Electron Beam Melting Patents: Who Leads, Filing Trends 2026
- Filing peaked in 2021 at 24 records and has since eased toward 15 by 2022, marking flat-to-declining claim activity rather than sustained growth in this window.
- B22F and B33Y anchor 79 and 72 of 100 families while control systems, optics and AI-based computing each sit in single digits to low double digits — the clearest under-claimed ground.
- General Electric and Concept Laser form the strongest co-assignee pair filing jointly 11 times, the single most concentrated blocking position in the dataset.
What this patent landscape covers
This landscape covers 100 patent families filed between 2015 and 2026 that combine electron beam powder bed fusion or related additive manufacturing with in-process monitoring — melt pool sensing, electron-optical monitoring, or embedded defect detection. The corpus is dominated by powder-bed apparatus claims rather than standalone sensing technology, with B22F and B33Y together touching the large majority of records.
Filing rose from 4 records in 2017 to a peak of 24 in 2021 before easing toward 15 at the 2022 midpoint, and receiving-office data shows the United States as the dominant jurisdiction at 57 records, ahead of the EPO at 24 and WIPO/PCT filings at 7. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent year understates true activity.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
How filing activity and technology focus have shifted
The filing trend and IPC composition together show where claim density has built up and where the field's growth has already cooled.
Filing trend: a peak, then a pullback
Filings rose from 4 in 2017 to a peak of 24 in 2021, then eased to 15 by the 2022 midpoint — a pattern of flat-to-declining activity rather than sustained growth. The most recent year is partial and will read low regardless, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months.
Technology composition: powder-bed and additive manufacturing dominate
B22F (powder metallurgy) and B33Y (additive manufacturing) anchor the field at 79 and 72 records respectively, with B29C (plastics shaping) a distant third at 43. Control systems, optics and AI-based computing each sit in single digits to low double digits, marking them as the thinner, less-claimed branches of the same technology space.
Shares are the percentage of the 100 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Electron Beam Melting Process Monitoring with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about electron beam melting process monitoring and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe families setting the boundaries of this field
Systems and Methods for Simulating Process Monitoring
Describes a system that simulates process monitoring by a sensor system during an additive layer manufacturing process, taking in real sensor data alongside input parameters relating to the process and apparatus to generate a modelled monitoring output, rather than performing live monitoring itself.Filed by Nikon SLM Solutions AG, published 2026-07-23 — the most recent record in this dataset.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2017085468A1 | An additive manufacturing method and apparatus | 79 |
| 2 | US20170027624A1 | DMLS orthopedic intramedullary device and method of manufacture | 77 |
| 3 | US20190022946A1 | An additive manufacturing method and apparatus | 58 |
| 4 | US20200333295A1 | Enhanced non-destructive testing in directed energy material processing | 41 |
| 5 | US20190388128A1 | DMLS orthopedic intramedullary device and method of manufacture | 20 |
| 6 | US20210283717A1 | Systems and methods for compression, management, and analysis of downbeam camera data for an additive machine | 19 |
| 7 | US20180185959A1 | System and methods for fabricating a component based on local thermal conductivity of a build material | 19 |
| 8 | WO2015157703A2 | DMLS orthopedic intramedullary device and method of manufacture | 18 |
| 9 | US20230062971A1 | Apparatus, systems, and methods for monitoring, analyzing, and adjusting additive machine and build health an… | 14 |
| 10 | WO2023111542A1 | Defect identification in additive manufacturing based on time series in-process parameter data | 13 |
Citation counts favour older, earlier-filed records within this searched corpus; treat them as a measure of influence on later filings, 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 filing data signals for R&D and IP strategy
Three patterns stand out once families are read alongside citation weight and recent-year momentum.
Two early apparatus families anchor the prior art
WO2017085468A1 and US20170027624A1, cited 79 and 77 times respectively, function as the reference points nearly everything downstream has to design around. Both predate most monitoring-specific filings in this corpus.
Growth has already cooled from its peak
Filing rose steadily to 24 in 2021 before easing toward 15 at the 2022 midpoint. Combined with several major assignees showing zero filings in the latest year, this reads as a field consolidating around established positions rather than expanding.
Powder-bed hardware claims dominate the classification
B22F and B33Y between them touch the large majority of families, meaning most granted and pending claims tie monitoring methods directly to powder-bed apparatus rather than treating sensing as a standalone technology.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to electron beam melting process monitoring, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where activity is slowing
Ranking by family count shows a small set of repeat filers and a long tail of single-appearance assignees, with recent-year momentum tilting toward inactivity even among the largest holders.
General Electric and Concept Laser
The strongest co-assignee relationship in the dataset, with 11 joint filings concentrated in powder-bed apparatus claims — the deepest single blocking position identified in this corpus.
Nikon SLM Solutions
The only assignee in the momentum data with a filing in the latest year, via the simulation-of-monitoring family US20260208267A1 — a narrower, downstream claim relative to the core sensing apparatus art.
Major holders have gone quiet recently
General Electric, Concept Laser, Smith & Nephew and Renishaw all show zero filings in the latest year, with General Electric down -100% year-on-year — consistent with the broader post-2021 filing decline.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Nikon SLM Solutions AG | 1 | — |
| General Electric Company | 0 | -100% |
| Concept Laser GmbH | 0 | — |
| Smith & Nephew, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Renishaw plc | 0 | — |
| THE RES FOUNDATION FOR THE STATE UNIV OF NEW YORK | 0 | -100% |
| EOS GmbH Electro Optical Systems | 0 | — |
| University of Pittsburgh – Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The filing and citation patterns point to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, white space filing, or competitive tracking.
Run a freedom-to-operate check against the core apparatus claims
Start with the two most-cited families rather than the newest filings — WO2017085468A1 and US20170027624A1 anchor the prior art that most later monitoring claims had to work around.
Check claim overlap in EurekaDraft around the thinner IPC branches
G06N, G02B and G05B carry a fraction of the records that B22F and B33Y do, leaving room for claims that tie AI-based defect classification directly to closed-loop parameter correction.
Map white space in EurekaTrack assignee momentum, not just cumulative counts
Several major holders show zero filings in the latest year; watching who resumes filing first is a better early signal than the historical ranking alone.
Set up assignee alerts in EurekaCommon questions on electron beam melting process monitoring patents
It refers to patent families covering in-process sensing and defect detection during electron beam powder bed fusion, a metal additive manufacturing technique. In this dataset, the core claims combine powder-bed hardware (IPC class B22F) with monitoring methods such as electron-optical sensing, melt pool imaging or embedded non-destructive testing. Most families also touch B33Y, the general additive manufacturing classification, since the monitoring is built into or added onto a 3D printing apparatus.
Filing activity is concentrated among a small group of assignees with repeated filings, including General Electric and Concept Laser, which also appear as the strongest co-assignee pair in the dataset with 11 joint filings. Other recurring names include Nikon SLM Solutions, Renishaw, Smith & Nephew and Arcam. Beyond this group the ranking has a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants, typical of a field where core apparatus claims were staked out early.
Filing activity peaked in 2021 at 24 records and has since declined toward 15 at the 2022 midpoint, suggesting the field is flat or contracting rather than expanding. This does not necessarily mean commercial interest has faded — high early filing density often means the core apparatus and sensing claims were already staked out, leaving less open ground for new baseline patents. Recent-year momentum by assignee also shows several major holders, including General Electric, with no filings in the latest year.
The thinnest IPC branches relative to the technology's core are G06N (AI-based computing, 8 records), G02B (optics, 9 records) and G05B (control and regulating systems, 10 records). This suggests machine-learning-based defect classification, the specific optical acquisition hardware, and closed-loop correction of build parameters in response to detected defects are all under-claimed relative to how central they are to deploying the technology commercially. A first claim combining real-time defect classification with an automatic build-parameter correction step would sit in largely open territory based on current filing density.
US20260208267A1, filed by Nikon SLM Solutions and published 2026-07-23, claims a system for simulating process monitoring rather than monitoring a live build — it takes sensor data and apparatus/process parameters as input to generate a simulated monitoring output. This is narrower in scope than the live melt-pool sensing and non-destructive testing claims that dominate the most-cited prior art in this dataset, such as WO2017085468A1 and US20200333295A1. Companies building simulation, calibration or digital-twin tools for EBM monitoring should review its data-input and parameter-coupling language closely; companies building live sensing hardware are less directly implicated.
Research Electron Beam Melting Process Monitoring in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole electron beam melting process monitoring 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.