patents. |
Strengths |
Well accepted. Can be used for new inventions. Many existing vendors. |
Can start with a description of the invention
or a representative claim Results are ranked |
Excellent ability to return similar results. Results are ranked, and can include relevant
patents that have not been previously cited. |
Weaknesses |
Creating queries can be an artform. Will often return many results that are not
relevant, i.e. ‘false positives’. Users can be caught out if relevant patents do
not include the expected keywords or class codes. Results may not be ranked in order of
relevance. |
Can return false positive results, despite
having similar results. |
Need a starting patent, which may not apply
for new inventions. May not pick up relevant patents where citation
data is lacking. |
Examples |
Free: Google Patent, Patent Lens and Espacenet,
plus national patent office sites, for example USPTO, IP Australia, and
others. Subscription: Patseer, Derwent
Innovation, Patbase, Questal, Patsnap. |
Innography, IP Rally, Innovation-Q,
IP-Screener, Tekmine, Octimine, Incopat. |
Ambercite |