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://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/catalytic-bead-combustible-gas-sensors-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Gas DetectionCatalytic Bead Combustible Gas Sensor Patents: Who Leads and Where the Gaps Sit
- 55.4% concentration. The top five assignees hold 262 of 473 records in scope — over half the field sits with a handful of filers.
- Filing cooled after 2020. Activity peaked at 56 records in 2020; the 2021-to-2024 span shows a 36% decline, though 2025-26 figures are still filling in.
- 83.5% cluster in one class. G01N material analysis & testing covers 395 of 473 records, leaving wireless, alarm and drilling-adjacent classes comparatively thin.
473
Published Records
55%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-36%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (14 records) with 2024 (9) — a three-year span. 2024 is the most recent year we treat as complete: publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in and any growth rate that ends there would understate the field. Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 473 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
Catalytic bead (pellistor) sensors detect combustible gas by measuring the heat released when a target gas oxidises on a catalyst-coated bead. The patent activity mapped here spans 2015 to mid-2026 and is scoped to filings that address the practical failure modes of the technology — silicone poisoning, zero drift, response time, oxygen dependence, bump testing and sensor lifetime — rather than combustible gas sensing in general. That scoping matters: it isolates the durability and calibration engineering layered on top of a decades-old sensing principle.
The 473 records in scope span personal safety instruments, fixed industrial detectors, and increasingly wireless and networked monitoring nodes, with receiving-office data pointing to the United States as the dominant filing jurisdiction ahead of Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia and the WIPO PCT route.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2015–2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Catalytic Bead Combustible Gas Sensors covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift 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 Data
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 473-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how records distribute across IPC subclasses.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings rose from 40 in 2017 to a peak of 56 in 2020, then eased to 9 by 2024 — a 36% decline over that three-year span. 2025 and 2026 figures (down to 4) are undercounted because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months; they should not be read as a continued fall.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
G01N (material analysis & testing) dominates at 83.5% of the 473 records, reflecting the core sensing and calibration claims. Smaller shares in H04W, G08B, H04B, E21B, G06K, A01K and H02S mark where sensor output is being tied into wireless networks, alarm systems, well monitoring, livestock and solar-powered deployments — each still a minority slice of the whole.
Shares are the percentage of the 473 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Catalytic Bead Combustible Gas Sensors covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Catalytic Bead Combustible Gas Sensors with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about catalytic bead combustible gas sensors and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
Representative and most-cited filings
Representative Filing
Identification of combustible gas species via pulsed operation of a combustible gas sensor (US10234412B2)
MSA TECHNOLOGY, LLC
A combustible gas sensor includes a first sensing element, which includes a catalyst and a heating element in operative connection with the catalyst to heat the catalyst above a temperature to combust gas analytes of interest, and electronic circuitry in operative connection with the heating element of the first sensing element to periodically cycle the first sensing element between a temperature above the temperature to combust the analytes of interest and a temperature at which the catalyst is substantially inactive to catalyze oxidative combustion of the analytes of interest.Filed by MSA Technology, LLC; published 2019-03-19.
Most-cited records in this dataset
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20170303187A1 | Worker safety system | 222 |
| 2 | US6442639B1 | Docking station for environmental monitoring instruments | 188 |
| 3 | US6705152B2 | Nanostructured ceramic platform for micromachined devices and device arrays | 174 |
| 4 | US20020118027A1 | Nanostructured ceramic platform for micromachined devices and device arrays | 163 |
| 5 | US4472239A | Method of making semiconductor device | 137 |
| 6 | US4476706A | Remote calibration system | 124 |
| 7 | US6344174B1 | Gas sensor | 111 |
| 8 | US4489590A | Method and apparatus for gas detector calibration | 93 |
| 9 | US7003405B1 | Methods for characterizing subsurface volatile contaminants using in-situ sensors | 92 |
| 10 | US4966037A | Cantilever semiconductor device | 88 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations inside the searched corpus; treat them as a signal of influence, not current relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Catalytic Bead Combustible Gas Sensors covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift 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 numbers indicate
Read together, filing concentration, technology composition and jurisdiction spread point to a mature core with narrow but real openings at the edges.
Concentration
55.4%
of 473 records held by top 5 assignees
The core is claimed by a small group
The top five assignees account for 262 of 473 records, and the top ten extend that to 318, or 67.2%. New entrants filing on core pellistor construction and drift-compensation claims are filing into dense prior art.
Top 10 = 67.2% of 473 records
Momentum
-36%
filings 2021→2024
Volume has cooled from its 2020 peak
Filings peaked at 56 in 2020 and fell to 9 by 2024, a 36% decline over that span. Whether this reflects claim-space saturation or a shift toward trade secret protection for calibration algorithms is not resolvable from filing counts alone.
Peak year: 2020 at 56 records
Composition
83.5%
of records in G01N
Claims cluster on sensing and testing, not integration
G01N covers 395 of 473 records. Wireless (H04W, 8.2%), alarm signalling (G08B, 8.0%) and drilling-adjacent (E21B, 5.3%) classes are present but each covers under one in ten records, suggesting integration claims are comparatively open.
G01N 395 vs H04W 39 of 473 records
Jurisdiction
202
US-received filings
Filing is US-centred with a modest international tail
The United States received 202 filings, ahead of Europe at 56, Canada at 44, Japan at 42, Australia at 34 and the WIPO PCT route at 31. Multi-jurisdiction filers assessing family strength should weight US prosecution outcomes most heavily.
EPO 56, Canada 44, Japan 42, Australia 34, PCT 31
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 catalytic bead combustible gas sensors, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Catalytic Bead Combustible Gas Sensors covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players
Who is filing, and where they are not
A concentrated leader group sits above a long tail of single- and double-filing entrants; the co-assignee data shows only nine collaborative pairs across the whole dataset, meaning most filings are solo efforts.
Leader
142
records
One filer sits well ahead of the field
The leading assignee holds 142 records against a fifth-place figure of 16 and a tenth-place figure of 10 — a steep drop-off that marks this as a leader-and-long-tail structure rather than an evenly split field.
5th place: 16 records · 10th place: 10 records
Collaboration
9
co-assignee pairs
Filing is mostly solo, not joint
Only nine co-assignee pairs appear across 473 records, with the strongest pair linked on four records. Cross-licensing or joint-development signals are minimal in this dataset.
Strongest pair: 4 shared records
Momentum
0
latest-year filings among leaders
Leading assignees show no latest-year activity
Several of the largest historical filers, including the top-ranked assignee, show zero filings in the latest year on record. Given the 18-month publication lag, this likely reflects reporting delay rather than an actual halt in R&D.
-100% YoY reported for several leaders
Recent-year filing momentum
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| MSA Technology, LLC | 0 | -100% |
| Industrial Scientific Corporation | 0 | -100% |
| Panasonic Corporation (Japan) | 0 | — |
| Scott Technologies, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Mine Safety Appliances Co. | 0 | — |
| PROJECT CANARY PBC | 0 | — |
| Honeywell International Inc. | 0 | — |
| Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Catalytic Bead Combustible Gas Sensors covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next
Where to take this
The dataset points to a concentrated core and a thinner set of adjacent claim areas. The next step is usually to test a specific filing idea against the full family record.
Check freedom to operate before drafting
Run a candidate claim against the full family list behind the top assignees to see whether pellistor construction or drift-compensation approaches are already blocked.
Explore Patsnap EurekaTrack the leader group's next filings
The apparent drop to zero latest-year filings among top assignees is likely a publication-lag artefact; set up monitoring to catch continuations as they publish.
Explore Patsnap EurekaScope white space in wireless integration
H04W, G08B and E21B classes each cover under one in ten records; a claim tying sensor output to network alarm logic or drilling telemetry has more room to move.
Explore Patsnap EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Catalytic Bead Combustible Gas Sensors covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions
A catalytic bead sensor, also called a pellistor, detects combustible gas by measuring the heat released when the gas oxidises on a catalyst-coated bead held at an elevated temperature. The temperature rise changes the electrical resistance of the bead, which is measured against a reference element to produce a signal proportional to gas concentration. The design has been in commercial use for decades, and most current patent activity addresses failure modes like catalyst poisoning and signal drift rather than the core sensing principle itself.
Filing in this dataset is concentrated: the top five assignees hold 262 of 473 records in scope, or 55.4%, and the top ten extend that to 67.2%. The leading assignee alone holds 142 records, well ahead of the fifth-place figure of 16. Below that leader group sits a long tail of companies with far fewer filings each, so competitive attention should focus on the concentrated top rather than treating the field as evenly distributed.
Filing peaked in 2020 at 56 records and declined to 9 by 2024, a 36% drop over that three-year span. Figures for 2025 and 2026 show even lower counts, but publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so those recent years are undercounted and should not be read as proof the technology has stopped attracting investment. The more defensible reading is that filing has cooled from its 2020 peak, with the most recent trend still uncertain.
The search scope for this dataset centres on silicone poisoning, zero drift, response time, oxygen dependence, bump testing and sensor lifetime — the practical durability and calibration issues that determine whether a catalytic bead sensor stays accurate in the field. This is reflected in the technology composition, where 83.5% of the 473 records fall under G01N, the material analysis and testing classification, rather than in adjacent classes like wireless communication or alarm signalling.
The smaller IPC classes in this dataset point to under-claimed adjacent branches: wireless communication (H04W, 8.2% of 473 records), alarm signalling (G08B, 8.0%), earth and drilling applications (E21B, 5.3%), and photovoltaic-powered deployments (H02S, 3.4%) all cover a minority of records compared with the core G01N sensing claims. A new filer with a genuinely integrated claim — tying sensor output to a specific downstream system rather than the bead itself — has more open claim space than someone filing on core pellistor construction.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Catalytic Bead Combustible Gas Sensors covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Catalytic Bead Combustible Gas Sensors in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole catalytic bead combustible gas sensors 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.