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 →Covers 9 patent families on edge/WSN data aggregation tree construction, with filings split across 8 listed organisations and 3 receiving offices.
13 published records collapse into 9 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 4 of 13 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This page is built from a single search string targeting edge computing and wireless sensor network records that also mention data aggregation alongside either tree construction or aggregation tree. It returns 9 simple patent families consolidated from 13 published records, with no date limit applied to the query, so the set spans whatever filing years the matching records happen to carry.
Nine families is a small pool. The counts below are useful for orienting a search, who has filed, which classifications recur, where applications were lodged, but they are not large enough to support conclusions about a field, an industry or a trend, and the gaps in this set are as likely to reflect the search terms as any real absence of filings.
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 (2 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 8 of the 8 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 8 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.
Two views of the same 9 families: when the underlying records were first filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.
The trend counts published records by earliest filing year, not de-duplicated families, so a single invention filed in more than one country adds more than one mark. The count reached 2 records in each of 2007, 2010, 2012, 2015 and 2017. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so that stretch of the chart reads lower than its eventual total; no growth or decline figure is shown for this dataset.
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.
H04W (Wireless communication networks) appears on all 9 simple patent families in scope, and H04L (Digital information transmission) appears on 3 of the 9 (33.3%). Because a family can carry more than one classification, these shares add up to more than 100%, and families outside these two subclasses are not broken out here.
Shares are the percentage of the 9 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 edge computing sensor network data aggregation tree construction patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes a real-time, sensor-centric data-aggregation and scheduling method for wireless sensor networks, built around a CRL (Contribution, Reachability, and Lifetime) based scheme intended to improve quality of service in WSN deployments.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. Nothing about its position here indicates how representative it is of the other 8 families.
View full recordSelected 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 this search, reported as counted, none of them support a ranking of importance or a market-structure conclusion given the size of the pool.
The search returns 9 simple patent families, consolidated from 13 published records. No date range was applied to the query, so the set spans whatever filing years the matching records happen to carry.
8 listed organisations each appear on 1 of the 9 simple patent families, with the single largest named row (Shenyang Institute of Chemical Technology) at 11.1%. Filer rows are not summed here because one family can name more than one filer, so adding rows would double count.
All 9 simple patent families in scope carry an H04W classification, and 3 of the 9 (33.3%) also carry H04L. These shares add to more than 100% because a single family can carry both classes.
The search returned exactly 3 receiving offices across the 13 published records: China (8), South Korea (3) and India (2). This counts where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to edge computing sensor network data aggregation tree construction patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page is a starting point for scoping a search, not a finished map of the field.
Family counts and abstracts cannot establish claim scope. Before drawing any freedom-to-operate conclusion, read the granted claims of any family that looks relevant.
Open Patsnap EurekaWith 9 families in scope, absence of a term or classification is as likely to reflect the search string as any real gap. Re-running the query with adjusted terms may surface records this set misses.
Refine this search in Patsnap EurekaThis search returns 9 simple patent families, consolidated from 13 published records, with no date limit applied. That is a small pool, and it reflects one specific search string combining edge computing or wireless sensor network terms with data aggregation and either tree construction or aggregation tree. A differently worded search over the same underlying technology could return a different count, so this figure should be read as a scoping number rather than a definitive total.
The search returns 8 listed organisations, all tied at 1 simple patent family each except for the largest named row, Shenyang Institute of Chemical Technology, which appears on 1 of the 9 families (11.1%). There is no single filer with a visibly larger portfolio in this set. The list excludes individual inventors, who are still counted in the overall totals, and filer rows cannot be added together because one family can name more than one filer.
Every one of the 9 simple patent families in this search carries an H04W classification (Wireless communication networks), and 3 of the 9 (33.3%) also carry H04L (Digital information transmission). These two subclasses are the only ones with enough weight in this dataset to characterise; other classifications appear but at low enough shares that this dataset cannot distinguish a genuine minor branch from search-term noise. Because a family can carry more than one classification, the two shares shown add up to more than 100%.
The 13 published records in this search were filed across exactly 3 receiving offices: China (8 records), South Korea (3 records) and India (2 records). This reflects where the applications were lodged, not where any filer is based, the dataset contains no information about filer nationality or location. Receiving-office counts are in published records, which sum to the 13-record total rather than the 9-family total.
No growth or decline figure is shown for this dataset. The filing trend counts published records by earliest filing year and reached a peak of 2 records in each of 2007, 2010, 2012, 2015 and 2017, but records filed from 2022 onward are still publishing and will read lower than their eventual count for some time. With this few records per year, year-to-year movement is not a reliable basis for reading a trend.
Go past this page: query the whole edge computing sensor network data aggregation tree construction 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:(("edge computing" OR "wireless sensor network*") AND "data aggregation" AND ("tree construction" OR "aggregation tree"))
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 (H04W) 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 13 records and 9 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 (2 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 8 of the 8 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 8 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 2026-10-21.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (4 of 13). 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