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/megasonic-and-physical-particle-removal-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Wafer Cleaning · Patent LandscapeMegasonic and Physical Particle Removal Patents
- 19.2% concentration at the top. The five leading assignees combine for 279 of the 1,451 records in scope, a meaningful but not overwhelming share of the field.
- Growth is real, not flat. Filings rose from 16 in 2021 to 21 in 2024, a +31% increase over that three-year span — read 2025 onward as still filling in.
- Semiconductor claims dominate the cleaning art. H01L appears on 29.0% of records and H10P on 20.2%, alongside B08B cleaning claims on 38.8% — this is chip-fab cleaning first, general cleaning second.
1,451
Published Records
19%
Top-5 Share of All Records
+31%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (16 records) with 2024 (21) — 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 1,451 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this patent set covers
This landscape tracks 1,451 patent records filed between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine megasonic or ultrasonic cleaning methods with physical particle-removal mechanics — cavitation damage control, acoustic streaming, pattern collapse mitigation, removal-force tuning, frequency selection and boundary-layer management. The search string ties cleaning-method language directly to these damage-and-force concepts, so the corpus skews toward records where megasonic energy is being engineered around a specific failure mode rather than described in general terms.
The representative record in this set, Micron's controlled boundary-layer megasonic system, illustrates the core engineering tension the field keeps returning to: enough cavitation energy to dislodge particles without enough to damage increasingly fragile, high-aspect-ratio patterned structures. Most of the claim activity in this dataset sits somewhere on that line.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2015–2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Megasonic and Physical Particle Removal 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
The Data
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 1,451-record set: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings peaked at 47 in 2017 and have since settled into a lower but climbing band — 16 in 2021 rising to 21 in 2024, a +31% increase. The 2025 and 2026 figures are undercounts because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months; do not read the tail-off as a slowdown.
IPC subclass composition
B08B (general cleaning) leads at 38.8% of the 1,451 records, with H01L (semiconductor devices) close behind at 29.0% and H10P at 20.2%. Because records can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares sum past 100% — they describe overlap between cleaning-method claims and semiconductor-device claims, not a partition of the field.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,451 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 Megasonic and Physical Particle Removal covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Megasonic and Physical Particle Removal with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about megasonic and physical particle removal and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
The representative filing and the most-cited prior art
Representative Record
US20090173358A1 — Megasonic cleaning with controlled boundary layer thickness and associated systems and methods
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.
Megasonic cleaning systems and methods of using megasonic pressure waves to impart cavitation energy proximate a surface of a microelectronic substrate are disclosed herein. A process tank holds a liquid; a support element carries a submerged substrate; first and second transducers are positioned in the tank. The first transducer initiates cavitation events in a bulk portion of the liquid near the substrate surface. The second transducer controls an interface of fluid friction between the substrate and the bulk liquid — separating particle-removal energy from boundary-layer control as two independently tuned mechanisms.Filed by Micron Technology, this record sets out the two-transducer architecture that much of the later boundary-layer and frequency-selection art in this dataset builds on or works around.
Most-cited records in this corpus
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20160045841A1 | New and improved system for processing various chemicals and materials | 857 |
| 2 | US4914562A | Thermal jet recording apparatus | 378 |
| 3 | US6447604B1 | Method for achieving improved epitaxy quality (surface texture and defect density) on free-standing (aluminum… | 353 |
| 4 | US5656097A | Semiconductor wafer cleaning system | 274 |
| 5 | US5922161A | Surface treatment of polymers | 240 |
| 6 | US7052532B1 | High temperature nanofilter, system and method | 232 |
| 7 | US20160221262A1 | Systems and methods for fabricating three-dimensional objects | 226 |
| 8 | US20070161902A1 | Localized production of microbubbles and control of cavitational and heating effects by use of enhanced ultra… | 223 |
| 9 | WO2014153570A2 | New and improved system for processing various chemicals and materials | 219 |
| 10 | US20050003737A1 | Method and apparatus to process substrates with megasonic energy | 211 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older filings — treat this list as a signal of foundational influence, not of which patents matter most today.
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 Megasonic and Physical Particle Removal 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 say about where this field stands
Three read-throughs from the filing data, assignee concentration and technology mix.
Concentration
19.2%
of 1,451 records held by top 5
The top is present but not dominant
The five leading assignees hold 279 of the 1,451 records in scope — real concentration, but well short of the kind of lockout seen in fields where a handful of players hold a majority. Extending to the ranked top 10 only adds another 129 records (28.1% combined), which points to a long tail of moderate filers rather than a two-company race.
Top 5 = 279 records; Top 10 = 408 records, both against the full 1,451.
Growth
+31%
filing growth, 2021→2024
Momentum is rebuilding after the 2017 peak
Filings peaked at 47 in 2017, then cooled before climbing again — 16 in 2021 to 21 in 2024. That three-year growth figure is the most reliable recent signal available, since 2025 and 2026 counts are still incomplete due to publication lag.
2021 = 16 records; 2024 = 21 records.
Claim overlap
38.8% / 29.0%
B08B vs H01L share of records
Cleaning-method and device claims overlap heavily
B08B general cleaning claims appear on 38.8% of the 1,451 records and H01L semiconductor-device claims on 29.0%, with H10P at 20.2%. The overlap indicates that most megasonic cleaning innovation in this set is being claimed jointly with the device or process it protects, not as a standalone cleaning method.
Shares sum past 100% because records carry multiple IPC classes.
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 megasonic and physical particle removal, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Megasonic and Physical Particle Removal 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 the gate sits for new entrants
The ranked assignee list covers 100 companies counted by record — not a top-50 or top-100 cut, just the full ranking the data endpoint returns. The leader holds 119 records; fifth place sits at 29 and tenth at 24, a fairly gentle slope rather than a cliff.
Leader
119 records
top assignee
One clear leader, then a gradual taper
The leading assignee's 119 records sit well above fifth place at 29, but the drop from fifth to tenth (29 to 24) is shallow — this is a field with one strong incumbent surrounded by a broad, moderately active second tier rather than a duopoly.
Leader = 119; 5th = 29; 10th = 24.
Receiving offices
596 US filings
of the tracked receiving offices
US-centred, with real EPO and PCT presence
The United States receives the largest share of filings at 596, ahead of Europe (EPO) at 189 and WIPO/PCT at 174. Japan (107), Singapore (62) and Australia (45) round out meaningful but secondary filing venues — a company clearing US claims still needs to check EPO and PCT coverage separately.
US 596, EPO 189, WIPO 174, Japan 107, SG 62, Australia 45.
Collaboration
10 pairs
co-assignee pairings identified
Collaboration is limited and concentrated on one filer
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in this corpus, and the strongest links all trace back to a single leading assignee pairing with named inventors at counts of 5 each. Cross-company joint filing is rare here — most of the field files independently.
Strongest pairs recorded at 5 shared filings each.
Recent-year filing momentum
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Lam Research Corp | 0 | — |
| Applied Materials, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Tech Sonic LLP | 0 | — |
| Fontana Tech | 0 | — |
| Altum Tech Oy | 0 | — |
| Kyocera Corporation | 0 | — |
| Corning Inc | 0 | — |
| ASML Netherlands B.V. | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Megasonic and Physical Particle Removal 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 analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether you are scoping freedom-to-operate, tracking a competitor, or sizing a filing strategy.
Run a freedom-to-operate check on boundary-layer control
The representative record's two-transducer, controlled boundary-layer architecture underlies a meaningful share of later filings — any new megasonic system claim should be checked against it before drafting.
Explore claims in EurekaTrack the leading assignee's recent-year activity
With the top filer's recent-year momentum reported at zero new records in the latest year, confirm whether this reflects publication lag or an actual pause before reading it as a competitive opening.
Monitor assignee activity in EurekaMap the under-claimed sub-areas against your own portfolio
Frequency-selection control loops and boundary-layer sensing sit outside the densest IPC clusters — worth a targeted search before assuming they are open.
Run a white-space search in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Megasonic and Physical Particle Removal 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 on megasonic cleaning patents
One assignee leads the ranked list with 119 records, well ahead of fifth place at 29 and tenth at 24. The top five combined hold 279 of the 1,451 records in scope, which is 19.2% of the field — a real lead but not a lockout, since the drop-off from the leader to the rest of the ranked field is gradual rather than a cliff. Anyone assessing competitive risk should look at the full ranked list of 100 companies rather than assuming the top handful controls the space.
Filings are growing on the most reliable recent measure available: 16 records in 2021 rose to 21 in 2024, a +31% increase. Filings peaked earlier at 47 in 2017 and dipped afterward, so the shape is a decline-then-recovery rather than steady growth throughout. Figures for 2025 and 2026 look lower, but that reflects the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication, not an actual slowdown.
B08B, the general cleaning classification, appears on 38.8% of the 1,451 records, the single largest IPC share in this dataset. H01L semiconductor-device claims follow at 29.0% and H10P at 20.2%, with smaller but notable shares in C11D detergents (6.0%), G03F photolithography (5.7%) and B06B mechanical vibration generation (5.4%). Because records can carry multiple IPC codes, these percentages overlap rather than sum to 100%, showing that most innovation here is claimed jointly across cleaning method and semiconductor device.
US20090173358A1, filed by Micron Technology, describes a megasonic cleaning system using two independently positioned transducers — one to initiate cavitation events near the substrate surface, the other to control the boundary-layer interface between the substrate and bulk liquid. It matters because it separates particle-removal energy and boundary-layer control into two tunable mechanisms rather than one, a structural approach that later boundary-layer and frequency-selection filings in this dataset either build on or design around. Anyone drafting a new megasonic cleaning claim involving dual-transducer or boundary-layer-specific control should review it directly.
The densest claim clusters sit in general cleaning (B08B), semiconductor devices (H01L) and the H10P classification, together covering the bulk of the 1,451 records. Sub-areas with comparatively thinner coverage include frequency-selection control loops, boundary-layer thickness sensing, pattern-collapse-specific removal-force limits, and detergent-megasonic co-formulation — these sit adjacent to the dense clusters rather than fully inside them. A targeted prior-art search in these specific sub-areas is a more productive starting point than filing broadly against general megasonic cleaning claims.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Megasonic and Physical Particle Removal 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 Megasonic and Physical Particle Removal in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole megasonic and physical particle removal 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.