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/sonic-facial-cleansing-devices-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Personal Care AppliancesSonic Facial Cleansing Device Patents: Who Holds the Claims and Where the Gaps Sit
- Filing peaked in 2020 at 29 records, and the 2021-to-2024 span shows a -33% pullback rather than sustained growth.
- One company leads with 50 records, then filing drops to 6 at fifth place and 2 by tenth — a steep tail, not a crowded middle.
- Brush-hardware classes dominate the corpus, with A46B and A47K covering 41.3% and 28.8% of the 104 records, while camera- and informatics-linked claims stay under 13%.
104
Published Records
-33%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
16
Active Filers Ranked
Filing growth compares 2021 (6 records) with 2024 (4) — 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.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What the sonic facial cleansing patent record actually shows
Sonic facial cleansing devices sit at the intersection of personal-care hardware and physical therapy claims: brush geometry, oscillation drive, waterproof sealing and skin-contact safety all get filed as separate but overlapping inventions. The 104 records in scope span 2015 through the 2026 cut-off, with filings concentrated in a five-year run centred on 2020. Coverage pulls from brush configuration, bristle material, oscillation frequency and brush head hygiene claim language, which is why hardware-heavy IPC classes outweigh the software and sensing classes that appear alongside them.
Because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in any chart understate real filing activity for those years — treat the tail of the trend line as incomplete, not as a genuine drop-off.
Filing activity, 2017-2026 (2026 partial)
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Sonic Facial Cleansing Devices 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
The two views below use different denominators: the trend chart counts records by publication year, while the IPC chart counts every class a record carries against the same 104-record base — so class shares add to well over 100%.
A 2020 peak followed by a real but partial pullback
Filings rose from 6 in 2017 to a peak of 29 in 2020, then eased back; the tracked 2021-to-2024 window shows a -33% change, from 6 down to 4. Years after 2024 are still filling in under publication lag and should not be read as a continued decline.
Brush hardware, not smart-device sensing, carries the claim density
A46B (Brushes) and A47K (Sanitary & bathroom equipment) cover 41.3% and 28.8% of the 104 records respectively, followed by B26B (Hand-held cutting tools) at 22.1% and A61H (Physical therapy & massage) at 19.2%. Camera-linked and informatics classes — H04N and G16H — sit at 11.5% and 12.5%, marking where connected-device claims exist but remain a minority of the corpus.
Shares are the percentage of the 104 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 Sonic Facial Cleansing Devices covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Sonic Facial Cleansing Devices with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about sonic facial cleansing devices and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
The records other filings cite most
Representative filing
Dual-Function Skin Cleansing Apparatus (US20160120375A1)
EPICARE, LTD.
The filing describes a facial cleansing apparatus combining a rotating brush and an oscillating brush driven by a single motor, aimed at delivering both rotary and oscillatory cleansing action from one device body.Filed by Epicare, Ltd., published 2016-05-05.
Most-cited records in the corpus
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20050278877A1 | Brush configuration for a powered skin cleansing brush appliance | 70 |
| 2 | WO2017032547A1 | Staged advice for optimal use of a shaving device | 66 |
| 3 | US20200390468A1 | Abrasive skin care appliances | 46 |
| 4 | US20200280680A1 | Personal care device with camera | 41 |
| 5 | US10511777B2 | Personal care device with camera | 38 |
| 6 | US20200253811A1 | Skin care devices | 33 |
| 7 | US20170367471A1 | System to promote optimum performance of handheld cosmetic device | 30 |
| 8 | US20180125201A1 | Personal care device with camera | 28 |
| 9 | US20170367543A1 | Brush encoding device for system to promote optimum performance of handheld cosmetic device | 28 |
| 10 | US20160120375A1 | Dual-Function Skin Cleansing Apparatus | 26 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations inside this searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence on the field's claim language, not as a ranking of current commercial 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 Sonic Facial Cleansing Devices 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 mean for a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once the trend and class data are read together: a hardware core that stayed dense through the peak years, a citation record dominated by early brush-configuration filings, and a connected-device layer that never became the majority of the corpus.
Filing arc
29 in 2020
peak-year filings
The peak has passed, but the tail is still forming
Filings ran from 6 in 2017 to a peak of 29 in 2020 before easing to 4 by 2024, a -33% change over that tracked span. Because 2025-2026 records are still publishing, this reads as a normalisation after a filing surge rather than a technology in decline.
2017-2026 filing trend
Claim density
41.3% of records
A46B Brushes
Brush hardware still carries the most claim weight
A46B and A47K together anchor the corpus, meaning bristle geometry, brush-head assembly and sanitary-equipment claims are the most contested ground. New filings aimed squarely at brush construction face the densest prior art in the field.
IPC composition, 104 records
Connected devices
11.5% of records
H04N pictorial communication
Camera- and informatics-linked claims remain a minority
H04N and G16H sit at 11.5% and 12.5% of records respectively, well below the brush-hardware classes. Devices that pair cleansing hardware with imaging or health-informatics features are claimed far less densely, which is where freedom to operate looks wider.
IPC composition, 104 records
Citation leaders
70 citations
top-cited record
Early brush-configuration filings still anchor the field
The most-cited record in the corpus is a powered skin-cleansing brush configuration filing, followed closely by a shaving-device advisory patent and abrasive skin-care appliance filings. New entrants should expect examiners to cite this cluster regardless of filing year.
Most-cited records table
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 sonic facial cleansing devices, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Sonic Facial Cleansing Devices 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 momentum has gone quiet
The assignee ranking returned by this dataset covers 16 companies, led by one filer at 50 records against 6 at fifth place and 2 at tenth — a steep drop rather than a crowded field of comparable filers. Momentum data shows the tracked leaders, including the top filer, all recorded 0 filings in the latest year, consistent with the broader post-2020 pullback rather than any single company exiting the space.
Leader
50 records
leading assignee
One filer holds a clear lead
The top-ranked assignee holds 50 of the 104 records in scope, a scale no other tracked filer approaches; fifth place sits at only 6 records. That gap suggests the leader's portfolio, not the field average, sets the prior-art bar for new brush-hardware filings.
Assignee ranking, 16 companies
Long tail
2 records
tenth-place filer
A long tail of small, individual filers
Beyond the top few positions, filing drops quickly to single digits and then to individual inventors and small filers holding one or two records each. This pattern is typical of a hardware field where individual inventors patent specific brush or sealing mechanisms rather than platform technology.
Assignee ranking, 16 companies
Co-filing
10 pairs
co-assignee pairs
Co-assignee activity is limited and concentrated
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the corpus, with the strongest repeated pairings involving the same personal-care major alongside individual named inventors. This points to inventor-led filings assigned jointly rather than broad cross-company collaboration.
Co-assignee pairs, corpus-wide
Momentum
0 in latest year
across tracked leaders
Every tracked leader shows zero recent filings
The recent-year momentum data shows the top-ranked assignees, including the overall leader, all recorded 0 filings in the latest tracked year. Read alongside the 18-month publication lag, this reflects incomplete recent data more than a confirmed stop in filing activity.
Recent-year momentum by assignee
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. | 0 | -100% |
| L'Oréal S.A. | 0 | — |
| NICHOLS THOMAS | 0 | — |
| AGE SCI INC DBA PMD BEAUTY | 0 | — |
| Pacific Bioscience Laboratories, Inc. | 0 | — |
| PREH HOLDING LLC | 0 | — |
| Epicare, Ltd. | 0 | — |
| STRAKA SCOTT | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Sonic Facial Cleansing Devices 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 two practical next steps: checking a specific claim idea against the densest brush-hardware prior art, and scanning the under-claimed branches for a filing angle that avoids it.
Test a claim against the cited cluster
Before drafting around brush geometry or oscillation drive, check a proposed claim against the most-cited records in this corpus, since examiners are likely to raise them regardless of filing year.
Run a claim comparison in EurekaExplore the under-claimed branches
Camera-integrated diagnostics and healthcare-informatics pairing sit well below the brush-hardware classes in filing density, suggesting more room for a first-mover claim.
Explore white space in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Sonic Facial Cleansing Devices 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 sonic facial cleansing device patents
One assignee leads the ranked field with 50 of the 104 records in scope, well ahead of the fifth-ranked filer at 6 records and the tenth-ranked filer at 2. This is a steep, leader-dominated distribution rather than a field of comparably sized competitors. Anyone evaluating freedom to operate should treat that leader's portfolio as the primary prior-art reference, not the field average.
Filing peaked at 29 records in 2020 and had eased to 4 by 2024, a -33% change over that tracked span, which reads as a pullback after a filing surge rather than abandonment of the space. Records from 2025 onward are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, so the most recent years understate real activity. A clearer read on whether filing has genuinely slowed will only be available once those years finish publishing.
Brush hardware carries the densest claims: A46B (Brushes) covers 41.3% of the 104 records and A47K (Sanitary & bathroom equipment) covers 28.8%. Physical therapy and massage claims under A61H appear in 19.2% of records. Camera-linked and healthcare-informatics classes are present but represent a smaller share, at 11.5% and 12.5% respectively, indicating connected-device features are claimed less densely than the core mechanical hardware.
The classes with the lowest filing density relative to the brush-hardware core are camera-integrated diagnostics, healthcare-informatics pairing and battery-charging interface design, each appearing in well under a third of the 104 records. A first claim in these areas would likely combine an existing cleansing mechanism with a specific sensing, charging or data-pairing feature not already covered by the dense brush-configuration prior art. Waterproof seal architecture also shows comparatively lower claim density despite being a functional requirement across nearly all devices.
Not necessarily. Citation counts in a searched corpus like this one favour older filings simply because they have had more years to accumulate citations from later applicants and examiners. The most-cited record here, a powered skin-cleansing brush configuration filing, is influential in shaping later claim language, but that says more about its role as a reference point than about which products are commercially significant today.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Sonic Facial Cleansing Devices 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 Sonic Facial Cleansing Devices in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole sonic facial cleansing devices 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.