Onboard Charger Design Optimization Patents: Trends & White Space 2026
- A sharp peak, then a fade. filings spiked to 15 in 2019 and have since dropped to near zero, with the 2022 midpoint at just 1 record.
- Power conversion is a minority claim. H02M covers only 9 of 25 records against 17 in B60L, meaning most filings frame the charger as a vehicle-propulsion feature, not a power-electronics one.
- The US is the dominant filing venue. 13 of the receiving-office filings went to the USPTO, more than double the EPO's 5, with WIPO PCT filings at only 3.
What this landscape covers
Onboard charger design optimization sits at the intersection of power electronics and vehicle systems engineering: converter topology choices, efficiency tuning, and power-density packaging for the charger that sits inside an electric or hybrid vehicle. The dataset behind this page pulls 25 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026 that explicitly claim topology, efficiency, or power-density optimization for onboard or on-board chargers. That is a narrow, deliberately filtered slice of a much larger EV power electronics literature, which is why the counts here are small relative to the wider battery or motor-control space.
The technology composition skews toward vehicle-level integration rather than pure power-electronics claims: B60L (electric vehicle propulsion) accounts for 17 of 25 records, roughly double H02M (power conversion), with B60W hybrid control and H01M battery claims each appearing in 5 records. That mix suggests most applicants are protecting the charger as one subsystem inside a broader powertrain or battery-management claim, not as a standalone converter design.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 25-family dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
A 2019 peak that has not returned
Filings rose from zero in 2017 to a peak of 15 in 2019, then collapsed toward the midpoint of just 1 record in 2022 and have stayed flat or declining since. Because publication lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent years are understated, but the drop-off predates that lag and looks structural rather than a reporting artefact.
Vehicle-propulsion framing dominates over pure power electronics
B60L leads with 17 of 25 records, more than any other subclass and nearly double H02M's 9. Supporting classes — B60W, H01M, B60K, H02J, F16H and H02H — each appear in single digits, indicating that onboard-charger optimization claims are typically bundled into broader propulsion, battery, or drivetrain filings rather than filed as dedicated power-conversion patents.
Shares are the percentage of the 25 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Onboard Charger Design Optimization with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about onboard charger design optimization and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this set
Mobility apparatus and a method for controlling driving current for the same
A mobility apparatus with dual high-voltage batteries — one fixed, one detachably connected through a DC/DC converter — where a controller determines driver torque demand and distributes current between the two sources. The detachable second battery extends range without permanently adding to onboard mass, and the controller manages the DC/DC link between the two power paths.Filed by Hyundai Motor Company, published 2025-03-20.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20190348833A1 | Module of suppressing inrush current, method of controlling the same and on-board bidirectional charger using… | 39 |
| 2 | US20180372200A1 | Control strategies for hybrid electric powertrain configurations with a ball variator used as a powersplit e-… | 29 |
| 3 | WO2017106410A1 | Control strategies for hybrid electric powertrain configurations with a ball variator used as a powersplit e-… | 24 |
| 4 | US20190341608A1 | Range-extended electric vehicles having lithium titanate oxide (LTO) battery with super high charge and disch… | 15 |
| 5 | US20190337408A1 | Method for controlling range-extended electric vehicles having lithium titanate oxide (LTO) battery with supe… | 9 |
| 6 | US20230034418A1 | Model Predictive Control of a Motor Vehicle | 6 |
| 7 | EP3567711A1 | Module of suppressing inrush current, method of controlling the same and on-board bidirectional charger using… | 6 |
| 8 | US11088538B2 | Module of suppressing inrush current, method of controlling the same and on-board bidirectional charger using… | 2 |
| 9 | US20250091481A1 | Mobility apparatus and a method for controlling driving current for the same | 1 |
| 10 | US20260048683A1 | Electric vehicle range extender integration | 1 |
Citation counts are drawn from the searched corpus and favour older filings; treat them as a signal of influence on subsequent filers, 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 numbers say about this space
Three patterns stand out once the filing trend, IPC spread and citation data are read together.
Activity peaked once and has not recovered
The filing trend shows 15 records in 2019, the single peak across the 2015-2026 window, collapsing to just 1 record by the 2022 midpoint. That is a sharper drop than gradual maturation would produce, suggesting a cluster of related filings around 2019 rather than sustained R&D investment.
Chargers are claimed as vehicle features, not converters
B60L (EV propulsion) carries 17 of 25 records against 9 in H02M (power conversion). Applicants are more often protecting the charger's role inside a propulsion or battery system than filing dedicated power-electronics topology claims, which leaves converter-level claim space comparatively open.
Filing activity is US-centred
The USPTO received 13 filings, more than double the EPO's 5 and well ahead of WIPO PCT's 3. Germany, Austria and India each show single-digit counts. Applicants pursuing this technology have prioritised US protection well ahead of broad international PCT coverage.
Inrush-current suppression leads on influence
The most-cited family in this set addresses inrush current suppression in a bidirectional onboard charger, cited 39 times, ahead of powertrain ball-variator filings cited 29 and 24 times. Citation counts favour older records inside this corpus, so read this as historical influence rather than current commercial weight.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to onboard charger design optimization, with the prior art for and against each one.
Assignee landscape and where activity has gone quiet
Across 25 families, activity has concentrated among a handful of automotive OEMs and a few power-electronics suppliers, with no assignee showing growth in the latest recorded year.
No assignee is currently active
Every tracked assignee — including Delta Electronics, Kia, Hyundai, ZF Friedrichshafen and Tesla — shows 0 filings in the latest recorded year. Tesla's momentum figure shows a -100% year-over-year change, consistent with the broader post-2019 decline across this dataset.
Filing is largely solo, not joint
The strongest co-assignee pairing in the dataset — Kia and Hyundai, appearing together on 2 records — is also the only pairing that surfaces. Most families in this set carry a single named assignee, with little evidence of cross-company co-filing on charger optimization claims specifically.
US filings outnumber European by more than 2:1
With 13 US filings against 5 at the EPO and 3 via WIPO PCT, protection strategy in this set leans heavily domestic-US, with European and international coverage treated as secondary rather than a parallel-filing default.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Delta Electronics, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Zhengdao Automobile Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Tesla, Inc. (USA) | 0 | -100% |
| Kia Corporation | 0 | — |
| Hyundai Motor Company | 0 | — |
| ZF Friedrichshafen AG | 0 | — |
| DANA LTD | 0 | — |
| GM Global Technology Operations LLC | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The filing trend and claim composition raise questions that a static table cannot answer on its own.
Track whether the 2019 peak was a filing cluster or a policy trigger
A jump to 15 filings in a single year followed by a near-complete drop-off is unusual enough to warrant checking whether it lines up with a regulatory deadline, an incentive programme, or a single applicant's filing burst.
Explore filing history in EurekaMap the converter-level claim space directly
With H02M carrying under half the records that B60L does, a dedicated search on topology and efficiency claims alone — separated from vehicle-propulsion framing — would clarify how open the pure power-electronics space actually is.
Run a focused claim search in EurekaWatch for renewed activity from quiet assignees
Every tracked assignee shows zero filings in the latest year. A renewed filing from Delta Electronics, Tesla, or the Kia-Hyundai pairing would be a meaningful signal that this space is reactivating.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
The dataset shows filings rising to 15 in 2019 from zero in 2017, then falling to just 1 by the 2022 midpoint and staying flat or declining since. This pattern is sharper than typical technology maturation, which usually shows a gradual plateau rather than a near-total collapse. It is worth checking this against external factors such as a regulatory deadline or incentive window that may have prompted a filing cluster around 2019, since the raw counts alone cannot confirm the cause. Publication lag of roughly 18 months means the very latest years are always undercounted, but that lag does not explain a drop that begins well before the most recent filing years.
Activity in this 25-family dataset concentrates among a small group of automotive OEMs and power-electronics suppliers, including Kia, Hyundai, Tesla, ZF Friedrichshafen and Delta Electronics. Kia and Hyundai form the only meaningful co-assignee pairing identified, appearing together on 2 records, which suggests some shared filing strategy between the two. Every one of these tracked assignees shows zero filings in the latest recorded year, so none currently holds a growing filing position. Anyone assessing competitive risk here should treat this as a historically active but currently dormant field rather than one with an ongoing filing race.
The IPC composition suggests real headroom in dedicated power-conversion claims: H02M (power conversion) carries only 9 of 25 records against 17 in B60L (EV propulsion), meaning most existing claims frame the charger as part of a vehicle or battery system rather than as a standalone converter. Narrower subclasses such as H02H (protective circuits, 2 records) and F16H (gearing, 3 records) are even thinner. High density in B60L means vehicle-integration claim space is occupied, but it does not mean the underlying power-electronics topology space is equally crowded. A focused prior-art search restricted to H02M claims would give a clearer read on exactly how open that space is.
US20250091481A1, filed by Hyundai Motor Company and published 2025-03-20, claims a mobility apparatus with two high-voltage batteries — one fixed and one detachably connected through a DC/DC converter — with a controller distributing torque-driven current demand between them. It does not claim onboard charger topology or efficiency optimization directly; its core claim is the dual-battery current-distribution architecture and the detachable-battery DC/DC link. Anyone designing a single-battery charger optimization system, or a fixed dual-battery system without the detachable connector, sits outside its core claims. A design that adds a detachable auxiliary battery through a DC/DC path with torque-based current splitting is the configuration most likely to need a freedom-to-operate check against this filing.
US20190348833A1, covering inrush-current suppression in a bidirectional onboard charger, is the most-cited record in this set at 39 citations, ahead of two related ball-variator hybrid-powertrain filings cited 29 and 24 times. High citation counts here reflect influence on later filers within the searched corpus, and citation counts inside any searched corpus favour older records simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations. That means these figures are a useful map of which prior art examiners and applicants have repeatedly cited, but they should not be read as a ranking of which patents matter most commercially today. A filer should treat the inrush-current suppression claim as foundational prior art to search around, not as a current market signal on its own.
Research Onboard Charger Design Optimization in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole onboard charger design 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.