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 →https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/falling-weight-deflectometer-pavement-layer-backcalculation-algorithm-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-15 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Construction & Civil EngineeringFalling Weight Deflectometer Pavement Backcalculation Patents
A 31-family dataset on falling weight deflectometer backcalculation patents, with the largest filer holding just 16.1% of families.
38
Published Records
31
Simple Patent Families
47%
In Force at Cut-off
CN
Leading Jurisdiction
38 published records collapse into 31 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 18 of 38 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 31 simple patent families and 38 published records make up this entire search result, with no date limit applied to the query.
- RES INST OF HIGHWAY MINIST OF TRANSPORT holds the most named on 5 of the 31 families in scope, a 16.1% share of the set.
- 30 of the 32 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, the honest measure of how spread out this small pool is.
Published byPatsnap Research··5 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This page covers records returned by a search for falling weight deflectometer (FWD) and pavement terms combined with backcalculation or deflection language in the title, abstract and claims. The search carries no date limit, so every matching record regardless of filing date is included, though the filing-trend chart below shows only a recent window. In scope: 31 simple patent families and 38 published records.
This is a small pool, 31 families in total, so the page is better read as a starting point for a focused search than as a map of the field. Counts this thin can shift with small changes to the search string, and absence of a topic here more likely reflects the query than an empty space in practice.
Records and families in scope
Counted over all 38 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 36 records from 2007 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. 3 rows in this table share the name TRANSPORTATION (Shanxi Transportation Technology R&D Co., Ltd., Jinan Transportation Engineering Quality Supervision Station, SHANGHAI TONEKER TRANSPORTATION TECH CO LTD). 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 30 of the 32 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 32 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 Falling Weight Deflectometer Pavement Layer Backcalculation 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
Data
Filings, classes and where applications were filed
Three views of the same 31-family, 38-record dataset: the filing trend by publication year, the technology split by IPC subclass, and the receiving offices where applications were filed.
Filing trend by earliest filing year (36 of 38 published records)
Published records counted by earliest filing year, from 2007 through 2026. The peak so far is 9 records, reached in both 2019 and 2024. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so recent counts should not be read as a drop.
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 2007-2026 (36 records); the 38 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
Shares are counted against the 31 families in scope and add up to more than 100% because a single family can carry several IPC classes. E01C (Roads & pavements) and G06F (Electric digital data processing) each appear on 12 families (38.7%), and G01N (Material analysis & testing) appears on 11 families (35.5%).
Shares are the percentage of the 31 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 Falling Weight Deflectometer Pavement Layer Backcalculation 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 Falling Weight Deflectometer Pavement Layer Backcalculation Algorithm Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about falling weight deflectometer pavement layer backcalculation algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patent
A record from the result set
Example record
Method and apparatus for determining deflection basin parameters, road inspection device, medium and product
WUHAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
The abstract describes obtaining real-time deflection basin evaluation index values at points on a test road section using ground-penetrating radar, then feeding those values into a deflection basin parameter prediction model, trained on reference road section data, to produce predicted deflection basin parameter values.This is simply the first record returned under the database default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. What its granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself; an abstract and a family count cannot establish that.
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 Falling Weight Deflectometer Pavement Layer Backcalculation 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
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 filer and technology data
These cards report figures directly from the dataset: who files the most, how concentrated the list is, and which IPC subclasses carry the most families. None of them should be read as a market-share or maturity conclusion given the size of the pool.
Largest single filer
16.1%
of 31 families
RES INST OF HIGHWAY MINIST OF TRANSPORT, 5 of 31 families
RES INST OF HIGHWAY MINIST OF TRANSPORT is named on 5 of the 31 simple patent families in scope, a 16.1% share. This is the single-row figure the page shows; filer rows cannot be added together because one family can name several filers.
Counted in simple patent families.
Long tail
30 of 32
listed filers
Most listed filers hold 2 or fewer families
30 of the 32 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed rows sum to 42 against a total of 31 families, which reflects overlap between rows rather than a coverage or concentration figure.
Organisations only; individual-named filers are excluded from the list but counted in the 31-family total.
Technology split
38.7%
of 31 families
E01C and G06F each on 12 of 31 families
E01C (Roads & pavements) and G06F (Electric digital data processing) each appear on 12 of the 31 families (38.7%), and G01N (Material analysis & testing) appears on 11 (35.5%). Shares add past 100% because many families carry more than one of these classes.
16 IPC subclasses appear across the dataset in total.
Legal status
47%
of 38 records
18 of 38 records in force at retrieval
18 of the 38 published records (47%) were granted and still in force as of the 2026-10-15 retrieval date. The remainder are not broken out further, so no split between pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed can be stated.
Legal status changes continuously and is not a measure of claim strength.
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 falling weight deflectometer pavement layer backcalculation algorithm patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Falling Weight Deflectometer Pavement Layer Backcalculation 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
What's Next
Where to go from here
This page is a first look at a thin dataset, not a full field map. The next step is usually a sharper query and a direct read of the claims that matter.
Refine the search
A 31-family result from one search string is a starting point, not a complete picture. Narrowing or widening the terms can surface records this query missed.
Explore in EurekaRead claims directly
Family counts and abstracts cannot establish what any patent covers. Pull the granted claim set before drawing conclusions about freedom to operate.
Open claim analysis in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Falling Weight Deflectometer Pavement Layer Backcalculation 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
Questions about this dataset
This particular search returned 31 simple patent families and 38 published records, with no date limit applied to the query. That is not necessarily the complete universe of such filings worldwide, it reflects what matched this specific search string for FWD, pavement, and backcalculation or deflection terms. A broader or differently worded search could return a different count, so treat this figure as a starting measurement rather than a definitive total.
Among the 32 listed filers (organisations only; named individuals are excluded from the list but included in the totals), RES INST OF HIGHWAY MINIST OF TRANSPORT is named on 5 of the 31 families in scope, a 16.1% share. Most other listed filers hold far fewer: 30 of the 32 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each. Filer rows cannot be summed into a combined share because one family can name more than one filer.
IPC subclass data shows E01C (Roads & pavements) and G06F (Electric digital data processing) each appearing on 12 of the 31 families (38.7%), with G01N (Material analysis & testing) on 11 families (35.5%). These shares add up to more than 100% because a single family often carries several IPC classes at once, for example a physical pavement-testing method paired with a digital data-processing claim. Sixteen IPC subclasses appear across the dataset in total.
The dataset's receiving-office breakdown, counted in published records, shows China with 30 records, India with 4, the United States with 3, and the WIPO PCT route with 1. These figures describe where applications were filed, not where any filer is based, the dataset contains no nationality or headquarters information for any filer. The four offices listed account for the full set of receiving offices returned by this search.
No single search of 31 families should be treated as a full map of a technical field. This pool is small enough that a change in search terms could materially change the counts, and apparent gaps in coverage are more likely to reflect the query than an absence of real filings. Use this page as a starting point for a focused search and a direct claims review rather than as a conclusion about the field's size or maturity.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Falling Weight Deflectometer Pavement Layer Backcalculation 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 Falling Weight Deflectometer Pavement Layer Backcalculation Algorithm Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole falling weight deflectometer pavement layer backcalculation algorithm patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
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:(("falling weight deflectometer" OR FWD) AND pavement AND (backcalculat* OR deflection))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.
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 38 records and 31 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 30 of the 32 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 32 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 (18 of 38). 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.