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 →Filing growth compares 2021 (1 records) with 2024 (0) — 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.
This dataset tracks 79 published patent records matched against a search string combining solvent-assisted recovery mechanisms — vapour/vapor extraction, expanding-solvent SAGD — with the operational problems that define whether they work in the field: solvent retention, asphaltene deposition, surface solvent recovery, dilution viscosity reduction, and solvent-steam ratio control. The coverage window runs from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 cut-off, capturing both the post-2015 refinement of ES-SAGD chamber-growth control and the more recent slowdown in new filings.
Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, the technology composition below sums to more than 100% of the record total — that is expected and reflects how heavily wellbore/drilling claims (E21B) overlap with materials claims (C09K) and instrumentation claims (G01L, G02B) in the same filings.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Two views of the same 79-record set: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
Filings ran from 8 in 2017 to a peak of 13 in 2018, then declined toward 0 in the most recently completed tracked years (2021 to 2024, a -100% span). 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, so the apparent drop-off should not yet be read as the technology going cold.
E21B (earth and rock drilling / wells) appears in 93.7% of the 79 records, far ahead of C09K materials claims at 24.1% and force/pressure measurement (G01L) at 10.1%. The concentration in E21B indicates that most protected value sits in well configuration, injection/production mechanics and process control rather than in solvent chemistry itself.
Shares are the percentage of the 79 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about solvent assisted heavy oil recovery and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaHydrocarbons in a subterranean reservoir are recovered using Expanding Solvent-Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (ES-SAGD), including recovering hydrocarbons while reducing the solvent retention in the reservoir. Reducing solvent retention improves process economics.Filed by ConocoPhillips, published 2015-03-26 as US20150083413A1.


| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20070295640A1 | Compositions and Methods of Using Same in Producing Heavy Oil and Bitumen | 88 |
| 2 | US7691788B2 | Compositions and methods of using same in producing heavy oil and bitumen | 85 |
| 3 | US20110229071A1 | Pressure sensor arrangement using an optical fiber and methodologies for performing an analysis of a subterra… | 70 |
| 4 | US20030000711A1 | Combined steam and vapor extraction process (SAVEX) for in situ bitumen and heavy oil production | 41 |
| 5 | WO2010123566A1 | Pressure sensor arrangement using an optical fiber and methodologies for performing an analysis of a subterra… | 28 |
| 6 | US9347312B2 | Pressure sensor arrangement using an optical fiber and methodologies for performing an analysis of a subterra… | 23 |
| 7 | US20150198027A1 | Anti-retention agent in steam-solvent oil recovery | 20 |
| 8 | US20140144627A1 | Hydrocarbon recovery with steam and solvent stages | 14 |
| 9 | US20110172924A1 | Forecasting asphaltic precipitation | 13 |
| 10 | US20150083413A1 | Reducing solvent retention in es-sagd | 10 |
Citation counts reflect influence within the searched corpus and skew toward older filings; they are not a measure of current commercial importance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
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 →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 →Read together, the ranking, the citation table and the composition chart point to a field where mechanical and process claims dominate over chemistry, and where a handful of instrumentation-heavy filings carry disproportionate citation weight.
The leading assignee holds 27 records against 9 at fifth place and 1 at tenth — a steep drop after the top position rather than a gradual taper, which suggests one organisation built a deliberate filing program around ES-SAGD-style processes while most others hold only a handful of records each.
Two of the five most-cited records are optical-fiber pressure-sensor arrangements for subterranean formations, not solvent-process patents, even though G02B and G01L together cover a minority of records. That is a signal of influence on downstream art, not of where filing volume actually sits.
Canada (40) and the United States (29) account for nearly all filings in scope, consistent with heavy-oil and oil-sands operations concentrated in Alberta and the adjacent US market; WIPO, UK, MX and AE filings are minor by comparison.
Every organisation appearing in the recent-momentum data, including the leading assignee and its most frequent co-filing partner, shows zero filings in the latest year measured. Given the ~18-month publication lag, this reads as a reporting gap in progress rather than a confirmed stop in R&D.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to solvent assisted heavy oil recovery, with the prior art for and against each one.
The ranking covers 25 companies counted in records, from a clear leader down to single-digit filers. It is the whole ranking the dataset returns, not a top-50 or top-100 cut.
The top-ranked assignee's 27 records place it well ahead of the field, spanning both core ES-SAGD process claims and instrumentation. That volume alone does not indicate the technology is settled — it indicates one company occupied a large share of the claim space early.
Fifth place holds 9 records, suggesting a small group of oil-sands operators and oilfield-service companies filed steadily but never at the leader's scale. These are the organisations most likely to hold defensible niche claims worth checking before filing nearby.
By the tenth position, assignee counts fall to a single record, and the pattern likely continues further down the ranking. This long tail typically includes individual inventors and smaller service providers testing narrow process variants.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| ConocoPhillips | 0 | — |
| Cenovus Energy Inc. | 0 | — |
| IMPERIAL OIL RESOURCES LTD | 0 | — |
| LXDATA | 0 | — |
| CEC NORTH STAR ENERGY LTD | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Canada Limited | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Holdings Limited | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Technology Corporation | 0 | — |
The record-level data behind this page can be pushed further than a static landscape view allows.
With one assignee holding 27 of the 79 records, any new ES-SAGD or vapour-extraction filing should be checked against that portfolio's claim scope before drafting.
Run a claim comparison in Patsnap EurekaOptical-fiber pressure sensing shows up disproportionately among the most-cited records; monitoring that sub-cluster on its own citation trend can flag design-around risk early.
Set up a monitoring search in Patsnap EurekaThe apparent 2021-2024 decline reflects a real 25-family swing but the two most recent years are still incomplete; revisit filing volume once publication catches up.
Save this landscape in Patsnap EurekaThis landscape covers patents combining solvent injection mechanisms — such as vapour/vapor extraction and expanding-solvent SAGD (ES-SAGD) — with the operational problems that determine whether those processes are economic, including solvent retention, asphaltene deposition, surface solvent recovery and solvent-steam ratio control. It excludes pure steam-only thermal recovery patents that do not reference a solvent component. The 79 records in this dataset were matched against a search string requiring both a recovery-mechanism term and an operational-problem term.
The ranking in this dataset covers 25 companies, with the leading assignee holding 27 records versus 9 at fifth place and 1 at tenth — a steep concentration rather than an even spread. Major oilfield-service and oil-sands operating companies dominate the ranked list. This is the full ranking the dataset returns, not a truncated top-list, so no filer outside these 25 appears with a comparable volume.
Filing volume ran from 8 records in 2017 to a peak of 13 in 2018, then declined toward 0 in the most recently complete comparison years, 2021 to 2024, a -100% change over that span. However, patent publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures in the underlying data are still incomplete and should not be read as confirmation that R&D activity has stopped. A clearer picture of the true current trend will only be available once those later years finish publishing.
US20150083413A1, filed by ConocoPhillips and published in 2015, addresses reducing solvent retention specifically within Expanding Solvent-Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (ES-SAGD) operations, framing solvent retention reduction as a process-economics lever. It sits inside the same E21B-dominated claim space that covers the large majority of records in this dataset, meaning new ES-SAGD process filings should be checked against it specifically for overlap on solvent-retention control methods. It does not, on its own, cover the broader vapour-extraction or surface solvent recovery branches, which are separately claimed elsewhere in the dataset.
The technology composition shows heavy concentration in E21B (93.7% of the 79 records) and C09K (24.1%), with much thinner coverage in areas like dilution viscosity reduction chemistry, real-time chamber growth rate monitoring, and asphaltene deposition mitigation additives. These thinner branches are candidates for new claims because the core mechanical and wellbore process space is already densely occupied by the leading assignees. A first claim in one of these branches would need to tie a specific measurable trigger, such as a chamber growth rate threshold, to a concrete control action rather than restating the general ES-SAGD process.
Go past this page: query the whole solvent assisted heavy oil recovery 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.