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 →A single record set for multi-actuator haptic array texture synthesis, anchored by Dolby's renderer-configuration filing.
1 published records collapse into 1 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country.
This page tracks records matching actuator array or haptic array, combined with texture, and either synthesis or rendering in the claims. The search string sets no date limit, so the result is whatever currently matches those terms regardless of when it was filed. One simple patent family and one published record come back under this string, held by Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corp.
This is a small pool: one family and one record. Treat this page as a starting point for a further search rather than a map of a field, a single result at this scale reflects the search string as much as it reflects what has been filed.
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 1 of the 1 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 1 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.
The figures below come from the same single family and record; they are broken out by filer, filing year and IPC subclass to show how that one document is classified.
The trend counts one published record at 2025, with 2026 at zero so far. 2022 onward is still filling in on this type of chart as later filings publish, so a single zero-year here reflects publication lag rather than any change in filing activity.
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.
The one family in scope carries both G06F (electric digital data processing) and H04N (pictorial communication/video), each at 100% of the one family, since one record can carry more than one class.
Shares are the percentage of the 1 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 multi-actuator haptic array texture synthesis algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes a method of configuring a sensory data renderer: a control system obtains playback environment data, including geometry and actuator position data for a set of controllable actuators, then configures the renderer to produce actuator control signals for those actuators based on that data.This is the first record returned by the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations, novelty or breadth. It is the only record in scope for this search.


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 describe the full scope of this search: one filer, one filing-year data point with a publication lag, and an IPC split across two subclasses.
Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corp is named on 1 of the 1 simple patent families in scope (100.0%). This is the only filer-level share the page shows; it describes this one row and is not a statement about a field.
The filing trend shows 1 published record at 2025 and 0 at 2026. Because 2022 onward is still filling in as later filings publish, the 2026 figure understates whatever has actually been filed, and a single-year count this small cannot support a trend reading.
The single family in scope is classified under both G06F (electric digital data processing) and H04N (pictorial communication/video), each covering 100.0% of the 1 family. The shares add to more than 100% because one family can carry more than one classification.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to multi-actuator haptic array texture synthesis algorithm patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
A one-family result is a narrow slice; widening or adjusting the search string is likely to change what comes back.
Terms like "actuator array" and "haptic array" are specific phrasings. Related filings may use different wording for multi-point tactile output or surface feel rendering and would not appear in this result set.
Explore related searches in EurekaThe abstract for WO2026107222A1 describes configuring a renderer from playback environment and actuator position data. What its granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself, not inferred from the abstract.
Review the full claim set in EurekaThis specific search string returns one simple patent family and one published record. That does not mean only one invention exists in this space; it means only one matched this exact combination of terms (actuator array or haptic array, texture, and synthesis or rendering) in the database searched. A broader or differently worded search string would likely surface more or different results, since patent text uses varied phrasing for similar mechanisms.
Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corp is named on the single simple patent family returned by this search, giving it a 100.0% share of the one family in scope. That figure describes this one row only; it says nothing about filing activity by Dolby entities not captured by this search string, and filer names in this type of dataset are not rolled up to a parent company. No other organisation appears in the filer list returned here.
Its abstract describes a method for configuring a sensory data renderer: a control system takes in playback environment data, including the geometry of the space and position data for a set of controllable actuators, then configures the renderer to produce actuator control signals for that actuator set. What the granted claims actually require, and how broadly they reach, can only be determined by reading the claim set itself rather than the abstract. An abstract and a one-family count cannot establish freedom-to-operate or infringement outcomes for any specific design.
This dataset cannot answer that. There is a single filing-year data point in the trend (2025, with one published record) and 2026 at zero, and the 2022-onward window is known to still be filling in as later-filed applications publish. One or two data points of this size is not enough to read a trend, growth rate or slowdown from, and no growth figure is computed on this page for that reason.
The single record in this dataset was filed through WIPO as a PCT application, which was the only receiving office returned by this search. A PCT filing is a single international application that can later enter national phase in multiple countries, so this does not by itself indicate which national patent offices the applicant intends to pursue or has pursued.
The one family in scope is classified under both G06F (electric digital data processing) and H04N (pictorial communication, including video), each showing as 100.0% of the single family. A single patent document is routinely assigned more than one IPC classification, so subclass shares in this type of chart are each measured against the same family total rather than split across a whole, and they can therefore sum above 100%.
Go past this page: query the whole multi-actuator haptic array texture synthesis algorithm 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:(("actuator array" OR "haptic array") AND texture AND (synthesis OR rendering))
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 (G06F) 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 1 records and 1 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 1 of the 1 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 1 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. Legal status was not available for this search, so no in-force figure is shown. 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.
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