Boundary spanning innovation and the patent system: Interdisciplinary challenges for a specialized examination system

Abstract This article discusses the importance of boundary spanning innovation, demonstrates the drawbacks of popular metadata based boundary spanning measures, and proposes a new full text semantic similarity measure of boundary spanning. It subsequently uses the semantic distance boundary spanning measure to demonstrate that boundary spanning innovation has become more common in recent decades, and show that these boundary spanning inventions pose challenges for the traditional specialized-examiner patent examination model. Examining the applications for inventions that span technical boundaries takes longer and requires more back-and-forth with the patent office than their comparatively simple peers. Finally, this article discusses potential reforms to the patent examination system to help address these challenges.

[1]  Boyan Jovanovic,et al.  Long Waves and Short Waves: Growth Through Intensive and Extensive Search , 1990 .

[2]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  The Impact of Boundary Spanning Scholarly Publications and Patents , 2009, PloS one.

[3]  Jonathon N. Cummings,et al.  Collaborative Research Across Disciplinary and Organizational Boundaries , 2005 .

[4]  L. Bromham,et al.  Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success , 2016, Nature.

[5]  T. Landauer,et al.  Indexing by Latent Semantic Analysis , 1990 .

[6]  J. March.  Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning , 1991, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[7]  Caroline Haythornthwaite,et al.  Learning and knowledge networks in interdisciplinary collaborations , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[8]  M. Trajtenberg.  A Penny for Your Quotes : Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations , 1990 .

[9]  M. Tushman.  Special Boundary Roles in the Innovation Process. , 1977 .

[10]  Daniel K. N. Johnson,et al.  Time In Purgatory: Examining the Grant Lag for U.S. Patent Applications , 2004 .

[11]  Benjamin F. Jones.  The Burden of Knowledge and the &Apos;Death of the Renaissance Man&Apos;: Is Innovation Getting Harder? , 2005 .

[12]  Ryan Whalen.  Second Order Obviousness: How Information and Communication Technologies Make Inventions More Obvious and Why the Law Should Care , 2017 .

[13]  M. Gittelman,et al.  Applicant and Examiner Citations in US Patents: An Overview and Analysis , 2008 .

[14]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Stud , 2012 .

[15]  Bronwyn H Hall,et al.  Market value and patent citations , 2005 .

[16]  Peter W. Foltz,et al.  An introduction to latent semantic analysis , 1998 .

[17]  Lee Fleming,et al.  Special Issue on Design and Development: Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[18]  Irwin Feller,et al.  Multiple actors, multiple settings, multiple criteria: issues in assessing interdisciplinary research , 2006 .

[19]  M. Tushman,et al.  Boundary Spanning Individuals: Their Role in Information Transfer and Their Antecedents , 1981 .

[20]  I. Ràfols,et al.  Does Interdisciplinary Research Lead to Higher Citation Impact? The Different Effect of Proximal and Distal Interdisciplinarity , 2015, PloS one.

[21]  Christian Sternitzke,et al.  Patents and publications as sources of novel and inventive knowledge , 2009, Scientometrics.

[22]  Martin G. Moehrle,et al.  Anticipating industry convergence: semantic analyses vs IPC co-classification analyses of patents , 2013 .

[23]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Figs. S1 to S3 References the Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge , 2022 .

[24]  Ryan Whalen.  Complex Innovation and the Patent Office , 2017 .

[25]  R. Burt.  Structural Holes and Good Ideas1 , 2004, American Journal of Sociology.

[26]  H. Etzkowitz.  The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages , 1998 .

[27]  R. Tijssen.  A quantitative assessment of interdisciplinary structures in science and technology: Co-classification analysis of energy research☆ , 1992 .

[28]  B. Kogut,et al.  Localization of Knowledge and the Mobility of Engineers in Regional Networks , 1999 .

[29]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time , 2009, Scientometrics.

[30]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact , 2013, Science.

[31]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[32]  Yun Huang,et al.  : Measuring Changes in Scientific Search Strategies , 2016 .

[33]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinarity. The case of innovation studies in business and management , 2011, ArXiv.

[34]  Robert C. Post,et al.  “Liberalizers” versus “Scientific Men” in the Antebellum Patent Office , 2023 .

[35]  Ajay Agrawal,et al.  Have university knowledge flows narrowed?: Evidence from patent data , 2009 .

[36]  Lisa R Lattuca,et al.  Creating Interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary Research and Teaching among College and University Faculty , 2001 .

[37]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Are top-cited papers more interdisciplinary? , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[38]  Toby E. Stuart,et al.  Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities , 2007 .

[39]  Michael D. Frakes,et al.  Does the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office Grant Too Many Bad Patents?: Evidence from a Quasi-Experiment , 2014 .

[40]  J. Leker,et al.  Patent indicators for monitoring convergence - examples from NFF and ICT , 2011 .

[41]  Luís M. A. Bettencourt,et al.  Invention as a combinatorial process: evidence from US patents , 2014, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.