Optical 3D Scanning Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 52.1% concentration. The top 5 of 58 ranked assignees hold 50 of the 96 records in scope — over half the field sits with a handful of filers.
- Filing has cooled from its 2017 peak. After 30 records in 2017, activity fell to 4 by 2024, a -69% move from 2021's 13 — though 2025-26 figures are still filling in.
- Surgical and imaging overlap dominates. G01B measurement claims cover 56.3% of records, but A61B diagnosis/surgery still touches 36.5% — scanning claims are heavily entangled with medical device filings.
Filing growth compares 2021 (13 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 96 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the optical 3D scanning patent record shows
Optical 3D scanning spans structured light projection, fringe projection metrology and point-cloud processing methods used across surgical guidance, additive manufacturing quality checks and industrial inspection. The 96 records in scope, filed between 2015 and 2026, cluster around measurement accuracy (G01B), image processing pipelines (G06T) and a substantial surgical-guidance branch (A61B) that pulls scanning claims into medical device territory.
Filing concentrated early in the window, peaking in 2017, then declined through the early 2020s. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the last one to two years in the trend understate real activity — treat the tail as incomplete rather than as a genuine drop-off beyond what the 2021-2024 figures already show.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 96-record dataset: the yearly filing curve, and how records distribute across IPC subclasses. Both are drawn from the full set in scope, not a sample.
Filing trend, 2015-2026
Filings peaked at 30 in 2017 and eased to single digits by the mid-2020s; the 2021-to-2024 span alone shows a -69% move (13 to 4), and years after 2024 are still being published.
IPC subclass composition
G01B measurement claims appear in 56.3% of the 96 records, G06T image processing in 45.8%, and A61B surgical claims in 36.5%; because records carry multiple classes these shares overlap rather than sum to 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 96 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Optical 3D Scanning with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about optical 3d scanning and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this dataset
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20130060146A1 | System and methods for intraoperative guidance feedback | 841 |
| 2 | US6064759A | Computer aided inspection machine | 613 |
| 3 | US9119670B2 | System and methods for intraoperative guidance feedback | 234 |
| 4 | WO2011134083A1 | System and methods for intraoperative guidance feedback | 223 |
| 5 | US9919360B2 | Accurate three-dimensional printing | 164 |
| 6 | US9931697B2 | Accurate three-dimensional printing | 141 |
| 7 | US10434573B2 | Accurate three-dimensional printing | 139 |
| 8 | US20170239719A1 | Accurate three-dimensional printing | 135 |
| 9 | US10252335B2 | Accurate three-dimensional printing | 132 |
| 10 | US6449048B1 | Lateral-scanning interferometer with tilted optical axis | 127 |
Citation counts reflect influence within this searched corpus and skew toward older filings; they are not a measure 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 mean for filing strategy
Three patterns stand out once concentration, timing and technology overlap are read together.
The field is top-heavy but not closed
With 52.1% of all 96 records held by the top 5 of 58 ranked assignees, and the leader alone on 20, new entrants are filing into a space where claim density is already high around core measurement methods. The long tail of single-record filers suggests niche applications (surgical, dental, industrial inspection) still have room.
Activity has cooled from its 2017 peak
Filings fell from 30 in 2017 to 4 by 2024, a -69% move over the 2021-2024 span. Publication lag means the most recent years understate true activity, but the multi-year decline through 2024 itself is real and worth factoring into freedom-to-operate timing.
Surgical guidance is a distinct sub-market
More than a third of records combine scanning claims with A61B surgical/diagnostic classification, and the single most-cited record in the set is a surgical guidance feedback system. Firms filing industrial-only scanning claims are not competing directly with this surgical cluster, and vice versa.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to optical 3d scanning, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the claim space is still open
The ranked leaders hold a majority of records, but recent-year momentum has slowed across the board — none of the tracked assignees show filings in the latest year, consistent with the broader publication-lag pattern.
A single filer holds roughly a fifth of the field
The top-ranked assignee's 20 records is more than double the fifth-place holder's 5, indicating a genuine leader rather than a tightly bunched top group.
The top 10 account for three-quarters of filings
Combined, the top 10 of 58 ranked assignees hold 72 records — 75.0% of all 96 in scope — leaving a genuine long tail of single- or low-filing entrants for the remaining quarter.
Co-filing is rare and narrow
Only 6 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, with the strongest pairing linked at 4 shared records — collaboration is the exception, not the norm, in this field.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Velo3D, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Ryerson University | 0 | — |
| Dentsply Sirona Inc. | 0 | — |
| 3Shape A/S | 0 | — |
| Hexagon Technology Center | 0 | — |
| Saccade Vision Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Nanyang Technological University | 0 | — |
| DRAKE PRECISION OPTICS INC | 0 | — |
Where to take this next
The landscape points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, competitive tracking or claim drafting.
Map claims against the under-claimed branches
Surface compensation, registration error correction and point-cloud filtering show thinner density than core measurement claims — worth a closer read before drafting.
Explore white space in EurekaTrack the leader's continuation filings
With one assignee holding 20 of 96 records, monitoring their continuation and divisional activity gives early warning of claim scope shifts.
Set up assignee tracking in EurekaWatch the surgical-guidance cluster separately
A61B overlap at 36.5% of records suggests surgical scanning claims deserve their own freedom-to-operate review, distinct from industrial inspection claims.
Run a focused search in EurekaFrequently asked questions
Within the 96 records in this dataset, one assignee leads with 20 records, more than double the fifth-placed holder's 5. The top 5 of 58 ranked assignees together hold 52.1% of all records, and the top 10 hold 75.0%. That leaves a long tail of single- or low-filing entrants covering the remaining quarter of the field.
Filings peaked at 30 records in 2017 and declined to 4 by 2024, a -69% change over the 2021-2024 span. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025-26 figures are still incomplete and should not be read as a continued crash — but the multi-year decline through 2024 is a genuine trend worth planning around.
Measurement and dimensioning claims under G01B appear in 56.3% of the 96 records, image data processing under G06T in 45.8%, and surgical/diagnostic applications under A61B in 36.5%. Additive manufacturing (B33Y) and powder metallurgy (B22F) also show meaningful overlap, reflecting scanning's role in 3D-printing quality inspection. Because records carry multiple IPC classes, these shares overlap rather than sum to 100%.
Relative to the dense core measurement and imaging classes, sub-areas like shiny-surface compensation, registration error correction, real-time point cloud density filtering and nominal-versus-actual comparison workflows show thinner claim density in this dataset. These are technically specific enough to be worth a closer freedom-to-operate check before drafting new claims there. They sit adjacent to, rather than inside, the most crowded measurement claim space.
The most-cited record in this dataset is a family covering intraoperative guidance feedback systems, led by US20130060146A1 with 841 citations within this corpus, followed by related family members and an older inspection-machine patent, US6064759A, at 613 citations. High citation counts here reflect influence within the searched corpus and skew toward older filings, so they should be read as a signal of historical influence rather than current commercial weight.
Research Optical 3D Scanning in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole optical 3d scanning 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.