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 →442 families and 709 records on state observer and Kalman filter process-variable estimation, with filings concentrated in control systems classes.
709 published records collapse into 442 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. Filing growth = 2018 (21 records) → 2021 (46); 2021 is the last year we treat as complete. BEIJING INST OF TECH is named on 9 of the 442 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.
This dataset gathers records matching state observer or Kalman filter combined with process variable or state estimation and control in title/abstract/claims text. It returns 442 simple patent families and 709 published records, with no date limit applied in the search string, so the set spans whatever filing years the matching text happens to cover.
Because the search is text-based rather than classification-based, it pulls in work wherever a state observer or Kalman filter is applied to control a process variable, from vehicle dynamics to power systems to battery management, and the IPC split below reflects that spread rather than a single defined industry.
Counted over all 709 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 658 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. 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 96 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 96 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 chart below counts published records by earliest filing year; the table counts simple patent families by IPC subclass. Neither total is interchangeable with the other.
Published records rose from 4 in 2007 to a peak of 101 in 2025. Filing growth from 2018 (21 records) to 2021 (46 records), the most recent year treated as complete here, was +119%. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so their counts understate eventual totals and should not be read as a slowdown.
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 growth figure above therefore stops at 2021. This chart covers 2007-2026 (658 records); the 709 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
G05B (control and regulating systems) appears on 30.1% of the 442 families, G05D (control of non-electric variables) on 18.1%, and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 16.3%. A family can carry more than one subclass, so these shares add to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 442 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 state observer based process variable estimation patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaProvided are a battery state estimation method and system and a recording medium for performing the method. The battery state estimation is provided by applying an ARX model and a dual extended Kalman filter. A battery state estimation system estimates a parameter of a battery model using an ARX model and estimates a battery state by applying the estimated parameter of the battery model to a dual extended Kalman filter including a state filter used to estimate a state of charge (SOC) and a weight filter used to estimate a state of health (SOH) of the battery.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations, novelty or coverage. What its granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself; an abstract and a family count cannot establish that.


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 →These figures describe counts returned by the search, not claim scope, quality or strategy.
Beijing Inst of Tech and Northwestern Polytechnical Univ are each named on 9 of the 442 simple patent families, the highest count among the 96 listed filers. No single filer holds more than this.
64 of the 96 listed filers are named on 2 or fewer simple patent families each. Filer rows overlap because one family can name several filers, so these counts cannot be summed into a coverage or concentration share.
G05B, control and regulating systems, appears on 133 of the 442 families (30.1%). G05D follows at 18.1% and G06F at 16.3%. A family can carry several IPC subclasses, so these shares add to more than 100%.
Among 21 receiving offices returned, China accounts for 291 of the 709 published records, followed by the United States at 169. This describes where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to state observer based process variable estimation patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The figures above describe what this search returned. Deeper reading requires pulling the underlying documents.
Family and IPC counts cannot establish claim scope. Where a specific filing matters to a design decision, pull its granted claim set directly in Patsnap Eureka.
Open in Eureka →Because filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group, tracking a parent and its subsidiaries together requires checking each name separately.
Set up filer tracking →Records filed from 2022 onward are still publishing. Revisit the trend once those years have had time to clear the typical publication lag.
Monitor this search →This search returns 442 simple patent families and 709 published published records. Families de-duplicate the same invention across countries, while records count every publication separately, so the two numbers describe the same underlying set in different units. No date limit was applied, so the set spans whatever filing years the matching text happens to cover rather than a defined window.
Two filers share the top count in this dataset: Beijing Inst of Tech and Northwestern Polytechnical Univ, each named on 9 of the 442 simple patent families. Below them the list thins quickly, 64 of the 96 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each. Filer rows cannot be added together because one family can name several filers, so there is no single combined share for any group of names.
Published records rose from 4 in 2007 to a peak of 101 in 2025, with growth of +119% between 2018 (21 records) and 2021 (46 records), the most recent year treated as complete here. Records from 2022 onward are still publishing because of the normal 18 to 30 month lag between filing and publication, so their counts understate the eventual totals and should not be read as a drop in filing activity. The chart counts published documents, not distinct inventions, so a rising line can also reflect the same invention being filed in more countries.
The largest subclass is G05B, control and regulating systems, appearing on 30.1% of the 442 families in scope. G05D, control of non-electric variables, follows at 18.1%, and G06F, electric digital data processing, at 16.3%. These shares add to more than 100% because a single family can be classified under more than one subclass, and the full set spans 100 subclasses in total, most of them far smaller than these three.
No. This page reports family counts, IPC classifications and abstracts, none of which define what a granted claim actually covers. Claim scope has to be read from the granted claims and prosecution history of the specific patent in question, and equivalents can extend a claim beyond its literal wording. Any freedom-to-operate question needs a direct read of the relevant claim set, not an inference from counts or an abstract.
Go past this page: query the whole state observer based process variable estimation 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:(("state observer" OR "Kalman filter") AND ("process variable" OR "state estimation") AND control)
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. No subclass carries much of this set: the most common one is on 30.1% of the patent families and the set spans 100 subclasses in all. That can mean the technology genuinely sits across several areas, or that the search string is also matching adjacent work that happens to use the same words. This page cannot separate the two, and the result set is not screened by hand.
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 709 records and 442 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 96 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 96 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 2026-10-27.
Legal status. Legal status was not available for this search, so no in-force figure is shown. 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