Abstract
Background: Biological control (i.e., biocontrol) can be defined as the use of microbial inoculants with a direct and purposeful manipulation of natural enemies, potentially replacing harmful pesticides, to control pests, plant pathogens, and weeds. This study concerns patent analysis of biocontrol agent-based formulations. This form of patent analysis encapsulates information that could be used as a reference by researchers in the fields of agriculture and plants, as well as those interested, especially in biocontrol agents for agriculture.
Methods: The state has been reviewed by introducing what has been patented concerning Biocontrol Agents (BCAs). Four patent databases have been used, and different keywords and related terms to BCAs were used, and patents were searched according to title, abstract, and claims. The search was then filtered regarding publication year, patent families, patent classifications, inventors, applicants, owners, and jurisdictions.
Results: During a search, 2371 patent documents were found between 1982 and 2021. The United States was ranked first with 694 patent documents. 2015 was the year with the maximum number of patent documents (278). The patent classification codes reveal that most inventions are intended for biocides, pest repellants or attractants, or plant growth regulators containing or obtained from microorganisms, viruses, microbial fungi, etc. Moreover, they are also intended for biocidal, pest repellant, pest attractant, or plant growth regulatory activities of chemical compounds or preparations, such as fungicides, athropodicides, and nematocides, which are concentrated in most patents.
Conclusion: The knowledge clusters and expert driving factors of this patent analysis indicate that the research and development based on the formulation of biocontrol agents are concentrated in most patents.
Keywords: Biological control, formulation, patent analysis, patent data, patent classification, bicontrol agents.
Graphical Abstract
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9040817] [PMID: 33924411]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO.2004.94.11.1259] [PMID: 18944464]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1532-2_16]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/22115501113026660038]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00845] [PMID: 31379891]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01895] [PMID: 29018437]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-1986-1_2]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/IECPS2021-12053]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/2211738505666171023152549] [PMID: 29065849]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1872208313666191017143845] [PMID: 31625481]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/IOCPS2021-11239]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1872210515666210217090541] [PMID: 33596814]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1872208316666220128105056] [PMID: 35088683]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/2667387816666220429095834] [PMID: 35507801]