https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/supercritical-and-dry-drying-of-patterns-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Wafer Cleaning
Supercritical and Dry Drying of Patterns: Patents Shaping High-Aspect-Ratio Wafer Processing
  • 26.2% concentration at the top. The five most active assignees together hold 966 of the 3,688 records in scope, with a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants behind them.
  • Filing has plateaued, not collapsed. Complete-year filings moved from 182 in 2021 to 173 in 2024, a -5% shift — a mature but still active claim space rather than one in decline.
  • Photolithography and semiconductor-device classes dominate. H01L and G03F together touch a majority of records, while cleaning-composition classes like C11D and B08B sit far behind, hinting at where formulation claims are thinner.
Get a prior-art report on your approach
3,688
Published Records
26%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-5%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction

Filing growth compares 2021 (182 records) with 2024 (173) — 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 3,688 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.

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

What this landscape covers

Supercritical and dry drying methods address a specific failure mode in wafer processing: as feature aspect ratios climb, the surface tension of a receding liquid meniscus during conventional drying pulls neighbouring structures together, a failure known as pattern collapse. The patent activity captured here spans routes built to avoid that liquid-vapour interface altogether — supercritical carbon dioxide drying, Marangoni-effect drying, and surface-tension-reduction chemistries — alongside the chamber-pressure control hardware and residue-management steps that make those routes usable in production.

The dataset covers 3,688 published records filed or published between 2015 and mid-2026, drawn from a search string anchored on pattern collapse, supercritical and Marangoni drying, and the mechanical and chemical levers used to fight capillary force at high aspect ratio.

Filing activity and technology composition, 2015-2026
  1. 1SHIN ETSU CHEMICAL CO LTD351
  2. 2APPLIED MATERIALS INC170
  3. 3BASF SE156
  4. 4TOKYO OHKA KOGYO CO LTD153
  5. 5TOKYO ELECTRON LTD136
  6. 6FUJIFILM CORP133
  7. 7CENT GLASS CO LTD121
  8. 8INPRIA CORP113
  9. 9TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO LTD97
  10. 10KIMBERLY CLARK WORLDWIDE INC72
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Supercritical and Dry Drying of Patterns 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 trends and technology composition

Two views of the same 3,688-record corpus: the year-by-year filing curve, and the IPC subclasses those records fall under.

Filing trend: a peak year, then a plateau

Annual filings rose to a peak of 276 in 2018 before settling into a stable band; 2021's 182 fell to 173 by 2024, a -5% move over three years. Filing counts for 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent two years understate actual filing activity and should not be read as a fresh decline.

Filing trend: a peak year, then a plateau075150225300249201727620182019202020212022202320242025122026Most recent year is partial — publication lag means later filings are not yet visible.

Technology composition: semiconductor and lithography classes lead

H01L (semiconductor devices) appears on 43.8% of records and G03F (photolithography) on 38.0%, reflecting how tightly drying claims are bound to the device and patterning steps they protect. Cleaning-specific classes such as B08B and C11D sit under 8% each, and polymer and inorganic-chemistry classes (C08G, C01B, C08J) are each below 6.5% — a signal that formulation-level claims are comparatively sparse relative to device- and process-level claims.

Technology composition: semiconductor and lithography classes leadH01L · Semiconductor devices1,61643.8%G03F · Photolithography & photomechan…1,40138.0%H10P65417.7%B08B · Cleaning (general)2707.3%C11D · Detergents & cleaning composit…2637.1%C08G · Condensation polymers2366.4%C01B · Non-metallic elements & inorga…2216.0%C08J · Polymer processing & solutions2085.6%Other3,48294.4%

Shares are the percentage of the 3,688 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 Supercritical and Dry Drying of Patterns covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Supercritical and Dry Drying of Patterns with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about supercritical and dry drying of patterns and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Key Patents

Most-cited records and a representative claim

Representative Record
US8440573B22013-05-14

Method and apparatus for pattern collapse free wet processing of semiconductor devices

LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION

A method is provided for processing a wafer used in fabricating semiconductor devices. The method can comprise forming high-aspect ratio features on the wafer, which is followed by wet processing and drying. During drying, pattern collapse can occur. This pattern collapse can be repaired to allow for additional processing of the wafer. In some instance, pattern collapse can be repaired via etching where the etching breaks bonds that can have formed during pattern collapse.Filed by Lam Research Corporation, granted 2013 — notable for claiming repair of collapse after it occurs, rather than only prevention during the drying step.

US8440573B2 — patent drawing 1US8440573B2 — patent drawing 2
View full record →
Highest-citation records in the corpus
#Publication no.Patent titleCitations
1US6565763B1Method for manufacturing porous structure and method for forming pattern840
2US9310684B2Organometallic solution based high resolution patterning compositions624
3US20170102612A1Organotin oxide hydroxide patterning compositions, precursors, and patterning619
4US20130095664A1Atomic layer deposition of antimony oxide films563
5US20120164846A1Method of Forming Metal Oxide Hardmask545
6US8901016B2Method of forming metal oxide hardmask543
7US20150243542A1Substrate processing apparatus and substrate processing method540
8US9171716B2Method of forming metal oxide hardmask534
9US6589707B2Partially crosslinked polymer for bilayer photoresist490
10US20170343896A1Sequential infiltration synthesis for enhancing multiple-patterning lithography483

Citation counts favour older, earlier-filed records inside a searched corpus and should be read as a signal of influence on later filings, not as a marker 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 Supercritical and Dry Drying of Patterns 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 numbers mean for a filing decision

Three read-throughs from the concentration, trend and class data above.

Concentration
26.2% / top 5
share of all 3,688 records

The top of the field is dense, the middle is not

Five assignees hold 966 records between them, but the gap to tenth place (72 records) is steep, and the ranking runs a full 100 companies deep. That shape favours challengers who target a specific sub-route rather than compete head-on across the whole drying process.

Based on the assignee ranking, 100 companies
Filing momentum
-5%
2021 to 2024, complete years

A plateau, not a retreat

The 2021-2024 window shows filings holding roughly steady rather than accelerating or collapsing. Given the 2018 peak of 276, current levels suggest the core prevention mechanisms are largely staked out, with incremental filing continuing around them.

2025-2026 figures are still filling in; publication lags filing by about 18 months
Class distribution
43.8% / H01L
share of all 3,688 records

Device claims outnumber formulation claims

H01L and G03F together anchor most of the corpus, while dedicated cleaning-composition classes (B08B, C11D) each sit under 8%. That gap is a filing signal: chemistry-level claims around residue and surface-tension-reduction may be less crowded than the device- and process-level claims around them.

IPC subclass shares, of 3,688 records; a record may carry multiple 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 supercritical and dry drying of patterns, 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 Supercritical and Dry Drying of Patterns 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 gaps sit

The ranked leaders span equipment makers, materials suppliers and device manufacturers rather than a single industry segment, which is typical for a process step that touches chemistry, hardware and the wafer itself.

Leader
351 records
single leading assignee

One assignee well ahead of the pack

The leading assignee's 351 records sit well above fifth place at 136, marking a clear scale advantage in this corpus. That gap likely reflects breadth across equipment, chemistry and process claims rather than depth in any one sub-route.

Assignee ranking, 3,688 records in scope
Mid-field
72 records
tenth-ranked assignee

A steep drop after the top five

Filings fall from 136 at fifth place to 72 at tenth, and the ranking runs 100 companies deep with most holding far fewer records. That long tail is where newer chemistry and hardware entrants sit.

Assignee ranking, 100 companies
Momentum
Mixed YoY
recent-year filings by assignee

Most latest-year activity has slowed across the board

Several of the largest historical filers show sharp year-on-year drops in the most recent year, including moves to zero filings; a few smaller filers hold flat at a single filing. Given the ~18-month publication lag, this pattern is as likely to reflect incomplete recent-year data as any real pullback.

Most recent complete year vs prior year, selected assignees
🔍
Under-claimed sub-areas worth a closer look
Branches where filing density is comparatively thin relative to the core drying and collapse-prevention claims.
Residue-after-drying detection methodsMarangoni surfactant formulation chemistryChamber pressure ramp-rate controlCO2 drying cycle-time optimisationSurface-tension-reduction additive stability
Rank all filers by momentum →
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
AssigneeRecent yearYoY
Tokyo Electron Limited1-89%
Inpria Corporation1-50%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (TSMC)10%
Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc.10%
Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd.0-100%
Applied Materials, Inc.0-100%
BASF SE0—
Tokyo Ohka Kogyo Co., Ltd.0—
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Supercritical and Dry Drying of Patterns 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 figures above answer what has already been filed. Two follow-up questions matter more for a live filing decision.

Map claim scope on the leading assignee's portfolio

A 351-record position can be built from broad process claims, narrow formulation claims, or both. Reading the independent claims of the leader's most-cited records clarifies which parts of the drying process are actually locked up.

Explore assignee portfolios in Eureka →

Stress-test a candidate claim against the white space

The under-claimed sub-areas identified here are a starting point, not a guarantee of freedom to operate. Running a candidate claim through a full prior-art search against the residue-management and surfactant-chemistry branches will confirm whether the gap holds.

Run a white space search in Eureka →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Supercritical and Dry Drying of Patterns 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 this landscape

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Supercritical and Dry Drying of Patterns 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 Supercritical and Dry Drying of Patterns in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole supercritical and dry drying of patterns 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.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.