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 →A 6-family dataset on chemometric variable selection for spectral data, with filers, filing years and IPC spread for early FTO scans.
25 published records collapse into 6 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 12 of 25 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This page reads the results of a single search string looking for chemometric variable selection or wavelength selection applied to spectral or spectroscopic data, across every filing date the search string matched, with no date limit applied. The 25 published records resolve to 6 simple patent families, meaning most of the inventive content here was filed into more than one jurisdiction or publication stage rather than being 25 separate inventions. A receiving-office breakdown shows where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.
With only 6 families in scope, this is a small pool. Treat the page as a starting point for a closer search rather than a map of the field, and verify any individual record before relying on it.
Ordered by volume only, not by importance or claim strength. Counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families, so one invention filed in several countries counts once. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field as recorded on each document; subsidiaries and group companies are not merged. The icon before each name is read from the name itself (words such as University, Institute or Ltd); the data carries no organisation-type field, so treat it as a reading aid rather than a classification. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (3 here); that identification is not exhaustive, so an individually held filing can still appear below. Either way those filings stay inside the totals above. This table shows the top 6 of the 6 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 6 is not the complete set of filers. A single family can name more than one filer, so these counts overlap and do not add up to the total.
Two views of the same 6-family, 25-record dataset: when records were first filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.
Published records by earliest filing year, from 2007 (3 records) to a peak of 10 records in 2014, down to 1 in 2026. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later publications arrive, so the most recent years understate eventual totals; this series counts documents, not de-duplicated inventions.
Counted in published records by earliest filing year, not de-duplicated into families. A filing is counted in the year it was filed, but it only becomes visible after it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. 2022 onwards are therefore still filling in and are shaded; no growth figure on this page uses them. Because this series counts documents rather than inventions, a rise can mean more inventions or the same inventions filed in more countries; this dataset cannot separate the two. This chart covers 2007-2026 (24 records); the 25 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
Shares are calculated against all 6 simple patent families, and a family can carry more than one subclass, so the figures add up to more than 100%. G01N (material analysis & testing) appears on 5 of the 6 families (83.3%); A01H, C12N, G16B and G16C each appear on 1 family (16.7% apiece).
Shares are the percentage of the 6 patent families in scope. One patent family 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 chemometric variable selection algorithm for process analytical technology spectral data patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes a correlation technique that measures spectral properties or changes in bodily fluid and/or tissue using at least two optical techniques, then correlates those measured properties to a clinical condition or a change in it. The method is framed around tracking disease progression or treatment response over time using the measured spectral changes as indicators.This is simply the first record the search returns under the database default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set.


Selected as the first record the search returns under the database default order, then shown in full. It is not ranked by citations, claim breadth or commercial importance, and it is not a judgement about which filing in this space matters most.
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 →Three figures worth sitting with before treating any ranking on this page as settled.
The search string resolves to 6 simple patent families behind 25 published records. The gap between the two counts reflects multiple publications or jurisdictions per invention, not 25 separate inventions.
The listed filer with the most families is named on 2 of the 6; the fifth-ranked listed filer is named on 1. The filer list excludes individual-named filings, which are still counted in the dataset totals, and rows cannot be summed because one family can name more than one filer.
12 of the 25 published records were granted and still in force at the 2026-10-26 retrieval date. The remaining 13 cover pending, withdrawn, refused and lapsed status without a further breakdown, and status changes continuously after retrieval.
G01N (material analysis & testing) appears on 5 of the 6 families in scope, the highest share of any subclass here. Four other subclasses each appear on 1 family; shares are measured against families, not records, and sum to more than 100% because a family can carry several subclasses.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to chemometric variable selection algorithm for process analytical technology spectral data patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page is a first read on a narrow search string, not a finished claim map.
A family count or an abstract cannot tell you what a granted claim actually requires. Read the claim set of any record that matters to a project before treating it as a reference point.
Explore in EurekaWith only 6 families returned, adjacent terms or synonyms for variable selection, wavelength selection or specific spectroscopic modalities may surface records this exact string missed.
Run a new search in Eureka12 of 25 records were in force at retrieval; status shifts over time as applications grant, lapse or get withdrawn. Re-check status before relying on any single record.
Monitor records in EurekaThe search string used for this page returns 25 published records that resolve to 6 simple patent families once duplicate jurisdictional filings are removed. The search string covers every matched filing date with no cutoff applied, so this is not limited to a recent window. Because the pool is small, a different phrasing of the search terms could return a different count, so treat this figure as a starting point rather than a final total.
The data endpoint returns a filer list capped at the organisations it tracks, and the top listed filer is named on 2 of the 6 families while the fifth-ranked listed filer is named on 1. This list excludes filings held by named individuals, though those filings are still counted in the overall totals on this page. Filer rows cannot be added together because a single family can name more than one filer, and the list is not the complete set of entities behind the 6 families.
US20120008130A9, filed by Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, describes a correlation technique that measures spectral properties or changes in bodily fluid or tissue using at least two optical techniques and correlates those measurements to a clinical condition. The abstract frames this as a way to track disease progression or treatment response over time. An abstract and a family count describe what an invention discloses, not what its granted claims legally cover, so anyone assessing freedom to operate needs to read the granted claim set directly rather than relying on this summary.
12 of the 25 published records in this dataset were granted and still in force as of the 2026-10-26 retrieval date, meaning 13 were not, covering pending, withdrawn, refused and lapsed records without further breakdown. Legal status is a snapshot at a single point in time and changes continuously as applications proceed through prosecution or expire. It also says nothing about the strength or value of any individual record, only whether it was active when the database was queried.
Material analysis and testing, classified under IPC subclass G01N, appears on 5 of the 6 simple patent families in scope, the highest share of any subclass tracked here. Four other subclasses, covering plant breeding, microorganisms and genetic engineering, bioinformatics and computational chemistry, each appear on 1 of the 6 families. These shares are measured against families rather than records and sum to more than 100% because a single family can carry multiple IPC classes, so they describe overlap rather than a clean split.
Go past this page: query the whole chemometric variable selection algorithm for process analytical technology spectral data patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Search. Every figure on this page comes from one Patsnap search, run once and not edited afterwards. This is the exact search string:
TAC:(("variable selection" OR "wavelength selection") AND chemometric AND (spectral OR spectroscop*))
Reading the field codes: TAC searches the title, abstract and claims of each record, not the full description. The search string sets no date limit, so the scope is every matching record in the database regardless of when it was filed. It is not restricted to recent years. How this string was built matters for how far the counts can be pushed. It was generated in batch from a topic list rather than hand-crafted for this page, and the result set is not manually screened. A keyword search over title, abstract and claims both over-captures (unrelated filings that happen to use the same words) and under-captures (the same invention written in different words). This page cannot measure either effect, so read every figure here as what this particular string returned, not as what exists in the field. One subclass (G01N) carries 83.3% of the patent families, so this search returned a classification-tight set.
What is being counted. Two different units appear on this page and they are not interchangeable. The filer list and the technology split are counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families: one invention counts once however many countries it was filed in. The total, the jurisdiction split and the filing-year chart are counted in published records: the same invention counts once per publication. For this search that is 25 records and 6 families. Record counts reward filing in many jurisdictions; family counts do not. Shares are only ever taken against a denominator in the same unit, and each one names it.
Who the filers are. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field, as recorded on the documents themselves. They are not rolled up to corporate group: a parent and its subsidiaries appear as separate entries, and a portfolio acquired from another company stays under the name on the document unless the assignment is reflected there. This list is meant to carry organisations, not people. Filings held by a named individual are identified by matching the assignee against the inventors on the same search, and, for names written in Chinese, Japanese or Korean characters, by the name carrying no organisational suffix; those are removed from the list (3 of them here). Neither test is exhaustive: the inventor list it matches against is itself capped, and a personal name written in Latin script with no organisational wording in it cannot be told apart from a short company name by rule. So an individually held filing can still appear in the list. Those filings stay inside every total and share on this page either way, so the listed entries can add up to less than the total. A record shown in full further down still names its assignee exactly as the patent office records it, including where that is a person: that name is how the record is identified and checked. What is left out of the ranking is people as ranked entries, not people as cited sources. The table shows the top 6 of the 6 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 6 is not every filer. One patent family can name several filers and each is counted separately, so these rows are not slices of a divided whole: adding them together over-counts, and this page deliberately publishes no combined "top five" share for that reason. See every filer, individuals included
Dates. The year chart counts by earliest filing year, not publication year. A filing only becomes visible once it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. Measured across these pages, the year four back from today still holds only about 89% of its eventual count. 2022 onwards are therefore shaded on the chart as still filling in. The data behind this page was retrieved on 2026-10-26.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (12 of 25). Everything else is pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and those states are not broken out here because the underlying codes do not separate them cleanly. Legal status changes continuously and is reported per document, not per family. Get the status breakdown in Eureka
Classification. The technology split uses IPC subclasses (four characters, for example H01M). A single record usually carries several, so the shares add up to more than 100% and a record can appear in more than one bar. Subclass is a coarse grouping; it describes the field a record was classified into, not what the claims cover. Break the classes down to subgroup level
Who wrote the words. The tables, charts, counts, shares and patent numbers on this page are produced directly from the search result by a program; none of them are written or estimated by a language model. The surrounding prose, headings, FAQ answers and the answers in the question panel are drafted by a language model that is given those same figures and is not permitted to introduce others. Prose can still mis-describe a correct figure, so where the two disagree, the tables and charts are the record.
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 limitations that apply to every figure above. Recent filings are under-counted, because an application is not public until roughly 18 months after filing and database loading adds further delay. The search string defines and constrains everything shown: records that use different terminology, or that sit outside the fields searched, are absent and cannot be counted. Applicant names, classification codes, legal-status codes and citation records are taken as recorded and may contain errors, duplicates, omissions or stale entries. Ordering by volume is not a measure of quality, scope, enforceability or commercial value, and a larger portfolio is not a stronger one. 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, validity or infringement search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. No attorney-client relationship is created by it. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently against the primary records 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.
The question panel. The answers behind the suggested questions on this page were written when the page was generated, not in response to your click. The progress steps that play before an answer appears are an animation of how that analysis was done; nothing is being searched or computed at that moment. Typing your own question instead opens Patsnap Eureka, which does run it live.
Help us improve
Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.
This page