Order-Tote Sequencing Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- A six-name ranking with a steep drop-off. the leading assignee holds 18 records against 7 for the fifth-placed name, and three of the strongest co-filing pairs all run through the same lead inventor.
- Filings peaked in 2017 at 13 and have not returned. the tracked span from 2021 to 2024 shows a -100% change, though 2025-2026 counts are still filling in under normal publication lag.
- Every record touches conveying and material handling. B65G covers all 18 records in scope, while robotics (B25J) and control systems (G05B) each sit at a third — a narrower footprint than the conveying core.
Filing growth compares 2021 (3 records) with 2024 (0) — 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.
A narrow, concentrated field built around a small inventor group
Order-tote sequencing sits at the intersection of physical conveying and the software that decides what a picker or robot handles next. The scope tracked here is small — 18 published records — which makes this less a crowded battlefield than a set of claims staked early by a handful of named inventors, several of whom co-file repeatedly. Every record in scope carries a B65G conveying classification, and just over three in five also carry a G06Q business-process class, pointing to sequencing logic as the layer where the real differentiation sits, not the conveyor hardware itself.
Filing activity peaked in 2017 and has not recovered; the most recent complete year shows no filings, though publication lag of roughly 18 months means the very latest years understate true activity. The receiving-office spread — led by the United States, with WIPO, Europe, Canada and Singapore all represented — signals a group of applicants seeking multi-jurisdiction coverage from the outset rather than a purely domestic filing pattern.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 18-record dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the technical weight.
A 2017 peak with no recovery since
Filings ran as high as 13 in 2017. The tracked 2021-to-2024 window shows a -100% change, and the years after 2024 are still incomplete under normal publication lag — treat any apparent drop-off in 2025-2026 as an artefact of timing, not a signal of abandonment.
Conveying is universal; sequencing logic is the differentiator
B65G (conveying & material handling) appears in all 18 records. G06Q (business/commerce data processing) follows at 61.1%, with robotics (B25J) and control systems (G05B) each at 33.3% and non-electric control (G05D) at 22.2% — the software and control layers are where filings diverge, not the mechanical base.
Shares are the percentage of the 18 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Automated Storage & Retrieval — Order-Tote Sequencing Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about automated storage & retrieval — order-tote sequencing patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records anchor the field's core claims
Automated warehouse fulfillment system and method of operation
A method and apparatus for a human picker on a picker automated vehicle (PAV) with vertical tote conveyors (VTCs) moving totes to inventory stock bins arranged in rows and columns, retrieving stock items and placing them into preselected totes. Items are later transferred to shipping containers by customer order. Horizontal aisle conveyors (HACs) move totes from a configurator along the aisles to the moving PAVs and back after loading.Filed by Doerfer Corporation, published 2020-02-06 as US20200039747A1.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20210269244A1 | Automated warehouse system and method for optimized batch picking | 91 |
| 2 | US20200039747A1 | Automated warehouse fulfillment system and method of operation | 89 |
| 3 | WO2020006010A1 | Automated warehouse system and method for optimized batch picking | 27 |
| 4 | WO2018068026A1 | Automated warehouse fulfillment system and method of operation | 18 |
| 5 | WO2018068024A1 | Automated warehouse fulfillment operations and system | 13 |
| 6 | US11136192B2 | Automated warehouse fulfillment operations and system | 12 |
| 7 | US11142399B2 | Automated warehouse fulfillment system and method of operation | 10 |
| 8 | US20200198892A1 | Automated warehouse fulfillment operations and system | 10 |
| 9 | US20240043215A1 | Multi-level tote cache storage and sequencing for improved picker performance | 4 |
| 10 | CA3039049A1 | Automated warehouse fulfillment system and method of operation | 2 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had more time to accumulate them — read them as a signal of influence within this corpus, not of current commercial weight.
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 or freedom-to-operate decision
Three read-throughs from the trend, the classification spread and the citation table.
The window that mattered has likely closed for broad claims
Filing activity peaked in 2017 and the 2021-to-2024 span shows a -100% change. New entrants are more likely to find that broad tote-sequencing claims are already staked, pushing viable filing toward narrower, combination claims.
The conveying layer is fully occupied; software is not
Every record in scope touches B65G conveying claims, but only 61.1% touch G06Q business-process logic and just a third touch robotics or control classes. That gap is where sequencing-algorithm and control-integration claims still have room.
Two families anchor most of the citation weight
The two most-cited records carry 91 and 89 citations respectively, well ahead of the rest of the table. Both describe batch-picking and fulfillment-system architectures, suggesting these are the reference points examiners and competitors cite against.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to automated storage & retrieval — order-tote sequencing patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
A six-name ranking dominated by one inventor group
The assignee ranking returned by this dataset covers six names, not a top-50 or top-100 list — read the gap between first and fifth place as the real story here.
The top-ranked name matches the full record count
The leading assignee's record count equals the entire scoped dataset, meaning this name touches essentially every filing tracked here, whether as sole or co-assignee.
Three pairs share the same anchor name
The three strongest co-assignee pairs in this dataset all include the same lead name paired with three different collaborators, each at 7 shared records — a pattern consistent with one inventor team working across multiple related filings.
A steep gap between first and fifth
Fifth place in the ranking sits at 7 records against the leader's 18, a sharper drop than the gradual long tail seen in more crowded fields — this is a small group of related filers rather than a broad competitive field.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| AHMANN ROBERT D | 0 | — |
| TAKES DAVID L | 0 | — |
| STARNES WILLIAM D | 0 | — |
| GASCH GREGORY H | 0 | — |
| BULTZ NEIL D | 0 | — |
| Doerfer Corporation | 0 | — |
Where to take this from here
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether you are scoping freedom-to-operate or looking for open claim territory.
Check the software layer, not just the conveyor
With B65G at 100% of records but G06Q at only 61.1%, sequencing-logic and business-process claims carry more open space than the mechanical conveying base.
Explore sequencing logic claims in EurekaMap the co-filing cluster before assuming a crowded field
A six-name ranking with one dominant, repeatedly co-filing group is a different competitive picture than a hundred independent filers — verify who actually controls the core claims.
Trace assignee relationships in EurekaTreat 2025-2026 filing counts as incomplete
Publication lag of roughly 18 months means recent-year zeros are not evidence of abandonment; revisit the trend once later filings publish.
Track filing trends in EurekaCommon questions about order-tote sequencing patents
This dataset tracks 18 published records spanning 2015 through mid-2026 that match order-tote sequencing, tote sortation and related warehouse automation search terms. That is a narrow, specific scope rather than a broad warehouse-robotics category, so figures here should not be read as covering all automated storage and retrieval patents generally. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, any classification breakdown you see will sum to more than the 18-record total.
The assignee ranking returned by this dataset covers six names, led by one assignee holding 18 records against 7 for the name in fifth place. That gap is unusually steep, and three of the strongest co-assignee pairs all pair the same lead name with different collaborators at 7 shared records each — consistent with one inventor group filing across a related family of applications rather than a broad competitive field. Treat this as the whole ranking the dataset returns, not a top-50 or top-100 list.
Filing activity peaked in 2017 at 13 records and the tracked 2021-to-2024 window shows a -100% change, with no filings in the most recent complete year. However, publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, so the 2025-2026 figures in this dataset are still incomplete and should not be read as proof the field has gone quiet. A fair reading is that broad early claims were staked heavily around 2017 and activity has since concentrated rather than expanded.
US20200039747A1, assigned to Doerfer Corporation and published 2020-02-06, describes a system combining a human picker riding a picker automated vehicle (PAV) with vertical tote conveyors, moving both horizontally and vertically past rows and columns of stock bins to fill preselected totes, with horizontal aisle conveyors feeding totes to and from the moving vehicles. It is one of the two highest-cited records in this dataset, with 89 citations recorded against it. Anyone building a picker-plus-vertical-conveyor combination for tote fulfillment should review its specific claim language closely rather than assume the general concept is open.
The classification data shows every one of the 18 records touching B65G conveying claims, but only 61.1% touching G06Q business-process logic and roughly a third touching robotics (B25J) or control systems (G05B) classes. That gap suggests dynamic re-sequencing algorithms, robotic tote-to-picker handoff mechanics, and control-system integration carry thinner coverage than the conveying hardware itself. Lift or jack-assisted tote staging (B66F) appears in only one record, making it another area worth checking before assuming it is already claimed.
Research Automated Storage & Retrieval — Order-Tote Sequencing Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole automated storage & retrieval — order-tote sequencing patent landscape 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.