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/nanoscale-surface-metrology-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Nanoscale Surface MetrologyNanoscale surface metrology patents: mapping who holds the calibration and measurement-uncertainty claims
- Five assignees account for all 19 records in scope, so this is a small, fully concentrated field rather than a crowded one — there is no long tail to screen out.
- Filing peaked in 2019 at 7 records, and activity has fallen off since, with the two most recent years showing no filings from any of the tracked assignees.
- G01B measuring/dimensional claims cover 36.8% of records, while control-systems and data-recognition classes each sit near 21%, pointing to where claim density is lightest.
19
Published Records
100%
Top-5 Share of All Records
US
Leading Jurisdiction
5
Active Filers Ranked
Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 19 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Field Overview
What this patent set actually covers
Nanoscale surface metrology, as scoped here, sits at the intersection of dimensional measurement and traceability: step-height calibration, scanner nonlinearity correction, interferometry comparison and the reporting of measurement uncertainty. The search string ties these method-level concerns to traceable standards and scan area limits, which narrows the corpus to records that address calibration and repeatability rather than general microscopy hardware. At 19 published records, this is a tightly bounded technical niche, not a broad market category.
The records span measuring instruments (G01B), imaging and holography (G03B, G03H), MEMS structures (B81B) and control systems (G05B), reflecting that surface metrology claims are usually written around a specific instrument architecture rather than a standalone measurement method. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the apparent drop-off in the most recent years understates real filing activity.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2015–2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Nanoscale Surface Metrology 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 Numbers
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 19-record corpus: how filing activity has moved year over year, and how those records distribute across IPC subclasses.
Filing trend: a single peak, then a decline
Filings rose to a peak of 7 records in 2019, up from 2 in 2017, then declined toward the end of the window. The 2026 figure is partial by design — this is a publication-lag effect, not necessarily a real stop in R&D.
Where the claims concentrate
G01B (measuring length and dimensions) is the largest single subclass at 36.8% of the 19 records, with G03B and G03H (imaging and holography) each at 31.6%. Because records can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100% of the record total — that is expected and reflects instruments that combine measurement, imaging and control functions in one filing.
Shares are the percentage of the 19 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 Nanoscale Surface Metrology covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Nanoscale Surface Metrology with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about nanoscale surface metrology and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
The most-cited record in this set
Representative Filing
Microelectromechanical system and methods of use
PURDUE RESEARCH FOUNDATION
Methods of measuring displacement of a movable mass in a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) include driving the mass against two displacement-stopping surfaces and measuring corresponding differential capacitances of sensing capacitors such as combs. A MEMS device having displacement-stopping surfaces is described. Such a device can be used to measure properties of an atomic force microscope (AFM) having a cantilever and a deflection sensor, or in a temperature sensor using a displacement-sensing unit, or in a motion-measuring device combining accelerometers and gyroscopes driven out of phase.Filed by Purdue Research Foundation, published 2015-06-25. It is the most-cited record in this corpus by a wide margin.
Most-cited records in scope
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20150177272A1 | Microelectromechanical system and methods of use | 51 |
| 2 | US20180243810A1 | Harsh environment enclosure | 15 |
| 3 | US20170230548A1 | Harsh environment vision camera system | 15 |
| 4 | US20160097967A1 | Spindle mountable camera system | 14 |
| 5 | US9573181B2 | Spindle mountable camera system | 9 |
| 6 | WO2013188131A1 | Microelectromechanical system and methods of use | 9 |
| 7 | US20220349699A1 | Surface Shape Measurement Device and Surface Shape Measurement Method | 2 |
| 8 | US9930230B2 | Harsh environment vision camera system | 2 |
| 9 | EP2861524A1 | Microelectromechanical system and methods of use | 2 |
| 10 | EP3845857A1 | Surface shape measurement device and surface shape measurement method | 1 |
Citation counts reward older filings that have had more time to accumulate references — read this as a signal of influence within the corpus, not as a ranking of current technical importance.
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 Nanoscale Surface Metrology 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 →Analysis
What the data means for a filing decision
Three observations follow directly from the concentration, trend and citation figures above.
Concentration
100% of 19 records
held by the ranked assignees
A small field with no long tail
All 19 records in scope trace to the five ranked assignees. There is no fragmented tail of single-filing entrants to screen for freedom-to-operate risk — the relevant prior art is fully attributable to a known, short list of parties.
Useful for scoping FTO searches quickly.
Momentum
7 filings in 2019 (peak)
vs. 0 in 2026 so far
Activity has cooled, but publication lag matters
Filing peaked in 2019 and has declined since, with no filings yet recorded from tracked assignees in the most recent year. Given the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication, recent quiet is at least partly an artefact of the data cut-off rather than a real halt.
Treat the last 1–2 years as provisional.
Claim density
36.8% in G01B
of 19 records
Measurement claims dominate; control and recognition are lighter
G01B carries the largest share of records, with imaging/holography classes close behind. G01C, G05B and G06K each sit near 21%, suggesting the control-logic and data-interpretation layers around a calibration measurement are comparatively less claimed than the measurement step itself.
A gap worth checking before drafting new claims.
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 nanoscale surface metrology, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Nanoscale Surface Metrology 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
Who's Filing
The five assignees behind this corpus
The assignee ranking returned by the dataset covers five companies, and together they account for the entire 19-record corpus — this is the whole field as captured by the search, not a top slice of a larger one.
Leader
5 records
of 19 in scope
The largest single filer
The leading assignee holds 5 of the 19 records in this corpus, the largest share among the five ranked parties, though no single filer dominates the field outright.
Still a modest absolute count.
Momentum check
0 filings
in the latest tracked year, across all ranked assignees
No recent activity recorded from any tracked assignee
Every one of the five ranked assignees shows zero filings in the latest year in the data. Combined with the 2019 peak, this points to a field that was more active in the middle of the window than at either end.
Publication lag likely explains part of this.
Field size
5 ranked assignees
covering all 19 records
A fully attributed, small field
Because the ranking accounts for 100% of the 19 records in scope, there is no unattributed tail of minor filers to research separately — due diligence can focus on the five named parties.
Rare for a patent landscape this size.
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| University of Hyogo | 0 | — |
| Purdue Research Foundation | 0 | — |
| COSTA LARRY J | 0 | — |
| COSTA LARRY | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Nanoscale Surface Metrology 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
Next Steps
Where to take this analysis
The dataset answers what has been filed and by whom; the next questions are usually specific to a product roadmap or a freedom-to-operate review.
Check claim scope against a specific instrument design
IPC composition shows where claims cluster, but only a claim-by-claim read against your instrument architecture will confirm whether a design falls inside or outside the ranked assignees' coverage.
Explore claims in EurekaWatch for post-2024 publications
The apparent decline in filings after 2019 is partly a publication-lag artefact. Recheck this corpus in 6–12 months as 2024–2025 filings continue to publish.
Set up monitoring in EurekaMap the white space before drafting
The lighter-claimed control and data-recognition branches identified here are a reasonable starting point for a first claim, but need validation against the full text of nearby filings.
Run a white-space search in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Nanoscale Surface Metrology 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 about this patent landscape
This dataset returns five ranked assignees, and together they account for all 19 records in scope — there is no unattributed long tail. The leading assignee holds the largest single share at 5 records, but no party controls the field outright. For a full name-by-name breakdown, the ranking table on this page is the authoritative source rather than any summary in prose.
Filing peaked in 2019 at 7 records and has declined since, with the most recent tracked year showing no filings from any ranked assignee. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the last one to two years understate real activity rather than proving a stop. A meaningful growth rate cannot be computed from this window because too few complete years remain once the lag is accounted for.
It is a Purdue Research Foundation filing from 2015 describing a MEMS-based displacement measurement method, where a movable mass is driven against two displacement-stopping surfaces and measured via differential capacitance. Its stated uses include measuring atomic force microscope cantilever deflection and building combined accelerometer-gyroscope motion sensors. It is the most-cited record in this corpus, which signals influence within the searched set rather than current commercial dominance.
IPC composition shows G01B measurement claims and G03B/G03H imaging claims carrying the heaviest density, while control-systems (G05B) and data-recognition (G06K) classes sit lighter at around 21% of the 19 records each. That gap suggests the algorithmic and reporting layers around a calibration measurement — such as automated uncertainty-budget generation — are less densely claimed than the measurement step itself. Any first claim into these branches should still be checked against the specific prior art it would sit next to.
Fully: the five ranked assignees account for 100% of the 19 records in scope, meaning there is no fragmented group of minor filers left outside the ranking. This makes freedom-to-operate screening more tractable than in larger fields, since due diligence can focus on a known, short list of parties rather than searching for obscure holders.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Nanoscale Surface Metrology 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 Nanoscale Surface Metrology in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole nanoscale surface metrology 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.