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 →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/coated-abrasive-belt-and-disc-manufacturing-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · AbrasivesCoated Abrasive Belt and Disc Manufacturing Patents
- Filing has cooled from its 2017 peak of 240. the tracked span shows a -67% move from 93 filings in 2021 to 31 in 2024, the last year publication lag lets us call complete.
- One assignee dominates the ranked leaders. the top-ranked company holds 2,312 families against a fifth-place figure of 448 and a tenth-place figure of just 28 — a steep drop-off after the top few.
- Grinding tools carry the field, materials science trails it. B24D covers 80.6% of the 5,609 records in scope, while C09K materials claims sit at 39.5%, leaving polymer and pigment chemistry comparatively open.
5,609
Published Records
-67%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
100
Active Filers Ranked
Filing growth compares 2021 (93 records) with 2024 (31) — 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.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
This review covers patent families published between 2015 and 2026 that combine coated abrasive belt or disc manufacturing terms with backing, coating and performance concepts such as electrostatic coating, size coat, supersize additive and loading resistance. The scope spans 5,609 records, tracked across major receiving offices including the United States, the European Patent Office and the WIPO PCT route.
The dataset spans manufacturing process claims and materials chemistry claims together, which is why a single record can carry classifications in both grinding-tool subclasses and polymer or ceramics subclasses. Reading the two together shows where process innovation and materials innovation overlap, and where they diverge.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2015-2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Coated Abrasive Belt and Disc Manufacturing covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift 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 Data
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 5,609-record corpus: filing activity by year, and where those records sit across the IPC classification system.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings peaked at 240 in 2017 and have declined since; 2021 to 2024 alone shows a -67% move from 93 to 31 filings. Treat 2025 and 2026 as incomplete — publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the most recent years will fill in as more records publish.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
B24D (grinding tools and abrasives) accounts for 80.6% of the 5,609 records in scope, with C09K (materials for miscellaneous applications) second at 39.5%. Because records can carry multiple classifications, these shares sum to well over 100% — the chart reflects overlap, not a partition of the field.
Shares are the percentage of the 5,609 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Coated Abrasive Belt and Disc Manufacturing covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Coated Abrasive Belt and Disc Manufacturing with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about coated abrasive belt and disc manufacturing and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
The most-cited prior art in this field
Representative Filing
Method of making coated abrasive belt with an endless, seamless backing
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
A coated abrasive backing consisting of an endless, seamless loop, built from 40-99% by weight organic polymeric binder with a fibrous reinforcing material engulfed within it. The construction places binder-only regions on opposite surfaces of the reinforcing layer, avoiding a seam that would otherwise create a weak point or performance discontinuity around the belt loop.US6406576B1 · 3M Innovative Properties Company · granted 2002-06-18
Highest-citation records in scope
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4652274A | Coated abrasive product having radiation curable binder | 1,349 |
| 2 | US4799939A | Erodable agglomerates and abrasive products containing the same | 1,193 |
| 3 | US5201916A | Shaped abrasive particles and method of making same | 1,188 |
| 4 | US5545676A | Ternary photoinitiator system for addition polymerization | 1,067 |
| 5 | US5435816A | Method of making an abrasive article | 1,043 |
| 6 | US4652275A | Erodable agglomerates and abrasive products containing the same | 1,007 |
| 7 | US4881951A | Abrasive grits formed of ceramic containing oxides of aluminum and rare earth metal, method of making and pro… | 973 |
| 8 | US5213591A | Abrasive grain, method of making same and abrasive products | 916 |
| 9 | US5366523A | Abrasive article containing shaped abrasive particles | 882 |
| 10 | US4751138A | Coated abrasive having radiation curable binder | 799 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older records simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations — read this as a signal of influence on later filings, not of current commercial relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Coated Abrasive Belt and Disc Manufacturing covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
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 →Insights
What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Reading the trend, the classification spread and the citation table together points to where claim space is dense and where it is thinner.
Filing Momentum
-67%
2021 to 2024 filings
Activity has cooled from a 2017 peak
Filings ran at 240 in 2017 and fell to 31 by 2024, the last year with reliable publication coverage. That is a contraction in new filing volume, not evidence the underlying technology has stopped mattering — production of coated abrasives continues regardless of patent activity.
Compare against receiving-office volumes for jurisdiction strategy.
Classification Density
80.6%
of 5,609 records in B24D
Grinding-tool claims dominate the corpus
Four in five records touch B24D, the core grinding-tools and abrasives subclass. C09K materials claims sit at 39.5% and C04B ceramics at 12.7%, meaning process and abrasive-structure claims are far more crowded than adjacent materials chemistry.
Materials-side subclasses look comparatively open by count.
Concentration at the Top
2,312 vs 28
leader vs tenth place, in families
A steep drop after the leading few assignees
The ranked leader holds 2,312 families; by fifth place that figure is already down to 448, and tenth place sits at just 28. The gap between the top of the ranking and the rest is wide enough that most of the 100 ranked companies hold only a handful of families each.
A long tail of single- or few-filing entrants follows the leaders.
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 coated abrasive belt and disc manufacturing, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Coated Abrasive Belt and Disc Manufacturing covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players
Who is active, and where the gate sits
The ranked leaders are concentrated in a small number of large industrial abrasives manufacturers, with momentum data suggesting even the largest filers have slowed recent output.
Leading Position
2,312
families, ranked leader
One assignee holds the largest single share of ranked families
The top-ranked company's family count is roughly five times the fifth-place figure of 448, a gap that suggests a long institutional filing history rather than a recent surge. Recent-year momentum for this group shows year-on-year declines rather than growth.
Long-running portfolios, not recent bursts, explain the lead.
Mid-Tier Cluster
448
families, fifth place
A cluster of established abrasives makers sits behind the leader
Fifth place at 448 families and the drop to 28 by tenth place indicate a small group of established players with meaningful but much smaller portfolios than the leader, followed by a long tail of lighter filers.
Co-assignee pairings suggest shared corporate structures within this cluster.
Recent Momentum
-100%
YoY, several leading assignees
Even top filers show near-zero latest-year output
Several of the most active historical assignees show zero filings in the latest tracked year, with year-on-year changes at or near -100% for some. Combined with publication lag, this understates true recent activity but still points to a slower filing cadence industry-wide.
Read the latest one to two years as provisional, not final.
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| 3M Innovative Properties Company (US) | 1 | -89% |
| 3M Company (US) | 0 | — |
| Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Saint-Gobain Abrasifs S.A. | 0 | -100% |
| Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Norton Company (US) | 0 | — |
| KWH Mirka Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
| Saint-Gobain Abrasives Technology & Services SAS | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Coated Abrasive Belt and Disc Manufacturing covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a mature core claim space with a few underclaimed adjacent branches. The next step is usually to test a specific claim idea against this prior art directly.
Stress-test a claim against this corpus
Run a candidate claim for a backing material or coating process through the same search scope to see how close the nearest prior art sits before drafting.
Explore in EurekaTrack the leading assignees' recent activity
Momentum has slowed across several top filers; monitoring their newest publications flags whether that is a genuine pause or a lag artefact.
Set up monitoring in EurekaMap white space in materials subclasses
C08J, C08G and C08L show lower record shares than the core grinding-tool subclasses, worth a closer look for freedom-to-operate.
Run a white space search in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Coated Abrasive Belt and Disc Manufacturing covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions on this landscape
One assignee leads the ranked list with 2,312 families, well ahead of the fifth-ranked company at 448 and tenth place at just 28. This gap indicates a long-standing, dominant portfolio rather than a recent entrant. The ranking covers 100 companies total, so beyond the leading handful, most assignees hold comparatively few families each, forming a long tail typical of a mature manufacturing field.
Filings peaked in 2017 at 240 and have fallen since, with the 2021-to-2024 span showing a -67% move from 93 to 31 filings. 2024 is the most recent year with reliable data because publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures will rise as more records publish. Read the recent apparent decline cautiously rather than as a settled downward trend.
Grinding tools and abrasives structures, classified under B24D, appear in 80.6% of the 5,609 records in scope, making it by far the densest claim area. Materials for miscellaneous applications (C09K) follow at 39.5%, and ceramics, cement and refractories (C04B) at 12.7%. Because a single patent can carry multiple classifications, these figures overlap rather than sum to a whole, but the ranking shows where claim space is most occupied.
Polymer processing subclasses such as C08J, C08G and C08L each cover under 9% of the 5,609 records in scope, notably lower than the core grinding-tool and materials subclasses. Specific under-claimed areas include supersize additive chemistry, electrostatic coating process control, and loading-resistance surface treatments — branches that support the core abrasive product but are not the primary focus of most filings. A freedom-to-operate search in these specific branches is a reasonable next step before drafting.
Exact concentration percentages are not computable from the available ranking and record-total figures because they are measured in different units, so this landscape does not state one. What is clear is the shape: the leading assignee's 2,312 families dwarf the fifth-place figure of 448, which in turn dwarfs the tenth-place figure of 28. That pattern — a dominant leader, a mid-tier cluster, then a long tail — is typical of an established industrial segment rather than a fragmented emerging one.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Coated Abrasive Belt and Disc Manufacturing covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Coated Abrasive Belt and Disc Manufacturing in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole coated abrasive belt and disc manufacturing 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.