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/solid-phase-microextraction-fiber-sampling-device-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-20 · downloaded from the live page
Patent LandscapeSolid Phase Microextraction Fiber Sampling Device Patents
Covers 45 patent families and 97 records on SPME fiber sampling devices, with no single filer holding more than 3 families.
97
Published Records
45
Simple Patent Families
20%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction
97 published records collapse into 45 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 19 of 97 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 45 simple patent families and 97 published records are in scope for the search string used here, with no date limit applied.
- Two filers are tied at the top Lawrence Livermore Nat Security LLC and Battelle Memorial Inst each appear on 3 of the 45 families.
- 31 of the 33 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, the honest measure of how spread out this listed set is.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This page reports results for the search string TAC:(("solid phase microextraction" OR SPME) AND fiber AND sampling), which returned 45 simple patent families and 97 published records. No date limit was applied, so the set spans whatever filing years the matching records happen to carry. Of the 97 records, 19 (20%) were granted and still in force at retrieval; the remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that breakdown is not available here.
At 45 families this is a small pool. The figures below describe only what this specific search returned, they are a starting point for a search rather than a map of the field, and gaps in the data are as likely to reflect search-term limits as anything about actual filing activity.
Records vs. families in scope
Counted over all 97 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 62 records from 2007 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 (18 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 33 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 33 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 Solid Phase Microextraction Fiber Sampling Device Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Data
Filing trend and technology composition
The two views below use different units, published records for the trend, simple patent families for the technology split, so read each against its own denominator.
Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year) (62 of 97 published records)
The series runs from 2007, where 8 records were filed, through to 2026. 2007 is the highest year shown in this window, not a the highest year shown: 35 records with earlier filing dates exist outside the chart. 2022 onward is shaded because recent filings are still publishing, so those years understate eventual counts and no trend judgement should be read from them.
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 (62 records); the 97 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window. 2007 is the highest year shown, but it is also the first year in the window: earlier filings sit outside this chart, so this is not necessarily the historical peak.
Technology composition (IPC subclass, share of 45 families)
G01N (Material analysis & testing) appears on 34 of the 45 simple patent families in scope, 75.6%. A family can carry more than one IPC class, so this and the other subclass shares shown on the chart add up to more than 100% rather than partitioning the set.
Shares are the percentage of the 45 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 Solid Phase Microextraction Fiber Sampling Device Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Solid Phase Microextraction Fiber Sampling Device Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about solid phase microextraction fiber sampling device patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRecord in focus
One record from the result set
First record returned
Offline solid phase microextraction sampling system
LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC
The abstract describes an offline SPME sampling apparatus that lets SPME samples be taken multiple times from a previously collected fluid sample stored in a fused silica lined bottle, which keeps volatile organics stable for weeks. The apparatus has a hollow body around a sampling chamber with multiple ports to release a portion of the stored sample, SPME-sample it for later GC analysis, and flush/purge the chamber using a connected vacuum and purging fluid source.This is simply the first record the database returns under its default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. What its granted claims actually require, and how far they reach, can only be read from the claim set itself; a family count and an abstract cannot establish that.
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 Solid Phase Microextraction Fiber Sampling Device Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. 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 →Insights
What the figures show
Three readings drawn directly from the evidence, each stated against the unit it was counted in.
Filer concentration
3 families
top family count, tied
Two filers share the top count
Lawrence Livermore Nat Security LLC and Battelle Memorial Inst are each named on 3 of the 45 simple patent families in scope (6.7% for Lawrence Livermore Nat Security LLC, the only single-row share shown on this page). No single filer holds more than either of these two rows.
Counted in simple patent families.
Long tail
31 of 33
listed filers at 2 or fewer families
Most listed filers hold very few families
Of the 33 organisations in the listed filer set, 31 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. Filings held by named individuals are not included in this list but remain inside the 45-family total.
Counted in simple patent families; filer rows overlap and are not summed.
Technology split
75.6%
share of families carrying G01N
G01N appears on most families in scope
G01N (Material analysis & testing) is recorded on 34 of the 45 simple patent families, 75.6%. Because a family can carry several IPC classes, this share is read against the full family total rather than against other subclasses summed together.
Counted in simple patent families; shares across subclasses exceed 100% in total.
Legal status
19 of 97
records granted and in force
One in five records is in force at retrieval
19 of the 97 published records (20%) were granted and still in force at the retrieval date. The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that split is not broken out further here.
Counted in published records; legal status changes continuously and is not a success rate.
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 solid phase microextraction fiber sampling device 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 Solid Phase Microextraction Fiber Sampling Device Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps
Where to take this
This page is a starting point built from one search string, not a finished map of the field.
Pull the granted claims
Family counts and abstracts cannot establish claim scope. Read the granted claim set directly for any record that matters to a filing or clearance decision.
Open a claim read in Patsnap EurekaRe-run with adjacent terms
A single search string misses records that use different wording for the same device. Broadening or varying the terms is likely to change which families and filers appear.
Explore related searches in 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 Solid Phase Microextraction Fiber Sampling Device Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions
This search returned 45 simple patent families and 97 published records for the string TAC:(("solid phase microextraction" OR SPME) AND fiber AND sampling), with no date limit applied. A simple family counts one invention once, however many countries it was filed in, while the record count counts every publication separately, so the two numbers describe the same underlying set in different units. Neither figure should be read as the total number of SPME-related patents outside this specific search.
No single filer holds the most. Lawrence Livermore Nat Security LLC and Battelle Memorial Inst are tied at the top with 3 simple patent families each out of 45 in scope. Beyond that pair, 31 of the 33 organisations in the listed filer set hold 2 or fewer families each, so the filing activity in this dataset is spread across many small holders rather than concentrated in one place.
Its abstract describes an offline SPME sampling apparatus that allows repeated SPME sampling from a fluid sample stored in a fused silica lined bottle, using a hollow body with multiple ports for releasing, sampling and flushing the sample. It is the first record returned by the database's default ordering in this search, not a ranked or most-cited result. What the granted claims actually require can only be determined by reading the claim set itself; an abstract and a family count cannot establish claim scope or whether any particular design would fall inside or outside it.
The filing trend in this dataset runs through 2026, with the highest count in the visible window at 2007 (8 records); 35 records with earlier filing dates sit outside that window, and earlier filings sit outside this window. Years from 2022 onward are shaded on the chart because recent filings are still publishing, typically with an 18 to 30 month lag, so those counts understate the eventual total. No growth rate or trend direction is reported here, since the dataset is too thin and the recent years too incomplete to support one.
G01N, covering material analysis and testing, is recorded on 34 of the 45 simple patent families in scope, 75.6%. A family can carry more than one IPC classification, so this share and others shown on the technology chart add up to more than 100% rather than dividing the dataset into separate parts. The dataset includes 28 subclasses in total, but only the subclass above a set share threshold is discussed here; smaller classes are more likely to reflect search-term noise than a distinct line of filing.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Solid Phase Microextraction Fiber Sampling Device Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Solid Phase Microextraction Fiber Sampling Device Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole solid phase microextraction fiber sampling device 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:(("solid phase microextraction" OR SPME) AND fiber AND sampling)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 75.6% 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 97 records and 45 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 (18 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 33 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 33 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 2026-10-20.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (19 of 97). 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.