Fastest
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 →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/scrap-characterization-and-charging-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Steelmaking FurnacesScrap Characterization and Charging Patents: Who Files, Who Leads
- Concentrated at the top. the top 5 assignees account for 79.4% of all 34 records in scope, while the top 10 cover the field entirely.
- Sorting is the growth edge. B07C postal & object sorting shows up in 20.6% of records even though C21C steelmaking dominates the class mix at 70.6%.
- Filing is thin and recent. the peak year so far is 2024 with 7 filings, too short a run to call a growth rate.
34
Published Records
79%
Top-5 Share of All Records
US
Leading Jurisdiction
10
Active Filers Ranked
Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 34 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
Scrap characterization and charging sits at the intersection of steelmaking metallurgy and materials sorting: patents here claim ways to measure, classify and blend scrap so that tramp elements such as copper do not degrade the resulting steel. The search string pulls records that combine scrap-quality language ("steel scrap sorting", "tramp element", "copper contamination") with process language ("charge mix optimization", "scrap bulk density", "metallic yield loss"), which is why the corpus spans both classic steelmaking process claims and newer sensor-based sorting claims.
The dataset in scope totals 34 published records dated between 2015-01-01 and 2026-07-31. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent year is understated and should be read as a floor, not a ceiling, on actual filing activity.
Filing activity by year
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Scrap Characterization and Charging covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
10,000 free credits to start
The data
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 34 records: how filing has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
A short, still-forming trend
Annual filings ran at zero in 2017 and climbed unevenly to a peak of 7 in 2024, the most active year on record. With fewer than four complete years of data once the publication lag is accounted for, no growth rate can be stated responsibly from this trend alone.
Steelmaking process claims still dominate
C21C (steelmaking) appears in 70.6% of the 34 records, confirming that most filers are claiming process-side scrap handling rather than sorting hardware. B07C (object sorting) at 20.6% and C22B (metal extraction & refining) at 17.6% mark the two next-largest clusters, with F27D furnace-accessory claims and C21B blast-furnace claims trailing behind. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC codes, these shares sum to well over 100% of the record total and should not be added together.
Shares are the percentage of the 34 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Scrap Characterization and Charging covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Scrap Characterization and Charging with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about scrap characterization and charging and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey patents
Most-cited records and a representative filing
Representative record
US12194506B2 — Sorting of contaminants
SORTERA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
A material sorting system sorts materials utilizing a vision system that implements a machine learning system in order to identify or classify each of the materials, which are then sorted into separate groups based on such an identification or classification. The material sorting system can sort material pieces containing contaminants, such as copper from steel.Filed by Sortera Technologies, granted 2025-01-14. It is the clearest example in this corpus of a sensor/vision-based sorting claim rather than a metallurgical process claim.
Highest-cited records in the corpus
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5286277A | Method for producing steel | 38 |
| 2 | US5417740A | Method for producing steel | 23 |
| 3 | US20220355342A1 | Sorting of contaminants | 19 |
| 4 | US5378261A | Method for producing steel | 17 |
| 5 | US20140231314A1 | Method for detaching coatings from scrap | 9 |
| 6 | WO1995035394A1 | Method for producing steel | 8 |
| 7 | US9339849B2 | Method for detaching coatings from scrap | 3 |
| 8 | JP1985002612A | Melt-reducing method of ferrous alloy | 2 |
| 9 | US12194506B2 | Sorting of contaminants | 1 |
| 10 | JP1992056712A | Production of pig iron | 1 |
Citation counts favour older filings in a searched corpus; treat them as a signal of influence on the field, not of current technical relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Scrap Characterization and Charging covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
For builders
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 →Insights
What the numbers mean for filing strategy
Three read-throughs from the concentration, class mix and receiving-office data.
Concentration
79.4% of 34 records
held by the top 5 assignees
A small group holds most of the claim space
With the top 5 assignees covering 79.4% of all 34 records and the top 10 covering the field completely, this is not a fragmented emerging area — it is a small, already-staked field where a new entrant needs to design around a handful of portfolios rather than out-file a crowd.
Based on the 10-company assignee ranking returned for this dataset.
Class mix
70.6% vs 20.6%
C21C steelmaking vs B07C sorting
Process claims outnumber sorting-hardware claims
C21C steelmaking process claims cover 70.6% of records against B07C object-sorting claims at 20.6%. That gap suggests sensor-based and vision-based sorting — the newer, more automatable half of the problem — is comparatively less claimed relative to the metallurgical process side.
Shares are of the same 34-record total and are not additive across classes.
Geography
US 10, India 6, EPO 5
top receiving offices
Filing is US-led with meaningful India and Europe activity
The United States receives the most filings (10), followed by India (6) and the European Patent Office (5), with WIPO PCT filings (4) indicating some filers are still pursuing multi-jurisdiction protection rather than a single-market strategy.
Counts are receiving-office totals, not deduplicated families.
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to scrap characterization and charging, with the prior art for and against each one.
Collaboration is rare
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Kingston Process Metallurgy | VORO METALS INC | 1 |
Only one co-assignee pairing appears in the corpus, between Kingston Process Metallurgy and Voro Metals, suggesting most work here is filed by a single owner rather than jointly developed.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Scrap Characterization and Charging covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The ranking below covers all 10 assignees the dataset returns for this topic — not a top-50 or top-100 cut.
Leader
12 records
single largest assignee
One filer well ahead of the field
The leading assignee holds 12 of the 34 records in scope, roughly a third of the entire corpus on its own, well ahead of the fifth-place holder at 2 records.
Recent-year momentum for this filer shows 0 filings in the latest year, consistent with the broader slowdown in the partial 2026 window.
Long tail
10th place: 1 record
single-filing entrants
A thin tail below the top 5
Positions six through ten hold as few as 1 record each, meaning half the ranked field is made up of single- or near-single-filing entrants rather than sustained programmes.
This pattern is typical of a technically narrow, still-consolidating niche.
Sorting specialist
US12194506B2
vision-based sorting claim
A distinct sorting-technology player
Sortera Technologies' representative record claims a machine-learning vision system for sorting contaminated scrap, a different technical approach from the metallurgical process claims that dominate the C21C class.
Its recent-year filing count sits at 0, matching the corpus-wide 2026 slowdown.
Recent-year momentum has gone flat
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Zapadtsi Company | 0 | — |
| Kingston Process Metallurgy | 0 | -100% |
| JFE Steel Corporation | 0 | — |
| Sortera Alloys, Inc. | 0 | — |
| SMS Group GmbH | 0 | — |
| SORTERA TECH INC | 0 | — |
| PILLKAHN HANS BERND | 0 | — |
| ProAsort LLC | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Scrap Characterization and Charging covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's next
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a concentrated field with a thin, recent filing history and a visible gap between process claims and sorting-hardware claims.
Map the leader's actual claim scope
A 12-record position is broad on paper but the individual claims may be narrower than the count suggests. Pulling the independent claims of the leading assignee's filings clarifies what is actually blocked versus what looks blocked from the ranking alone.
Explore assignee claims in EurekaTrack the sensor-sorting branch separately
B07C sorting claims sit at 20.6% of records against a 70.6% steelmaking-process baseline. Watching this branch on its own, rather than folded into the broader steelmaking count, will show whether sorting-hardware filing accelerates once 2025-2026 publications land.
Set up a monitoring search in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Scrap Characterization and Charging covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions about this landscape
The dataset returns a ranking of 10 assignees, with a single leader holding 12 of the 34 records in scope — roughly a third of the field. The top 5 assignees combined account for 79.4% of all records, and the top 10 account for 100%, so this is a fully mapped but small competitive set rather than an open field. Anyone entering this space should expect to negotiate around a handful of established portfolios rather than a large, fragmented crowd of filers.
Steelmaking process claims under IPC class C21C appear in 70.6% of the 34 records, making it the dominant claim category. Object-sorting claims under B07C appear in 20.6% of records, a smaller but still meaningful cluster that includes vision- and sensor-based sorting systems. Because a single patent can carry both classifications, these figures are not mutually exclusive, but the gap does indicate that process-side claims are more heavily staked than sorting-hardware claims.
Filing activity peaked so far at 7 records in 2024, up from zero in 2017, but the run of complete years is too short — especially once the roughly 18-month publication lag is accounted for — to calculate a reliable growth rate. Readers should treat 2025 and 2026 counts as understated rather than as evidence of a slowdown. A clearer trend read will only be possible once more of the 2024-2026 filings have published.
US12194506B2, held by Sortera Technologies and granted in January 2025, claims a material sorting system that uses a vision system with a machine learning classifier to identify and sort material pieces, including separating copper contaminants from steel scrap. It is a sorting-hardware and software claim rather than a metallurgical process claim, which places it in the smaller B07C cluster rather than the dominant C21C steelmaking category. Anyone building an automated vision-based scrap sorter should review this claim scope directly rather than relying on the abstract alone.
The clearest gap sits between the heavily claimed C21C steelmaking process category and the thinner B07C sorting category, particularly around real-time sensor-based tramp-element detection integrated with charge-mix control. Sub-areas such as scrap bulk-density instrumentation and automated shredded-scrap grading show limited direct coverage in this 34-record corpus. These are technically specific enough, and thinly enough claimed, to be worth a freedom-to-operate check before committing R&D resources.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Scrap Characterization and Charging covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Scrap Characterization and Charging in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole scrap characterization and charging 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.