•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Reading patents is an important activity for inventors and anyone seeking to file or defend a patent, as well as for “exploratory” researchers such as students in a range of disciplines. However, they are notoriously difficult to read. This paper examines the characteristics of patent documents that impair their readability and seeks to identify comprehension strategies and techniques that may alleviate this difficulty. Insights were gathered from a review of the scholarly literature on reading and patent literacy, a survey of patent educators affiliated with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)’s Patent and Trademark Research Center (PTRC) Program, and interviews with engineering and legal professionals who read patents in the course of their professional practice. The resulting compilation of recommended strategies for patent comprehension is synthesized as a possible basis for best practices for reading patents.

References

Artis, A. B. (2008). Improving marketing students’ reading comprehension with the SQ3R method. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(2), 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475308318070

Asche, G. (2017). “80% of technical information found only in patents” – Is there proof of this [1]? World Patent Information, 48, 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2016.11.004

Atherton, M., Jiang, P., Harrison, D., & Malizia, A. (2018). Design for invention: Annotation of functional geometry interaction for representing novel working principles. Research in Engineering Design, 29(2), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-017-0267-2

Bai, Z., Zhang, R., Chen, L., Cai, Q., Zhong, Y., Wang, C., Fang, Y., Fang, J., Sun, J., Wang, W., Zhou, L., Hua, H., Qiu, T., Wang, C., Sun, C., Lu, J., Wang, Y., Xia, Y., Hu, M., … Tu, C. (2024). PatentGPT: A large language model for intellectual property (arXiv:2404.18255). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.18255

Best, R. M., Rowe, M., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2005). Deep-level comprehension of science texts: The role of the reader and the text. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(1), 65. https://journals.lww.com/topicsinlanguagedisorders/abstract/2005/01000/deep_level_comprehension_of_science_texts__the.7.aspx

Carlson, L. E., & Sullivan, J. F. (2004). Exploiting design to inspire interest in engineering across the K-16 engineering curriculum. International Journal of Engineering Education, 20(3), 372–378. https://www.ijee.ie/articles/Vol20-3/IJEE2502.pdf

Casola, S., & Lavelli, A. (2022). Summarization, simplification, and generation: The case of patents. Expert Systems with Applications, 205, 117627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117627

Casola, S., Lavelli, A., & Saggion, H. (2023). Creating a silver standard for patent simplification. Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 1045–1055. https://doi.org/10.1145/3539618.3591657

Clarivate. (2021). Discover Derwent Innovations Index for easy search and discovery of patent content: User Guide. Clarivate. https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/dlm_uploads/2021/12/Derwent-Innovations-Index_User-Guide-Dec-2021.pdf

Donald, K. E., Kabir, K. M. M., & Donald, W. A. (2018). Tips for reading patents: A concise introduction for scientists. Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents, 28(4), 277–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/13543776.2018.1438409

Follmer, D. J., Fang, S.-Y., Clariana, R. B., Meyer, B. J. F., & Li, P. (2018). What predicts adult readers’ understanding of STEM texts? Reading and Writing, 31(1), 185–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9781-x

Gray, W. S. & Bernice E. Leary. (1935). What makes a book readable, with special reference to adults of limited reading ability; an initial study. The University of Chicago Press. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015031032009

Howland, H. P., Jarvie, L. L., & Smith, L. F. (1943). How to read in science and technology. Harper.

Irvin, D. (2018). The Patent Office in the library. Public Services Quarterly, 14(4), 392–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2018.1487360

Jiang, L., & Goetz, S. (2024). Artificial intelligence exploring the patent field (arXiv:2403.04105). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.04105

Kim, D. G. (2015). A rhetorical approach to patents: A guide to reading a patent [M.A., San Diego State University]. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1708672804/

Koh, E. C. Y. (2020). Read the full patent or just the claims?: Mitigating design fixation and design distraction when reviewing patent documents. Design Studies, 68, 34–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2020.02.001

Lei, S. A., Rhinehart, P. J., Howard, H. A., & Cho, J. K. (2010). Strategies for improving reading comprehension among college students. Reading Improvement, 47(1), 30–42. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/prin/rimp

lens.org. (2020, November 11). How to read a patent. Lens.Org. https://support.lens.org/knowledge-base/how-to-read-a-patent/

Lu, P., Schroeder, S., Burris, S., Rayfield, J., & Baker, M. (2022). The effectiveness of a metacognitive strategy during the reading process on cognitive allocation and subject matter retention. Journal of Agricultural Education, 63(2), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2022.02201

MacMillan, D. (2005). Patently obvious: The place for patents in information literacy in the sciences. Research Strategies, 20(3), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resstr.2006.06.004

MacMillan, M., & Rosenblatt, S. (2015a). They’ve found it. Can they read it? Adding academic reading strategies to your IL toolkit. ACRL 2015. ACRL 2015, Portland, OR. https://alair.ala.org/bitstream/handle/11213/17916/TheyveFoundIt.pdf

MacMillan, M., & Rosenblatt, S. (2015b, January 15). Challenges & Strategies. Adding Reading Strategies to Your IL Toolkit. https://readingstratsacrl2015.wordpress.com/challenges-of-academic-reading-2/

Meara, J. (2002). Just who is the person having ordinary skill in the art? Patent law’s mysterious personage. Washington Law Review, 77(1), 267. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol77/iss1/7/

Meier, J. J. (2012). Intellectual property: Patents: Important information literacy standards for interdisciplinary science courses. In J. R. Davidson & K. O’Clair (Eds.), The Busy Librarian’s Guide to Information Literacy in Science and Engineering (pp. 93–104). American Library Association. https://alastore.ala.org/content/busy-librarians-guide-information-literacy-science-and-engineering

Mille, S., & Wanner, L. (2008, May 28). Making text resources accessible to the reader: The case of patent claims. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08). International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Marrakech, Morocco. http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2008/pdf/352_paper.pdf

Moore, D. W., Readence, J. E., & Rickelman, R. J. (1983). An historical exploration of content area reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 18(4), 419–438. https://doi.org/10.2307/747377

Okamoto, M., Shan, Z., & Orihara, R. (2017). Applying information extraction for patent structure analysis. Proceedings of the 40th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 989–992. https://doi.org/10.1145/3077136.3080698

O’Toole, J. (2021). Questioning authority: Patents and source evaluation in an era of misinformation. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Resource Center Association, 31(1). https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/jptrca/vol31/iss1/3

Ouellette, L. L. (2017). Who reads patents? Nature Biotechnology, 35(5), 421–424. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3864

Overhiser, S., Barrett, S., Miller, J., Mittelbach, S., Raider, R., Ptrc, D., Reinman, S., Murphey, M., & Ptrc, O. (2022). Guide for best practices for Patent and Trademark Resource Centers (PTRCs). PTRC Association. https://ptrca.org/files/Guide%20for%20Best%20Practices%20for%20Patent%20and%20Trademark%20Resource%20Centers%20(PTRC)%20August%202022.pdf

Patents Act, 35 U.S.C. § § 112 (1952). https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title35-section112&num=0&edition=prelim

Pedraza-Fariña, L., & Whalen, R. (2022). The ghost in the patent system: An empirical study of patent law’s elusive “skilled artisan.” Iowa Law Review, 108(1), 247–302. https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-108-issue-1/the-ghost-in-the-patent-system-an-empirical-study-of-patent-laws-elusive-skilled-artisan

Robinson, F. P. (1941). Effective study. Harper & Brothers. http://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.224377

Robson, H. (2001). How to read a patent. In Harry Robson & K. P. Lillerud (Eds.), Verified syntheses of zeolitic materials (p. 73). Elsevier Science. DOI: 10.1016/B978-044450703-7/50114-9

Rutwik & Avantika. (2023, October 27). Exploring ChatGPT’s capabilities & limitations in prior art search. GreyB. https://www.greyb.com/blog/chatgpt-for-prior-art-search/

Schox, J. (2015). Not so obvious: An introduction to patent law and strategy (4th edition). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Segal, D. (2019). One hundred patents that shaped the modern world. Oxford University Press.

Sharma, R. (n.d.). Putting ChatGPT to the patent analysis test [UnitedLex]. Insights. https://unitedlex.com/insights/putting-chatgpt-to-the-patent-analysis-test/

Sherriff, G., & Rand, D. (2022). Prior art research in the capstone design experience: A case study of redesigned online and in-person instruction. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 100. https://doi.org/10.29173/istl2598

Strohmaier, A. R., Ehmke, T., Härtig, H., & Leiss, D. (2023). On the role of linguistic features for comprehension and learning from STEM texts. A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 39, 100533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100533

Suominen, H., Ferraro, G., Nualart, J., & Hanlen, L. (2017). User study for measuring linguistic complexity and its reduction by technology on a patent website. Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning. https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/250650

U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Highlights of the 2017 U.S. PIAAC Results Web Report (NCES 2020-777). https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/current_results.asp

US Patent and Trademark Office. (2022). Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (9th ed.). US Patent and Trademark Office. https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html

US Patent and Trademark Office. (n.d.). Patent and Trademark Resource Centers [Text]. https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/patent-trademark-resource-centers

Verberne, S., D’hondt, E. K. L., Oostdijk, N. H. J., & Koster, C. H. A. (2010, March 28). Quantifying the challenges in parsing patent claims. 21. 1st International Workshop on Advances in Patent Information Retrieval (AsPIRe-2010), Milton Keynes, UK. https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/84168

Wilson-Lopez, A., Gregory, S., & Larsen, V. (2017). Reading and engineering: Elementary students’ co-application of comprehension strategies and engineering design processes. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 6(2). https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1116

World Intellectual Property Organization. (n.d.). R&D, Innovation and Patents. https://www.wipo.int/patent-law/en/developments/research.html

Zwicky, D. (2016). Balancing conflicting service priorities as an academic patent librarian. Public Services Quarterly, 12(1), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2015.1128372

Zwicky, D. (2019). Thoughts on patents and information literacy. Journal of the Patent & Trademark Resource Center Association. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/lib_fsdocs/216

Download

Share

COinS