Chemical patent information systems

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science

Volumn 1, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 727-741

  Downs, Geoffrey M ^a   Barnard, John M ^a  

^a Digital Chemistry Ltd   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALTERNATIVE APPROACH; AUTOMATED DATA MINING; AUTOMATIC RECONSTRUCTION; CHEMICAL NOMENCLATURE; IN-HOUSE SYSTEMS; NEAREST-NEIGHBOR SEARCHING; RETRIEVAL PERFORMANCE; STRUCTURE INFORMATION;

TECHNOLOGY;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 84857446259     PISSN: 17590876     EISSN: 17590884     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/wcms.41     Document Type: Review

References (102)

1. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 2003, 22:151-185. doi:10.1016/S0167-6296(02)00126-1.
2. Light DW, Warburton RN. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. J Health Econ 2005, 24:1030-1033. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.07.001.
3. Sloan FA, Hsieh C. Pharmaceutical Innovation: Incentives, Competition, And Cost-Benefit Analysis in International Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
4. Gold ER, Kaplan W, Orbinski J, Harland-Logan S, N-Marandi S. Are patents impeding medical care and innovation? PLoS Med 2010, 7:e1000208. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000208.
5. Dethlefsen W, Lynch MF, Gillet VJ, Downs GM, Holliday JD, Barnard JM. Computer storage and retrieval of generic chemical structures in patents. 11. Theoretical aspects of the use of structure languages in a retrieval system. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1991, 31:233-253. doi: 10.1021/ci00002a009.
6. Göhring KEH, Sibley JF. A giant step for mankind? World Patent Inform 1989, 11:5-10. doi: 10.1016/0172-2190(89)90021-5.
7. Jenny FA. 'A giant step for mankind?'-a reply World Patent Inform 1990, 12:71-75. doi: 10.1016/0172-2190(90)90167-J.
8. Sibley JF. Too broad generic disclosures: a problem for all. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1991, 31:5-9. doi: 10.1021/ci00001a002.
9. Milne GWA. Very broad Markush claims; a solution or a problem? Proceedings of a round-table discussion held on August 29, 1990. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1991, 31:9-30. doi: 10.1021/ci00001a003.
10. Milne GWA. Generic formulation of chemical composition. World Patent Inform 1991, 13:76-80. doi: 10.1016/0172-2190(91)90006-Q.
11. Ustinova EA, Chelisheva OV. Are Markush structures matters of chemistry and law or just figments of the imagination? World Patent Inform 1996, 18:23-31. doi: 10.1016/0172-2190(95)00053-4.
12. Bone RGA, Kendall JT. Markush under threat: US PTO considers alternatives. Ind Biotechnol 2008, 4:246-251.
13. Comments on August 2007 Examination of patent applications that include claims containing alternative language. Available at: http://www.uspto.gov/ip/rules/comments/markush.jsp. (Accessed October 2010).
14. Kappos DJ. Request for comments on proposed changes to restriction practice in patent applications. Fed Reg 2010, 75:33584-33587.
15. Weininger D. SMILES, a chemical language and information system. 1. Introduction to methodology and encoding rules. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1988, 28:31-36. doi: 10.1021/ci00057a005.
16. McNaught A. The IUPAC international chemical identifier: InChl-a new standard for molecular informatics. Chem Int 2006, 28:12-14.
17. Eller GA. Improving the quality of published chemical names with nomenclature software. Molecules 2006, 11:915-928.
18. Lynch, MF, Downs GM. Chemical patent database systems. In: Ash JE, Warr WA, Willett P, eds. Chemical Structure Systems. Chichester: Ellis Horwood; 1991, 126-153.
19. Simmons ES. The grammar of Markush structure searching: vocabulary vs syntax. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1991, 31:45-53. doi: 10.1021/ci00001a007.
20. Simmons ES. Markush structure searching over the years. World Patent Inform 2003, 25:195-202. doi: 10.1016/S0172-2190(03)00073-5.
21. Berks AH, Barnard JM, O'Hara MP. Markush structure searching in patents. In: Schleyer PvR, ed. Encyclopedia of Computational Chemistry: Volume 3. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 1998, 1552-1559.
22. Simmons ES Central Patents Index Chemical Code: a user's viewpoint. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1984, 24:10-15. doi: 10.1021/ci00041a004.
23. Simmons ES. The online divide: a professional user's perspective on Derwent database development in the online era. World Patent Inform 2004, 26:45-47. doi: 10.1016/j.wpi.2003.10.008.
24. Kaback SM. The IFI/Plenum chemical indexing system. In: Barnard JM, ed. Computer Handling of Generic Chemical Structures. Aldershot: Gower; 1984, 49-57.
25. IFI CLAIMS® Patent Services. Available at: http://www.ificlaims.com/. (Accessed October 2010).
26. Rössler S, Kolb AG. The GREMAS system, an integral part of the IDC system for chemical documentation. J Chem Doc 1970, 10:128-134.
27. Schoch-Grübler U. (Sub)structure searches in databases containing generic chemical structure representations. Online Inform Rev 1990, 14:95-108.
28. Franzreb KH, Hornbach P, Pahde C, Ploss G, Sander J. Structure searches in patent literature: a comparison study between IDC GREMAS and Derwent Chemical Code. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1991, 31:284-289. doi: 10.1021/ci00002a014.
29. Barnard JM. A comparison of different approaches to Markush structure handling. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1991, 31:64-68. doi: 10.1021/ci00001a010.
30. Schmuff NR. A comparison of the MARPAT and Markush DARC software. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1991, 31:53-59. doi: 10.1021/ci00001a008.
31. Berks AH. Current state of the art of Markush topological search systems. World Patent Inform 2001, 23:5-13. doi: 10.1016/S0172-2190(00)00108-3.
32. Lynch MF, Holliday JD. The Sheffield Generic Structures Project-a retrospective review. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1996, 36:930-936. doi: 10.1021/ci950173l.
33. Downs GM, Barnard JM. Chemical patents and structural information-the Sheffield research in context. J Doc 1998, 54:106-120. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000007163.
34. Barnard JM, Lynch MF, Welford SM. Computer storage and retrieval of generic chemical structures in patents. 2. GENSAL, a formal language for the description of generic chemical structures. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1981, 21:151-161. doi: 10.1021/ci00031a010.
35. Barnard JM, Lynch MF, Welford SM. Computer storage and retrieval of generic chemical structures in patents. 6. An interpreter program for the generic structure description language GENSAL. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1984, 24:66-71. doi: 10.1021/ci00042a004.
36. Barnard JM, Lynch MF, Welford SM. Computer storage and retrieval of generic structures in chemical patents. 4. An extended connection table representation for generic structures. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1982, 22:160-164. doi: 10.1021/ci00035a006.
37. Gillet VJ, Downs GM, Ling A, Lynch MF, Venkataram P, Wood JV, Dethlefsen W. Computer storage and retrieval of generic chemical structures in patents. 8. Reduced chemical graphs and their applications in generic chemical structure retrieval. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1987, 27:126-137. doi: 10.1021/ci00055a007.
38. Holliday JD, Lynch MF. Computer storage and retrieval of generic chemical structures in patents. 16. The refined search: an algorithm for matching components of generic chemical structures at the atom-bond level. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1995, 35:1-7. doi: 10.1021/ci00023a001.
39. Stiegler G, Maier B, Lenz H. Automatic translation of GENSAL representations of Markush structures into GREMAS fragment codes at IDC. In: Warr WA, ed. Chemical Structures 2. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1993, 105-114.
40. O'Hara MP, Pagis C. The PHARMSEARCH database. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1991, 31:59-63. doi: 10.1021/ci00001a009.
41. Benichou P, Klimczak C, Borne P. Handling genericity in chemical structures using the Markush Darc software. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1997, 37:43-53. doi: 10.1021/ci9600364.
42. Dubois JE, Panaye A, Attias R. DARC system: notions of defined and generic substructures. Filiation and coding of FREL substructure (SS) classes. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1987, 27:74-82. doi: 10.1021/ci00047a032.
43. Ebe T, Sanderson KA, Wilson PS. The Chemical Abstracts Service generic chemical (Markush) structure storage and retrieval capability. 2. The MARPAT file. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1991, 31:31-36. doi: 10.1021/ci00001a004.
44. Fisanick W. The CAS generic chemical (Markush) structure storage and retrieval capability. 1. Basic concepts. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1990, 30:145-154. doi: 10.1021/ci00066a008.
45. CAS databases. Available at: http://www.cas.org/expertise/cascontent/index.html. (Accessed October 2010).
46. Shively E, Williams J. CAS patent information: then and now. World Patent Inform 2004, 26:57-59. doi: 10.1016/j.wpi.2003.10.001.
47. STN International. Available at: http://www.stn-international.de/stn_home.html. (Accessed October 2010).
48. Ridley D. Information Retrieval: SciFinder. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
49. Science. Derwent's chemical and polymer indexing. Available at: http://science.thomsonreuters.comcom/support/patents/dwpiref/reftools/classification/indexing/. (Accessed October 2010).
50. Roller S. Using Reaxys for searching chemistry in patents. Presented at RSC CICAG Meeting "Should I Really Be Searching Patents?", 28 Oct 2009. Available at: http://www.rsc.org/images/StefanRollerOct09_tcm18-168322.pdf. (Accessed October 2010).
51. Goodman J. Computer software review: Reaxys. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:2897-2898. doi: 10.1021/ci900437n.
52. Williams AJ, Yerin A. Automated identification and conversion of chemical names to structure-searchable information. In: Banville DL, ed. Chemical Information Mining. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2009, 21-44.
53. SureChem. Available at: http://www.surechem.org. (Accessed October 2010).
54. Williams AJ. A perspective of publicly accessible/open-access chemistry databases. Drug Discov Today 2008, 13:495-501. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2008.03.017.
55. Chowdhury GG, Lynch MF. Automatic interpretation of the texts of chemical patent abstracts. 1. Lexical analysis and categorization. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1992, 32:463-467. doi: 10.1021/ci00009a011.
56. Chowdhury GG, Lynch MF. Automatic interpretation of the texts of chemical patent abstracts. 2. Processing and results. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1992, 32:468-473. doi: 10.1021/ci00009a012.
57. Kemp N, Lynch MF. Extraction of chemical names from the text of patents. 1. Identification of specific chemical names. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1998, 38:544-551. doi: 10.1021/ci980324v.
58. Banville DL, ed. Chemical Information Mining: Facilitating Literature-Based Discovery. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2009.
59. Brecher J. Name = Struct: a practical approach to the sorry state of real-life chemical nomenclature. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1999, 39:943-950. doi: 10.1021/ci990062c.
60. Rhodes J, Boyer S, Kreulen J, Chen Y, Ordonez P. Mining patents using molecular similarity search. In: Altman RB, Dunker AK, Hunter L, Murray T, Klein TE, eds. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, Maui, Hawaii, 3-7 January 2007: World Scientific Publishing; Hackensack, New Jersey, USA; 2007, 304-315. Available from http://psb.stanford.edu/psb-online/proceedings/psb07/rhodes.pdf. (Accessed October 2010).
61. Johnson AP, Valko AT. Identification of chemical images and conversion to structure-searchable information. In: Banville DL, ed. Chemical Information Mining. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2009, 45-76.
62. Park J, Rosania GR, Shedden KA, Nguyen M, Lyu N, Saitou K. Automated extraction of chemical structure information from digital raster images. Chem Central J 2009, 3:4. doi: 10.1186/1752-153X-3-4.
63. Valko AT, Johnson AP. CLiDE Pro: the latest generation of CLiDE, a tool for optical chemical structure recognition. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:780-787. doi: 10.1021/ci800449t.
64. Zimmermann M., Thi LTB., Hofmann M. Combating Illiteracy in chemistry: towards computer-based chemical structure reconstruction. ERCIM News 2005, 60:40-41.
65. Algorri ME, Zimmermann M, Friedrich CM, Akle S, Hofmann-Apititus M. Reconstruction of chemical molecules from images. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2007, 4609-4612.
66. Zimmerman M. Chemical depictions-the grand challenge in patents. Presented at the International Conference for Science & Business Information (ICIC); Sitges, Spain, October 18-21 2009. Available from http://www.haxel.com/icic/archive/2009/programme/. (Accessed October 2010).
67. Haupt CS. Markush structure reconstruction. A prototype for their reconstruction from image and text into a searchable, context sensitive grammar based extension of SMILES. Masters Thesis. Germany: Department of Computer Science, Hochschule Bonn-Rhein-Seig; December 2009. Available at: http://publica.fraunhofer.de/eprints/urn:nbn:de:0011-n-1144222.pdf. (Accessed October 2010).
68. Corbett P, Murray-Rust P. High-throughput identification of chemistry in life science texts. Comput Life Sci 2006, 2:107-118. doi: 10.1007/11875741_11.
69. Apodaca RL. Decoding IUPAC names with OPSIN. In Blog: Depth-First: Cheminformatics in context 2006; Available at: http://depth-first.com/articles/2006/10/14/decoding-iupac-names-with-opsin. (Accessed October 2010).
70. ChemProspector. Available at: http://infochem.de/news/projectdisplay.shtml?chemprospector.shtml. (Accessed October 2010).
71. Eigner-Pitto V. ChemProspector: advanced mining and searching of chemical content in patent documents. Presented at the ICIC International Conference on Trends for Scientific Information Professionals; Vienna, October 24-27 2010.
72. Grego T, Pezik P, Couto F, Rebholz-Schuhmann D. Identification of chemical entities in patent documents. In: Distributed Computing, Artificial Intelligence, Bioinformatics, Soft Computing, and Ambient Assisted Living. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2009, 942-949. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-02481-8_144.
73. Emmerich C. Comparing first level patent data with value-added patent information: A case study in the pharmaceutical field. World Patent Inform 2009, 31:117-122. doi: 10.1016/j.wpi.2008.06.003.
74. Walsh D. Integration of chemical structures from patents for pharmaceutical discovery: a Pfizer perspective. Presented at IPI-Confex; Seville, Spain, March 2-5 2008. Available at: http://www.researchinformation.info/features/feature.php?feature_id=165. (Accessed October 2010).
75. Hettne KM, Williams AJ, van Mulligen EM, Kleinjans J, Tkachenko V, Kors JA. Automatic vs. manual curation of a multi-source chemical dictionary: the impact on text mining. J Cheminf 2010, 2:3. doi: 10.1186/1758-2946-2-3 (+correction J Cheminf 2010, 2(1): 4. doi: 10.1186/1758-2946-2-4).
76. Wilson SR, Czarnik AW. Combinatorial chemistry: synthesis and application. New York: Wiley-IEEE; 1997.
77. Barnard JM, Downs GM. Computer representation and manipulation of combinatorial libraries. Perspect Drug Discovery Des 1997, 7-8:13-30.
78. Leland BA, Christie BD, Nourse JG, Grier DL, Carhart RE, Maffett T, Welford SM, Smith DH. Managing the Combinatorial Explosion. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1997, 37:62-70. doi: 10.1021/ci960088t.
79. Downs GM, Barnard JM. Techniques for Generating Descriptive Fingerprints in Combinatorial Libraries. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1997, 37:59-61. doi: 10.1021/ci960091c.
80. Barnard JM, Downs GM, von Scholley-Pfab A, Brown RD. Use of Markush structure analysis techniques for descriptor generation and clustering of large combinatorial libraries. J Mol Graph Model 2000, 18:452-463. doi: 10.1016/S1093-3263(00)80091-1.
81. Barnard JM, Wright PM. Towards in-house searching of Markush structures from patents. World Patent Inform 2009, 31:97-103. doi: 10.1016/j.wpi.2008.09.012.
82. Csepregi, S. Markush structures-from molecules towards patents. Presented at the International Conference for Science & Business Information (ICIC), Sitges, Spain, 18-21 Oct 2009. Available from http://www.haxel.com/icic/archive/2009/programme/. (Accessed October 2010).
83. Weininger, D. The finesse. Presented at MUG 98, the Daylight Chemical Information Systems User Group Meeting; Santa Fe, NM, USA, February 24-27 1998. Available at: http://www.daylight.com/meetings/mug98/Weininger/mug98mark/mug98mark.html. (Accessed October 2010).
84. Fliri A, Moysan E, Benichou P, Nolte M. Methods for processing generic chemical structure representations. WO Patent Application 2009/051741 A2; 23 April 2009.
85. Fliri A, Moysan E, Nolte M. Method for creating virtual compound libraries within Markush structure patent claims. WO Patent Application 2010/065144 A2; 10 June 2010.
86. Chen Y, Spangler S, Kreulen J, Boyer S, Griffin TD, Alba A, Behal A, He B, Kato L, Lelescu A, Wu X, Zhang L, Kieliszewski C. SIMPLE: A strategic information mining platform for IP excellence. IEEE Int Conf Data Mining; 2009. 270-275. Available at: http://domino.research.ibm.com/library/cyberdig.nsf/index.html. (Accessed October 2010).
87. Bartell B, Brown R, Vande Water E, LeBeau A. Characterizing pharmaceutical patents using a combined text and chemical analysis approach. Presented at the International Conference for Science & Business Information (ICIC); Sitges, Spain, October 18-21 2009. Available from http://www.haxel.com/icic/archive/2009/programme/. (Accessed October 2010).
88. Jackson SE. Experiences of a patent searcher. In: Barnard JM, ed. Computer Handling of Generic Chemical Structures. Aldershot: Gower; 1984, 30-37.
89. Simmons ES. Prior art searching in the preparation of pharmaceutical patent applications. Drug Discov Today 1998, 3:52-60. doi: 10.1016/S1359-6446(97)01145-8.
90. Austin, R. The complete Markush structure search: mission impossible? Presented at PIUG Northeast Workshop; October 16 2001. Available at: www.stn-international.com/uploads/tx_ptgsarelatedfiles/piug1.pdf. (Accessed October 2010).
91. Cielen E. Searching Markush formulae directed to medical applications. World Patent Inform 2009, 31:178-183. doi: 10.1016/j.wpi.2008.10.004.
92. Newbold S. Marpat searching in context: creating the ideal answer set and beyond. Presented at RSC CICAG Meeting "Should I Really Be Searching Patents?", 28 Oct 2009. Available at: http://www.rsc.org/images/Marpatcontext2009_tcm18-148862.pdf. (Accessed October 2010).
93. Blackman M. IPI-ConfEx conference and exposition, Venice-Mestre, Italy, March 2009. World Patent Inform 2009, 31:247-248. doi: 10.1016/j.wpi.2009.03.001.
94. Lupu M, Piroi F, Huang X, Zhu J, Tait J. Overview of the TREC 2009 Chemical IR Track. In: The 18th Text REtrieval Conference (TREC 2009) Proceedings. NIST; 2009. Available at: http://trec.nist.gov/pubs/trec18/t18_proceedings.html. (Accessed October 2010).
95. Rankovic Z, Morphy R. Lead Generation Approaches in Drug Discovery. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2010.
96. Weaver DC. Applying data mining techniques to library design, lead generation and lead optimization. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2004, 8:264-270.
97. Berks A. Display for Markush Chemical Structures. US Patent Application 2005/0010603 A1; 13 January 2005.
98. Simmons ES. Relevance ranking in patent databases. Is it relevant?. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1999, 39: 453-462. doi: 10.1021/ci9801421.
99. Tseng Y, Lin C, Lin Y. Text mining techniques for patent analysis. Inf Process Manage 2007, 43:1216-1247. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2006.11.011.
100. Yang YY, Akers L, Yang CB, Klose T, Pavlek S. Enhancing patent landscape analysis with visualization output. World Patent Inform 2010, 32:203-220. doi: 10.1016/j.wpi.2009.12.006.
101. Calcagno M. An investigation into analyzing patents by chemical structure using Thomson's Derwent World Patent Index codes. World Patent Inform 2008, 30:188-198. doi: 10.1016/j.wpi.2007.10.007.
102. Gardner S, Vinter A. Beyond Markush-protecting activity not chemical structure. Innov Pharm Technol 2009, 30:42-46.