https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/seismic-deconvolution-algorithm-for-wavelet-shaping-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Oil, Gas, Coal & Refining

Seismic Deconvolution Algorithm for Wavelet Shaping Patents

136 patent families and 259 records cover seismic deconvolution for wavelet shaping, with two filers tied at the top on filing count.

259
Published Records
136
Simple Patent Families
17%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
43%
In Force at Cut-off

259 published records collapse into 136 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. CHINA NAT PETROLEUM CORP is named on 23 of the 136 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 In force = 111 of 259 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • Two filers tie at the top of the filer list CHINA NAT PETROLEUM CORP and BGP INC CHINA NAT PETROLEUM CORP are each named on 23 of the 136 simple patent families in scope.
  • The technology stays concentrated in one IPC subclass G01V (geophysics & gravity surveying) appears on 135 of the 136 simple patent families, 99.3% of the set.
  • Most listed filers show up only once or twice 66 of the 79 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This landscape is built from the search string TAC:(seismic AND deconvolution AND wavelet), which pulls title, abstract and claim text matching all three terms together. The search carries no date limit, so the 259 published records and 136 simple patent families returned span whatever filing years the matching text happens to cover, not a defined window chosen for this page. Records count every publication, including multiple countries for the same invention; families de-duplicate those into one count per invention.

At 136 families, this is a moderate-sized pool. It supports a read of who files and how the technology classification breaks down, but it is too thin to support a trend, growth or white-space claim from the filing numbers alone.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. CHINA NAT PETROLEUM CORP23
  2. BGP INC CHINA NAT PETROLEUM CORP23
  3. CHINA PETROLEUM & CHEMICAL CORP20
  4. PETROCHINA CO LTD10
  5. CHINA UNIV OF PETROLEUM (EAST CHINA)9
  6. SINOPEC GEOPHYSICAL RES INST CO LTD6
  7. GEOPHYSICAL PROSPECTING RES INST OF SINOPEC SHENGLI OILFIELD6
  8. SINOPEC GEOPHYSICAL RES INST5
  9. SAUDI ARABIAN OIL CO5
  10. CHINA UNIV OF PETROLEUM (BEIJING)4

Counted over all 259 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 208 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. 2 rows in this table start with the same name (SINOPEC GEOPHYSICAL RES INST CO LTD, SINOPEC GEOPHYSICAL RES INST). 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 (4 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 79 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 79 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 Deconvolution Algorithm for Wavelet Shaping Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. 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
The numbers

Filing activity and technology split

Two views of the same 136 families: when the matching documents were filed, and which IPC subclass carries them.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records) (208 of 259 published records)

The series runs from 2007 (4 records) through 2026 (5 records), with 2012 the peak year so far at 31 records. Everything from 2022 onward is still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so that stretch reads lower than its eventual count, this is a publication-lag effect, not a drop in filing.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records) (208 of 259 published records)010203040420072009201131201320152017201920212023202552022 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 (208 records); the 259 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

IPC subclass coverage (share of 136 families)

G01V (geophysics & gravity surveying) is named on 135 of the 136 families, 99.3% of the set. One family can carry more than one IPC subclass, so subclass shares are not a partition of the total and do not need to sum to 100%.

IPC subclass coverage (share of 136 families)G01V · Geophysics & gravity surveying13599.3%G06F · Electric digital data processi…75.1%E21B · Earth & rock drilling (wells)21.5%G06N · Computing based on AI models21.5%G06K · Data recognition & presentation10.7%

Shares are the percentage of the 136 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 Deconvolution Algorithm for Wavelet Shaping Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Seismic Deconvolution Algorithm for Wavelet Shaping Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about seismic deconvolution algorithm for wavelet shaping patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Example record

A record from the result set

From the result set
US9435906B22016-09-06

Simultaneous wavelet extraction and deconvolution processing in the time domain

SAUDI ARABIAN OIL COMPANY

Blind wavelet extraction and de-convolution is performed on seismic data to enable its practical usage in seismic processing and to provide quality control of data obtained in areas where data from wells are not available. The wavelet extraction and deconvolution are realized in the time domain by iteration, producing a mixed phase wavelet with minimal prior knowledge of the actual nature of the wavelet. As a result of the processing, the de-convolved seismic reflectivity is obtained simultaneously.US9435906B2, Saudi Arabian Oil Company, filed 2016-09-06. Shown because it is the first record the database returns under its default order, not because it is the most cited, newest or broadest filing in scope.

US9435906B2, patent drawing 1US9435906B2, patent drawing 2
View full 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 Deconvolution Algorithm for Wavelet Shaping Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. 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 →
Reading the data

What the counts show

Three figures worth sitting with before drawing any conclusion about this field.

Filer concentration
23 families
top filing count, shared by 2 filers

No single filer holds the top spot alone

CHINA NAT PETROLEUM CORP and BGP INC CHINA NAT PETROLEUM CORP are each named on 23 of the 136 simple patent families in scope, the highest count in the listed filers. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group, and one family can name more than one filer, so these counts cannot be added across rows to produce a combined share.

Based on the listed filers, ordered by family count.
Long tail
66 of 79
listed filers hold 2 or fewer families

Most listed filers appear once or twice

Of the 79 organisations in the listed filers, 66 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. This describes how spread the filing activity is across named organisations; it does not indicate how much of the 136-family total sits outside the organisations that were counted, since individual inventors are excluded from this list where they can be identified but remain in the overall totals.

Counts organisations; individual-inventor filings are excluded from this list where they can be identified but included in dataset totals.
Classification concentration
99.3%
of 136 families carry IPC G01V

G01V covers nearly the entire family set

135 of the 136 simple patent families carry IPC subclass G01V (geophysics & gravity surveying), 99.3% of the set. Because one family can carry several IPC subclasses, this share describes how many families touch that classification, not how large a portion of their claims it covers.

IPC shares are read against the 136-family total and can sum to more than 100% across subclasses.
Legal status
111 of 259
records in force at retrieval

43% of records were granted and in force

111 of the 259 published records (43%) were granted and still in force as of the 2026-10-27 retrieval date. Legal status changes continuously and this figure is a snapshot, not a measure of which filings are stronger or more valuable.

Status recorded at the 2026-10-27 data pull; the remainder is not broken out further.
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 deconvolution algorithm for wavelet shaping 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 Deconvolution Algorithm for Wavelet Shaping Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps

Where to take this from here

The figures on this page describe what the search returned. Pulling individual records, or running a narrower or broader string, is how a specific question gets answered.

Pull the granted claims directly

A family count or an abstract cannot establish what any single filing covers. Reading the actual claim set is the only way to know what a given patent requires.

Open in Patsnap Eureka

Re-run with a narrower or wider string

A search built on three terms in title/abstract/claims will catch some noise alongside genuine matches, particularly in the smaller IPC subclasses. Adjusting the string changes what gets swept in.

Explore search options in Patsnap 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 Deconvolution Algorithm for Wavelet Shaping Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions on this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Seismic Deconvolution Algorithm for Wavelet Shaping Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Seismic Deconvolution Algorithm for Wavelet Shaping Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole seismic deconvolution algorithm for wavelet shaping 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 AND deconvolution AND wavelet)

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 99.3% 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 259 records and 136 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 (4 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 79 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 79 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 2026-10-27.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (111 of 259). 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.

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.