https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/wind-farm-maintenance-scheduling-optimization-algorithm-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-15 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Wind Energy

Wind Farm Maintenance Scheduling Optimization Patents

7 patent families and 17 records on wind farm maintenance scheduling optimization, with filings split across eight single-family filer rows.

17
Published Records
7
Simple Patent Families
41%
In Force at Cut-off
CN
Leading Jurisdiction

17 published records collapse into 7 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 7 of 17 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 7 simple patent families and 17 published records make up this dataset. With no date limit applied to the search string.
  • Eight filer rows are returned, and all eight sit on exactly one family each. So no single row carries more families than another in this set.
  • G06Q (business, commerce & admin data processing) appears on 5 of the 7 families. The highest share among the IPC subclasses named in this dataset, at 71.4%.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This page is built from a search for wind farm or wind turbine fleet maintenance scheduling or planning combined with a form of optimiz* in the title, abstract or claims, with no date restriction applied. It returns 17 published records that de-duplicate to 7 simple patent families, with filings reaching the United States, Europe (EPO), India, WIPO (PCT), China and Austria among the receiving offices in this result set.

Seven families is a small pool: it is enough to see which organisations and IPC subclasses appear, but not enough to support conclusions about concentration, growth or white space in the wider field. Treat this page as a starting point for a narrower or differently worded search rather than as a complete map of the area.

Scope Of This Search
  1. URMILA KUMARI1
  2. SRI SAI RAM INST OF TECH1
  3. HUANENG GROUP TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION CENTER CO LTD1
  4. SHENZHEN INST OF ADVANCED TECH CHINESE ACAD OF SCI1
  5. CHINA THREE GORGES UNIV1
  6. HUANENG CLEAN ENERGY RES INST1
  7. SRI ESHWAR COLLEGE OF ENG1
  8. HITACHI ENERGY LTD1

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 (HUANENG GROUP TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION CENTER CO LTD, HUANENG CLEAN ENERGY 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. Counted one by one, those rows between them cover more than the largest single row does, so the largest single row is not necessarily the largest filer in this field. How much those rows cover together is not something this dataset can say: one family can name several of them, so their counts cannot be added. Every ranking statement on this page is per individual filer row, never per group. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (5 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 8 of the 8 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 8 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 Wind Farm Maintenance Scheduling Optimization Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. 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 data at a glance

Every figure below comes from the same search and carries its own unit, published records or simple patent families, named in the text next to it.

Filing trend by earliest filing year

Counted in published records, not de-duplicated across countries. Earliest record is 2014; the series peaks at 8 records in 2015. The window from 2022 onward is still filling in because of publication lag and is shaded on the chart rather than read as a drop.

Filing trend by earliest filing year0246812014820152016201720182019202020212022202320242025020262022 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.

Technology composition by IPC subclass

Shares are of all 7 simple patent families in scope and add to more than 100% because a family can carry several IPC subclasses. G06Q (business, commerce & admin data processing) appears on 5 of the 7 families (71.4%), F03D (wind turbines) and G06N (AI-based computing) each appear on 3 of the 7 (42.9%).

Technology composition by IPC subclassG06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…571.4%F03D · Wind motors (wind turbines)342.9%G06N · Computing based on AI models342.9%B64U · Unmanned aerial vehicles (dron…114.3%G05B · Control & regulating systems114.3%G05F · Electric/magnetic variable con…114.3%G06T · Image data processing & genera…114.3%H02J · Power supply & grid systems114.3%Other342.9%

Shares are the percentage of the 7 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 Wind Farm Maintenance Scheduling Optimization Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Wind Farm Maintenance Scheduling Optimization Algorithm Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about wind farm maintenance scheduling optimization algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Representative Filing

One record from the result set

From The Result Set
US20170089325A12017-03-30

Optimal wind farm operation, US20170089325A1

HITACHI ENERGY LTD

The application describes operating a wind farm with several degrading wind turbine components by handling maintenance scheduling and power production in a single optimization step, rather than first scheduling maintenance and then separately adapting power production. Wind farm operation is adapted using a modelled life index or health status built from mechanical and electrical stress data, so the wind farm owner can decide when and how much energy to produce.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations, grant status or importance. Its granted claims, not this abstract or any family count, determine what it actually covers.

US20170089325A1, patent drawing 1US20170089325A1, patent drawing 2
View full record in Eureka

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 Wind Farm Maintenance Scheduling Optimization Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. 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 Dataset

What the figures show

Three figures from this search, reported with their unit and without extrapolation beyond what a pool of 7 families can support.

Legal Status
41%
of 17 published records

Granted and in force at retrieval

7 of the 17 published records in this dataset were granted and still in force as of the 2026-10-15 retrieval date. The remaining records are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that breakdown is not separated further in this dataset. Status reflects a single point in time, not an assessment of claim strength or value.

Status as of 2026-10-15
Filer Distribution
1 family each
across 8 listed filer rows

No single row ahead of the rest

All 8 filer rows returned by this search sit on exactly 1 simple patent family each. Two rows share a name root (Huaneng Group Technology Innovation Center Co Ltd and Huaneng Clean Energy Res Inst) but are counted separately, and because one family can name several filers, these rows cannot be summed into a combined share.

Counted in simple patent families
Technology Split
71.4%
of 7 families carry G06Q

Business/admin data processing class appears most often

G06Q (business, commerce & admin data processing) is attached to 5 of the 7 simple patent families in scope. F03D (wind turbines) and G06N (AI-based computing) each attach to 3 of the 7. Shares add to more than 100% because a family can carry more than one IPC subclass.

Denominator: 7 simple patent families
Filing Window
2014–2026
earliest filing years on record

8 published records mark the peak year

The filing trend, counted in published records by earliest filing year, runs from 2014 through the present, with 8 records marking its peak in 2015. Years from 2022 onward are shaded on the chart because publication lag means they are still filling in and are not read as a change in direction.

Counted in published records, not de-duplicated
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 wind farm maintenance scheduling optimization 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 Wind Farm Maintenance Scheduling Optimization Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. 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 7-family dataset is a starting point, not an endpoint. These paths help narrow or widen the search before drawing conclusions from it.

Read the granted claims directly

Family counts and abstracts describe what a filing discusses, not what its claims require. Pull the granted claim set for any record that matters to a specific design or process before concluding what it covers.

Open the record set in Eureka

Broaden or vary the search language

This result set depends on the exact phrasing "maintenance scheduling" or "maintenance planning" plus optimiz*. Related filings that use different wording, such as predictive maintenance or condition-based maintenance, would not appear here and are worth a separate search.

Run a new search in Eureka

Track legal status as it changes

41% of the 17 records were in force at retrieval, a figure that moves as applications are examined, granted or allowed to lapse. Revisit status before relying on any one record's standing.

Monitor status changes 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 Wind Farm Maintenance Scheduling Optimization Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. 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 Wind Farm Maintenance Scheduling Optimization Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Wind Farm Maintenance Scheduling Optimization Algorithm Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole wind farm maintenance scheduling optimization 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:(("wind farm" OR "wind turbine fleet") AND ("maintenance scheduling" OR "maintenance planning") AND optimiz*)

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 (G06Q) carries 71.4% 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 17 records and 7 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 (5 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 8 of the 8 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 8 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 2026-10-15.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (7 of 17). 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.