Urban Resource Mapping Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
Filing growth compares 2021 (5 records) with 2024 (28) — 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 179 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What Urban Resource Mapping patents cover
Urban Resource Mapping sits at the intersection of geospatial data processing, AI-driven analytics and municipal infrastructure planning. Filings in this space describe systems for locating, quantifying and modelling recoverable resources — from waste streams to green infrastructure — across urban terrain, typically by combining sensor or imagery inputs with software models that classify, predict or visualise resource distribution. The dataset spans 179 published records from 2015 through mid-2026, with the bulk of activity concentrated in the past five years as machine-learning and remote-sensing components became standard parts of the claim set.
Most applicants describe a mapping or prediction pipeline rather than a physical recovery apparatus — the hardware end of urban mining is claimed elsewhere; this landscape is about the data layer that tells operators where to look.
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend chart will understate real filing activity — treat 2025 and 2026 as still filling in rather than as a plateau or decline.
Filing trend and technology mix
The record set covers 179 published filings tracked by receiving office, assignee and IPC subclass, giving a view of who is filing, where, and under which technical framing.
A steep four-year run-up, still being written
Annual filings rose from 5 in 2021 to 28 in 2024, a +460% increase over that span — the sharpest sustained climb in the dataset's history. 2025 shows 54 filings, the highest year on record, but because publication trails filing by around 18 months, 2025 and 2026 figures are not yet final and should not be read as a peak or a slowdown.
Business-logic and AI classes dominate; positioning stays thin
G06Q (business, commerce & admin data processing) appears on 48.0% of the 179 records and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 35.2%, indicating that most filings frame urban resource mapping as a data-management or decision-support problem. G06N (AI-based computing) reaches 26.3%, well ahead of image-specific classes G06T (12.8%) and G06V (12.3%). Positioning and sensing technology under G01S covers only 6.1% of records, the thinnest layer in the stack.
Shares are the percentage of the 179 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Resource Recovery & Urban Mining: Urban Resource Mapping Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about resource recovery & urban mining: urban resource mapping patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA representative filing and the most-cited prior art
Devices, systems, and methods for predicting the growth of urban landscape trees (US20240164259A1)
The subject invention pertains to systems and methods for cost effective evaluation of the suitability of tree growth in a planting area before planting, factoring in water, heat and soil-nutrient conditions. A plug-and-play sensor unit captures environmental data to drive a growth model, letting an operator simulate a tree's future growth before committing to planting.Filed by Nanjing Normal University, published 2024-05-23 — illustrates how urban mapping claims now extend into ecological asset planning, not just waste or material recovery.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20130073387A1 | System and method for providing educational related social/geo/promo link promotional data sets for end user … | 666 |
| 2 | US20190354873A1 | Analysis system and hydrology management for basin rivers | 246 |
| 3 | US20050022139A1 | Information display | 219 |
| 4 | US20070174152A1 | Handheld system for information acquisition, verification, recording, processing, display and communication | 111 |
| 5 | US20040133347A1 | Automated resource management system (ARMSTM) | 44 |
| 6 | CN106296655A | 基于自适应权值和高频阈值的SAR图像变化检测方法 | 35 |
| 7 | EP3534187A2 | Process and system for hydrological analysis and management for river basins | 32 |
| 8 | US20200142047A1 | Spatial imaging using wireless networks | 23 |
| 9 | CN111598427A | 一种城市轨道交通站点重要度评价方法 | 20 |
| 10 | WO2024201447A2 | Gahnic asclepius: integrated remote diagnostic and surgical system using cross-technology solutions | 18 |
Citation counts favour older documents simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations inside the searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence, not of present-day importance.
Patent titles are shown in the language they were filed in, not translated, so that each record stays verifiable against the original filing — a translated title will not match in Eureka or in any national register. 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 the ranking, the trend line and the technology mix are read together.
No single gatekeeper controls the field
The leading assignee holds just 7 records and the fifth-ranked entity only 4. With the top 10 combined at 23.5% of all 179 records, this is a fragmented field of many small filers rather than a few dominant portfolios — a favourable setting for a new entrant to stake a defensible position rather than license around an incumbent.
Filing volume is still accelerating, not plateauing
Annual filings rose from 5 in 2021 to 28 in 2024, a +460% increase, with 2025 recording the highest count in the dataset at 54. Because publication lags filing by about 18 months, the true 2025-2026 volume is understated in the chart — this is a technology area still in its filing ramp, not one settling down.
Most claims are framed as data and business logic, not sensing
Nearly half of all records touch G06Q (business/admin data processing) and over a third touch G06F, while positioning and radar/sonar technology (G01S) appears in only 6.1% of records. The claim space is currently weighted toward how data is processed and monetised rather than how it is physically captured — a gap for filers with sensing or positioning IP.
Filing activity is anchored in two receiving offices
China (62 records) and India (58 records) together account for the large majority of filing activity, well ahead of the United States (19), EPO (10), WIPO/PCT (7) and Australia (5). Strategies built around US or European enforcement should note that most of the prior art they will be measured against was filed through Chinese or Indian offices.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to resource recovery & urban mining: urban resource mapping patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Serepay International Limited | MORRIS NICOLE | 1 |
| Serepay International Limited | GETTMAN DAVID | 1 |
| Serepay International Limited | BROWNLEE DAVID | 1 |
Only 3 co-assignee pairs appear across the corpus, and each of the strongest pairs shares just one filing — co-development partnerships are not yet a meaningful feature of this landscape.
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a fragmented, fast-growing field with a specific gap around sensing and positioning claims. The next steps depend on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio building or competitive tracking.
Map the G01S and sensing gap in detail
With positioning and radar/sonar classes covering only 6.1% of records against 48.0% for business-logic claims, a focused search of the sensing layer could surface underclaimed subclasses worth an early filing.
Explore the technology tree in EurekaWatch the fragmented leader board for consolidation
No assignee holds more than 7 records; track whether the top-10 share (currently 23.5% of 179 records) grows as the 2025-2026 filing wave gets published in full.
Set up assignee tracking in EurekaCheck freedom-to-operate against the most-cited prior art
The most-cited records in this corpus date back a decade or more; run a targeted clearance check against them before finalising claim scope in mapping or geo-analytics features.
Run a clearance search in EurekaCommon questions about Urban Resource Mapping patents
There are 179 published records in this dataset, spanning 2015 through mid-2026. Filing activity was low in the early years — only 3 records in 2017 — and accelerated sharply from 2021 onward, rising from 5 filings that year to 28 in 2024, a +460% increase. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 counts shown in any chart are still incomplete and will rise as more filings publish.
The field is fragmented rather than led by a dominant player: the top-ranked assignee holds only 7 records out of 179, and the fifth-ranked entity holds just 4. The 10 leading assignees combined account for 23.5% of all records, meaning roughly three-quarters of filings come from entities outside that group. This is a favourable sign for new entrants, since no single portfolio currently blocks broad swathes of the claim space.
China leads with 62 records and India follows closely with 58, together accounting for the large majority of the 179 records in scope. The United States (19), European Patent Office (10), WIPO under the PCT (7) and Australia (5) trail well behind. Anyone assessing freedom-to-operate in Western markets should still review the China- and India-originated filings, since many describe the same technical approaches and can be cited as prior art internationally.
Business and administrative data-processing logic under IPC class G06Q appears in 48.0% of the 179 records, making it the single most common technical framing, followed by general digital data processing (G06F) at 35.2% and AI-based computing (G06N) at 26.3%. Image and video recognition classes (G06T, G06V) each sit near 12-13%, while positioning and sensing technology (G01S) covers only 6.1% of records. This distribution shows the field is currently claimed mostly as a software and analytics layer rather than as sensing hardware.
Yes, based on the technology composition: positioning and radar/sonar sensing (G01S) and wireless/network transport layers (H04W, H04L) each cover under 9% of the 179 records, far below the 48.0% share held by business-data-processing claims. Combined with a fragmented assignee base where the top 10 hold only 23.5% of records, this suggests sensing-integration and communications-layer claims around urban resource mapping remain comparatively open. A prospective filer should still run a clearance search against the most-cited prior art before committing to specific claim language.
Research Resource Recovery & Urban Mining: Urban Resource Mapping Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole resource recovery & urban mining: urban resource mapping patent landscape 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.