More than ever, technical inventions are the symbol of our society's advance. Patents guarantee their creators protection against infringement. For an invention being patentable, its novelty and inventiveness have to be assessed. Therefore, a search for published work that describes similar inventions to a given patent application needs to be performed. Currently, this so-called search for prior art is executed with semi-automatically composed keyword queries, which is not only time consuming, but also prone to errors. In particular, errors may systematically arise by the fact that different keywords for the same technical concepts may exist across disciplines. In this paper, a novel approach is proposed, where the full text of a given patent application is compared to existing patents using machine learning and natural language processing techniques to automatically detect inventions that are similar to the one described in the submitted document. Various state-of-the-art approaches for feature extraction and document comparison are evaluated. In addition to that, the quality of the current search process is assessed based on ratings of a domain expert. The evaluation results show that our automated approach, besides accelerating the search process, also improves the search results for prior art with respect to their quality.
Calculating the similarity between texts is at the heart of a wide range of information retrieval tasks, such as search engine development, question answering, document clustering, or corpus visualization. Approaches for computing text similarities can be divided into similarity measures relying on word similarities and those based on document feature vectors @cite_23 .
@cite_23
2171313960
ABSTRACT Measuring the similarity between words, sentences, paragraphs and documents is an important component in various tasks such as information retrieval, document clustering, word-sense disambiguation, automatic essay scoring, short answer grading, machine translation and text summarization. This survey discusses the existing works on text similarity through partitioning them into three approaches; String-based, Corpus-based and Knowledge-based similarities. Furthermore, samples of combination between these similarities are presented. General Terms Text Mining, Natural Language Processing. Keywords BasedText Similarity, Semantic Similarity, String-Based Similarity, Corpus-Based Similarity, Knowledge-Based Similarity. NeedlemanWunsch 1. INTRODUCTION Text similarity measures play an increasingly important role in text related research and applications in tasks Nsuch as information retrieval, text classification, document clustering, topic detection, topic tracking, questions generation, question answering, essay scoring, short answer scoring, machine translation, text summarization and others. Finding similarity between words is a fundamental part of text similarity which is then used as a primary stage for sentence, paragraph and document similarities. Words can be similar in two ways lexically and semantically. Words are similar lexically if they have a similar character sequence. Words are similar semantically if they have the same thing, are opposite of each other, used in the same way, used in the same context and one is a type of another. DistanceLexical similarity is introduced in this survey though different String-Based algorithms, Semantic similarity is introduced through Corpus-Based and Knowledge-Based algorithms. String-Based measures operate on string sequences and character composition. A string metric is a metric that measures similarity or dissimilarity (distance) between two text strings for approximate string matching or comparison. Corpus-Based similarity is a semantic similarity measure that determines the similarity between words according to information gained from large corpora. Knowledge-Based similarity is a semantic similarity measure that determines the degree of similarity between words using information derived from semantic networks. The most popular for each type will be presented briefly. This paper is organized as follows: Section two presents String-Based algorithms by partitioning them into two types character-based and term-based measures. Sections three and four introduce Corpus-Based and knowledge-Based algorithms respectively. Samples of combinations between similarity algorithms are introduced in section five and finally section six presents conclusion of the survey.