One issue that one runs into with your question is how one defines a new field being spun off. Some people have argued that biology didn't really split off from philosophy until the 1850s and 60s, especially with the work of Darwin and Wallace. This is a popular view among Kuhnians who mark a field as becoming science when it gains an overarching accepted paradigm. (However, one could argue that the field left philosophy before it entered science.)

The word "scientist" was first used in 1833, and prior to that "natural philosopher" was used. But certainly by the late 1700s, they were practicing what we could call science. So that argument fails even if one extends the date.

Economics is generally thought of having split off from philosophy when Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations, and that's in the late 18th century. But arguably, merchantilist ideas were a form of economics that predated Smith and were separate from philosophy. And you could push the date farther up, pointing out that until fairly late most of the people thinking about economics are people like Bentham who we think of as philosophers.

Possibly the best example of an area that split off recently might be psychology. Wilhelm Wundt is sometimes regarded as the individual who split that off, doing actual controlled scientific experiments in the late 19th century. But there was research being done by scientists/biologists/natural philosophers much earlier in the 19th century, especially in regards to whether the nervous system was the source of cognition. Wikipedia claims that that work started as early as 1802 with Cabanis (this is surprising to me since I didn't realize he was that early). One could argue given all the subsequent Freudian and Jungian material that psychology didn't really split off from philosophy until that was removed from mainstream psychology which was in the 1960s and 70s. However, that seems like a weak argument.

Linguistics might be another example, but again, how you define the split matters. It also runs into the not tiny issue that much of linguistics spun off from issues of philology, a field already distinct from philosophy. But other areas of linguistics broke off later, and some people still seem to think of issues like Sapir-Whorf as philosophical questions.

So a lot of this seems to depend on definitions, but regardless of definitions it seems clear that no field has spun off in the last 30 years. Going back farther makes the question murkier, but a decent argument can be made that there has been no such spin off in the last 150 years.