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://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/hydrogen-sensor-array-pattern-recognition-gas-identification-algorithm-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-16 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Updated 2026Hydrogen Sensor Array Pattern Recognition Patents
46 families and 90 records on hydrogen sensor-array pattern recognition, led by a single filer with 10.9% of the pool.
90
Published Records
46
Simple Patent Families
18%
In Force at Cut-off
IN
Leading Jurisdiction
90 published records collapse into 46 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 16 of 90 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 46 simple patent families and 90 published records sit behind this search, with no single filer named on more than 5 of the 46 families.
- 33 of the 34 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, against a leader at 5 families (10.9% of the 46 in scope).
- G01N material analysis and testing appears on 31 of the 46 families (67.4%), ahead of G06N computing-based AI models at 14 families (30.4%).
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this search covers
This page tracks records matching "sensor array" OR "electronic nose" combined with hydrogen and either "pattern recognition" or "machine learning" in the title, abstract or claims. The search string sets no date limit, so the records in scope span whatever filing dates the matching documents happen to carry; the filing-trend chart below shows only a recent window of that range.
With 46 simple patent families in scope, this is a small pool. Treat the page as a starting point for a more targeted search rather than a map of the field: absence of documents in a set this size is as likely to reflect the search terms as it is to reflect an absence of filing activity.
Records and families in scope
Counted over all 90 published records, including filings from before 2008; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 60 records from 2008 onward, so the two charts are not the same set of documents. 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 (28 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 30 of the 34 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 34 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.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from one Patsnap search for Hydrogen Sensor Array Pattern Recognition Gas Identification Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move 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 numbers
Filing trend and technology composition
The figures below are drawn directly from the search results: a filing-trend chart counted in published records, and an IPC breakdown counted in simple patent families.
Filing trend by earliest filing year (60 of 90 published records)
Published records by earliest filing year run from 2 in 2008 to a peak of 12 in 2025, with 9 recorded for 2026 so far. Records filed from 2022 onward are still publishing, so the most recent years understate their eventual count and should not be read as a decline.
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 2008-2026 (60 records); the 90 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
G01N material analysis and testing appears on 31 of the 46 families (67.4%), G06N computing-based AI models on 14 (30.4%), and A61B diagnosis and surgery on 12 (26.1%). Because a family can carry several IPC codes, these shares add up to more than 100% of the 46 families and should be read individually, not summed.
Shares are the percentage of the 46 patent families in scope. One patent family can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from one Patsnap search for Hydrogen Sensor Array Pattern Recognition Gas Identification Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Hydrogen Sensor Array Pattern Recognition Gas Identification Algorithm Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about hydrogen sensor array pattern recognition gas identification algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative record
One record from the result set
From the search results
Gas-sensitive-gas-chromatographic electronic nose instrument and online analysis method
EAST CHINA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
The record describes an electronic nose instrument combining a gas sensor array module with a capillary gas chromatographic column module, a gas auto-sampling module, a computer control and analysis module, and an auxiliary gas source, configured to perform cyclical, long-term online detection and intelligent analysis across fermentation and malodorous pollutant processes.This is the first record returned under the database default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest document in the set. It illustrates one way the search terms are met and should not be read as typical of the other 45 families.
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.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. The first record the search returned, shown in full. Derived from one Patsnap search for Hydrogen Sensor Array Pattern Recognition Gas Identification Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move 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 →Reading the data
What the figures show
Three figures from the search results, reported as counted, without ranking the field or reading motive into any single row.
Scale
46 families / 90 records
simple patent families / published records
Two different counts of the same search
The search returns 90 published records that de-duplicate to 46 simple patent families. The two numbers are counted differently: records count once per publication, families once per invention across all the countries it was filed in.
Source: search result totals
Largest single filer
5 of 46 (10.9%)
share of simple patent families
One row named on 5 of the 46 families
Board of Rgt The Univ of Texas Syst is named on 5 of the 46 simple patent families in scope, the highest single-row figure among the 34 listed filers. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and one family can name more than one filer, so this 10.9% figure belongs to this row alone and cannot be added to any other row's share.
Source: filer table, family count
Spread across filers
33 of 34 filers hold ≤2 families
listed filers, simple patent families
Most listed filers hold one or two families
33 of the 34 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each, with the fifth-placed filer at 2 families and the tenth-placed filer at 1. This describes how the filing count is spread across the listed filers; it is not a statement about concentration or control of any technology.
Source: filer table, family count
Classification mix
31 / 14 / 12 of 46
families carrying each IPC subclass
G01N, G06N and A61B each carry over a quarter of the families
G01N material analysis and testing appears on 31 of the 46 families (67.4%), G06N computing-based AI models on 14 (30.4%), and A61B diagnosis and surgery on 12 (26.1%). A family can carry more than one of these codes, so the three shares add up to more than 100% of the 46 families and should not be summed into one figure.
Source: IPC breakdown, family count
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 hydrogen sensor array pattern recognition gas identification algorithm patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Hydrogen Sensor Array Pattern Recognition Gas Identification Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps
Where to take this from here
The figures on this page describe what one search string returned. Narrowing or widening that string, or reading the granted claims behind any one record, usually changes the picture.
Pull the granted claims, not the abstract
An abstract and a family count cannot establish what a patent's claims actually cover. Reading the granted claim set is the only way to assess scope for any record on this page.
Open Patsnap EurekaRe-run the search with adjusted terms
A dataset of 46 families is thin enough that different keyword choices can materially change who and what shows up. Adjusting the search string is a faster check than reading conclusions into this result alone.
Open Patsnap EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Hydrogen Sensor Array Pattern Recognition Gas Identification Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions about this search
This search returns 90 published records that de-duplicate to 46 simple patent families. The difference between the two counts reflects the fact that one invention can be filed in several countries and each filing publishes as a separate record. There is no fixed start year in the search string, so the 46 families span whatever filing dates the matching documents happen to carry, and the number will change as new records publish.
The search returns 34 listed filers (organisations only; individual inventors are removed from this list but remain in the totals), ranked by simple patent family count. The largest single row is Board of Rgt The Univ of Texas Syst, named on 5 of the 46 families (10.9%). 33 of the 34 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, so most rows in the list are single- or double-filing entries rather than repeat filers.
No. One simple patent family can name more than one filer, so filer rows overlap and summing them over-counts the dataset, on this search the listed rows already sum to 91% of the 46 families, which is an artefact of overlap, not a coverage figure. Each share on this page is quoted for a single row only, and no combined or top-N share is printed because it cannot be checked against the underlying families.
G01N material analysis and testing appears on 31 of the 46 families (67.4%), G06N computing-based AI models on 14 (30.4%), and A61B diagnosis and surgery on 12 (26.1%). Because a single family can carry several IPC codes, these shares add up to more than 100% of the 46 families and are best read as independent figures rather than a breakdown that sums to a whole. The mix indicates where classification codes cluster in this specific result set, not a statement about the wider field.
The filing-trend chart counts published records by earliest filing year, running from 2 in 2008 to a peak of 12 records in 2025, with 9 recorded so far for 2026. Records filed from 2022 onward are still in the publication pipeline, most jurisdictions take around 18 months to publish, longer for PCT national-phase entries, so the most recent years understate their eventual totals and should not be read as a slowdown or a peak. The series also counts documents, not inventions, so a rising count can reflect the same invention being filed in more countries rather than more distinct inventions.
The abstract describes an electronic nose instrument combining a gas sensor array, a capillary gas chromatographic column, an auto-sampling module and a computer control and analysis module for online detection across fermentation and malodorous pollutant processes. It is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited or broadest document in the set, so it should not be read as representative of the other 45 families. An abstract and a family count cannot establish what the granted claims actually require; that has to be read from the claim set itself.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Hydrogen Sensor Array Pattern Recognition Gas Identification Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Hydrogen Sensor Array Pattern Recognition Gas Identification Algorithm Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole hydrogen sensor array pattern recognition gas identification algorithm patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
How this page was built, and what the numbers do and do not mean
Search. Every figure on this page comes from one Patsnap search, run once and not edited afterwards. This is the exact search string:
TAC:(("sensor array" OR "electronic nose") AND hydrogen AND ("pattern recognition" OR "machine learning"))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 67.4% 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 90 records and 46 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 (28 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 30 of the 34 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 34 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 2026-10-16.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (16 of 90). 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.
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.