SR ShineRed IP Global Patent Strategy Back to articles

Patent Mining / English Article

Enterprise IPR Patent Mining: A Five-Step Method for Finding High-Value Inventions

A practical workflow for enterprise IPR teams to discover patentable technical solutions from real R&D work.

The Real Problem Inside Enterprise Patent Mining

Many enterprise IPR teams face the same scene every year: patent targets arrive from management, while R&D engineers say that there is nothing worth writing. If the IPR team only urges harder, the result is often a pile of low-value ideas created merely for filing numbers. Those applications may be difficult to grant, and even if granted, they may not protect a business position.

High-value patents are rarely discovered by sitting in an office and waiting for inventors to report them. They must be mined from real technical work. The key is to stop asking engineers, 'Do you have an invention?' and start asking, 'What technical problem are you actually fighting?'

The Real Problem Inside Enterprise Patent Mining: practical detail

For enterprise IPR managers and R&D leaders, this point should be treated as a working step rather than a slogan. The practical work is to connect the article's idea with technical-problem questionnaires, cross-team confirmation meetings, global prior-art searching, small-scale production trials, and final portfolio roadshows. That is what turns a general insight into a repeatable professional service.

The team should record concrete evidence: problem lists, engineer interviews, search notes, failed trial records, cost data, product-module maps, and proposed claim directions. Without this evidence layer, the method remains only an opinion. With it, the article becomes useful for client communication, internal decision-making, patent drafting, prosecution strategy, and later portfolio review.

A complete application of this section normally ends with a decision: which ideas should become core patent filings, which should stay under validation, and which should be protected as trade secrets. Ma Su's examiner background matters here because the decision is not based only on enthusiasm; it is tested against technical contribution, support in the disclosure, likely examination reasoning, and business value.

Step One: Use a Standard Questionnaire to Locate Valuable Technical Directions

A good patent-mining project begins with a structured technical-problem questionnaire. The questionnaire should not ask engineers to write patent claims. It should ask them to identify the hardest technical problems in their current work, the technical branches that will matter most in the next three years, and small improvements that have worked in practice but have never been formally recorded.

After collecting responses, the IPR team should count repeated problems, compare them across teams, and identify three to five directions worth deeper work. These directions are not chosen by intuition. They are selected from the collective signal of the R&D front line.

Step One: Use a Standard Questionnaire to Locate Valuable Technical Directions: practical detail

For enterprise IPR managers and R&D leaders, this point should be treated as a working step rather than a slogan. The practical work is to connect the article's idea with technical-problem questionnaires, cross-team confirmation meetings, global prior-art searching, small-scale production trials, and final portfolio roadshows. That is what turns a general insight into a repeatable professional service.

The team should record concrete evidence: problem lists, engineer interviews, search notes, failed trial records, cost data, product-module maps, and proposed claim directions. Without this evidence layer, the method remains only an opinion. With it, the article becomes useful for client communication, internal decision-making, patent drafting, prosecution strategy, and later portfolio review.

A complete application of this section normally ends with a decision: which ideas should become core patent filings, which should stay under validation, and which should be protected as trade secrets. Ma Su's examiner background matters here because the decision is not based only on enthusiasm; it is tested against technical contribution, support in the disclosure, likely examination reasoning, and business value.

Step Two: Confirm, Supplement, and Form Initial Solution Ideas

The first questionnaire produces candidate directions, but those directions must be verified. A short confirmation meeting should include R&D engineers, process engineers, testing staff, production-line technicians, and maintenance personnel. Each problem should be checked for accuracy, representativeness, and practical value.

At this stage, the team should also collect initial solution ideas. A complete solution is not required. What matters is a rough technical route and a clear explanation of why the problem is worth solving. The team should also use a product-module map or process-walkthrough method to check whether important problems were missed.

Step Two: Confirm, Supplement, and Form Initial Solution Ideas: practical detail

For enterprise IPR managers and R&D leaders, this point should be treated as a working step rather than a slogan. The practical work is to connect the article's idea with technical-problem questionnaires, cross-team confirmation meetings, global prior-art searching, small-scale production trials, and final portfolio roadshows. That is what turns a general insight into a repeatable professional service.

The team should record concrete evidence: problem lists, engineer interviews, search notes, failed trial records, cost data, product-module maps, and proposed claim directions. Without this evidence layer, the method remains only an opinion. With it, the article becomes useful for client communication, internal decision-making, patent drafting, prosecution strategy, and later portfolio review.

A complete application of this section normally ends with a decision: which ideas should become core patent filings, which should stay under validation, and which should be protected as trade secrets. Ma Su's examiner background matters here because the decision is not based only on enthusiasm; it is tested against technical contribution, support in the disclosure, likely examination reasoning, and business value.

Step Three: Search Globally from the Perspective of Technical Problems

Once the technical problems are clear, patent searching begins. The search should include Chinese, US, European, PCT, Japanese, and Korean patent databases, as well as papers, standards, industry reports, and public competitor information. The goal is not simply to prove that nobody has done the same thing. The goal is to understand how others solved similar problems, where their solutions are weak, and which technical means can be borrowed or modified.

This is where examiner-style logic matters. Search by the abstracted technical problem, not only by the product name. A problem in medical sampling may be better searched as 'piercing skin' or 'controlled penetration' than as 'blood collection'. A narrow product keyword often hides the best inspiration.

Step Three: Search Globally from the Perspective of Technical Problems: practical detail

For enterprise IPR managers and R&D leaders, this point should be treated as a working step rather than a slogan. The practical work is to connect the article's idea with technical-problem questionnaires, cross-team confirmation meetings, global prior-art searching, small-scale production trials, and final portfolio roadshows. That is what turns a general insight into a repeatable professional service.

The team should record concrete evidence: problem lists, engineer interviews, search notes, failed trial records, cost data, product-module maps, and proposed claim directions. Without this evidence layer, the method remains only an opinion. With it, the article becomes useful for client communication, internal decision-making, patent drafting, prosecution strategy, and later portfolio review.

A complete application of this section normally ends with a decision: which ideas should become core patent filings, which should stay under validation, and which should be protected as trade secrets. Ma Su's examiner background matters here because the decision is not based only on enthusiasm; it is tested against technical contribution, support in the disclosure, likely examination reasoning, and business value.

Step Four: Let Practice Generate New Problems

Many IPR teams stop after writing a search report. That is exactly where the real mine begins. Candidate solutions should be tested in small, low-cost production or design scenarios. When a borrowed technical means enters the company's own process, new incompatibilities appear: tolerances are different, operators are slower, materials behave unexpectedly, or a solved problem creates a new problem.

Those mismatches are extremely valuable. They are real, company-specific, and often unique. Solving them can create patentable technical solutions that competitors have not faced because they do not share the same combination of constraints.

Step Four: Let Practice Generate New Problems: practical detail

For enterprise IPR managers and R&D leaders, this point should be treated as a working step rather than a slogan. The practical work is to connect the article's idea with technical-problem questionnaires, cross-team confirmation meetings, global prior-art searching, small-scale production trials, and final portfolio roadshows. That is what turns a general insight into a repeatable professional service.

The team should record concrete evidence: problem lists, engineer interviews, search notes, failed trial records, cost data, product-module maps, and proposed claim directions. Without this evidence layer, the method remains only an opinion. With it, the article becomes useful for client communication, internal decision-making, patent drafting, prosecution strategy, and later portfolio review.

A complete application of this section normally ends with a decision: which ideas should become core patent filings, which should stay under validation, and which should be protected as trade secrets. Ma Su's examiner background matters here because the decision is not based only on enthusiasm; it is tested against technical contribution, support in the disclosure, likely examination reasoning, and business value.

Step Five: Roadshow and Debate Before Filing

The final patent layout should be decided through an internal roadshow. Product managers, technical directors, production leaders, IPR staff, and external patent professionals should review the discovered problems and proposed solutions together. The discussion should test technical feasibility, market value, grant probability, and strategic importance.

Some solutions should be filed immediately as core patents. Some should be reserved for further validation. Some should remain trade secrets. A strong patent portfolio is not the result of one person's imagination. It is a decision system that connects R&D reality, examination logic, and business strategy.

Step Five: Roadshow and Debate Before Filing: practical detail

For enterprise IPR managers and R&D leaders, this point should be treated as a working step rather than a slogan. The practical work is to connect the article's idea with technical-problem questionnaires, cross-team confirmation meetings, global prior-art searching, small-scale production trials, and final portfolio roadshows. That is what turns a general insight into a repeatable professional service.

The team should record concrete evidence: problem lists, engineer interviews, search notes, failed trial records, cost data, product-module maps, and proposed claim directions. Without this evidence layer, the method remains only an opinion. With it, the article becomes useful for client communication, internal decision-making, patent drafting, prosecution strategy, and later portfolio review.

A complete application of this section normally ends with a decision: which ideas should become core patent filings, which should stay under validation, and which should be protected as trade secrets. Ma Su's examiner background matters here because the decision is not based only on enthusiasm; it is tested against technical contribution, support in the disclosure, likely examination reasoning, and business value.

Original Chinese Essay

企业IPR专利挖掘实战:5步法从研发一线挖出高价值专利

前几天有个ipr问怎么在企业内做专利挖掘,其实很多ipr都一样搞不清楚这个问题

很多企业IPR都面临同一个困境:每年专利指标压下来,研发工程师却说“没什么可写的”。你催得紧了,对方交上来一堆“为了专利而专利”的方案——技术含量低、授权概率低、就算授权了也用不上。

真正高价值的专利,不是坐在办公室里检索出来的,也不是等研发主动汇报上来的。它是系统化“挖”出来的。

我们服务企业多年,结合前审员的sc逻辑和创新工程师的系统化方法,总结出一套专利挖掘5步法。这套方法已经被上万企业验证,能有效从研发一线“挖”出值得申请的高价值专利。

第1步:初筛——用标准化问卷锁定高价值技术方向

很多IPR一开始就犯错误:直接问研发“你有什么发明?”结果往往是“没有”或者“我再想想”。

正确的做法是:不要问发明,问问题。

我们设计了一份标准化的《技术问题调查问卷》,发给全体研发工程师。问卷不要求他们写“发明点”,只要求他们写出:

· 当前工作中最难解决的技术问题是什么?

· 哪个技术分支未来三年最重要,但我们做得还不够好?

· 有没有哪个“小改进”在实际中效果很好,但还没被正式记录?

回收后,我们对问卷进行统计分析,找出出现频率最高的技术路径和工程师们普遍认为有价值但还没做好的技术分支。

这一步的输出是:3-5个最值得深入挖掘的技术方向。这些方向不是IPR拍脑袋定的,而是研发一线“集体投票”的结果。

(问卷模板见本文末尾附录)

第2步:确认与补缺——对初筛问题进行验证、给出初步方案并查漏补缺

第一步问卷回收后,我们有了3-5个初步的技术方向。但这些方向是否准确?有没有遗漏?工程师们对这些问题的理解是否一致?在正式投入大量检索资源之前,需要做一次确认、补缺和初步方案构思。

第二步的三个核心目的:

1. 确认问题:把第一步筛选出的技术问题,拿给更多相关人员进行验证,确认这些问题确实是真实存在的、有代表性的、值得解决的。

2. 给出初步解决方案思路:针对每个确认的问题,组织相关人员(研发、产线、工艺等)提出初步的解决思路或改进方向。不要求完整方案,但要有大致的技术路线。

3. 检查遗漏:在第一轮问卷的基础上,系统性地检查是否有重要的技术问题被忽略。这一步可以采用“技术分解结构”或“流程遍历法”,沿着产品、工艺、测试、使用等环节逐一排查,确保没有盲区。

具体操作:

· 将第一步的问卷结果整理成《待确认技术问题清单》,发给所有参与生产和研发的人员(包括研发工程师、产线工艺员、测试工程师、维修技师等),召开一次简短的问题确认会。

· 针对每个问题,现场讨论:这个问题描述是否准确?是否有更关键的子问题?大家有没有初步的解决思路或方向?

· 使用技术分解图(按产品模块、工艺流程、性能参数等维度)逐项检查,询问:“在这个环节,我们有没有遇到其他技术问题?”记录所有补充的问题。

· 最终输出:一份确认后的《核心技术问题清单》,每个问题附带:问题描述、确认人、初步解决思路(如有)、优先级判断。

这一步不要求深度检索或完整方案,但要求问题真实、无重大遗漏、有初步思考方向,为第三步的深度检索打好基础。

这一步的输出是:一份对比分析报告,列出现有技术的方案、效果、不足,以及我们可以借鉴或改进的方向。

第3步:检索——站在全球前人的肩膀上找答案

有了明确的技术问题,IPR的核心工作开始了:检索。

检索什么?

· 专利数据库:中、美、欧、PCT、日韩等,重点关注相同或相似技术问题的现有解决方案

· 论文/期刊:高校和研究所的前沿研究

· 基础数据:标准、行业报告、竞品公开资料

检索的目标不是“证明没人做过”,而是:

1. 别人怎么解决这个问题?有哪些技术手段?

2. 现有方案有哪些缺点?成本高?效率低?稳定性差?应用场景受限?

3. 有没有可借鉴的点?其他领域(如汽车、航空航天)的解决方案,能不能用在我们行业?

4. 哪些方案可以“拿来”改造?哪些虽然好但现阶段不适合?

第4步:实践——在生产中“长出”新的技术问题(最关键的一步)

很多IPR走到第3步就停了:检索完了,写份报告,交给研发——“你们看着改进吧”。

然后就没有然后了。

真正的专利金矿,不在检索报告里,而在“把现有方案用到生产实践中”的过程中。

怎么做?

IPR要主动推动研发部门,把第3步找到的候选技术方案,小范围、低成本地应用到实际生产线或产品设计中。

然后——观察、记录、追问。

一定会出现以下情况:

· “这个方案理论上可行,但我们这个零件公差太大,装上去不匹配”

· “这个方法在实验室很好,但产线工人操作起来太慢”

· “我们按照论文里的参数试了,但温度一变化就不行”

· “改了这个地方,确实解决了A问题,但B问题冒出来了”

这些“不匹配”“不适应”“新冒出来的问题”,就是第4步的核心产出。

为什么这些新问题最值得挖?

因为:

· 它们是真实的,不是编出来的

· 它们是自己的,是特定生产条件、工艺约束、成本要求下产生的

· 解决它们产生的技术方案,大概率是全世界独一无二的——别人没有遇到过你这种特定的约束组合

IPR最最需要关注的,就是这个时刻。 这不是“找到一个问题然后去检索”,而是在解决问题的实践中,自然生长出新的、更高价值的技术问题。

这一步的输出是:一批全新的、源于实践的技术问题清单。每一个问题背后,都站着一个潜在的专利方案。

第5步:路演——用答辩的方式确定专利布局

最后一步,也是最容易被忽略的一步:把所有人拉在一起,做一次路演和答辩。

参与方:

· 公司内部:产品研发部门、技术总监、产品经理、产线负责人

· 外部(如有):合作的专利代理事务所团队

路演内容:

IPR把前四步的成果——尤其是第4步产生的“新技术问题+初步解决方案”——做成PPT,向所有人讲清楚:

· 我们发现了什么问题?

· 这个问题为什么值得解决?(技术价值+商业价值)

· 我们提出的解决方案是什么?跟现有技术比有什么不同?

· 哪些方案我们认为值得申请专利?为什么?(新颖性、创造性、实用性初步判断)

答辩环节:

· 技术总监从技术可行性角度“拷问”

· 产品经理从市场需求角度“挑战”

· 外部代理所从专利授权可能性角度“评估”

经过路演+答辩,最终确定:

· 哪些方案立即申请专利(核心专利)

· 哪些方案先做进一步实验验证(储备专利)

· 哪些方案不申请专利,作为技术秘密保护

这一步的价值在于:专利挖掘不是IPR闭门造车,而是研发、产品、IP、外部专家的集体决策。集体决策出来的专利布局,质量更高、更能落地、更难被对手绕开。

写在最后:这套方法为什么有效?

1. 初筛问卷 → 研发一线投票选方向

2. 确认与补缺 → 验证问题、初提方案、查漏补缺

3. 全球检索 → 站在前人肩膀上

4. 实践生新问题 → 在生产中“长出”真创新

5. 路演答辩 → 集体决策定布局

这套方法的核心逻辑是:专利不是“写”出来的,是“挖”出来的。而挖掘的起点,不是发明点,是技术问题。

如果你正在为“挖不出专利”而苦恼,不妨试试这套方法。它不需要你有多高的技术背景,只需要你愿意走到研发一线去、蹲在生产现场看、把每一次“不匹配”当作机会。

而那些“不匹配”背后藏着的,往往就是下一个高价值专利。

附录:第1步《技术问题调查问卷》模板

以下问卷可直接发给研发工程师填写,用于初步锁定高价值技术方向。

技术问题调查问卷(研发工程师版)

填写人: ______________ 部门: ______________ 日期: ______________

说明: 本问卷旨在了解您在实际研发工作中遇到的技术问题和您对技术方向的判断。您的回答将用于指导公司专利挖掘和研发资源分配。所有问题没有标准答案,请根据真实情况填写。

一、技术痛点(请列举1-3个)

1. 在当前负责的项目/模块中,最难解决的一个技术问题是什么?(请用一两句话描述)

2. 这个问题目前你们是怎么解决的?(权宜之计?行业通用方法?还是尚未解决?)

3. 解决这个问题后,能带来什么价值?(如:成本降低、良率提升、性能改善、客户满意度提高等)

二、技术方向判断

1. 在你负责的技术领域内,未来2-3年最重要的技术趋势或分支是什么?

2. 在这个趋势上,我们公司目前做得怎么样?(领先 / 持平 / 落后 / 尚未布局)

3. 你认为竞争对手(或行业标杆)在这个方向上有什么值得关注的动作?

三、被忽视的改进点

1. 有没有哪个“小改进”或“小窍门”,你在实际工作中发现效果很好,但还没有被正式记录下来或推广?

2. 有没有哪个地方,你觉得“如果能改一下就好了”,但因为优先级不高一直没动手?

四、开放式问题

1. 如果公司给你一笔“创新基金”,只能用来解决一个技术问题,你会选择解决哪个问题?为什么?

2. 其他你想告诉IP部门的建议或想法:

感谢你的参与! 请将填写好的问卷提交至IP部门。

---------------------------

第二步问卷示例(用于问题确认与初步方案收集)

以下问卷可在第一步筛选出大方向后,针对每个方向单独使用,或合并成一个综合确认表。

《技术问题确认与初步方案调查问卷》

填写人: ____________ 岗位: (研发/工艺/测试/生产等)____________ 日期: ____________

说明: 根据第一轮问卷,我们初步识别出以下技术问题。请您确认这些问题是否真实存在、描述是否准确,并尽可能提供初步的解决思路。同时,请检查是否有重要问题被遗漏。

一、问题确认(请在对应位置打√)

编号 技术问题描述(来自第一轮) 问题真实存在 描述准确 不准确/需修正

Q1 例:A零件与B基座配合时偏位0.2mm,导致装配效率低 □ 是 □ 否 □ 是 □ 否 □ 需修正:_______

Q2 (根据实际填写) □ 是 □ 否 □ 是 □ 否 □ 需修正:_______

Q3 (根据实际填写) □ 是 □ 否 □ 是 □ 否 □ 需修正:_______

二、初步解决方案思路(针对上述确认存在的问题)

问题编号 您认为可能的解决方向或思路(不需详细方案) 此思路目前是否已有尝试?

Q1 □ 已尝试 □ 未尝试 □ 不确定

Q2 □ 已尝试 □ 未尝试 □ 不确定

Q3 □ 已尝试 □ 未尝试 □ 不确定

三、问题遗漏检查

请根据您的工作经验,补充以下方面未被覆盖的技术问题:

· 产品设计环节:_________________________________________________

· 工艺制造环节:_________________________________________________

· 测试验证环节:_________________________________________________

· 原材料/外购件环节:_________________________________________________

· 客户使用/反馈环节:_________________________________________________

· 其他:_________________________________________________

四、优先级建议

在上述所有问题(含已确认和新增)中,您认为最值得优先解决的三个问题是:

1. ---

2. ---

3. ---

原因简述:_________________________________________________

感谢您的确认与贡献!请将此问卷交回IP部门。

(如需我们团队协助进行培训、问卷定制或项目辅导,欢迎联系。)