Skip to main content
Log in

Exploration of the evolution of nanotechnology via mapping of patent applications

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Binning, G., Rohrer, H., Gerber, Ch., Weibel, E. (1982), Surface studies by scanning tunnelling microscopy, Physical Review Letters, 49: 57–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binning, G., Quate, C. F., Gerber, Ch. (1986), Atomic force microscope, Physical Review Letters, 56: 930–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., Vopel, K. (2003), Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights, Research Policy, 32: 1343–1363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Z., Chen, H., Chen, Z. K., Roco, M. C. (2004), International nanotechnology development in 2003: Country, institution, and technology field analysis based on USPTO patent database, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6: 325–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Igami, M., Saka, A. (2007), Capturing the evolving nature of science, Development of new scientific indicators and mapping of science, OECD STI Working Paper 2007/1.

  • Igami, M., Okazaki, T. (2007), Capturing nanotechnology’s current state of development via analysis of patents, OECD STI Working Paper 2007/4.

  • Meyer, M. (2000), What is special about patent citations? differences between scientific and patent citations, Scientometrics, 49: 93–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2006a), What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency, paper presented at SPRU 40th Anniversary Conference — The Future of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, SPRU, Brighton, East Sussex, United Kingdom. Available at http://www.sussex.ac.uk/units/spru/events/ocs/viewabstract.php?id=76

  • Meyer, M. (2006b), Are patenting scientists the better scholars? An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology, Research Policy, 35: 1646–1662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michel, J., Bettels, B. (2001), Patent citation analysis, a closer look at the basic input data form patent search reports, Scientometrics, 51: 185–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., Hamilton, K.S., Olivastro, D. (1997), The increasing linkage between U.S. Technology and public science, Research Policy, 26: 317–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheu, M., Veefkind, V., Verbandt, Y., Molina Galan, E., Absalom, R., Förster, W. (2006), Mapping nanotechnology patents: The EPO approach, World Patent Information, 28: 204–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schummer, J. (2004), Multidisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology, Scientometrics, 59: 425–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swope, W. C., Aandersen, H. C., Berens, P. H., Wilson, K. R. (1982), A computer simulation method for the calculation of equilibrium constants for the formation of physical clusters of molecules: Application to small water clusters, Journal of Chemical Physics, 76: 637–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S., Faust, K. (1994), Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, C., Dernis, H., Harhoff, D., Hoisl, K. (2005), Analysing European and International Patent Citations: A Set of EPO Patent Database Building Blocks, OECD STI Working Paper 2005/9.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masatsura Igami.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Igami, M. Exploration of the evolution of nanotechnology via mapping of patent applications. Scientometrics 77, 289–308 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1973-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1973-8

Keywords

Navigation