In developing
ontologies to match corpora samples, as in learning
algorithms, what kind of analysis of each document would be
useful to compare one patent claim against that patent’s
description, and against an arbitrary potential prior art
candidate?
Entity recognition, with and without
names or descriptions or anaphora;
Objects and activities mentioned in
the claims, as compared to those mentioned in each patent;
Mereological relationships among the identified objects
and activities;
Common verb signature database with
identified variables and constants,
Modus ponens interpreter of
signature phrases wrt the identified objects and
activities,
Logic language of FOL level, Horne clause, lexical
scopes, question answering,
Heuristic search through And/or graphs with FOL
parameterization, simple algebra
What have I
missed?
The idea, or
long term goal, is to build an ontology of patent claims as
encountered in published patents. If that turns out to be
helpful, other document analysis tasks might benefit from
the ontology so developed.
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT
EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5
7 1 2
Dear Corpus
Analysts and Ontologists,
I have just
made available a corpus of documents from the US Patent and
Trademark Office which are available for corpus analysts.
The tools available now are sufficient for supporting
attorneys, inventors, scientists, and other similar
application legal and technology roles.
What additional
support should I provide in the software for supporting
corpus analysis of selected patent document subsets? I have
a web site with extensive help and tutorial materials – I
suggest starting at:
www.EnglishLogicKernel.com/Help/help.htm
to see an index
of capability descriptions. I can make available the
“frequent words” and the “rare words” lists as text files,
along with the patent documents in whole or in sections for
data, abstract, description and claims, which are already
extracted from the selected document set. The claim tree is
parsed, and the claims are separated into claim elements,
all of which can be provided.
Is there
anything else that corpus analysts would like to see in the
software?
Suggestions
highly appreciated,
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT
EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5
7 1 2