https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/seismic-data-noise-attenuation-processing-algorithm-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-26 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Oil, Gas, Coal & Refining

Seismic Data Noise Attenuation Processing Algorithm Patents

528 patent families on seismic data noise attenuation algorithms: who files most, how concentrated the field is, and how volume has moved.

1,009
Published Records
528
Simple Patent Families
16%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
45%
In Force at Cut-off

1,009 published records collapse into 528 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. CHINA PETROLEUM & CHEMICAL CORP is named on 87 of the 528 patent families in scope. One patent family can name several filers, so these figures are not slices of a divided whole and do not add up. In force = 451 of 1,009 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 528 simple patent families and 1,009 published records sit behind this search, with no date limit applied to the query itself.
  • China Petroleum & Chemical Corp is named on 87 of the 528 families (16.5%), while 39 of the 97 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each.
  • G01V geophysics classifications cover 91.1% of the 528 families, ahead of G06N AI-model computing at 16.7% and G06F data processing at 15.3%.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this search covers

This landscape is built from a text-and-classification search for seismic data or seismic trace records combined with noise attenuation or denoising terms and an algorithm or process qualifier. It returns 1,009 published records, which de-duplicate across jurisdictions to 528 simple patent families. No date limit was applied, so the set spans whatever filing years the matching records happen to carry.

Of the 1,009 records, 451 (45%) were granted and still in force at retrieval. That figure describes legal status at a point in time, not how many filings in this space eventually succeed, since pending, withdrawn, refused and lapsed records are not broken out separately here.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. CHINA PETROLEUM & CHEMICAL CORP87
  2. CHINA NAT PETROLEUM CORP47
  3. BGP INC CHINA NAT PETROLEUM CORP39
  4. PETROCHINA CO LTD24
  5. SINOPEC GEOPHYSICAL RES INST CO LTD21
  6. JILIN UNIVERSITY20
  7. CHINA UNIV OF PETROLEUM (EAST CHINA)19
  8. SINOPEC GEOPHYSICAL RES INST17
  9. CHENGDU UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY16
  10. SCHLUMBERGER CANADA LTD16

Counted over all 1,009 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 940 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. 4 rows in this table start with the same name (SINOPEC GEOPHYSICAL RES INST CO LTD, SINOPEC GEOPHYSICAL RES INST, SINOPEC SHENGLI OILFIELD, and others). 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 (3 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 97 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 97 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 Seismic Data Noise Attenuation Processing Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. 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 trend and technology mix

The figures below are drawn directly from the search results: a filing-year trend counted in published records, and an IPC subclass breakdown counted in simple patent families.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (940 of 1,009 published records)

Published records by earliest filing year run from 6 in 2007 to a peak of 81, reached in both 2023 and 2024. Filing volume moved from 49 records in 2018 to 56 in 2021, a 14% rise over that span; 2022 onward is still filling in as later filings publish, so no decline should be read into the most recent years shown.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (940 of 1,009 published records)0255075100620072009201120132015201720192021812023812025222022 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. This chart covers 2007-2026 (940 records); the 1,009 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

Technology composition by IPC subclass

G01V (geophysics and gravity surveying) appears on 91.1% of the 528 families in scope, G06N (AI-model computing) on 16.7%, and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 15.3%. Because a family can carry more than one classification, these shares add up to more than 100%, and 16 subclasses were returned in total.

Technology composition by IPC subclassG01V · Geophysics & gravity surveying48191.1%G06N · Computing based on AI models8816.7%G06F · Electric digital data processi…8115.3%G06T · Image data processing & genera…264.9%G06K · Data recognition & presentation152.8%G06V · Image/video recognition132.5%E21B · Earth & rock drilling (wells)91.7%G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…20.4%Other81.5%

Shares are the percentage of the 528 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 Seismic Data Noise Attenuation Processing Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Seismic Data Noise Attenuation Processing Algorithm Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about seismic data noise attenuation processing algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Example record

One record from the result set

First record returned
US8781749B22014-07-15

Attenuating noise in seismic data

WESTERNGECO, L.L.C.

Noise may be filtered or attenuated from seismic data by building a four-dimensional volume using the acquired seismic data and then applying a random noise attenuation filter to the four-dimensional volume. The dimensions of the four-dimensional volume may include a trace number dimension, a time dimension, a shot number dimension, and a cable number dimension. The random noise attenuation filter may filter portions of the acquired seismic data if the seismic data is not correlated with respect to other seismic data in the four dimensional volume.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. Its abstract and family count describe what it discloses; they do not establish what its granted claims cover.

US8781749B2, patent drawing 1US8781749B2, 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 Seismic Data Noise Attenuation Processing Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. 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 →
Key figures

Reading the numbers

Three figures from the search results, reported as counted, with the unit and caveat each one carries.

Largest single filer
87 of 528 families
16.5% of families in scope

China Petroleum & Chemical Corp

China Petroleum & Chemical Corp is named on 87 of the 528 simple patent families in scope, a 16.5% share. Four other listed rows begin with the name Sinopec or a related variant; they are listed separately and are not added to this figure.

Single-row share, not summed with any other row.
Long tail
39 of 97
filers with 2 or fewer families

Spread across the listed filers

Of the 97 entities the search returned (organisations only; individual filers are excluded from this list but remain in the totals), 39 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed rows sum to more than the 528 family total because one family can name several filers, so no combined share is reported.

Counted in simple patent families, organisation rows only.
Technology split
91.1% G01V
share of 528 families

Geophysics classification coverage

G01V (geophysics and gravity surveying) is carried by 481 of the 528 families in scope, 91.1%. G06N (AI-model computing) and G06F (electric digital data processing) follow at 16.7% and 15.3%; because a family can carry multiple classes, these figures do not sum to 100%.

IPC subclass shares, counted against the 528-family total.
Legal status
451 of 1,009
records granted and in force

In-force snapshot at retrieval

451 of the 1,009 published records (45%) were granted and still in force at the 2026-10-26 retrieval date. This is a legal-status snapshot, not a success rate, since pending, withdrawn, refused and lapsed records are not broken out separately.

Counted in published records, status at retrieval only.
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 seismic data noise attenuation processing 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 Seismic Data Noise Attenuation Processing Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps

Going further with this dataset

The figures above describe what the search returned. Narrowing or re-running the query inside Patsnap Eureka surfaces the filer list in full, the receiving-office split and the underlying claim text.

Check a specific filer's filings

The 97 listed filers are ranked by family count alone and the table shows only the top 30. Pulling a filer's full record set in Eureka shows every family attributed to that name without the overlap problem of adding rows together.

Explore filer activity in Eureka →

Read the granted claims directly

An abstract and a family count cannot establish what any granted claim requires. For any record that matters to a design decision, pull the claim set itself inside Eureka before drawing conclusions about scope.

Pull full claim sets in Eureka →

Track the receiving-office pattern

The search returned 27 receiving offices in total, with the largest volumes in China, the United States, the EPO and the WIPO PCT route. Eureka can break this down by year and by filer for a finer view.

View office-level filing data 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 Seismic Data Noise Attenuation Processing Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions about this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Seismic Data Noise Attenuation Processing Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Seismic Data Noise Attenuation Processing Algorithm Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole seismic data noise attenuation processing 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:(("seismic data" OR "seismic trace") AND ("noise attenuation" OR denois*) AND (algorithm OR process*))

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 (G01V) carries 91.1% 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 1,009 records and 528 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 (3 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 97 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 97 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, and the growth figure stops at 2021. The data behind this page was retrieved on 2026-10-26.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (451 of 1,009). 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.