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 →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 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 In force = 451 of 1,009 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
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figure describes legal status at a point in time, not how many filings in this space eventually succeed, since pending, withdrawn, refused and lapsed records are not broken out separately here.
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.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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%.
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 EurekaNoise 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.


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 search results, reported as counted, with the unit and caveat each one carries.
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.
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.
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%.
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.
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.
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.
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 →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 →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 →This search returns 1,009 published records, which de-duplicate to 528 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is counted once. No date limit was applied to the search, so this set reflects whatever filing years the matching records happen to carry, not a fixed historical window. The two counts answer different questions: records tell you how many documents published, families tell you how many distinct inventions are behind them.
China Petroleum & Chemical Corp is named on 87 of the 528 simple patent families in scope, 16.5% of the total, the highest count of any single row in the filer list. Several other rows share parts of the Sinopec or Schlumberger naming pattern but are listed as separate entities and are not added to this figure, since names in this list are not rolled up to a corporate group. The list also returned 97 organisations, with 39 of them holding 2 or fewer families each, so most of the listed filers sit well below the top row's count.
Published records in this search rose from 49 in 2018 to 56 in 2021, a 14% increase over that span, and the filing count reached a peak of 81 records in both 2023 and 2024. Filings from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, with roughly 18 months of lag for most routes and up to 30 months for PCT applications entering national phase. Because of that lag, the most recent one to two years of any such trend chart always look lower than they will eventually be, so a dip there should not be read as a slowdown.
IPC subclass G01V, covering geophysics and gravity surveying, appears on 481 of the 528 families in scope (91.1%), the highest share of any subclass returned by this search. G06N, computing based on AI models, appears on 16.7% of families, and G06F, electric digital data processing, on 15.3%. These shares add up to more than 100% because a single family can carry more than one classification, and the search returned 16 subclasses in total, of which these are the largest.
No. This dataset provides family counts, abstracts and classification data, none of which establishes what a granted claim actually covers. Claim scope is set by the specific wording of the granted claims and by the prosecution history behind them, and equivalents can extend a claim beyond its literal wording. Any freedom-to-operate question has to be answered by pulling and reading the granted claims of the specific patents involved, not by comparing descriptions or counts.
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.
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.
This page