Page 1 of 1

Some patent numbers are not searchable in Espacenet

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:52 pm
by bjurgens
Dear Espacenet Team
why is it that some patent numbers are not searchable in Espacenet (e.g via Smart Search by entering the number) but in other databases like GPI (via the NUM field identifier) or Patentscope (via search in Frontpage) we get a result? An example is when searching for FR2008051542.
Best regards
Björn

Re: Some patent numbers are not searchable in Espacenet

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:27 pm
by gjrotondo
Dear Mr. Bjorn,

I have tried to input in Smartsarch the following application number:

1 result found in the Worldwide database for:

ap = FR200851542 using Smart search

and it results a French document in thename of PEUGEOT CITROEN AUTOMOBILES SA.

Also without field qualifier the number is searched by Smartsearch:

1 result found in the Worldwide database for:

num = FR200851542 using Smart search

This month I have an occasion to verify the Smartsearch tool in Espacenet and I have noted it has been a powerfull search tool free of charge much better than some years ago.

Kind regards.
G. Rotondo

Re: Some patent numbers are not searchable in Espacenet

Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:37 am
by EPO / Innovation Networks
Dear Björn,
The reason why this search works in GPI and not in Espacenet is that Espacenet is using EPODOC number format whereas GPI is using DOCDB number format. So, this is what GPI shows when searching with exact format (entered by the user):
1.jpg

But if one wants to perform the same search in Espacenet he needs to transpose the format of DOCDB into EPODOC format:
2.jpg
3.jpg

So, an application number for PCT’s in EPODOC is built-up as follows:
WOyyyyCCxxxxx (y is for year, CC for country code and then 5 spaces for serial number)

Please see also the HELP INDEX - Application number

Re: Some patent numbers are not searchable in Espacenet

Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:16 pm
by bjurgens
Dear Espacenet Team: thanks for the clarification about the number format!
Dear G. Rotondo: the number I used as an example was FR2008051542, which is not the patent you mention.
Best regards from Spain!