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 →17 patent families on assembly line balancing optimisation algorithms, with filer spread, IPC mix and filing history to 2026.
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 In force = 9 of 19 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
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.
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.
Three views of the same 17 families: who filed, when records published, and which IPC subclasses the claims sit under.
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.
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.
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%.
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%.
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 EurekaThe 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.


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.
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 →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 →Four figures drawn directly from the search results, each reported with its own denominator.
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.
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.
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%.
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.
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.
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.
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 EurekaA 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 EurekaThis dataset returns 19 published records that de-duplicate to 17 simple patent families. The search looks for "assembly line balancing" or "line balancing" together with "optimization" and either "algorithm" or "heuristic" in the title, abstract or claims, so it is scoped to that specific combination of terms rather than every patent that touches line balancing generally. A different phrasing would very likely return a different count, so treat 17 as the size of this particular search, not a count of all patenting in the area.
No single filer holds the most. Southeast Univ and Tongji Univ are tied at the top with 2 families each out of 17, and the remaining 16 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families apiece. Because one family can name more than one filer, these counts cannot be summed into a combined share for any group of rows, and the filer list itself covers only organisations, individual inventors named on some records are not shown in it even though they count toward the totals.
The two most common IPC subclasses are G06N (computing based on AI models) and G06Q (business, commerce & admin data processing), each attached to 13 of the 17 families (76.5%). G06F (electric digital data processing) follows at 5 families (29.4%). A family can be tagged with more than one subclass, which is why these shares add up to more than 100% rather than partitioning the set.
The filing trend shown here runs from an earliest filing year of 2016 up to 2026, with a peak of 5 published records in 2021, but this dataset is too thin and the recent years too incomplete to read a trend from it. Records from 2022 onward are still publishing, filing-to-publication lag runs up to about 30 months for some routes, so the recent end of the line will rise as more records surface. Year-to-year moves of a handful of documents in a 17-family pool should be read as noise rather than a trajectory.
The dataset's receiving-office breakdown, counted in published records, shows 15 records filed in China and 4 in the United States, for the 19 records in total. This reflects where applications were filed, not where any filer is based, the evidence available here carries no nationality or location information for any of the listed filers. Readers looking for a filer's jurisdiction or corporate domicile would need to check that separately.
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.
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.
This page