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 →7 patent families and 20 published records on distributed source array inverse geometry CT, led by a two-way tie at the top.
20 published records collapse into 7 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 6 of 20 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This page reports what a specific search string returns for distributed source array inverse geometry computed tomography: records combining "inverse geometry" or "distributed X-ray source" language with a source-array term and a CT term. The search carries no date limit, so every matching record regardless of filing date is included, though the filing-trend chart only shows a recent window.
The result set is small: 7 simple patent families and 20 published records in total. A pool this size is a starting point for a search, not a map of a field, treat the figures below as a first pass to refine, not a finished landscape.
Counted over all 20 published records, including filings from before 2010; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 18 records from 2010 onward, so the two charts are not the same set of documents. 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. 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 6 of the 6 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 6 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.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
The figures below are drawn directly from the search result set: a filing-trend series counted in published records, and an IPC breakdown counted in simple patent families.
Published records by earliest filing year ran from 2 in 2010 to a peak of 5, reached in both 2011 and 2023. Data from 2022 onward is still filling in as later-filed records continue to publish, so the most recent years understate their eventual totals.
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. This chart covers 2010-2026 (18 records); the 20 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
A61B (Diagnosis & surgery) appears on all 7 simple patent families in scope. A61N (Electrotherapy & radiation therapy) appears on 57.1% of the 7 families, and G01N (Material analysis & testing) on 28.6%. Because a family can carry more than one IPC subclass, these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 7 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 distributed source array inverse geometry computed tomography patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes x-ray imaging systems and methods, particularly non-rotating, stationary gantry and mobile x-ray CT systems for imaging a subject, including the head, spine and neck. It states that compared with rotating-gantry CT scanners, non-rotating stationary gantry x-ray CT scanners are more mobile and transportable, and can be used in mobile transport units and in-field applications.This is the first record returned under the database default order, not a ranking by citation, novelty or scope. Filed by The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, published as US20150282774A1 on 2015-10-08.


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 →Three figures from the result set, reported with their unit and what they do and do not establish.
Washington Univ in Saint Louis and The Univ of North Carolina at Chapel Hill are each named on 2 of the 7 simple patent families, the highest count in the listed filers. A fifth-place filer sits on 1 family. The listed filers are organisations only; individual-named filings are removed from this list but remain in the totals, so the rows cannot be summed into a coverage figure.
At the 2026-10-15 retrieval date, 6 of the 20 published records were granted and still in force. The remainder cover pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not-determinable status, none of which is broken out separately here. This is a status snapshot, not a measure of how the technology performs.
Of the 20 published records, 14 were filed at the United States office, 5 through WIPO (PCT), and 1 at the China office. This reflects where applications were filed, not where any filer is based, and the search returned only these three offices.
All 7 simple patent families carry the A61B subclass (Diagnosis & surgery). A61N (Electrotherapy & radiation therapy) appears on 57.1% of the same 7 families and G01N (Material analysis & testing) on 28.6%. Because one family can carry more than one subclass, these shares sum to more than 100%.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to distributed source array inverse geometry computed tomography patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page is a starting point built from one search string. The following moves can sharpen or extend it.
Try adjacent phrasing for source-array and inverse-geometry CT concepts to see whether the 7-family pool grows or narrows, and whether any of the small IPC branches shown on the chart turn out to be genuine or noise.
Run a refined searchA family count or an abstract cannot establish what any granted claim actually requires. Reading the claim set directly is the only way to assess scope for a specific design or filing decision.
Open claim viewThe 2022-onward window on the filing-trend chart is still filling in as later-filed records publish. Revisiting this search periodically will fill in those recent years as they complete.
Set up monitoringA specific search string for this topic returns 7 simple patent families and 20 published records, with no date limit applied. A simple family groups one invention across the countries it was filed in, while a published record counts each publication separately, so the two numbers measure different things. This is the output of one search string, not an exhaustive count of everything filed under this description, so a differently worded search could return a different set.
The listed filers include Washington Univ in Saint Louis and The Univ of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, each named on 2 of the 7 simple patent families, the top count among the entities returned. A fifth-place filer sits on 1 family. The filer list returned here contains organisations only; filings held by named individuals are stripped out of the list but remain inside the total and share figures, and names are not rolled up to a corporate parent, so related-looking entries are never summed together.
US20150282774A1, filed by The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and published 2015-10-08, describes non-rotating, stationary gantry x-ray CT systems and methods, including mobile versions, aimed particularly at imaging the head, spine and neck. The abstract states these systems are more mobile and transportable than rotating-gantry scanners and can be used in mobile transport units and in-field applications. An abstract and a family count describe what the filing discusses, not what its granted claims legally require; anyone assessing freedom to operate against it needs to read the granted claim set directly.
The filing-trend chart, counted in published records by earliest filing year, runs from 2 records in 2010 to a peak of 5 reached in both 2011 and 2023. No growth rate or trend direction is reported on this page because the dataset is too thin and the recent years are still incomplete. Records from 2022 onward are still publishing, so those years will show higher counts over time, and a handful of documents moving year to year in a pool this size is not a reliable signal either way.
Of the 20 published records, 14 were filed at the United States office, 5 through the WIPO PCT route, and 1 at the China office; these are the only three receiving offices the search returned. This reflects where applications were filed, not the nationality or location of any filer, since the dataset carries no filer-nationality information at all. A single invention can appear more than once in this count if it was filed through more than one office.
Every one of the 7 simple patent families in scope carries the A61B subclass, covering diagnosis and surgery equipment. A61N, covering electrotherapy and radiation therapy, appears on 57.1% of the same 7 families, and G01N, covering material analysis and testing, appears on 28.6%. Because a single family can carry more than one IPC subclass, these shares add up to more than 100%, and the chart on the page shows additional subclasses below this level that are not characterised here.
Go past this page: query the whole distributed source array inverse geometry computed tomography 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:(("inverse geometry" OR "distributed X-ray source") AND ("source array" OR "multi-source array") AND ("computed tomography" OR CT))
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 (A61B) carries 100.0% 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 20 records and 7 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 6 of the 6 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 6 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 (6 of 20). 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