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 granted US family covers machine learning-based space object trajectory correlation; this page is a starting point, not a field map.
1 published records collapse into 1 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 1 of 1 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
The search string combines orbital element set or two-line element terms with correlat* and either space object or catalog language across title, abstract and claims. Across the full dataset with no date limit, that string returns a single simple patent family and a single published record, held by Rutgers The State Univ and filed through the United States receiving office. The matching family, US12046129B2, describes machine learning-based refinement of space object trajectory predictions using an iterative physics algorithm and a trajectory error prediction model.
With only one family in scope, this page is a starting point for a further search rather than a map of a field. A pool this size cannot support claims about concentration, trend or white space, and the numbers below should be read as what this one search string returned, not as a survey of space object correlation patenting.
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 are drawn directly from the one simple patent family and one published record this search returned; no date range was applied to the underlying search.
The published-record count by earliest filing year shows a single record in 2021, with 2022 onward still filling in because of publication lag; no later-year record has reached the database yet under this search string.
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 matching family carries three IPC subclasses, G01C (distance, navigation & gyroscopes), G06N (computing based on AI models) and G08B (signalling & alarm systems), each present on 100% of the single family in scope.
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 space object correlation using orbital element set matching algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaSystems and methods of the present disclosure enable machine learning-based refinement of trajectory predictions using a processor to determine a future trajectory associated with an object state using an iterative physics algorithm. The processor utilizes a trajectory error prediction machine learning model to predict a trajectory error for the future trajectory determined for the object state. The processor determines a pseudo-measurement representative of the trajectory error based at least in part on the trajectory error for the future trajectory and determines a pseudo-measurement noise based at least in part on the pseudo-measurement. The processor determines an updated future trajectory.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations, breadth or date. Its abstract describes what the filing discloses; what its granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself.


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 summarise the full set returned by this search string: a single family, a single filer row, and a single receiving office.
The search returns one simple patent family and one published record, with no date limit applied to the search string. A pool this size does not support conclusions about a field or industry.
Rutgers The State Univ is named on 1 of the 1 simple patent families in scope (100.0%). The filer list excludes individual-inventor filings, which remain inside the total even though they are not shown as rows.
The single family carries three IPC subclasses, G01C, G06N and G08B, each present on 100% of the one family in scope, since one document can carry more than one class.
The single published record was filed through the United States receiving office, the only office this search returned. This describes where the application was filed, not where the filer is based.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to space object correlation using orbital element set matching algorithm patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
A single-family result is a cue to widen or adjust the search, not a finished picture of the technology.
An abstract and a family count cannot establish claim scope. Pull the full claim set of US12046129B2 before drawing any conclusion about what it covers.
Open the record in EurekaA one-family result is often a sign the string is narrower than the technology it targets. Try adjacent terms for orbital correlation, catalog matching or conjunction analysis to see what else surfaces.
Run a new search in EurekaUnder this specific search string, which combines orbital element set or two-line element terms with correlation and space object or catalog language, exactly one simple patent family and one published record are returned, with no date limit applied. That is a count for this search string only, not a count for the broader technical area, since adjacent terminology could surface additional filings outside this exact phrasing. Anyone relying on this figure for freedom-to-operate purposes should treat it as a starting point and run further variations of the search terms.
The one matching family, US12046129B2, is held by Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, and is named on 1 of the 1 simple patent families this search returned (100.0%). The filer list used to build this figure excludes filings held by individual inventors, which remain counted in the overall totals even though they do not appear as rows. No other organisation appears in the listed filers for this exact search string.
The abstract describes a system that refines space object trajectory predictions using an iterative physics algorithm together with a machine learning model that predicts trajectory error, then derives a pseudo-measurement and pseudo-measurement noise to update the trajectory. That description tells you what the filing discloses, not what its granted claims legally require or how far those claims reach. Anyone assessing whether a particular design or method falls inside or outside this patent needs to read the granted claim set and prosecution history directly, since an abstract alone cannot support that determination.
At the retrieval date, the single record in scope was recorded as granted and in force. Legal status changes continuously and reflects status at the time of the data pull rather than a permanent condition, so it should be reverified against a live patent register before any decision is based on it. In-force status also says nothing about the strength, breadth or commercial value of the claims; it only describes whether the grant is currently maintained.
The search string requires specific phrasing, orbital element set, two-line element, correlation and either space object or catalog language, appearing together in title, abstract or claims. Many filings that address similar technical ground may use different terminology, such as conjunction assessment or tracking data association, and would not match this exact string. A single-family result is a signal to broaden the search terms rather than evidence that little has been filed in the surrounding technical space.
The one family in scope carries three IPC subclasses: G01C, covering distance, navigation and gyroscopes; G06N, covering computing based on AI models; and G08B, covering signalling and alarm systems. Each of these sits on 100% of the single family because that family carries all three classes at once, which is why the shares add up to more than 100%. With only one family, this composition describes that single document rather than a broader classification pattern.
Go past this page: query the whole space object correlation using orbital element set matching 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:(("orbital element set" OR "two-line element") AND correlat* AND ("space object*" OR catalog))
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 (G01C) 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 2026-10-20.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (1 of 1). 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.
This page