https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/autonomous-tractor-path-planning-algorithm-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-15 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Agriculture & Forestry

Autonomous Tractor Path Planning Algorithm Patents

A 20-family dataset on autonomous tractor path planning, led by a tie at the top and a long tail of single-filing entrants.

52
Published Records
20
Simple Patent Families
58%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction

52 published records collapse into 20 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 30 of 52 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • Two filers share the top spot Civil Aviation Univ of China and Deere & Co are each named on 2 of the 20 simple patent families in scope, so there is no single largest filer.
  • The listed filers form a long tail all 14 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each.
  • Control-variable claims appear most often G05D (control of non-electric variables) appears on 60.0% of the 20 simple patent families in scope.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This page reports 20 simple patent families and 52 published records returned by a search for autonomous tractors combined with path or route planning. Records are drawn from 9 receiving offices, with the United States, the European Patent Office and China among the largest. G05D (control of non-electric variables) appears on the highest share of families in scope, at 60.0%.

With only 20 families in scope, this is a small pool. Treat the figures here as a starting point for a search rather than a map of the field, and verify any individual finding against the underlying records before relying on it.

Families and records in scope
  1. CIVIL AVIATION UNIV OF CHINA2
  2. DEERE & CO2
  3. RAVEN INDUSTRIES INC1
  4. AJAY KUMAR GARG ENG COLLEGE1
  5. M S TERRA-X(OPC) PTE LTD1
  6. JILIN UNIVERSITY1
  7. NORTHWEST A & F UNIV1
  8. Suzhou Dacheng Yunhe Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.1
  9. WAYMO LLC1
  10. CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS INC1

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 start with the same name (CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS INC, CONTINENTAL AUTONOMOUS MOBILITY US LLC). 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 (6 here); 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 14 of the 14 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 14 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 Autonomous Tractor Path Planning Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology

Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.

10,000 free credits to start
Data

Filing activity and technology composition

The figures below are counted in two different units, published records for the filing trend and receiving offices, simple patent families for the technology composition. Neither should be read as a size comparison against any other field.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)

The trend peaks at 18 records in 2019. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in because of publication lag, so the recent downward slope reflects incomplete data rather than fewer filings.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)05101520182019202020212022202320242025120262022 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.

Technology composition by IPC subclass (simple patent families)

G05D (control of non-electric variables) is named on 60.0% of the 20 simple patent families in scope, the highest share of any subclass shown. A01B, B60W and B62D each appear on 25.0% of families, and G01C, G01S and G06N each appear on 20.0%. Because a family can carry several IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100%.

Technology composition by IPC subclass (simple patent families)G05D · Control of non-electric variab…1260.0%A01B · Soil working in agriculture525.0%B60W · Hybrid/joint vehicle control525.0%B62D · Motor vehicles & steering525.0%G01C · Distance, navigation & gyrosco…420.0%G01S · Radar, sonar & positioning420.0%G06N · Computing based on AI models420.0%G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…315.0%Other25125.0%

Shares are the percentage of the 20 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 Autonomous Tractor Path Planning Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Autonomous Tractor Path Planning Algorithm Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about autonomous tractor path planning algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Record in focus

One record from the result set

From the result set
US20250196889A12025-06-19

A learning-based method and system for path planning of an autonomous tractor-trailer

CONTINENTAL AUTONOMOUS MOBILITY US, LLC

The abstract describes a path planning approach using a semi-supervised, encoder-decoder deep neural network. The encoder takes inputs such as lane markings and static obstacles and passes them to a decoder that generates a planned path, aiming to minimize the off-track swept area of the tractor-trailer. A path cost function scores each generated path on deviation from lane center, path smoothness and collision with static obstacles, and backpropagates that cost through the network to train it.This is the first record returned by the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest, broadest or most representative filing. What the granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself, which this page does not reproduce.

US20250196889A1, patent drawing 1US20250196889A1, 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 Autonomous Tractor Path Planning Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. 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 →
Insights

Reading the numbers

Three figures from the dataset, reported as counted, with what each one does and does not establish.

Top count
2 families
shared by 2 filers

No single largest filer

Civil Aviation Univ of China and Deere & Co are each named on 2 of the 20 simple patent families in scope (10.0% each). This is a tie at the top rather than a single leading row, and it says nothing about either filer's claim scope or activity beyond this count.

Counted in simple patent families
Long tail
14 of 14
listed filers at 2 or fewer families

Filings spread across listed filers

All 14 of the listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The filer list is capped at the organisations the search returned and excludes named individuals, who are still counted in the totals elsewhere on this page.

Counted in simple patent families, organisations only
Legal status
30 of 52
records granted and in force

Status at the retrieval date

30 of the 52 published records (58%) were granted and in force as of the 2026-10-15 retrieval date. The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and this breakdown is not split out further on this page.

Counted in published records, status as of retrieval
Technology mix
60.0%
of families carry G05D

Control-variable claims appear most often

G05D (control of non-electric variables) is named on 12 of the 20 simple patent families in scope, the highest share of any subclass shown. Because a family can carry more than one IPC class, this share is not exclusive of the other subclasses reported alongside it.

Counted in simple patent families
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 autonomous tractor path planning algorithm 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 Autonomous Tractor Path Planning Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps

Where to take this from here

This page is a starting point built from one search string over a small pool of documents. The following moves narrow or widen that pool before any filing or freedom-to-operate decision is made.

Pull the granted claims

Family and abstract counts cannot establish what any single patent blocks. For any record that looks close to a planned design, read the granted claim set directly rather than relying on the abstract summarised here.

Open in Eureka

Re-run with adjacent terms

A 20-family pool this small is sensitive to the exact search string used. Varying the keywords and classification codes may surface filings this particular string did not catch.

Explore in Eureka

Track the listed filers directly

Civil Aviation Univ of China, Deere & Co and the other listed filers can be monitored individually for new publications, since names here are not rolled up to a corporate group.

Set up monitoring in 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 Autonomous Tractor Path Planning Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Autonomous Tractor Path Planning Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Autonomous Tractor Path Planning Algorithm Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole autonomous tractor path planning algorithm 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:(autonomous AND tractor AND ("path planning" OR "route planning"))

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 (G05D) carries 60.0% 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 52 records and 20 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 (6 of them here). 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 14 of the 14 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 14 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 2026-10-15.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (30 of 52). 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.