The increasing complexity of patented mechanical designs means that their novelty and inventive steps increasingly rely on interacting geometric features and how they contribute to device functions. These features and interactions are normally incorporated in patents through clear patent claims. However, patents can be difficult to interpret and understand for designers due to their legal terminologies. This suggests there is a need for greater awareness of relevant prior art amongst designers in terms of avoiding potential conflict. This paper presents a framework that helps designers obtain insight on relevant prior art and enables emerging design–prior art comparison. The framework mainly contains development of a patent graphical functional representation, a domain-specific ontology and a semantic database. The graphical representation presenting the functional reasoning of patents in terms of interacting geometric features. A domain-specific ontology enables knowledge sharing and conceptualisation, providing a standardised vocabulary for describing patented designs. By formulating patent data into a semantic database, commonality of working principles between an emerging design and prior art can be identified. This enables early identification of potential conflict and thereby could help designers steer their emerging designs away from protected solutions. A computer tool being developed based on this approach is also described.

Jiang, P., Atherton, M., Sorce, S., Harrison, D., Malizia, A. (2018). Design for invention: a framework for identifying emerging design–prior art conflict. JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN, 29(10), 596-615 [10.1080/09544828.2018.1520204].

Design for invention: a framework for identifying emerging design–prior art conflict

Sorce, Salvatore
;
2018

Abstract

The increasing complexity of patented mechanical designs means that their novelty and inventive steps increasingly rely on interacting geometric features and how they contribute to device functions. These features and interactions are normally incorporated in patents through clear patent claims. However, patents can be difficult to interpret and understand for designers due to their legal terminologies. This suggests there is a need for greater awareness of relevant prior art amongst designers in terms of avoiding potential conflict. This paper presents a framework that helps designers obtain insight on relevant prior art and enables emerging design–prior art comparison. The framework mainly contains development of a patent graphical functional representation, a domain-specific ontology and a semantic database. The graphical representation presenting the functional reasoning of patents in terms of interacting geometric features. A domain-specific ontology enables knowledge sharing and conceptualisation, providing a standardised vocabulary for describing patented designs. By formulating patent data into a semantic database, commonality of working principles between an emerging design and prior art can be identified. This enables early identification of potential conflict and thereby could help designers steer their emerging designs away from protected solutions. A computer tool being developed based on this approach is also described.
Settore ING-INF/05 - Sistemi Di Elaborazione Delle Informazioni
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/09544828.asp
Jiang, P., Atherton, M., Sorce, S., Harrison, D., Malizia, A. (2018). Design for invention: a framework for identifying emerging design–prior art conflict. JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN, 29(10), 596-615 [10.1080/09544828.2018.1520204].
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
65_J14_2018_CJEN_Design for invention, a framework for identifying emerging.pdf

accesso aperto

Dimensione 3.51 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
3.51 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10447/336803
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 7
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact