https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/sprayer-cleaning-and-residue-management-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Crop Protection Machinery
Sprayer cleaning and residue management patents: mapping who owns closed transfer and rinsate handling
  • Concentration is modest at the top. the leading assignee holds 26 records and the top 5 combined account for just 21.6% of the 352 records in scope — no single owner controls the field.
  • Filing peaked in 2021 at 20 records and has since eased to 16 by 2024, a -20% shift over that three-year span; 2025-2026 figures are still filling in as publication catches up.
  • Cleaning chemistry outweighs cleaning hardware. C11D detergent and cleaning-composition claims cover 23.6% of records, ahead of A47L cleaning appliances at 18.8% — the fight is as much in the fluid as in the machine.
Get a prior-art report on your approach
352
Published Records
22%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-20%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction

Filing growth compares 2021 (20 records) with 2024 (16) — 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 352 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.

Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this landscape covers

This landscape tracks 352 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026 that describe sprayer cleaning, tank rinsing, chemical residue control, cross-contamination prevention, cleaning-agent formulation, rinsate handling, closed transfer systems and related record-keeping. The scope spans agricultural sprayers alongside adjacent domains — household appliance cleaning, medical instrument disinfection and industrial heat-exchanger cleaning — that share the same underlying claim language around detergents, rinsing cycles and residue removal.

Because the search string pulls from overlapping technical vocabularies, the dataset mixes agrochemical-specific filings with general cleaning-technology patents. That mixture matters for anyone scoping freedom to operate: a claim written for glass-substrate cleaning or steam-mop appliances can still read on an agricultural sprayer rinsing cycle if the independent claim language is broad enough.

Filing activity, 2017-2026
  1. 1ABEC INC26
  2. 2ECOLAB USA INC15
  3. 3BISSELL INC13
  4. 4BLUE PENNY LLC11
  5. 5DEERE & CO11
  6. 6ECOLAB INC10
  7. 7CROSSFORD INTERNATIONAL LLC10
  8. 8TRISTEL PCL9
  9. 9SIEMENS HEALTHCARE DIAGNOSTICS INC8
  10. 10THE LUBRIZOL CORP8
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Sprayer Cleaning and Residue Management 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 352 records: how filing activity has moved year on year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.

A 2021 peak, now easing

Annual filings rose from 14 in 2017 to a peak of 20 in 2021, then declined to 16 by 2024 — a -20% change over that three-year window. Counts for 2025 and 2026 are still climbing as publication lag (typically around 18 months) catches up with filing dates, so the apparent recent drop should not be read as the field cooling.

A 2021 peak, now easing05101520142017201820192020202021202220232024202512026Most recent year is partial — publication lag means later filings are not yet visible.

Chemistry leads, hardware follows

C11D (detergents and cleaning compositions) touches 23.6% of the 352 records, the single largest class, followed by A47L cleaning appliances at 18.8%, A61L sterilising and disinfecting at 15.1%, and B08B general cleaning at 14.2%. Smaller but notable overlaps sit in A01N biocides (8.2%), A61K medicinal preparations (7.1%), F28F heat-exchanger details (7.1%) and A01M pest control (6.5%) — each record can carry more than one class, so these figures sum past 100%.

Chemistry leads, hardware followsC11D · Detergents & cleaning composit…8323.6%A47L · Cleaning & washing appliances6618.8%A61L · Sterilising & disinfecting5315.1%B08B · Cleaning (general)5014.2%A01N · Biocides / agrochemicals298.2%A61K · Medicinal preparations257.1%F28F · Heat-exchanger details257.1%A01M · Pest & vermin control236.5%Other487138.4%

Shares are the percentage of the 352 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 Sprayer Cleaning and Residue Management covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Sprayer Cleaning and Residue Management with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about sprayer cleaning and residue management and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Key Patents

A representative filing and the most-cited prior art

Representative Filing
US20240109094A12024-04-04

Agricultural sprayer cleaning systems and methods for same (US20240109094A1)

RAVEN INDUSTRIES, INC.

The filing describes a sprayer cleaning assembly built around a dedicated cleaning-agent reservoir and two operating configurations: an application configuration where the boom tube and nozzles connect only to the product reservoir, and a cleaning configuration where those same components switch to draw from the cleaning-agent reservoir instead, circulating cleaning agent through the boom tube.Filed by Raven Industries, published 2024-04-04.

US20240109094A1 — patent drawing 1US20240109094A1 — patent drawing 2
View full record
Most-cited records in this landscape
#Publication no.Patent titleCitations
1US20030014342A1Free-market environmental management system having insured certification to a process standard255
2US9561982B2Method of cleaning glass substrates192
3US20100287716A1Upright steam mop sweeper113
4US5782109ADispenser112
5US5265628AAutomated cleansing chamber111
6US6372842B1Methods of using an aqueous composition containing a water-soluble or water-dispersible synthetic polymer and…110
7US6143257ADispenser82
8US6418586B2Liquid extraction machine78
9US8458850B2Upright steam mop sweeper70
10US5975352ADispenser70

Citation counts accumulate over time, so older records dominate this table by construction — treat them as markers of influence on the field, not as evidence 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 Sprayer Cleaning and Residue Management 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
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 →
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 data means for filing strategy

Three read-throughs from the concentration, trend and classification figures above.

Concentration
21.6% top 5
of 352 records

No single owner dominates

The leading assignee holds 26 of 352 records and the top 5 combined reach only 21.6% — well short of the kind of concentration that would signal a blocking position. The remaining assignees form a long tail, mostly single- or double-digit filers.

Top 10 combined: 34.4% of 352 records
Trend
20 → 16
2021 to 2024 filings

Post-peak plateau, not a decline

Filings rose steadily from 14 in 2017 to a peak of 20 in 2021, then eased to 16 by 2024, a -20% change. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, the 2025-2026 figures are provisional and should not be read as a cooling trend.

Peak year: 2021 at 20 records
Classification
23.6% C11D
of 352 records

Formulation claims outweigh mechanical claims

Detergent and cleaning-composition claims (C11D) cover more of the corpus than any single hardware class, ahead of A47L cleaning appliances and B08B general cleaning. A filer focused purely on mechanical rinsing hardware is competing in a smaller slice of the claim space than the chemistry side.

A47L appliances: 18.8% · B08B general cleaning: 14.2%
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 sprayer cleaning and residue management, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Sprayer Cleaning and Residue Management 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 claim space is still open

The ranked assignee list runs to 100 companies counted by record — this is the full ranking the dataset returns, not a top-50 or top-100 cut. Momentum in the latest year is muted across the board, which is more consistent with the publication lag than with filers stepping back.

Leader
26 records
leading assignee

A modest lead, not a monopoly

The top-ranked assignee holds 26 of the 352 records in scope. That is a meaningful lead over the field but nowhere near the density needed to control the space outright — the fifth-ranked assignee still holds 11 records.

Fifth place: 11 records
Long tail
100 ranked
assignees counted

A wide field of filers

The ranking spans 100 assignees, with the tenth-place company holding just 8 records. Most of the field files in small numbers, which points to a technology area where individual companies protect specific implementations rather than broad platforms.

Tenth place: 8 records
Momentum
0 latest year
across tracked leaders

Latest-year filings understate activity

Several of the more active assignees show zero filings in the latest tracked year, including one at -100% year on year. Given the roughly 18-month gap between filing and publication, this reads as an artefact of the data cut-off rather than a genuine pullback.

Publication lag: approx. 18 months
🔍
Under-claimed branches worth a closer look
Sub-areas that sit inside the search scope but carry comparatively thin claim density relative to the core cleaning-composition and appliance classes.
closed transfer system interlocksautomated rinsate volume loggingcross-contamination sensor triggersmulti-chemical compatibility validationheat-exchanger residue removal cycles
Rank all filers by momentum →
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
AssigneeRecent yearYoY
ABEC Inc0
Bissell Inc0
Ecolab Inc0
Deere & Co0-100%
Ecolab USA Inc0
BLUE PENNY LLC0
Crossford International LLC0
Tristel PLC0-100%
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Sprayer Cleaning and Residue Management 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 landscape points to a fragmented ownership structure with real technical gaps still open in transfer and logging systems.

Check freedom to operate against the leading formulation claims

With C11D detergent and cleaning-composition claims covering the largest share of records, a new cleaning-agent formulation should be checked against that class first, not just against agricultural-specific filings.

Run a claim comparison in Eureka

Draft around the closed-transfer and logging gap

Automated rinsate logging and closed-transfer interlocks show thinner claim density than the core appliance and chemistry classes, which leaves room for a tightly drafted first claim in that space.

Explore white space in Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Sprayer Cleaning and Residue Management 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 sprayer cleaning patents

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Sprayer Cleaning and Residue Management 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 Sprayer Cleaning and Residue Management in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole sprayer cleaning and residue management corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka

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.