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 →19 patent families on virtual and soft sensor models for process control, with no single filer holding more than two families.
46 published records collapse into 19 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 17 of 46 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This search looks for "virtual sensor" or "soft sensor" appearing together with "process control" and either "model" or "simulation" in the title, abstract or claims. No date limit was applied, so the result set spans every matching record regardless of filing date rather than a fixed window, and it returns 46 published records that de-duplicate to 19 simple patent families.
Nineteen families is a small pool. The figures here are a starting point for a more targeted search rather than a map of the field, and conclusions about concentration, trend direction or white space are not supported by a set this size.
Counted over all 46 published records, including filings from before 2010; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 40 records from 2010 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 (5 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 16 of the 16 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 16 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.
The figures below are drawn from the 46 published records and 19 simple patent families returned by the search string, covering IPC composition and the receiving offices where applications were filed.
Records run from 6 in 2010 to a peak of 10 in 2017; the window from 2022 onward is still filling in because of publication lag and is shaded on the chart rather than 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 2010-2026 (40 records); the 46 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
G05B (control and regulating systems) appears on 12 of the 19 simple patent families (63.2%) and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 3 (15.8%); a family can carry more than one IPC class, so shares across all 23 subclasses shown on the chart add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 19 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 virtual sensor model for process control simulation patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA digital process twin system and method for operating a process plant with at least one automation component to control an industrial process within the process plant with at least one input ingredient and at least one output product, wherein a non-real-time simulation model of the industrial process is used to generate quality attributes as a function of process variables and process parameters, the generated quality attributes and related process variables are used as an input for a machine learning model serving as a soft sensor to estimate quality attributes of the output product as a function of measured or simulated process variables of the industrial process.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited or broadest filing in the set. It is shown to illustrate what one record in this dataset actually claims to describe.


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 from the 19 simple patent families and 46 published records returned by this search, reported without ranking the field as a whole.
Siemens AG is named on 2 of the 19 simple patent families in scope, a 10.5% share. Lam Res Corp is also named on 2 families. All 16 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each; filer rows can overlap because one family may name more than one filer, so these counts are not summed here.
17 of the 46 published records (37%) were granted and still in force at the retrieval date. The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that breakdown is not available on this page. In-force status reflects a single snapshot date and changes over time.
G05B appears on 12 of the 19 simple patent families (63.2%), the largest IPC subclass share in this dataset. G06F appears on 3 families (15.8%). Because a family can carry more than one IPC class, these two shares are not mutually exclusive and are reported against the 19-family total, not against each other.
Published records in this dataset were filed across 10 receiving offices, with the United States, the EPO and WIPO (PCT) among the largest. This describes where applications entered the system, not where any filer is based, and the office list does not establish anything about a filer's origin.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to virtual sensor model for process control simulation patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
These figures describe one search string against one dataset. The next steps below help turn that into a more complete picture.
Family counts and abstracts cannot establish claim scope. Pull the granted claims for any record that looks close to a design under evaluation before drawing conclusions.
Open claim search in EurekaThis result set depends on the exact phrasing in the search string. Related filings that describe the same idea with different terminology will not appear here and need a separate search.
Build a new search in Eureka37% of the 46 records were in force at retrieval, a figure that shifts as applications are granted, lapse or expire. Monitoring status changes gives a current view rather than a single snapshot.
Set up monitoring in EurekaThis search returns 46 published records that de-duplicate to 19 simple patent families, with no date limit applied to the query. The number reflects one specific search string combining "virtual sensor" or "soft sensor" with "process control" and "model" or "simulation" in the title, abstract or claims, so a different phrasing would return a different count. Treat this as a starting point for a search rather than a complete count of every filing that touches this idea.
The search lists 16 organisations, with Siemens AG and Lam Res Corp tied at the top with 2 simple patent families each. Siemens AG's 2 families equal 10.5% of the 19 families in scope. All 16 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, which describes a field with no single filer holding a large share rather than one with a concentrated top group, and the list excludes filings held by named individuals even though those filings are still counted in the totals.
The one record examined in detail here, US20250068152A1 from Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, describes a digital process twin that pairs a non-real-time simulation model with a machine-learning model acting as a soft sensor to estimate output quality attributes. What any specific patent actually covers depends on its granted claims, not its abstract, and claim language varies between filings even when the abstracts sound similar. Anyone evaluating a specific design or product should pull the granted claim set directly rather than rely on an abstract.
The filing trend shown here counts published records by earliest filing year, running from 6 in 2010 to a peak of 10 in 2017, but no growth rate is stated on this page because the dataset is too thin and the most recent years are still filling in. Records filed from 2022 onward are understated because of normal publication lag of 18 to 30 months, so a lower count in those years is not evidence of a slowdown. With only 19 families in total, year-to-year moves are too small to read as a trend.
G05B, control and regulating systems, appears on 12 of the 19 simple patent families (63.2%), the largest share in this dataset. G06F, electric digital data processing, appears on 3 families (15.8%). A number of other subclasses appear in the data at lower shares, and because one family can carry several IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100% rather than partitioning the dataset into separate buckets.
Go past this page: query the whole virtual sensor model for process control simulation 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:(("virtual sensor" OR "soft sensor") AND ("process control") AND (model OR simulation))
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 (G05B) carries 63.2% 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 46 records and 19 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 (5 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 16 of the 16 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 16 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 (17 of 46). 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