https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/space-object-correlation-using-orbital-element-set-matching-algorithm-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-20 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Space & Satellite Systems

Space Object Correlation Using Orbital Element Set Matching Algorithm Patents

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
1
Simple Patent Families
100%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction

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 In force = 1 of 1 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • One simple patent family matches this search string. The family is held by Rutgers The State Univ and was filed through the United States receiving office.
  • The matching family covers machine learning-refined trajectory prediction. US12046129B2 describes a processor using a trajectory error prediction model alongside an iterative physics algorithm.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this search returns

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.

Filing snapshot
  1. RUTGERS THE STATE UNIV1

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.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from one Patsnap search for Space Object Correlation Using Orbital Element Set Matching Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Data

Filing trend and technology composition

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.

Filing trend by earliest filing year

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.

Filing trend by earliest filing year00111120212022202320242025020262022 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.

IPC subclass composition

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.

IPC subclass compositionG01C · Distance, navigation & gyrosco…1100.0%G06N · Computing based on AI models1100.0%G08B · Signalling & alarm systems1100.0%

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%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from one Patsnap search for Space Object Correlation Using Orbital Element Set Matching Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Space Object Correlation Using Orbital Element Set Matching Algorithm Patent Landscape with Eureka

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 Eureka
Patent in focus

The matching record

Matching record
US12046129B22024-07-23

Computer-based systems configured for space object orbital trajectory predictions and methods thereof

RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY

Systems 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.

US12046129B2, patent drawing 1US12046129B2, 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 Space Object Correlation Using Orbital Element Set Matching Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. 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 →
Insights

What the dataset shows

Three figures summarise the full set returned by this search string: a single family, a single filer row, and a single receiving office.

Scope
1 family / 1 record
Simple patent families vs published records

One family, one record

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.

Counted with no date restriction
Filer
100.0%
Share of the 1 family held by the listed filer

Single filer row named

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.

Organisation-only filer list
Classification
G01C, G06N, G08B
IPC subclasses on the 1 family, each at 100%

Three subclasses on one family

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.

Shares sum above 100% by design
Filing office
United States
Receiving office, counted in 1 published record

One receiving office

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.

1 office returned in total
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 space object correlation using orbital element set matching 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 Space Object Correlation Using Orbital Element Set Matching Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps

Where to take this from here

A single-family result is a cue to widen or adjust the search, not a finished picture of the technology.

Read the granted claims directly

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 Eureka

Broaden or vary the search terms

A 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 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 Space Object Correlation Using Orbital Element Set Matching Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Space Object Correlation Using Orbital Element Set Matching Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Space Object Correlation Using Orbital Element Set Matching Algorithm Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

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.

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:(("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.