Cone Crusher Chamber Optimization Patents: Leaders & Trends 2026
- Filing has cooled sharply since its 2018 peak. the leading year on record hit 21 filings, and the 2021-to-2024 span alone fell 67% (12 to 4), even before accounting for publication lag.
- The top five assignees hold just over a third of the field. 102 of 277 records (36.8%) sit with five companies, with the leader alone at 31 — concentrated, but far from a monopoly.
- Crushing hardware still dominates the IPC mix. B02C (crushing, grinding & pulverising) covers 65.7% of records, while imaging, material analysis and AI-based computing classes each sit under 10%.
Filing growth compares 2021 (12 records) with 2024 (4) — 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 277 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Cone crusher chamber optimization sits at the intersection of mechanical design and process control: liner and mantle geometry, eccentric throw mechanisms, choke-feed regimes, and the sensing and computation layered on top to hold power draw and product shape in check. This dataset pulls 277 published records filed or published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine core crusher-chamber terms with the operating variables that actually determine chamber performance — interparticle breakage, choke feeding, flakiness index, power draw, wear compensation and reduction ratio.
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend line will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be. The patterns below are read from the years that have had time to settle.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 277 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the technical substance.
A 2018 peak followed by a multi-year pullback
Filings ran from 13 in 2017 to a peak of 21 in 2018, then eased. The clearest recent signal is the 2021-to-2024 span, where filings fell from 12 to 4 — a 67% drop over three years. 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in under the usual publication lag and should not be read as a continuation of that decline until more data lands.
Crushing hardware dominates; adjacent classes stay thin
B02C (crushing, grinding & pulverising) appears in 65.7% of the 277 records — the mechanical core of the field. Image processing (G06T, 9.0%), material analysis (G01N, 8.3%) and AI-based computing (G06N, 3.6%) each touch a minority of records, marking sensing and modelling as supporting rather than dominant technical threads. Records can carry more than one class, so these shares add up past 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 277 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Cone Crusher Chamber Optimization with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about cone crusher chamber optimization and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this space
US6213418B1 — Variable throw eccentric cone crusher and method for operating the same
A variable throw eccentric cone crusher comprising a frame, a crusher head supported for gyration about a first axis, a bowl in spaced relation to the head, and a mechanism for varying the eccentricity of that gyration. An eccentric member engages the crusher head and pivots about a second axis radially offset from the first, and is adjustable to vary the head's gyration eccentricity.Filed by Martin Marietta Materials; published 2001-04-10.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20040035967A1 | Gyratory crusher with hydrostatic bearings | 81 |
| 2 | US20020096661A1 | Process for producing a carbon material for an electric double layer capacitor electrode, and processes for p… | 72 |
| 3 | US20050269436A1 | Cone rock crusher | 53 |
| 4 | US6213418B1 | Variable throw eccentric cone crusher and method for operating the same | 53 |
| 5 | US4750681A | Apparatus for high performance conical crushing | 53 |
| 6 | US5580003A | Method for controlling a gyratory crusher | 52 |
| 7 | WO2020049517A1 | Monitoring ore | 45 |
| 8 | US20130102750A1 | Method for producing polyacrylic acid (SALT)-based water absorbent resin powder | 45 |
| 9 | US4697745A | Method and apparatus for high performance conical crushing | 42 |
| 10 | US5482218A | Rock crushing apparatus and method | 37 |
Citation counts favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate references — treat them as a signal of influence within this corpus, not of current technical importance.
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 say about this field
Three read-outs from the dataset that matter for anyone deciding where to file or who to watch.
Top five hold a third, not a lock
The top five assignees combine for 102 of 277 records (36.8%), with the leader at 31 filings. That leaves the majority of the field spread across a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants — enough concentration to know who to watch, not enough to call the space closed.
A real pullback, read with care
Filings dropped from 12 in 2021 to 4 in 2024, a 67% decline over the three-year span. That is the last window clean of publication lag; 2025-2026 counts are still incomplete and should not yet be read as an extension of the trend.
Mechanical claims still anchor the field
B02C covers nearly two-thirds of records, confirming that chamber geometry, liner wear and eccentric mechanisms remain the primary claim territory. Sensing and computation classes — G06T, G01N, G06N — each sit under 10%, suggesting those layers are additive rather than the field's centre of gravity.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to cone crusher chamber optimization, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The ranked list covers 95 companies across all 277 records — not a top-50 or top-100 cut, but the full set the data returns.
A clear single leader
The top-ranked assignee holds 31 records, well ahead of fifth place at 14 and tenth place at 8 — a steep early drop-off that flattens quickly into the long tail.
The field thins out fast
By the tenth-ranked assignee, filing counts have already fallen to single digits relative to the leader, and the top ten together account for 56.7% of all records — meaning over 40% of activity is spread thinly across the remaining 85 ranked companies.
Co-filing is rare and localized
Only seven co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest recurring pairings involve the same few names — a sign that most chamber-optimization work is filed solo rather than through joint development structures.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Nordberg Inc | 0 | — |
| Metso Outotec Finland Oy | 0 | -100% |
| McCloskey International Ltd | 0 | — |
| PINTAT BENOIT | 0 | — |
| Metso Minerals France | 0 | — |
| Kleemann GmbH | 0 | -100% |
| Amcor Limited | 0 | — |
| Nippon Shokubai Co Ltd | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a field with a settled mechanical core and a thinner, more open layer of sensing and control claims above it.
Check freedom-to-operate on chamber sensing claims
With G06T, G01N and G06N each under 10% of records, a targeted search around real-time flakiness or wear sensing may surface fewer blocking claims than the crowded B02C core.
Run a freedom-to-operate search in EurekaTrack the top assignees' next filings
With the top five holding 36.8% of records and momentum data showing several leaders at zero filings in the latest year, a shift by any one of them would be visible early.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaMap citation influence against current claims
The most-cited records date back years; verify whether their core claims (like the variable-throw eccentric mechanism) still constrain new chamber designs or have aged out of relevance.
Explore citation trees in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
One assignee leads with 31 records out of 277 in this dataset, noticeably ahead of the fifth-ranked company at 14. The top five combined hold 36.8% of all records, so while there is a clear leader, the majority of filings are spread across a long tail of 95 ranked companies. Anyone assessing competitive risk should look at both the leader's portfolio and the broader spread, since a third of the field being concentrated still leaves most of it open.
Filings peaked at 21 in 2018 and have declined since, with the clearest recent measure being a 67% drop from 12 filings in 2021 to 4 in 2024. That 2021-2024 window is the most reliable recent signal because publication lag of roughly 18 months means 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete. It would be premature to call the field dead on the strength of the newest years alone; the honest read is a real pullback through 2024 with an unclear trajectory beyond it.
B02C, the core crushing, grinding and pulverising classification, appears in 65.7% of the 277 records, confirming that mechanical chamber design — liner geometry, mantle wear, eccentric throw mechanisms — remains the field's centre of gravity. Supporting technologies show up at much lower shares: image processing at 9.0%, material analysis at 8.3%, and AI-based computing at 3.6%. This suggests sensing and computational layers are additive features on top of mechanical claims rather than a separate dominant category.
The technology composition data points to sensing and control as thinner ground: image-based flakiness measurement, wear-compensating liner control, and AI-driven power-draw prediction each sit under 10% of records compared to 65.7% for core crushing hardware. Co-filing is also rare, with only seven co-assignee pairs across the entire dataset, suggesting little joint development activity to compete against in those adjacent areas. A first claim combining real-time sensing feedback with chamber geometry adjustment would be filing into comparatively open territory, though a freedom-to-operate check remains essential before committing.
US6213418B1, filed by Martin Marietta Materials, claims a variable throw eccentric cone crusher: a frame-supported crusher head that gyrates about a first axis, with a mechanism to vary that gyration's eccentricity via an eccentric member pivoting about a radially offset second axis. It is one of the most-cited records in this dataset at 53 citations, indicating strong downstream influence on later filings. Anyone designing a variable-eccentricity chamber mechanism should review this claim scope closely, though citation volume reflects the patent's age and influence within this corpus rather than a current-day infringement determination, which requires its own legal analysis.
Research Cone Crusher Chamber Optimization in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole cone crusher chamber optimization 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.