SLS Post-Processing Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Filing activity peaked in 2019 at 9 records and has not returned to that level since, with the midpoint year 2022 showing zero filings — a flat-to-declining pattern rather than a growing field.
- B33Y and B29C dominate the IPC mix appearing in 24 and 17 of 25 records respectively, while powder metallurgy (B22F) and cleaning (B08B) sit far behind at single digits — the surrounding process classes are thin.
- Only three co-assignee pairs exist across the dataset and the strongest, Monaco Luigi and Eckstein Harald, links just 5 records — collaboration is rare and the field is largely single-filer.
Filing growth compares 2021 (2 records) with 2024 (2) — 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 25 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this patent set covers
This landscape tracks patent families at the intersection of selective laser sintering (SLS) and the post-processing steps that turn a raw sintered part into a finished one: depowdering, surface finishing, infiltration and annealing. The search combines SLS terminology in the title and abstract with post-processing terms restricted to the title and claims, filtered against additive-manufacturing and plastics-shaping IPC codes (B29C64/40, B29C71, B33Y40). The result is a narrow, process-specific slice of the broader SLS literature rather than the full additive-manufacturing corpus.
Twenty-five patent families were published within the coverage window, filed largely through the United States, China, the EPO and the WIPO PCT route. Filing lagged after a 2019 peak and the most recent year is necessarily undercounted, since publication trails filing by roughly 18 months.
Filing trend and technology composition
Twenty-five families across an eleven-year window is a small, specialised dataset. The trend and IPC mix below describe where filing effort has actually gone, not where the underlying technology is headed.
A 2019 peak that has not repeated
Filings rose to 9 in 2019, the high point of the window, then fell back; 2022 recorded zero filings at the midpoint of the coverage period. Read the tail end of the chart cautiously — recent years understate true filing activity because publication lags filing by about 18 months.
Concentrated in two classes, thin everywhere else
B33Y (additive manufacturing) and B29C (plastics shaping) cover 24 and 17 of the 25 records, meaning most claims describe the printing or shaping step itself rather than a distinct post-processing operation. Powder metallurgy, cleaning, abrasive blasting, ceramics and alloy classes each register in the single digits — these adjacent process areas carry far less claim density.
Shares are the percentage of the 25 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Selective Laser Sintering Post-Processing with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about selective laser sintering post-processing and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this set
US20200376708A1 — Selective laser sintering device
Describes an SLS device combining a laser forming unit, a support platform and a driving mechanism with separate vertical and horizontal drive stages, used to lay and sinter powder layer by layer across sections of an object.Filed by Huazhong University of Science and Technology; published 2020-12-03.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2011145960A1 | Method and device for smoothing elements made using the SLS incremental technology | 43 |
| 2 | US20180141119A1 | Metal Flake Composites and Methods of Making and Using the Same for Additive Manufacturing | 33 |
| 3 | CN111922343A | 一种采用球形钨粉制备CuW60-CuW90材料的方法 | 8 |
| 4 | WO2019149305A1 | Device and method for handling 3D powder printing elements | 5 |
| 5 | CN117340274A | 一种有序异质结构多金属复合材料及其制备方法 | 4 |
| 6 | US20200376708A1 | Selective laser sintering device | 4 |
| 7 | CN111761061A | 3D打印三维网络结构石墨/金属复合材料及其常压铸渗制备方法 | 2 |
Citation counts accumulate over time and favour older filings; treat them as a marker of influence within this corpus, not of current commercial relevance.
Patent titles are shown in the language they were filed in, not translated, so that each record stays verifiable against the original filing — a translated title will not match in Eureka or in any national register. Publication numbers are shown where the record carries one (7 of 7 rows); clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Put your own technology through the same analysis
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 →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 →What the numbers say about this field
Three patterns stand out once the IPC composition and citation table are set against the small size of the dataset.
Smoothing sits at the top of the influence table
The most-cited record in this set addresses smoothing of SLS parts rather than depowdering or infiltration, and it draws more than four times the citations of the second-ranked family. That gap suggests early smoothing claims shaped how later filers described their own surface-finishing steps.
Activity is uneven, not building
A single peak year followed by a documented zero at the midpoint points to a field driven by a handful of filing bursts rather than steady year-on-year growth. Recent years should be read as provisional given the usual 18-month publication lag.
Filing is spread across offices, not concentrated in one
No single receiving office accounts for even a third of the 25 records, and Canada and Germany each register a small residual count. That spread is unusual for a niche process area and implies no single jurisdiction has established a dominant claim position.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to selective laser sintering post-processing, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and how they cluster
With only three co-assignee pairs in the entire dataset, this is a field of largely independent filers rather than one built through joint development programmes.
The one substantial co-filing pair
This individual-inventor pairing accounts for the largest co-assignee link in the dataset, well ahead of the next pair at 2 shared records. It stands apart from the university- and institute-led filings that make up most of the rest of the corpus.
An academic filer with no recent activity
Huazhong University of Science and Technology holds the representative record in this set, an SLS device patent, but shows no filings in the most recent year tracked, a -100% year-on-year change consistent with the broader post-2019 slowdown.
A national-lab presence with no current filings
A US national-laboratory entity appears among the tracked assignees but also shows zero activity in the latest year, matching the pattern across nearly every named assignee in this dataset — none show positive recent-year momentum.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Huazhong University of Science and Technology | 0 | -100% |
| MONACO LUIGI | 0 | — |
| ECKSTEIN HARALD | 0 | — |
| Shaanxi Sirui New Materials Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Teegevic Paint and Coatings KG | 0 | — |
| Sandia National Technologies Engineering Solutions | 0 | — |
| Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. | 0 | — |
| 3D Systems Corporation | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset is small enough that manual review of individual families is practical, and the thin adjacent IPC classes are worth a closer look before committing to a filing strategy.
Map claim scope on the citation leaders
Read the independent claims of the two highest-cited records against your own process steps to see how narrowly smoothing and metal-composite claims are actually drafted.
Explore claims in EurekaTrack the thin IPC classes for new entrants
Cleaning (B08B), abrasive blasting (B24C) and ceramics (C04B) each carry only a handful of records; a new filer in any of these could shift the balance quickly given how little prior art sits there.
Set up a monitoring alert in EurekaCommon questions about SLS post-processing patents
In this dataset, post-processing covers the steps applied after a part is sintered but before it is finished: depowdering to remove unfused powder, surface finishing such as smoothing or abrasive blasting, infiltration with a secondary material to seal porosity, and thermal annealing to relieve stress. The search deliberately restricted these terms to the title and claims to isolate patents that claim a distinct post-sintering operation, rather than mentioning finishing in passing within a broader SLS device patent. That is why the IPC mix still shows heavy overlap with core additive-manufacturing and plastics-shaping classes.
The data shows 9 filings in 2019, the highest point in the eleven-year window, followed by a fall to zero at the 2022 midpoint. Without inventor-level interviews this pattern cannot be attributed to a single cause, but it is consistent with a niche process area where a small number of filers file in bursts rather than continuously. Readers should also discount the most recent one to two years in any trend chart, since publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures will rise as more records are indexed.
The most-cited record in this set, WO2011145960A1, addresses smoothing of SLS-made elements and carries far more citations than any other family in the corpus. A second frequently cited record, US20180141119A1, covers metal flake composites for additive manufacturing rather than a finishing step per se. Beyond these two, citation counts drop sharply, and most assignees in the dataset – including academic and national-laboratory filers – show no filings in the most recent tracked year, so no single company holds a dominant, currently active position.
The IPC composition shows two classes, B33Y and B29C, covering nearly all 25 records, while adjacent process classes – cleaning (B08B), abrasive blasting (B24C), ceramics (C04B) and alloys (C22C) – each register only a handful of filings. That imbalance points to under-claimed territory in automated depowdering of complex internal geometries, chemical infiltration of polymer parts, and abrasive-blast finishing tuned specifically for metal SLS output. A new filer targeting one of these thinner classes would face less prior art than one filing directly into the crowded B33Y or B29C space.
No. The dataset records only three co-assignee pairs across 25 families, and the strongest pairing links just 5 shared records between two named inventors rather than two corporations. Momentum figures for the tracked assignees – including a major university and a national laboratory – all show zero filings in the latest year, so there is no visible leader currently accelerating. This looks more like a fragmented field of independent or small-team filers than one consolidating around a handful of dominant players.
Research Selective Laser Sintering Post-Processing in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole selective laser sintering post-processing 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.