IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v107y2016i2d10.1007_s11192-016-1851-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technological evolution seen from the USPC reclassifications

Author

Listed:
  • Chun-Chieh Wang

    (National Taiwan University)

  • Hui-Yun Sung

    (National Chung Hsing University)

  • Mu-Hsuan Huang

    (National Taiwan University)

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate technological evolution from the perspective of the US Patent Classification (USPC) reclassification. Similar to the revisions of the Dewey Decimal Classification, a commonly used library classification scheme, USPC reclassification takes the forms of creating, abolishing or modifying USPC class schedules. The results showed that there exist significant differences among five types of patents based on the USPC reclassification: Patents reclassified to Class 001 (classification undetermined), Patents with Technological Inter-field Mobilised Codes, Patents with Technological Intra-field Mobilised Codes, Patents with Abolished Codes, and Patents with Original Codes. Patents reclassified to Class 001, mostly related to the topic of “Data processing”, performed better than other patents in novelty, linkage to science, technological complexity and innovative scope. Patents with Inter-field Mobilised Codes, related to the topics of “Data processing: measuring, calibrating, or testing” and “Optical communications”, involved broader technology topics but had a low speed of innovation. Patents with Intra-field Mobilised Codes, mostly in the Computers & Communications and Drugs & Medical fields, tended to have little novelty and a small innovative scope. Patents with Abolished Codes and patents with Original Codes performed similarly—their values of patent indicators were low. It is suggested that future research extend the patent sample to subclasses or reclassified secondary USPCs in order to understand the technological evolution within a field in greater detail.

Suggested Citation

  • Chun-Chieh Wang & Hui-Yun Sung & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2016. "Technological evolution seen from the USPC reclassifications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 537-553, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:107:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-016-1851-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-1851-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-016-1851-3
    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/s11192-016-1851-3?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. Sung, Hui-Yun & Wang, Chun-Chieh & Huang, Mu-Hsuan & Chen, Dar-Zen, 2015. "Measuring science-based science linkage and non-science-based linkage of patents through non-patent references," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 488-498.
    2. Hall, B. & Jaffe, A. & Trajtenberg, M., 2001. "The NBER Patent Citations Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools," Papers 2001-29, Tel Aviv.
    3. Deborah Strumsky & José Lobo & Sander van der Leeuw, 2012. "Using patent technology codes to study technological change," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 267-286, April.
    4. V. K. Gupta, 2006. "References to literature in patent documents: A case study of CSIR in India," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(1), pages 29-40, July.
    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. Coccia, Mario, 2019. "The theory of technological parasitism for the measurement of the evolution of technology and technological forecasting," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 289-304.
    2. François Lafond & Daniel Kim, 2019. "Long-run dynamics of the U.S. patent classification system," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 631-664, April.
    3. Mario Coccia, 2019. "Technological Parasitism," Papers 1901.09073, arXiv.org.
    4. Mario COCCIA, 2017. "The Fishbone diagram to identify, systematize and analyze the sources of general purpose technologies," Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences, KSP Journals, vol. 4(4), pages 291-303, December.
    5. Mario Coccia, 2018. "Measurement of the evolution of technology: A new perspective," Papers 1803.08698, arXiv.org.

    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. Lorenzo Napolitano & Evangelos Evangelou & Emanuele Pugliese & Paolo Zeppini & Graham Room, 2017. "Technology networks: the autocatalytic origins of innovation," Papers 1708.03511, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2018.
    2. Jonathan H. Ashtor, 2019. "Investigating Cohort Similarity as an Ex Ante Alternative to Patent Forward Citations," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 848-880, December.
    3. Thomas J. Hannigan & Alessandra Perri & Vittoria Giada Scalera, 2016. "The Dispersed Multinational: Does Connectedness Across Spatial Dimensions Lead to Broader Technological Search?," Working Papers 11, Venice School of Management - Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    4. Maryann Feldman & Dieter Kogler & David Rigby, 2013. "rKnowledge: The Spatial Diffusion of rDNA Methods," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1311, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Aug 2013.
    5. Sung, Hui-Yun & Wang, Chun-Chieh & Huang, Mu-Hsuan & Chen, Dar-Zen, 2015. "Measuring science-based science linkage and non-science-based linkage of patents through non-patent references," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 488-498.
    6. Emanuele Pugliese & Lorenzo Napolitano & Andrea Zaccaria & Luciano Pietronero, 2019. "Coherent diversification in corporate technological portfolios," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-22, October.
    7. Emanuele Pugliese & Lorenzo Napolitano & Andrea Zaccaria & Luciano Pietronero, 2017. "Coherent diversification in corporate technological portfolios," Papers 1707.02188, arXiv.org.
    8. Chipten Valibhay & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2018. "Comment l'analyse des modèles de l'invention dans le droit de la propriété intellectuelle permet de caractériser des régimes de conception et des stratégies d'organisation des connaissances," Post-Print hal-01904734, HAL.
    9. François Lafond & Daniel Kim, 2019. "Long-run dynamics of the U.S. patent classification system," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 631-664, April.
    10. Ron Boschma & Pierre-Alexandre Balland & Dieter Franz Kogler, 2015. "Relatedness and technological change in cities: the rise and fall of technological knowledge in US metropolitan areas from 1981 to 2010," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 24(1), pages 223-250.
    11. Ivan Lugovoi & Dimitrios A. Andritsos & Claire Senot, 2022. "Novelty and scope of process innovation: The role of related and unrelated manufacturing experience," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(10), pages 3877-3895, October.
    12. Manuel Ammann & Philipp Horsch & David Oesch, 2016. "Competing with Superstars," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2842-2858, October.
    13. Hickfang, Michael & Holder, Ulrike, 2018. "The impact of stock options on risk-taking: Founder-CEOs and innovation," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 12/2018, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    14. Ufuk Akcigit & Murat Celik & Daron Acemoglu, 2014. "Young, Restless and Creative: Openness to Disruption and Creative Innovations," 2014 Meeting Papers 377, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    15. Panayotis Dessyllas & Alan Hughes, 2005. "R&D and Patenting Activity and the Propensity to Acquire in High Technology Industries," Industrial Organization 0507008, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark, 2013. "Patents and Cumulative Innovation:Causal Evidence from the Courts," IIR Working Paper 13-16, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    17. Guan-Can Yang & Gang Li & Chun-Ya Li & Yun-Hua Zhao & Jing Zhang & Tong Liu & Dar-Zen Chen & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2015. "Using the comprehensive patent citation network (CPC) to evaluate patent value," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1319-1346, December.
    18. Jos� Lobo & Charlotta Mellander & Kevin Stolarick & Deborah Strumsky, 2014. "The Inventive, the Educated and the Creative: How Do They Affect Metropolitan Productivity?," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 155-177, February.
    19. Sheikh, Shahbaz, 2018. "The impact of market competition on the relation between CEO power and firm innovation," Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 36-50.
    20. Pauly, Stefan & Stipanicic, Fernando, 2021. "The creation and diffusion of knowledge: Evidence from the Jet Age," CEPREMAP Working Papers (Docweb) 2112, CEPREMAP.

    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:107:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-016-1851-3. 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.