https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/assembly-line-balancing-optimization-algorithm-design-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-26 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Advanced Manufacturing

Assembly Line Balancing Optimization Algorithm Patents

17 patent families on assembly line balancing optimisation algorithms, with filer spread, IPC mix and filing history to 2026.

19
Published Records
17
Simple Patent Families
47%
In Force at Cut-off
CN
Leading Jurisdiction

19 published records collapse into 17 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 9 of 19 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 17 simple patent families and 19 published records make up this search with no single filer holding more than 2 families
  • Two filers, Southeast Univ and Tongji Univ, share the top count at 2 families each, with 16 listed filers holding 2 or fewer families apiece
  • G06N and G06Q each appear on 13 of the 17 families 76.5% apiece, while G06F appears on 5 families (29.4%)
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··5 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this search covers

This page covers records returned by a search for assembly line balancing or line balancing combined with optimization and either algorithm or heuristic in the title, abstract or claims. The search string sets no date limit, so the result set spans whatever filing years the matching records happen to carry. It returns 17 simple patent families from 19 published records, with filings reaching two receiving offices.

17 families is a small pool. Treat this page as a starting point for a closer search rather than a map of a field, absence of a term here is far more likely to reflect the search string than an absence of filing activity.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. SOUTHEAST UNIV2
  2. TONGJI UNIV2
  3. NORTHEASTERN UNIV CHINA1
  4. HOHAI UNIV CHANGZHOU1
  5. GUANGZHOU UNIVERSITY1
  6. SOUTH CHINA UNIV OF TECH1
  7. SOUTHWEST JIAOTONG UNIV1
  8. WUHAN UNIV OF TECH1
  9. QINGDAO UNIV OF TECH1
  10. SHANGHAI SPACE PRECISION MACHINERY RES INST1

Ordered by volume only, not by importance or claim strength. Counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families, so one invention filed in several countries counts once. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field as recorded on each document; subsidiaries and group companies are not merged. The icon before each name is read from the name itself (words such as University, Institute or Ltd); the data carries no organisation-type field, so treat it as a reading aid rather than a classification. 2 rows in this table share the name CHANGZHOU (CHANGZHOU WUJIN WUYANG TEXTILE MACHINERY CO LTD, HOHAI UNIV CHANGZHOU). They are left as separate rows, so the largest-filer figure above is per legal entity, not per group. Rows that look related still cannot be added together: one family can name several of them. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified; that identification is not exhaustive, so an individually held filing can still appear below. Either way those filings stay inside the totals above. This table shows the top 16 of the 16 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 16 is not the complete set of filers. A single family can name more than one filer, so these counts overlap and do not add up to the total.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from one Patsnap search for Assembly Line Balancing Optimization Algorithm Design Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Data

Filings, filers and classes

Three views of the same 17 families: who filed, when records published, and which IPC subclasses the claims sit under.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)

Records run from a 2016 earliest filing year up to 2026, with a peak of 5 records in 2021. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so the recent end of the line understates eventual volume and should not be read as a drop-off.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)01345120162017201820192020520212022202320242025220262022 onwards are shaded as still filling in: a filing is only visible once it publishes, up to 30 months after filing.

Counted in published records by earliest filing year, not de-duplicated into families. A filing is counted in the year it was filed, but it only becomes visible after it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. 2022 onwards are therefore still filling in and are shaded; no growth figure on this page uses them. Because this series counts documents rather than inventions, a rise can mean more inventions or the same inventions filed in more countries; this dataset cannot separate the two.

IPC subclass coverage (share of 17 families)

G06N (computing based on AI models) and G06Q (business, commerce & admin data processing) each appear on 13 of the 17 families (76.5%), and G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 5 families (29.4%). A family can carry more than one class, so these shares add to more than 100%.

IPC subclass coverage (share of 17 families)G06N · Computing based on AI models1376.5%G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…1376.5%G06F · Electric digital data processi…529.4%G05B · Control & regulating systems211.8%B61L · Railway traffic control15.9%G06K · Data recognition & presentation15.9%

Shares are the percentage of the 17 patent families in scope. One patent family can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from one Patsnap search for Assembly Line Balancing Optimization Algorithm Design Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Assembly Line Balancing Optimization Algorithm Design Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about assembly line balancing optimization algorithm design patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Representative filing

A record from the result set

From the result set
US20240029000A12024-01-25

Second type computer assembly line balancing optimization method based on migration genetic algorithm

NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY

The abstract describes a method that transfers the feasible solution set of a known, similar assembly line into the initial solution set for a new assembly line balancing problem, using a migration genetic algorithm. It states this reduces the sensitivity of algorithm performance to initial values and parameters, and raises the lower bound on the local-optimal feasible solution reached by the heuristic.Shown as filed in the dataset; this is the first record under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citation, breadth or date.

US20240029000A1, patent drawing 1US20240029000A1, patent drawing 2
View record

Selected as the first record the search returns under the database default order, then shown in full. It is not ranked by citations, claim breadth or commercial importance, and it is not a judgement about which filing in this space matters most.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. The first record the search returned, shown in full. Derived from one Patsnap search for Assembly Line Balancing Optimization Algorithm Design Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself

Put your own technology through the same analysis


  
Where to run it
Fastest

Eureka on the web

When you want the answer in the next five minutes.

The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.

Run your analysis now →
For builders

MCP server & REST API

When it has to run inside your own pipeline.

Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.

Browse MCP servers →
Patterns in the data

What the figures show

Four figures drawn directly from the search results, each reported with its own denominator.

Scale
17 families / 19 records
families vs. published records

Two counting units, two numbers

The search returns 19 published records that de-duplicate down to 17 simple patent families. The difference reflects documents filed for the same invention across more than one office rather than 19 separate inventions.

Source: dataset totals
Filer spread
2 of 17 families (11.8%)
largest single-row share

No row exceeds 2 families

Southeast Univ and Tongji Univ are each named on 2 of the 17 families, the highest count among the listed filers, and the remaining 16 listed rows hold 2 or fewer families each. One family can name more than one filer, so these rows are not summed into a combined share.

Source: filer list, 16 listed entities
Technology mix
76.5% each
share of 17 families

G06N and G06Q both sit at 13 families

G06N (computing based on AI models) and G06Q (business, commerce & admin data processing) are each attached to 13 of the 17 families. A single family can carry both classes along with others, which is why the two shares do not add to 100%.

Source: IPC subclass breakdown
Legal status
9 of 19 (47%)
records granted and in force at retrieval

Status is a snapshot, not a rate

9 of the 19 published records were granted and in force at the 2026-10-26 retrieval date. This is a status at one point in time, not a success rate, and it will shift as pending records move forward.

Source: legal status field, retrieved 2026-10-26
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?

Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to assembly line balancing optimization algorithm design patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Assembly Line Balancing Optimization Algorithm Design Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Where to go from here

Next steps for a closer read

This page reports counts. Turning counts into a filing decision takes a closer read of the claims and a wider search than one string can cover.

Read the claims, not the abstract

An abstract and a family count cannot establish what a granted claim covers. Pull the full claim set for any record that looks close before drawing a conclusion about scope.

Open Patsnap Eureka

Widen the search string

A 17-family pool is thin enough that adjacent phrasing could easily sit outside this string. Rerunning with broader synonyms is the fastest way to check whether the gaps here are real or just missed terms.

Run a broader search in Patsnap Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Assembly Line Balancing Optimization Algorithm Design Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Questions practitioners ask

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Assembly Line Balancing Optimization Algorithm Design Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Assembly Line Balancing Optimization Algorithm Design Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole assembly line balancing optimization algorithm design patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka
How this page was built, and what the numbers do and do not mean

Search. Every figure on this page comes from one Patsnap search, run once and not edited afterwards. This is the exact search string:

TAC:(("assembly line balancing" OR "line balancing") AND optimization AND (algorithm OR heuristic))

Reading the field codes: TAC searches the title, abstract and claims of each record, not the full description. The search string sets no date limit, so the scope is every matching record in the database regardless of when it was filed. It is not restricted to recent years. How this string was built matters for how far the counts can be pushed. It was generated in batch from a topic list rather than hand-crafted for this page, and the result set is not manually screened. A keyword search over title, abstract and claims both over-captures (unrelated filings that happen to use the same words) and under-captures (the same invention written in different words). This page cannot measure either effect, so read every figure here as what this particular string returned, not as what exists in the field. One subclass (G06N) carries 76.5% of the patent families, so this search returned a classification-tight set.

What is being counted. Two different units appear on this page and they are not interchangeable. The filer list and the technology split are counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families: one invention counts once however many countries it was filed in. The total, the jurisdiction split and the filing-year chart are counted in published records: the same invention counts once per publication. For this search that is 19 records and 17 families. Record counts reward filing in many jurisdictions; family counts do not. Shares are only ever taken against a denominator in the same unit, and each one names it.

Who the filers are. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field, as recorded on the documents themselves. They are not rolled up to corporate group: a parent and its subsidiaries appear as separate entries, and a portfolio acquired from another company stays under the name on the document unless the assignment is reflected there. This list is meant to carry organisations, not people. Filings held by a named individual are identified by matching the assignee against the inventors on the same search, and, for names written in Chinese, Japanese or Korean characters, by the name carrying no organisational suffix; those are removed from the list. Neither test is exhaustive: the inventor list it matches against is itself capped, and a personal name written in Latin script with no organisational wording in it cannot be told apart from a short company name by rule. So an individually held filing can still appear in the list. Those filings stay inside every total and share on this page either way, so the listed entries can add up to less than the total. A record shown in full further down still names its assignee exactly as the patent office records it, including where that is a person: that name is how the record is identified and checked. What is left out of the ranking is people as ranked entries, not people as cited sources. The table shows the top 16 of the 16 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 16 is not every filer. One patent family can name several filers and each is counted separately, so these rows are not slices of a divided whole: adding them together over-counts, and this page deliberately publishes no combined "top five" share for that reason. See every filer, individuals included

Dates. The year chart counts by earliest filing year, not publication year. A filing only becomes visible once it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. Measured across these pages, the year four back from today still holds only about 89% of its eventual count. 2022 onwards are therefore shaded on the chart as still filling in. The data behind this page was retrieved on 2026-10-26.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (9 of 19). Everything else is pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and those states are not broken out here because the underlying codes do not separate them cleanly. Legal status changes continuously and is reported per document, not per family. Get the status breakdown in Eureka

Classification. The technology split uses IPC subclasses (four characters, for example H01M). A single record usually carries several, so the shares add up to more than 100% and a record can appear in more than one bar. Subclass is a coarse grouping; it describes the field a record was classified into, not what the claims cover. Break the classes down to subgroup level

Who wrote the words. The tables, charts, counts, shares and patent numbers on this page are produced directly from the search result by a program; none of them are written or estimated by a language model. The surrounding prose, headings, FAQ answers and the answers in the question panel are drafted by a language model that is given those same figures and is not permitted to introduce others. Prose can still mis-describe a correct figure, so where the two disagree, the tables and charts are the record.

Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.

Patent data carries limitations that apply to every figure above. Recent filings are under-counted, because an application is not public until roughly 18 months after filing and database loading adds further delay. The search string defines and constrains everything shown: records that use different terminology, or that sit outside the fields searched, are absent and cannot be counted. Applicant names, classification codes, legal-status codes and citation records are taken as recorded and may contain errors, duplicates, omissions or stale entries. Ordering by volume is not a measure of quality, scope, enforceability or commercial value, and a larger portfolio is not a stronger one. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.

Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, validity or infringement search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. No attorney-client relationship is created by it. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently against the primary records and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.

The question panel. The answers behind the suggested questions on this page were written when the page was generated, not in response to your click. The progress steps that play before an answer appears are an animation of how that analysis was done; nothing is being searched or computed at that moment. Typing your own question instead opens Patsnap Eureka, which does run it live.

Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company's registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.