Acoustic and Sonic Logging Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Filing fell 76% from 2021 to 2024 (34 to 8) the last three-year span with complete publication data, marking a sharp pullback from the 2017 peak of 68.
- One family group dominates the ranking the leading assignee sits at 180 records against a fifth-place figure of 98 and a tenth-place figure of 30 — a steep drop-off, not a gradual one.
- Geophysics claims cluster hard in two IPC subclasses G01V and E21B alone cover 84.2% and 38.1% of the 838 records in scope, leaving adjacent classes like G06N and H04S comparatively thin.
Filing growth compares 2021 (34 records) with 2024 (8) — a three-year span. 2024 is the most recent year we treat as complete: publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in and any growth rate that ends there would understate the field.
What this landscape covers
This review maps 838 published patent families matching acoustic and sonic logging techniques — sonic and dipole shear logging, borehole acoustic waveform analysis, slowness-time coherence processing, Stoneley wave interpretation, cement bond logging and mechanical property logs derived from acoustic data. The scope runs from 2015 through the 2026 data cut-off, spanning the tool hardware, the signal-processing methods applied to waveform data, and the downstream mechanical-property and completion-design applications built on top of it.
Records are drawn from filings at receiving offices including the United States, the United Kingdom, WIPO, the EPO, Canada and Norway, reflecting where oilfield service providers and operators most often seek protection for downhole acoustic measurement and interpretation methods.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 838-record set: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
A peak in 2017, a sharp pullback by 2024
Filings peaked at 68 in 2017. By 2021 the annual count had settled at 34, and it fell to 8 by 2024 — a 76% decline over that three-year window, the most recent span with complete publication data. Figures for 2025 and beyond are still filling in, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the apparent tail should not be read as the technology going quiet.
Claim density concentrates in two subclasses
G01V (geophysics and gravity surveying) appears on 84.2% of the 838 records and E21B (earth and rock drilling) on 38.1%, confirming that most acoustic-logging claims are framed as either a measurement/interpretation method or a downhole drilling-related application. Material analysis (G01N), digital data processing (G06F) and AI-based computing (G06N) each sit under 5% of records, and stereophonic systems (H04S) at 1.3% marks the thinnest edge of the dataset.
Shares are the percentage of the 838 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Acoustic and Sonic Logging with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about acoustic and sonic logging and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this dataset
A Combination Model for Predicting Stiffness Coefficients Absent Stoneley Wave Velocity Data
A combination model combining a velocity regression method (V-reg) with the modified ANNIE model may be used to predict the stiffness coefficients, C(i,j), in a transversely isotropic medium without using the Stoneley wave velocity. The stiffness coefficients may be used to characterize the surrounding formation, which may be used in hydraulic fracture modeling, stage/perforation design, and well completion operations (e.g., perforating and fracturing operations).Filed by Halliburton Energy Services — a workaround for formations where Stoneley wave data is unreliable or unavailable.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4594691A | Sonic well logging | 233 |
| 2 | US5077697A | Discrete-frequency multipole sonic logging methods and apparatus | 139 |
| 3 | US20080319675A1 | Method, system and apparatus for determining rock strength using sonic logging | 127 |
| 4 | US6366531B1 | Method and apparatus for acoustic logging | 123 |
| 5 | US5838633A | Method for estimating formation in-situ stress magnitudes using a sonic borehole tool | 122 |
| 6 | US4896303A | Method for cementation evaluation using acoustical coupling and attenuation | 116 |
| 7 | US6714480B2 | Determination of anisotropic moduli of earth formations | 110 |
| 8 | US4831600A | Borehole logging method for fracture detection and evaluation | 110 |
| 9 | US6614716B2 | Sonic well logging for characterizing earth formations | 101 |
| 10 | US20180149019A1 | Method for analyzing cement integrity in casing strings using machine learning | 100 |
Citation counts reflect influence within the searched corpus and skew toward older filings; treat them as a marker of foundational status, not current filing activity.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Put your own technology through the same analysis
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 →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 →What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Three signals worth weighing before committing R&D or IP budget to this space.
The rate of new filing has cooled sharply
From 34 filings in 2021 to 8 in 2024, the pace of new acoustic-logging filings has dropped markedly. This tracks a mature core toolkit rather than an emerging one — most of the foundational waveform-processing and Stoneley-wave methods were staked out earlier in the window.
The oldest core patents still anchor the field
The most-cited record in this set dates back well before the 2015 scope start and continues to accumulate citations, a pattern typical of foundational sonic-logging apparatus claims that later filings build on or design around.
Most claims sit at the geophysics–drilling intersection
The dominant pairing of G01V and E21B classifications shows that acoustic logging is claimed almost entirely as either a measurement method or a drilling-adjacent application, rather than as a standalone signal-processing or AI discipline — those adjacent classes (G06N, G06F) remain comparatively open.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to acoustic and sonic logging, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ranked positions
The ranking covers 100 companies returned by the data endpoint, counted in patent families — it is the full list the dataset returns, not a curated top tier.
A single group leads by a wide margin
The top-ranked assignee holds 180 records against 98 at fifth place and 30 at tenth — a steep drop rather than a gradual taper, consistent with one group's long history of oilfield acoustic tool patents plus its various regional and legacy filing entities.
Related entities file jointly, not competitively
The strongest co-assignee pairings in this dataset link related corporate entities under the same parent group rather than separate competitors, reflecting how large service companies route filings through regional subsidiaries and legacy names.
Even leaders show minimal latest-year output
Momentum figures for the leading assignees show at most one filing in the latest tracked year, with several showing -100% year-over-year. This is consistent with the broader 2021-2024 decline and the publication lag on very recent filings, not necessarily an exit from the space.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Schlumberger Technology Corporation | 1 | 0% |
| Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Technology B.V. | 0 | -100% |
| Schlumberger Holdings Limited | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Canada Limited | 0 | — |
| Services Petroliers Schlumberger | 0 | — |
| SCHLUMBERGER KK | 0 | — |
| PRAD Research and Development Ltd. | 0 | — |
Turning this landscape into a filing or design-around decision
The trend and class data point to where effort is worth spending next.
Map claims against the two dominant IPC classes
Before drafting, check how a proposed claim sits relative to the G01V and E21B density — a method claim that reads only on waveform processing without a drilling-application tie may face less crowded art.
Explore the IPC breakdownWatch the leading assignee's legacy entities
Filings from the top-ranked group are split across several corporate names and jurisdictions; a freedom-to-operate check needs to search all of them, not just the current parent name.
Review assignee groupingsReassess after 2025-2026 data settles
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the apparent 2024-2026 decline should be revisited once those years' filings finish publishing.
Track filing trendsCommon questions about acoustic and sonic logging patents
One assignee group leads the ranking with 180 records, well ahead of the fifth-ranked position at 98 and tenth at 30. That leading position is actually spread across several related corporate entities and legacy names tied to the same oilfield services group, reflecting decades of tool development and regional subsidiary filings. Anyone doing freedom-to-operate work should search all of those related names, not just the current parent entity, since core apparatus and method claims may sit under any of them.
Filing activity peaked at 68 records in 2017 and has since declined, falling from 34 in 2021 to 8 in 2024 — a 76% drop over that three-year span, the most recent period with complete data. That said, publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete and should not be read as a continuing decline until later data fills in. The pattern is more consistent with a mature core toolkit than an abandoned field.
The dataset spans sonic and dipole shear logging tools, borehole acoustic waveform processing, slowness-time coherence analysis, Stoneley wave interpretation, cement bond logging and mechanical property logs derived from acoustic measurements. In IPC terms, 84.2% of the 838 records in scope carry a G01V geophysics classification and 38.1% carry E21B for earth and rock drilling, with smaller shares in material analysis, digital data processing, AI-based computing and semiconductor or stereophonic classes.
The IPC composition shows comparatively thin coverage in AI-based waveform interpretation (G06N, 2.3% of records), software-only processing pipelines (G06F, 2.7%), solid-state transducer design (H10N, 2.7%) and multi-receiver array processing (H04S, 1.3%), against the dominant geophysics and drilling classes. That gap suggests more room for claims framed around computational interpretation methods or novel transducer architectures than around another downhole measurement apparatus, where prior art is dense.
US20180196153A1 claims a combination model that predicts stiffness coefficients in a transversely isotropic formation without needing Stoneley wave velocity data, blending a velocity regression method with a modified ANNIE model. It is a workaround for situations where Stoneley wave measurements are noisy, absent or unreliable, and the outputs feed into hydraulic fracture modeling, perforation design and completion operations. For anyone working on mechanical-property logging, this filing is relevant if their method also derives stiffness coefficients from non-Stoneley inputs in a similar formation model.
Research Acoustic and Sonic Logging in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole acoustic and sonic logging corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
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 inherent limitations: recent filings (typically the most recent 18–24 months) are under-counted due to standard publication lag; counts may be reported at either a patent-family or a patent-record basis and are not always directly comparable; classification, applicant-name, and citation data may contain errors, duplicates, or omissions; and the underlying search query defines and constrains the scope shown. 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, or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently 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.
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.