Blast Design and Fragmentation Patents: Who Leads, Gaps 2026
- 72.2% concentration. The top 5 assignees hold 122 of 169 records in scope — a field where a handful of explosives and mining majors have occupied most of the claim space.
- Filings peaked in 2021 at 20. and fell -65% by 2024 (20 to 7) — a real slowdown after a sharp run-up, not a data artefact, though 2025-2026 counts are still filling in.
- G06N shows up in only 4.7% of records. AI-based fragmentation prediction is present but still a minority claim strategy inside a field otherwise dominated by mechanical and chemical blast design.
Filing growth compares 2021 (20 records) with 2024 (7) — 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. Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 169 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape covers 169 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine blast-hole pattern, burden distance or rock fragmentation claims with powder factor, stemming length, bench height ratio or image-based sizing limitations. The search string ties blast geometry to the downstream metrics operators actually use to judge a shot, which is why the class mix leans heavily on F42D (Blasting) and E21C (Mining and quarrying) rather than explosives chemistry alone.
Filing activity is concentrated by receiving office as well as by assignee: the United States, Australia and Canada together account for the bulk of the offices seen in this set, consistent with a technology base rooted in large open-pit and surface mining operations rather than a globally dispersed filing pattern.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 169 records: how filing volume moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
A sharp rise, then a real pullback
Filings rose from a single record in 2017 to a peak of 20 in 2021, then dropped -65% to 7 by 2024 — the most recent year that can be read as complete, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months and 2025-2026 counts will still rise as later filings publish.
Blasting and mining classes dominate; digital and AI classes are a minority
F42D (Blasting) appears in 46.7% of records and E21C (Mining and quarrying) in 40.8%, confirming this is primarily a mechanical and process-design field. G06F (data processing) reaches 13.0% and G06N (AI-based computing) only 4.7% of the 169 records — image-based sizing and predictive fragmentation modelling are claimed, but they sit well behind the core blast-geometry and drilling classes.
Shares are the percentage of the 169 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Blast Design and Fragmentation with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about blast design and fragmentation and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this set
Fracture Density Model System, Methods, and Apparatuses (US12657354B2)
A fracture density model (FDM) system predicts fragmentation size distribution for a blast by building a volumetric model, identifying pre-existing joint fractures, simulating blast- and reflected-shock-wave-induced fracturing across volume elements, and combining pre-existing and blast-induced fractures into a predicted fragmentation size for each element.Filed by Dyno Nobel, published 2026-06-16 — one of the most recent grants in this set and a marker of where fragmentation-prediction claims are heading.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20070272110A1 | Method of Blasting Multiple Layers or Levels of Rock | 47 |
| 2 | WO2005052499A1 | Method of blasting multiple layers or levels of rock | 30 |
| 3 | US4440447A | Method for forming an in situ oil shale retort with explosive expansion towards a horizontal free face | 25 |
| 4 | US4429632A | Delay detonator | 24 |
| 5 | WO2007141604A2 | Blasting method for controlled multiple sequential blasts in multi-diameter blastholes | 22 |
| 6 | US20130298795A1 | Method of blasting multiple layers or levels of rock | 21 |
| 7 | US20130152812A1 | High energy blasting | 21 |
| 8 | US20080245254A1 | Method Of Blasting | 19 |
| 9 | US4369708A | Delay blasting cap | 18 |
| 10 | US20160069655A1 | High Energy Blasting | 16 |
Citation counts favour older records that have had more time to accumulate references within the searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence on the field, not of current commercial relevance.
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 data means for a filing or freedom-to-operate decision
Three read-throughs from the concentration, timing and technology-class figures above.
The core geometry claims are largely spoken for
With the top 5 assignees holding 72.2% of all 169 records and the top 10 reaching 88.8%, new blast-pattern and burden-distance claims are likely to run into prior art from a small number of explosives and mining-technology holders. A freedom-to-operate check against these few names covers most of the field.
Peak filing activity has passed, not accelerated
Filings peaked at 20 in 2021 and fell to 7 by 2024, a -65% move over three years. That is a genuine cooling after a filing surge, though the 2025-2026 figures will still climb as recently filed applications publish on their usual 18-month lag.
Predictive and AI-based sizing is a minority claim strategy
G06F appears in 13.0% of records and G06N in just 4.7%, against F42D at 46.7% and E21C at 40.8%. Image-based sizing and fracture-prediction modelling are claimed by a handful of filers rather than broadly contested, leaving room to differentiate on the computational side of fragmentation prediction.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to blast design and fragmentation, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space, and where it thins out
36 companies make up the entire ranked list this dataset returns — not a top-50 or top-100 cut. The leader holds 37 records; by fifth place that has already dropped to 9, and by tenth place to 3, which is the shape of a field with a dominant core and a long single-filer tail.
A single filer well ahead of the field
The leading assignee holds 37 of the 169 records in scope, more than double the fifth-place total of 9. That gap is typical of a company that established blast-pattern and fragmentation-prediction claims early and has kept filing continuations and refinements since.
A fast drop-off after the top five
Filing counts fall from 9 at fifth place to 3 at tenth, and the top 10 combined still only reach 88.8% of the 169 records — meaning the remaining 26 ranked companies are splitting a small residual share, mostly through single-digit filings.
Co-filing is limited and concentrated among named inventors
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in this set, with the strongest pairing recurring across four shared filings and two others each appearing three times. This points to a small number of long-running inventor teams rather than broad cross-company collaboration.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Orica Explosives Technology Pty Ltd | 0 | — |
| Orica International Pte Ltd | 0 | — |
| Dyno Nobel Inc | 0 | — |
| OCCIDENTAL OIL SHALE INC | 0 | — |
| PALMER DANIEL B | 0 | — |
| E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co | 0 | — |
| PECK TECH CONSULTING | 0 | — |
| DANIEL B PALMER | 0 | — |
Where to take this next
The figures above describe the field as filed; the next step is testing a specific claim or design concept against it.
Check freedom-to-operate against the top holders
With 72.2% of records held by five assignees, a targeted clearance search against those portfolios will cover most of the practical risk before broader searching is needed.
Run a freedom-to-operate check in Eureka →Explore the under-claimed sub-areas
Image-based sizing and AI-driven fracture modelling sit at single-digit-percent class shares — thin enough to be worth a deeper novelty search before drafting.
Search white space in Eureka →Track filing momentum by assignee
The peak-to-2024 pullback shown here is worth watching as later years publish; set up ongoing monitoring rather than relying on a single snapshot.
Set up monitoring in Eureka →Common questions about blast design and fragmentation patents
The ranked list in this dataset covers 36 companies, and it is heavily front-loaded: the leading assignee alone holds 37 of the 169 records in scope, more than four times the count at tenth place. The top 5 assignees together hold 122 records, or 72.2% of the field, so a small number of explosives and mining-technology companies control most of the documented claim space. Any competitive or freedom-to-operate review should start with those few names rather than the full ranked list.
Filings rose sharply to a peak of 20 in 2021, then fell to 7 by 2024, a -65% decline over that three-year span. That is a genuine cooling after a filing surge rather than a plateau. Figures for 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the most recent years should not yet be read as confirming or reversing that trend.
F42D (Blasting) and E21C (Mining and quarrying) are the two largest classes, appearing in 46.7% and 40.8% of the 169 records respectively, followed by E21B (Earth and rock drilling) at 29.0%. Digital and AI-related classes are present but much smaller: G06F appears in 13.0% of records and G06N, covering AI-based computing, in only 4.7%. This confirms the field is still primarily about mechanical and chemical blast-geometry design rather than computational fragmentation prediction, though the latter is a growing minority strand.
US12657354B2, assigned to Dyno Nobel and published 2026-06-16, claims a fracture density model system that predicts fragmentation size distribution by building a volumetric model of the rock, identifying pre-existing joint fractures, simulating blast-induced and reflected-shock-wave fracturing, and combining both fracture sources into a predicted size distribution per volume element. It sits in the fragmentation-prediction sub-area of the field, which is comparatively thin in this dataset. Anyone building a fracture-simulation or fragmentation-prediction tool for blast planning should review its specific claim scope before assuming a clear path.
The class-level shares point to a few under-claimed branches: G06N-based computing methods appear in only 4.7% of the 169 records, and image-based sizing, stemming length optimisation and downstream comminution feedback are represented but not heavily contested compared to core F42D and E21C blast-geometry claims. These are areas where filing density is low relative to the size of the underlying field, which is a reasonable starting point for novelty searching rather than a guarantee of an open path.
Research Blast Design and Fragmentation in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole blast design and fragmentation 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.