Structured Abrasive Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- One assignee dominates the ranking. the leader holds 62 of the families in a 16-company ranking, with fifth place at only 3 and tenth place at 2 — a steep drop from the top.
- Filing peaked in 2020 at 10 records. and has not returned to that level since, though the most recent year is still an undercount because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months.
- Grinding-tool and materials classes dominate the composition. B24D and C09K together cover most of the 70 records in scope, while semiconductor-adjacent H01L appears in only 11.4% of records.
What this landscape covers
This review maps patent activity around structured abrasive surfaces: shaped abrasive particles, precision-shaped grain, pyramid-structure geometries and the finishing sequences built around them. The search combines terms for the particle geometry itself with terms for the mechanical behaviour it is meant to produce — consistent scratch depth, self-sharpening wear, or microreplication of a repeating feature. That pairing narrows the corpus to records where a specific shape is claimed for a specific functional outcome, rather than abrasives generally.
The 70 records in scope span 2015 to the 2026-07-31 cut-off, with filings concentrated in a small number of grinding-tool and materials IPC subclasses. Publication lag means the last one to two years understate true filing activity; treat the trend line's tail as a floor, not a ceiling.
Filing trend and technology composition
The two views below use different denominators: the trend counts records by publication year, while the IPC composition counts records against classes they carry — a single record can sit in several classes at once.
Filing activity, 2017-2026
Filings rose to a peak of 10 records in 2020 and have not matched that level since; growth rate is not computable from fewer than four complete post-lag years, and the final year shown is partial.
IPC subclass composition
B24D (grinding tools & abrasives) appears in 72.9% of the 70 records, followed by C09K (misc. materials) at 45.7% and B24B (grinding & polishing) at 37.1%. Because records carry multiple classes, these figures sum to more than 100% of the record total — that is expected and not a data error.
Shares are the percentage of the 70 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Structured and Engineered Abrasive Surfaces with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about structured and engineered abrasive surfaces and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a recent filing
WO2026120450A1 — Structured abrasive particles, articles and methods of using the same
The filing describes an abrasive rotary tool built around a cylindrical tool body with a conformable abrasive film wrapped over the edge joining its curved and circular faces. The film carries a base portion and a series of protrusions that taper from a wider base width to a narrower outer width, with a structured abrasive layer disposed on top of that tapered protrusion geometry.Filed by 3M Innovative Properties Company; the claimed geometry is a tapered-protrusion abrasive film wrapped around a rotary tool edge, distinct from the flat-lapping raised-island designs that dominate the citation table.


| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20100003904A1 | High speed flat lapping platen, raised islands and abrasive beads | 381 |
| 2 | US6769969B1 | Raised island abrasive, method of use and lapping apparatus | 225 |
| 3 | US20050032469A1 | Raised island abrasive, lapping apparatus and method of use | 139 |
| 4 | WO2014022462A1 | Abrasive elements with precisely shaped features, abrasive articles fabricated therefrom and methods of makin… | 101 |
| 5 | WO2014022465A1 | Abrasive articles with precisely shaped features and method of making thereof | 101 |
| 6 | WO2014022453A1 | Abrasive element precursor with precisely shaped features and method of making thereof | 100 |
| 7 | US7520800B2 | Raised island abrasive, lapping apparatus and method of use | 72 |
| 8 | US8062098B2 | High speed flat lapping platen | 54 |
| 9 | US8333360B2 | Polymeric molds and articles made therefrom | 49 |
| 10 | US20150209932A1 | Abrasive articles with precisely shaped features and method of making thereof | 48 |
Citation counts favour older records simply by virtue of having had longer to accumulate them; read them as a signal of influence on the field, 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 mean for a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once the ranking, the trend and the IPC composition are read together.
One assignee holds most of the ranked claim space
The leading assignee accounts for 62 records against a fifth-place figure of only 3 and a tenth-place figure of 2. That gap is steep enough that a new entrant should assume the core shaped-grain geometries are already occupied by one filer, and look instead at adjacent finishing-sequence or material-composition claims.
Activity has cooled since its 2020 peak
No year since 2020 has matched its filing count, though the most recent years are understated by the roughly 18-month gap between filing and publication. A flat recent trend combined with a concentrated leader suggests the core geometry claims are mature rather than newly opened.
Grinding-tool claims anchor the field, materials claims run close behind
B24D (grinding tools & abrasives) touches the large majority of records, but C09K (materials) and C09C (inorganic pigment treatment) each cover roughly a third to nearly half of the same set, meaning most filings pair a tool-geometry claim with a materials claim rather than filing either alone.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to structured and engineered abrasive surfaces, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The assignee ranking is short — 16 companies — and heavily skewed toward one filer, with named individual inventors also appearing as separate assignee entries rather than being folded into a corporate entity.
A single dominant filer
One assignee's family count dwarfs every other entry in the ranking, and its co-assignee pairings with several named inventors recur across multiple records — a sign of a stable internal team working the same claim territory over years rather than a one-off filing burst.
A thin second tier
Fifth place in the ranking sits at just 3 records and tenth place at 2, so beyond the leader there is no clearly established second competitor — only a long tail of low-volume filers each holding a handful of families.
Recent-year activity has gone quiet across the board
Every assignee tracked for recent-year momentum, including the leader, shows zero filings in the latest year, with the leader down -100% year-on-year. Given publication lag, this likely reflects reporting delay rather than an actual stop in R&D, but it means the most recent public record understates current activity for every filer, not just the smaller ones.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| 3M Innovative Properties Company | 0 | -100% |
| DUESCHER WAYNE O | 0 | — |
| SHANTI NOAH O | 0 | — |
| LEHUU DUY K | 0 | — |
| BRETSCHER KATHRYN R | 0 | — |
| XIE JUNQING | 0 | — |
| RULE JOSEPH D | 0 | — |
| NEHRING VINCENT W | 0 | — |
Where to take this
The ranking and trend point to a mature, concentrated core with quieter adjacent branches. Two directions follow from that.
Check the under-claimed IPC branches before drafting
H01L, C08G and C08F each cover a modest minority of the 70 records, well below the B24D/C09K core — worth a closer look before assuming the geometry space is fully occupied there too.
Explore white space in EurekaWatch for the publication-lag catch-up
Every tracked assignee shows zero filings in the latest year; expect that figure to revise upward as pending applications publish over the next 12-18 months.
Track filing activity in EurekaCommon questions about structured abrasive patents
In this corpus, the claims typically describe an abrasive particle or grain with a precisely controlled geometry — a defined pyramid structure, a specific grain aspect ratio, or a tapered protrusion shape — rather than the irregular, randomly fractured grain used in conventional abrasives. The functional payoff claimed is usually consistent scratch depth, predictable wear, or a self-sharpening edge as the particle wears down. Because the shape is engineered rather than incidental, these claims often sit alongside a manufacturing-process claim describing how the shape is produced, such as microreplication.
One assignee holds a clear majority of the 70 records in this dataset's ranked assignee list of 16 companies, with 62 records against a fifth-place count of only 3. That concentration means most of the core shaped-particle geometry claims already sit with a single filer, and any competitive analysis should start by reading that filer's claim scope closely before assuming open ground. The rest of the ranking is a thin tail of low-volume filers and named individual inventors.
Filing activity peaked in 2020 at 10 records and has not returned to that level since, based on the years tracked in this dataset. A meaningful growth rate is not computable here because fewer than four complete years remain once the roughly 18-month publication lag is accounted for, so recent-year counts should be read as a floor rather than a true current rate. The honest read is that the field looks flat-to-declining on the visible data, with the caveat that the last one to two years are still filling in.
B24D (grinding tools & abrasives) is the anchor class, appearing in 72.9% of the 70 records in scope, but a meaningful share also carry C09K (misc. materials, 45.7%), B24B (grinding & polishing, 37.1%) and C09C (inorganic pigment treatment, 32.9%). Smaller but non-trivial shares appear in B29C (plastics shaping), C08F and C08G (polymer classes) and H01L (semiconductor devices), the last of which suggests some structured-abrasive claims target semiconductor-substrate finishing specifically. A full prior-art search on this topic should not stop at B24D alone.
WO2026120450A1, filed by 3M Innovative Properties Company, claims an abrasive rotary tool with a conformable abrasive film wrapped around the edge of a cylindrical tool body, where the film carries tapered protrusions narrowing from base to tip and a structured abrasive layer on top of that geometry. That specific combination — the wraparound edge placement plus the tapered-protrusion base film — is what's claimed, not shaped abrasive particles generally. A design that uses a different mounting geometry or a non-tapered protrusion profile would sit outside this particular claim, though it should still be checked against the filer's broader family.
Research Structured and Engineered Abrasive Surfaces in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole structured and engineered abrasive surfaces 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.