Report:Esp@cenet/Data Coverage/Patent Coverage/Family Data

Family Data

Patent Families in Esp@cenet

Esp@cenet supports two styles of patent family: the esp@cenet (simple) family, and the INPADOC (extended) family. Both family definitions rely on priority information to delineate family trees; however, each definition uses a different set of rules to determine which patents are grouped together.

The European Patent Office (EPO) examiner’s database has always relied on a very strict definition of patent families. In keeping with this, esp@cenet groups records into families based on a “simple” family definition: each record in the family must share exactly the same priority document (or combination of documents) with every other member. Because documents with this type of shared priority relationship often have similar content, the system treats these documents as “equivalents.”

As a practical example, a patent may claim priority back to a certain US priority. If a new document comes along that has the same US priority, but also has another priority date from a different filing, it cannot become a member of the first documents’ esp@cenet family (the theory is that it may contain/claim unrelated or too distantly related material to be considered an equivalent).

The more inclusive INPADOC style of patent family extends to all branches of the priority family tree. Any document that shares at least one priority with any other document immediately becomes a member of that document’s extended family. Because the second document in the example above is still a distant relation, it can be admitted in to the extended INPADOC patent family of the first document.

As a caveat, a note in the esp@cenet help guide explains that in certain cases, specific priorities on some patent documents can be declared "non-active"(or inactive). In those cases, the inactive priority data would not prevent the documents from becoming part of a simple patent family for any other (active) priority data. The esp@cenet help file does not give any examples of this situation.^[1] An INPADOC help desk representative stated that the EPO uses proprietary internal algorithms to divide "active" vs. "inactive" priorities, but that the results of this process could be overturned by an EPO examiner if deemed necessary. The representative also stated that a common example of an "inactive" priority can be seen on documents which claim both a PCT application priority and another national priority - the PCT application priority would be designated "inactive" in this case.^[2]

Extended INPADOC family data in esp@cenet is generated dynamically each time this data is requested by a user. Because of the computational demands of this process, INPADOC families are truncated if they contain over 500 members.^[3][4] To learn more about the family search process in esp@cenet, see Family Search Features.

Other Esp@cenet Policies Related to Patent Families

In esp@cenet, search results are grouped into simple patent families to prevent duplication of equivalent members in the results set. A representative document is chosen for the family so that the likelihood of displaying a representative English abstract is increased. If the first entry is a non-English publication, the system will substitute the title and abstract from a later English family member as the data to display for that family record. The order of preference is that EP documents in English are chosen first, then the US document, and finally, if these are not available, the GB document is displayed as the representative. In particular, the goal of esp@cenet is to display an English-language title and abstract for every document falling under the PCT minimum documentation guidelines. As of October 2007, over 19.5 million documents are represented in esp@cenet by an English abstract.^[5]

EPO examiners depend on esp@cenet family groupings to assign ECLA classifications to groups of patent documents. The assumption is that the content of documents in simple patent families is very closely related. Accordingly, the ECLA class first assigned to one member is subsequently applied to any other equivalent members.

Editor's Note:

The decision to rely on small families of closely related patents is a user-friendly one. The goal is to prevent distantly related patents from being lumped together into a single patent family, with content that varies widely. According to the help file, the system uses simple patent families to ensure that the family members will all have very closely related content. By accessing only the most closely related family members, users from non-English speaking backgrounds will be able to access an equivalent document to read about the subject invention in the language of his or her choice.