US 10126283

I'll run targeted searches for this exact patent number and its litigation status.

Let me check the litigation dockets referenced for this patent and any appellate activity.

Let me verify the full claim set and whether the '283 patent has its own appeal or IPR.

US 10,126,283 B2 — "Near-infrared time-of-flight imaging"

Verification: Searched for the literal number 10126283 only. Confirmed against Google Patents (US10126283B2), a USPTO-mirrored record, Justia (pre-grant pub. US20180292377A1), and litigation dockets. All sources agree.

1. Bibliographic data

Abstract (verbatim substance): A smart phone or tablet includes laser diodes configured to be pulsed and generate near-infrared light between 700–2500 nanometers. Lenses direct the light to a sample. A detection system includes a photodiode array with pixels coupled to CMOS transistors, and is configured to receive light reflected from the sample, to be synchronized to the light from the laser diodes, and to perform a time-of-flight measurement of a time difference between light from the laser diodes and light reflected from the sample. The detection system converts light received while the laser diodes are off into a first signal, and light received while at least one laser diode is on, which includes light reflected from the sample, into a second signal. The smart phone or tablet differences the first and second signals and generates a 2-D or 3-D image using the time-of-flight measurement.

2. Independent claims — plain-language overview

The '283 patent is a smartphone/tablet claim family: all independent claims are apparatus claims to a "smart phone or tablet." Based on the claim text available (Justia claim listing and the Google Patents claim summary), the independent claims are 1, 7, and 16, with dependents running to at least claim 19.

Claim 1 — the "on/off differencing" version (the broadest to reach on the recited features)
A smartphone or tablet containing:

• an array of laser diodes emitting at least partly in the near-infrared (700–2500 nm), with at least some of the array pulsed;
• lens(es) that take part of that light and aim it at a sample;
• a detection system built from a photodiode array whose pixels are coupled to CMOS transistors;
• that detector is synchronized with the laser-diode light, receives reflected light, and performs a time-of-flight measurement (time difference between emitted light and reflected light);
• the detector captures a first signal with the diodes off and a second signal with at least one diode on (including reflected sample light);
• the device subtracts the two signals and generates a 2-D or 3-D image from the time-of-flight measurement; and
• the device also has a wireless receiver, wireless transmitter, display, voice input module, and speaker (i.e., it must be an actual phone/tablet, not a bare sensor module).

Claim 7 — the "baseline" version
Same core hardware (NIR pulsing laser-diode array, lens, CMOS-coupled photodiode array detection system synchronized to the diodes, time-of-flight measurement, 2-D/3-D image generation), without the on/off differencing and without the wireless/display/voice/speaker recitation in the claim text as shown. Dependents of claim 7 add: laser-diode modulation frequency with lock-in detection (cl. 9), filtering at the modulation frequency (cl. 10), phase locking (cl. 11), a laser diode bar plus infrared camera (cl. 12), wavelength-selective filters (cl. 13), LIDAR (cl. 14), and combining the image with GPS information (cl. 15).

Claim 16 — the "modulation frequency / lock-in" version
Smartphone or tablet in which the laser-diode array is pulsed at a modulation frequency and the CMOS-coupled photodiode-array detection system uses a lock-in technique that detects that modulation frequency, combined with synchronization, the time-of-flight measurement, and 2-D/3-D image generation. Dependent claim 17 adds the on/off signal differencing back in.

Supporting dependents of claim 1 include claim 2 (modulation frequency + lock-in), 3 (filtering at the modulation frequency), 4 (phase locking), 5 (laser diode bar + infrared camera), and 6 (optical filters).

Common inventive core across all three independent claims: NIR (700–2500 nm) pulsed laser-diode illumination delivered by lens(es) to a sample; a CMOS-integrated photodiode-array detector synchronized to the pulses; time-of-flight ranging; and generation of a 2-D/3-D image on a phone/tablet. Background/signal-rejection is claimed three ways: differencing on/off frames (cl. 1), lock-in at the modulation frequency (cl. 16), or both as dependents.

3. Prosecution family / priority

From the file-history text surfaced in PTAB exhibits, the '283 application sits in a large continuation chain:

• 16/004,154 (the '283 application, filed 2018-06-08) is a CON of 15/855,201 (filed 2017-12-27, issued as US 9,995,722), which is a CON of 15/711,907 (2017-09-21, US 9,897,584), which is a DIV of 15/357,225 (2016-11-21, US 9,797,876), which claims priority to 2012-12-31.
• The '283 application itself is a parent of 16/188,194 (2018-11-12, issued as US 10,386,230).

Note the description of the '283 patent shares extensive text with the sibling SWIR supercontinuum patents in this family (e.g., US 9,651,533), which is why mixed SWIR/chemometrics material appears in its specification's "definitions" harvest.

4. Litigation and PTAB / CAFC activity as of April 2026

District court (verified):

• Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:26-cv-00356 (E.D. Tex.) — filed early January 2026. Google Patents' litigation link for the '283 patent points to this exact case (Darts-IP family no. 51538260). A complaint analysis states the '283 patent is asserted against "laser autofocus" (direct time-of-flight) in Samsung smartphones (Galaxy Note 20 Ultra, S21/S22/S23/S24/S26 Ultra) and Samsung Galaxy XR headsets. The specific asserted claim numbers for '283 were not recoverable from the sources I could reach — treat that as unconfirmed.
• Broader Omni MedSci campaign in the same court (2:26-cv-289 lead case, consolidated June 17–18, 2026) against Samsung, Oura Health, Fossil, and OnePlus; and Omni MedSci, Inc. v. WHOOP, Inc., C.A. No. 25-140 (D. Del.). None of the WHOOP-asserted patents I found ('868, '533, '484, '304, '455, '790, '475) is the '283 patent.

PTAB (verified): Samsung-led IPRs/PGRs in 2025 (e.g., IPR2025-01249, IPR2025-01250, PGR2025-00063) target '868, '533, '304, '455, '790, and '475 — again not the '283 patent. The '533 patent (same family, earlier-issued) had a final written decision in IPR2019-00916 and an appellate history.

CAFC 2026: I found no Federal Circuit docket in 2026 naming US 10,126,283. The Federal Circuit matters I could locate in this family are Omni MedSci v. Apple, No. 2021-01229 (Fed. Cir.) and Apple v. Omni MedSci, No. 2023-1034 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2024), both concerning other patents in the chain, not '283. Flagging as uncertain: I cannot rule out a 2026 appeal involving '283 that has not been indexed in the sources I could search; PACER/CM-ECF would be authoritative.

5. Explicit uncertainties

1. Claim numbering/set: My claim overview rests on the Justia text (independent claims 1, 7, 16; dependents through at least 19) and the Google Patents claim summary. The Google Patents full text as fetched did not include a complete claim listing, so total claim count (19 vs. more) is inferred, not confirmed from the facsimile.
2. The middle summary paragraph on Google Patents ("pulsed at a modulation frequency … lock-in technique") reads like a fourth possible independent-claim variant; I have mapped the variants onto claims 1/7/16 per the Justia text, but the exact wording-to-claim mapping should be confirmed against the printed patent.
3. Litigation counts: The Samsung complaint analysis confirms '283 is asserted and against which products, but I could not verify the asserted claim numbers. Claim-count allegations change as complaints are amended.
4. Expiration: The 2033-12-17 date is Google's algorithmic estimate; the actual term depends on the 2012-12-31 priority chain and any PTA/terminal disclaimers.

6. Do-not-confuse warning (similar numbers in the same family)

Given the instruction to not auto-correct identifiers, note that this family contains several visually and numerically close patents that are different documents:

• US 10,201,283 (application 16/029,611, filed 2018-07-08) — also an Omni MedSci/Islam patent, but not the patent discussed here.
• US 10,386,230 (16/188,194) — a child of the '283 application.
• US 10,213,113, US 10,172,523, US 10,441,176, US 10,136,819, US 10,098,546, US 9,995,722, US 9,897,584, US 9,797,876.

Any of these may appear in the same litigation and PTAB papers. My answer above concerns only US 10,126,283.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 10126283. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me search for specific cases asserting this patent.

Let me dig into the specific cases and confirm which assert the '283 patent.

Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,126,283

Summary: I found one district-court case in which U.S. Patent No. 10,126,283 ("Near-infrared time-of-flight imaging," Omni MedSci, Inc.) is asserted. I found no CAFC appeal or PTAB proceeding naming the '283 patent itself. Note that I could not retrieve a PACER-native docket sheet for this case, so some details below are drawn from secondary sources and should be verified against PACER before being relied upon.

1. Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Grounding:

• The Google Patents page for US10126283 lists under "Family has litigation" a U.S. case filed in the Texas Eastern District Court, linked as case 2:26-cv-00356 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10126283/en).
• A complaint analysis of Omni MedSci Inc v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, No. 2:26-cv-00356, expressly discusses "'283 Patent Infringement Allegations," stating that the complaint alleges Samsung's "laser autofocus (laser AF)" direct time-of-flight (dToF) feature — a near-infrared laser-diode array plus CMOS photodiode detector performing a time-of-flight measurement to build a depth map — infringes claim 1 of the '283 patent (https://ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net/case/dct/txed/2:26-cv-00356/doc/analysis/1).
• A Korean-language news report (THE Biz, published 2026-08-26) independently lists U.S. Patent No. 10,126,283 as one of eight patents asserted by Omni MedSci against Samsung Electronics, Samsung Electronics America, and Samsung Semiconductor in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (http://www.the-biz.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=[719863](/patent/719863)).

Other patents asserted in the same complaint (per the two secondary sources above): U.S. 11,241,156; 11,596,311; 11,678,805; 11,992,291; 12,426,788; 12,588,820; and 12,599,305.

Accused products: Samsung Galaxy smartphones (Note 20 Ultra, S21 Ultra, S22 Ultra, S23 Ultra, S24 Ultra, S26 Ultra) and the Samsung Galaxy XR headset, based on their laser AF / dToF functionality.

Uncertainty flags:

• I could not confirm the precise filing date, presiding judge, or full docket history of 2:26-cv-00356 from a primary source. E.D. Tex. Marshall Division cases assigned around this period are typically before Judge Rodney Gilstrap with referral to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne, but I did not verify this for 2:26-cv-00356.
• There also appears to be a related E.D. Tex. lead case, 2:26-cv-00289, to which certain 2026 Omni MedSci cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes (consolidation order entered in 2:26-cv-00472 v. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.). I could not confirm whether 2:26-cv-00356 is part of that consolidation.

Possibly related, but NOT confirmed as asserting the '283 patent

These Omni MedSci enforcement actions involve sibling patents from the same 2012-12-31 priority family, not (on the sources I found) the '283 patent:

• Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Nos. 2:18-cv-00134-RWS and 2:18-cv-00429-RWS (E.D. Tex.), transferred to N.D. Cal. (2:19-cv-05673, 2:19-cv-05924, 2:20-cv-00563) — asserted the '533, '040, '286, '698, '546, '113 and '299 patents.
• Omni MedSci, Inc. v. WHOOP, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00140 (D. Del.) — asserted the '868, '533, '484, '304, '455 and '790 patents (and later the '475 patent); '484 claims were dismissed by Omni.
• Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. et al., No. 2:24-cv-01070 (E.D. Tex.) — asserted the '868, '533, '484, '304, '455 and '790 patents.
• Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. et al., No. 2:25-cv-00483 (E.D. Tex., filed May 5, 2025) — dismissed without prejudice by Judge Gilstrap on June 17, 2025 (Docket No. 6).
• Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc. et al., No. 2:26-cv-00470 (E.D. Tex.) and Omni MedSci, Inc. v. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., No. 2:26-cv-00472 (E.D. Tex.).
• Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 7:26-cv-00226 (W.D. Tex., filed June 8, 2026) — asserts at least the '475 patent and the '805 patent.

PTAB proceedings

I found no IPR or PGR naming U.S. 10,126,283. The PTAB challenges in this family target other members (e.g., IPR2019-00916 and IPR2021-00453 on the '533 and '484 patents; IPR2025-01249/01250/01251 and PGR2025-00063/00064 on the '868, '304, '455, '790 and '475 patents). Whether a petition against the '283 patent is filed (or has been filed but not surfaced in my searches) is something I cannot confirm.

Notable outcome context for the family

Although it does not involve the '283 patent, a useful risk marker: the PTAB found all challenged claims of the '533 patent unpatentable in IPR2019-00916 (Final Written Decision, Oct. 14, 2020), summarily affirmed by the Federal Circuit in Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 21-1229 (Fed. Cir. June 8, 2022); and all claims of the '484 patent have now been held unpatentable across IPR2021-00453 and its remand (Fed. Cir. No. 23-1034, June 21, 2024; PTAB Paper 26, Feb. 14, 2025), with further appeal pending (Fed. Cir. No. 25-1646).

Bottom line

• One known litigated matter asserting U.S. 10,126,283: Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:26-cv-00356 (E.D. Tex.), pending.
• No known final outcome, judgment, or settlement tied to the '283 patent.
• Caveat: Every detail above should be verified against PACER and the USPTO PTAB docket before filing or advising, because the specific docket entries for 2:26-cv-00356 were not retrievable from a primary source during this search. I did not auto-correct any patent numbers or case identifiers; the numbers appear exactly as found in the sources cited.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 10,126,283: zero. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP, canonical) returns no IPR, no PGR, and no CBM naming the '283 patent as the challenged patent, and my web search surfaced no petition, institution decision, FWD, or appeal directed at the '283 itself. The bottom line for a defendant: the '283 is an untouched patent with a virgin IPR slate — no prior petitioner estoppel, no FWD to litigate around, and no claim of the '283 has ever been held invalid by the Board. That is not the same as "hardened": the '283 sits in the middle of the Omni MedSci "wearable/toF" family in which essentially every claim that has ever been challenged at the PTAB has been canceled, and the '283 is presently being asserted in a fresh Texas case against Samsung over smartphone laser-autofocus dToF. The absence of an IPR on the '283 is a timing artifact (asserted recently), not evidence of validity strength.

Because there are no proceedings to itemize, the sections below (a) document the null result precisely, (b) give the family-adjacent record you actually need for an invalidity/estoppel analysis, and (c) set out next steps.

Proceedings on US 10,126,283

None on file.

• Source of truth: Google Patents "PTAB proceedings on file" block for US10126283B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10126283/en) shows no AIA trial entry. The only PTAB-adjacent items on the Google Patents page are litigation/critical-date metadata: priority 2012-12-31, filing 2018-06-08, grant 2018-11-13, anticipated expiration 2033-12-17, current assignee Omni MedSci, Inc., inventor Mohammed N. Islam.
• Search check (negative): Queries for IPR/PGR/CBM petitions naming "10,126,283" return the '283 only as a "related patent" listed in other parties' mandatory notices (e.g., Apple's mandatory notices in IPR2021-00453 listing "U.S. Patent No. 10,126,283" among related family members; Samsung's 2025 petition exhibit lists in IPR2025-01249–01254). A related-patent citation is not a proceeding against the '283 — do not let anyone tell you otherwise.
• Cases that do exist and mention the '283 (not PTAB trials on it): Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:26-cv-00356 (E.D. Tex.) (Google Patents litigation link; complaint asserts the '283, among other patents, against Samsung smartphone laser-AF/dToF and Galaxy XR headset functionality). Also Omni MedSci, Inc. v. WHOOP, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00140 (D. Del.), where the court postponed ruling on WHOOP's stay motion pending PTO institution decisions expected "at some point between April 2026 to July 2026" (D. Del. Memorandum Opinion and Order, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.88127/gov.uscourts.ded.88127.61.0.pdf). Neither case docket shows a PTAB challenge to the '283.

Defensive value: a § 315(b) window is running from service of the '283 complaint (Case 2:26-cv-00356) and nothing has been filed yet — a defendant today can still file the first-ever IPR against this patent and is free of any § 315(b)/(e) estoppel carried by earlier Apple or Samsung petitioners, because estoppel is petitioner-specific (and privies), not patent-wide.

Family-adjacent proceedings (context only — NOT proceedings on the '283)

These are IPRs/PGRs on other Omni MedSci family patents (all sibling/parent/child continuations of the '283 line, same specification lineage). They matter enormously because (i) they map the Board's and the Federal Circuit's treatment of the shared specification, and (ii) they are the template any new '283 petition would copy.

Apple v. Omni MedSci — IPR2019-00916 (U.S. 9,651,533)

• Filed: 2019-04-10 (petition, Paper 1). Instituted: 2019-10-18 (Paper 16).
• Claims challenged: 5, 7–10, 13, 15–17. FWD: Paper 39, 2020-10-14 — all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious.
• Appeal: Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2021-1229 (Fed. Cir.) — affirmed by Rule 36 judgment, 2022-06-08, per curiam (Moore, C.J., Dyk, Chen) ("AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36").
• Defensive value: the '533 — a parent in this family — is dead across the board.

Apple v. Omni MedSci — IPR2021-00453 (U.S. 10,517,484)

• Filed: 2021-01-22. Instituted: 2021-08-06 (Paper 7). FWD #1: Paper 22, 2022-08-03 — claims 1, 2, 7, 15–23 unpatentable as obvious; claims 3–6, 8–14 not shown unpatentable (the "configured to identify an object" limitation).
• Appeal: Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., No. 2023-1034 (Fed. Cir., decided 2024-06-21; Reyna and Cunningham, JJ., and Albright, D.J.) — affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, remanded, because the Board erred in refusing to consider Apple's alternative argument on Lisogurski + Tran (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/).
• FWD #2 on remand: Paper 26, 2025-02-14 — claims 3–6 and 8–14 unpatentable as obvious. All '484 claims now held unpatentable.
• Appeal #2: Omni notice of appeal 2025-04-11; Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 25-1646 (Fed. Cir.) — pending as of the late-2025 Samsung filings.

Other earlier family IPRs (Apple, 2019–2021)

• IPR2020-00175 (U.S. 10,188,299): FWD (Paper 26) found the challenged claims unpatentable; CAFC affirmed, No. 2021-2213 (Rule 36, 2022-06-08).
• IPR2019-00910 / -00917 ('040); IPR2019-00911 / -00914 ('286); IPR2019-00912 / -00915 ('698); IPR2020-00029 ('546); IPR2020-00209 ('113): the pattern was one parallel petition denied institution (e.g., -00911 denial, Paper 13, 2019-11-06; -00910 denial, Paper 16, 2019-10-17) and the other instituted and then terminated via settlement (e.g., -00914 termination Paper 21, 2020-02-04).

2025–2026 campaign (Samsung/Fossil/Oura/OnePlus and WHOOP)

• Samsung et al.: IPR2025-01249 ('868 — institution discretionarily denied 2025-12-01, Paper 16), -01250 ('533), -01251 ('304), -01252 ('455), -01253 ('790), -01254 ('475); PGR2025-00063 ('475) and -00064 ('790). On the '790, institution was granted, then vacated and the IPR denied on sua sponte Director Review in May 2026, because WHOOP's parallel PGR was instituted — see https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2025-01253_Samsung_v_Omni_MedSci_SS_DR_Grant.pdf and https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2025-01253_Samsung_v_Omni_MedSci_DR_Decision.pdf. Petitions were filed 2025-08-05; institution decisions granted 2026-02-03 for -01252.
• WHOOP: IPR2025-01583 ('533); PGR2026-00003 ('790 — instituted 2026, on/around 2026-04-01 per the Director Review orders); WHOOP also represented it would challenge the '475.
• Common thread in every 2025+ petition: petitioners argue the Board has already held the same or substantially identical limitations unpatentable in IPR2019-00916 and IPR2021-00453, and that collateral estoppel precludes Omni from re-litigating them (citing Samsung Elecs. v. Netlist, IPR2025-00002, Paper 17). The art clusters around Lisogurski (U.S. 9,241,676), Tran (U.S. 8,108,036), Isaacson (U.S. 8,725,226), and Park, on § 103.

Important scope statement: none of the proceedings above names US 10,126,283. If a demand letter or opening brief tells you "the PTAB already invalidated this patent family," that statement is true of the family and false as to this patent number.

Strategic summary

Canceled vs. sustained vs. untested. As to the '283 itself: nothing is canceled, nothing is sustained, everything is untested — the patent has never been before the Board. Claims 1–20 (whatever the set actually is; no PTAB paper has ever enumerated them) are all in the same boat: untested at the PTAB and, per the ODP block, unchallenged. What is established is the family-level record: the '533 (all challenged claims canceled, affirmed), the '484 (all 1–23 now held unpatentable after remand), and the '299 (challenged claims canceled, affirmed). The '283 shares this specification and priority chain — the file-history chain shows the '283 (App. 16/004,154, filed 2018-06-08) is the parent of App. 16/188,194 (issued as 10,386,230) and sits upstream of the '304/'455/'475/'790 line that Samsung and WHOOP are now attacking.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estoppel runs petitioner-by-petitioner. Apple is estopped (as to grounds raised or reasonably raisable in IPR2019-00916/'533 and IPR2021-00453/'484) from re-litigating those grounds in the Texas case — but Apple is not a party to the '283 dispute, and its estoppel does not travel to Samsung, WHOOP, or you. The 2025 Samsung/WHOOP petitioners have their own, much later clocks. Net effect for a defendant now facing the '283: your prior-art runway is essentially unlimited — all § 102/§ 103 art, including the Lisogurski/Tran/Isaacson/Park cluster used successfully against the siblings, remains available to you against the '283, subject only to the § 325(d) discretion risk if you recycle art already before the Office in the sibling IPRs. Expect the Board (and the patent owner) to argue § 325(d)/General Plastic-style redundancy; the family record cuts both ways.

Pattern signals. (1) Serial, well-funded challengers, no aggregator: Apple first (2019–2021), then Samsung + Fossil + Oura + OnePlus and WHOOP (2025–2026). There is no Unified Patents or other defensive aggregator IPR in the chain — the Unified Patents and Darts-ip items on the Google Patents page are litigation-database records, one of which points to the Texas case (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A26-cv-00356), not to a filed PTAB trial. (2) The patent owner litigates every adverse ruling: Omni appealed the '533 FWD (lost, 2022), the '299 FWD (lost, 2022), the '484 FWD (won a remand on procedure, then lost on remand), and has appealed again (No. 25-1646, pending). Expect the same posture on the '283. (3) Petitioner wins have been near-total in this family, which is why WHOOP argued in Delaware that "every claim arising from the '533 patent family that has been challenged has been found unpatentable." That's hyperbole as to the '283 (never challenged) but is a fair summary of the challenged family claims.

One threshold issue you should check before drafting. Omni takes the position in co-pending litigation that family members carry a 2012-12-31 priority date and are therefore not AIA patents; Samsung expressly "did not contest" that for the '475/'790, and the Director accepted a PGR-eligibility finding to the contrary for the '790 in PGR2026-00003. If the '283 is genuinely pre-AIA, it is IPR-eligible indefinitely and not PGR-eligible (37 C.F.R. § 42.102(a)(2)), and the PGR window closed long ago (issued 2018-11-13). Conversely, Apple successfully argued below that later family claims recite elements not supported by the pre-AIA priority applications, making them AIA patents notwithstanding the asserted 2012 date. That § 112 written-description/priority fight — not litigated for the '283 — is potentially the highest-value attack, because it can flip otherwise-antedated art into prior art. Treat that as a hypothesis to verify against the '283 claims and specification, not as an established fact.

Recommended next steps

1. Nothing to quote at the claim level — say so. There is no FWD for US 10,126,283. Do not cite the '533/'484 FWDs as dispositions of the '283; cite them only as family precedent. If you need the source documents, pull them from PTAB Center/E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) using the proceeding numbers above; the '533 FWD is IPR2019-00916, Paper 39 (2020-10-14) and the '484 FWDs are IPR2021-00453, Papers 22 (2022-08-03) and 26 (2025-02-14).
2. Watch the § 315(b) clock. A § 315(b) bar runs one year from service of the complaint in Omni MedSci v. Samsung Electronics, No. 2:26-cv-00356 (E.D. Tex., filed 2026). If you are a defendant served with a '283 complaint, calendar your petition deadline immediately; there is no reason for the '283 to stay the only family patent never tested at the PTAB.
3. Run a § 325(d) / General Plastic redundancy audit before filing. The successful sibling grounds (Lisogurski, Tran, Isaacson, Park) are now on the Office's radar; the Board will screen a copycat '283 petition. Consider art and claim limitations that the sibling FWDs did not address — particularly the '283-specific ToF/synchronization and photodiode-array-plus-CMOS subject matter that is not the wearable-SNR story litigated in the '533/'484 IPRs.
4. Verify AIA status and priority support for the '283 claims. If the claims lack written-description support in the 2012–2013 applications, AIA-era art becomes available and a parallel PGR/§ 112 theory may open up; if the patent is truly pre-AIA, IPR is the only Office vehicle, but it is available without time limit.
5. Monitor the pending CAFC appeal Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 25-1646 (Fed. Cir.) (from the '484 remand FWD, Paper 26) and the Chief/Under Secretary-level Director Review activity on the '790 — both bear on how the Office and the court treat this common specification, which is the specification of the '283.
6. If a demand letter cites the '283 specifically: there is no PTAB disposition to point to, so the "the PTAB already killed this family" argument is rhetorical only. Ground your response in the family's factual record (three FWDs invalidating every challenged family claim, two Rule 36 affirmances) plus the § 102/§ 103 and § 112 priority issues unique to the '283 — not in a nonexistent '283 FWD.

Caveat on completeness: the ODP block is the default and it says zero; my searches corroborate that no '283 petition exists as of the last indexed data, but recent filings (late 2026) can lag indexing. Before relying on this in a brief, re-run a PTAB Center search on "10,126,283" and confirm no IPR2026/PGR2026 numbers have issued.

I'll research the assignment record for US 10,126,283 through multiple sources.

Let me search for the specific assignment reel/frame records and the Cheetah Omni MedSci name history.

Let me search for the specific reel/frame records and any recent assignment activity.

Inventors

Mohammed N. Islam — sole named inventor on the front page of US 10,126,283 (and named as first inventor throughout the family). Ann Arbor, MI.

• Employer at time of filing: The University of Michigan (UM), Ann Arbor — Dr. Islam was a tenured professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, and in 2011 received an additional appointment to UM's medical school. Per the Federal Circuit's 2021 decision in Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 7 F.4th 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2021), he filed the underlying provisional applications in 2012 while on an unpaid leave of absence from UM, and filed the first non-provisionals after returning to UM in 2013.
• Founder role: Dr. Islam is the founder/CEO of Omni MedSci, Inc. (Ann Arbor, MI), and is also associated with related Islam entities (Cheetah Omni, LLC; Omni Continuum, LLC) that appear in the same litigation/assignment ecosystem.
• Unusual pattern — flag: This is not the classic "inventors leave the assignee" tell. The unusual feature is a third-party ownership cloud on the inventor himself: UM's Office of Technology Transfer determined in 2013 that the inventions were University-supported and refused to release them; UM later told Dr. Islam it owned the rights, and UM filed an amicus brief in the Federal Circuit asserting ownership. The Federal Circuit ultimately held UM Bylaw 3.10 was "at most, a statement of a future intention to assign" and did not effect a present automatic assignment — so Dr. Islam retained the right to assign to Omni MedSci. That litigation over the title chain (not a transfer) is the single most important ownership fact about this patent. I did not verify that the inventor contemporaneously departed any employer within 12 months of filing.

Original assignee

Omni MedSci, Inc. — Ann Arbor, MI. Named as both original and current assignee on Google Patents for US 10,126,283.

• Product embodying the claims: No evidence that Omni MedSci ships a smart phone or tablet — the sole independent-claim subject matter of the '283 — or any consumer/commercial product practicing the claimed NIR time-of-flight imaging. Omni MedSci presents itself as an R&D/technology company focused on near-infrared and mid-infrared broadband lasers, and it monetizes principally through patent assertion and (historically) partnership discussions. The record shows it as the plaintiff in repeated infringement suits (Apple 2018–2020; Samsung/Fossil/Oura/OnePlus 2025–2026; WHOOP).
• Primary line of business: Development/ownership of NIR and SWIR laser and spectroscopy IP; patent licensing and enforcement.
• Current status: Operating (not dissolved, not in bankruptcy, based on the sources reviewed). No bankruptcy, receivership, or Chapter 7/11 proceeding involving Omni MedSci or Dr. Islam surfaced. The Nov 2026 Omni MedSci v. Samsung complaint activity confirms it is an active litigant.
• Name note (verify): Patent-office correspondence of record in this family is addressed to "Brooks, Kushman P.C. / Cheetah Omni MedSci," which suggests a predecessor/related "Cheetah Omni MedSci" designation in the corporate lineage. I did not confirm a recorded change-of-name from "Cheetah Omni MedSci" to "Omni MedSci, Inc." Treat that as a home for a change-of-name search, not a finding.

Assignment timeline

Important limitation, stated up front: I could not retrieve a reel/frame-level record for US 10,126,283 from the USPTO Assignment Center during this session. The search results did not surface the Assignment Center entry (reel/frame, execution date, recording date, correspondent) for this specific patent number. What follows is the assignment event that is corroborated by multiple litigation and secondary sources, with the reel/frame left explicitly unverified. Do not treat the omission of a reel/frame as "no assignment"; it is a source-access gap.

• 2013-12-17 (executed) / recorded on or about 2013-12-17 to 2013-12-18 — Reel/Frame not retrieved (verify at Assignment Center by patent no. 10,126,283 or app. 16/004,154)
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Mohammed N. Islam (individually)
  • Assignee: Omni MedSci, Inc.
  • Correspondent: Recorded as Brooks, Kushman P.C. on the "Cheetah Omni MedSci" docket; David S. Bir (Brooks Kushman, Reg. No. confirmed as the family's power-of-attorney filer) is the recurring prosecuting attorney for this family. Flag: Brooks Kushman / the "Cheetah Omni MedSci" Southfield/Royal Oak, MI address recurs across the entire Islam family, making it the single repeat correspondent of record in this chain.
  • Context: Founder-to-company assignment — the inventor assigned his rights in the pending applications (the 2012–2013 priority filings) to his own company, Omni MedSci, the same day the family's first non-provisional (app. 14/650,897) was filed. This is the operative root of title that the Federal Circuit upheld.
  • Caveat: This 2013 assignment predates US 10,126,283 (which issued 2018-11-13 from a 2018 continuation). It is reported by the Federal Circuit and law-firm case summaries as covering the asserted patents (the '533 and '286) "and the resulting patents." Whether a separate assignment was recorded specifically against app. 16/004,154 / the '283 during prosecution (as Omni routinely did for later continuations) is not confirmed here.

No post-issuance assignment found. Google Patents lists Omni MedSci, Inc. as current assignee with inventor Mohammed N. Islam, and its legal-events timeline for US10126283 shows no reassignment, security interest, license, or merger conveyance after the 2018-11-13 grant. On the record reviewed, the original assignee still owns the patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10126283
    2012 : Provisionals filed by Dr Islam
    2013 : Islam assigns rights to Omni MedSci
         : UM asserts competing ownership
    2018 : Application 16004154 filed
         : Patent 10126283 issued to Omni MedSci
    2021 : Fed Cir upholds Islam title
    2026 : Asserted v Samsung in EDTX

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The only transfer in the record is inventor → Omni MedSci, Inc., an operating-sounding company at a real Ann Arbor, MI address, founded by the inventor himself. There is no move to an "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" LLC, no registered-agent service address, and no single-member Delaware/Texas LLC in the chain. Assignee name and inventor identity overlap (founder-controlled), which is the opposite of the anonymous-shell pattern.

2. Known asserter in the chain — unclear / partial. Omni MedSci, Inc. does not appear on the standard named lists (Acacia, Marathon Patent Group, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation, Spangenberg entities). But it is a high-frequency, non-practicing patent plaintiff with serial campaigns (Apple, Samsung, Fossil, Oura, OnePlus, WHOOP) appearing in Unified Patents and Darts-IP litigation databases — the same directories used for high-frequency-plaintiff tracking. So: not a named NPE, but functionally an assertion-centric patent owner. Call it unclear → leaning present on conduct, not on any list match.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. Brooks, Kushman P.C. (and the recurring "Cheetah Omni MedSci" address in Southfield/Royal Oak, MI) is the correspondent/power-of-attorney of record across the Islam family filings surfaced here, with David S. Bir as the recurring registered practitioner. This is recurrence, not a single appearance, so it satisfies the signal — with the important caveat that Brooks Kushman is a large general-practice IP firm that does both operating-company and assertion work, so recurrence here evidences a single controlling client, not the classic "one lawyer running many unrelated shell LLCs." I could not tie Brooks Kushman to a Unified Patents / RPX NPE-assertion roster.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. The family shows a dense web of continuations (16/004,154 is a CON of 15/855,201, itself a CON of 15/711,907, a DIV of 15/357,225, and so on), but continuation priority chains are not ownership transfers. There are no multiple consecutive assignments through chained LLCs within 24 months.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The sole assignment executed 2013-12-17; the first suit naming the family ('533/'286) was filed 2018, and the first suit naming the '283 (Samsung) was filed 2026. Neither is within 6 months of the assignment.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding involving Omni MedSci or Dr. Islam was found. No purchase from a bankruptcy estate.

7. Privateering — not present (no evidence). There is no operating-company → NPE transfer, and no SEC 10-K/8-K disclosure surfaced. Note that Omni MedSci is the asserting party suing large operating companies (Apple, Samsung), not the reverse.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. The patent remains with an active asserter.

Additional non-checklist finding — inherited title defect / standing cloud. The 2021 Federal Circuit decision (Omni MedSci v. Apple, 7 F.4th 1148) resolved a genuine ownership challenge from the inventor's former employer (UM). While the court upheld Omni's title, any acquirer or licensee doing diligence should assume this patent carries a documented, litigated chain-of-title dispute with a major research university — a material fact that has no analogue in a clean shell-transfer chain.

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original assignment).

The record shows exactly one ownership event I can substantiate — the 2013-12-17 assignment from Mohammed N. Islam to Omni MedSci, Inc. — with no recorded post-issuance assignment and Omni MedSci still listed as current assignee, so the literal verdict bucket is "only the original assignment." Critically, that single assignment is not a shell-entity or fire-sale pattern: the assignee is the inventor's own operating company at a real Michigan address, with no cascading LLC transfers, no named-NPE match, and no pre-litigation transfer — the classic troll-pattern signals are largely not present. The genuine ownership story here is a departed-employer title dispute (UM vs. Dr. Islam, resolved in Omni MedSci v. Apple, 7 F.4th 1148), not an NPE shell chain — but because I could not pull the reel/frame-level Assignment Center entries for '283 itself, I cannot upgrade this to a clean "operating-company assertion" or "non-asserting" call without verification.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "10,126,283" or application 16/004,154) and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Confirm (a) whether a separate assignment was recorded against app. 16/004,154 vs. relying on the 2013 parent-assignment, (b) the exact reel/frame and recording date, (c) the recorded correspondent/attorney name (expect Brooks, Kushman P.C.), and (d) whether any change-of-name from "Cheetah Omni MedSci" to "Omni MedSci, Inc." is recorded. Also cross-check Google Patents legal events (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10126283/en), which currently shows no reassignment.

Caveat on fabrication: I did not invent a reel/frame, execution date, or correspondent for any entry. The 2013-12-17 date and the Islam→Omni MedSci transfer are sourced to the Federal Circuit opinion and multiple law-firm/Foley/JD Supra case summaries; the reel/frame and recording date for US 10,126,283 specifically were not retrievable in this session and must be confirmed at the Assignment Center before being relied upon.

I'll search for the patent's cited prior art references, since the full text provided earlier did not include the "Patent Citations" section.

I hit the search-step limit before I could pull the '283's own front-page citation list. Below is what I can ground, with the limits stated plainly.

Prior art for US 10,126,283 — retrieval status and analysis

A. What I could and could not retrieve (read this first)

The authoritative full text provided to me (the Google Patents fetch) does not contain the "(56) References Cited" section. The fetch begins at the title/abstract and jumps to classifications, "Definitions," and the specification — the front-page citation list is absent.

I attempted to retrieve the '283's own citation list directly (Google Patents front page, PatentImages PDF, FreePatentsOnline, and targeted queries pairing "10,126,283" with probable cited references). None of those searches returned the '283's (56) list. I therefore cannot give you a verbatim, itemized list of the patents cited on the face of US 10,126,283, and per the operating rules I will not reconstruct one from memory or from sibling patents and present it as if it were the '283's list.

Everything in Section C below is labeled for exactly what it is: citations that appear on the front pages of sibling patents in the same family, which share the '283's specification and were prosecuted in the same period. They are a proxy, not the '283's list.

B. Two different things are often conflated as "the prior art cited for the '283"

Category (iii) is where the operative prior art for this common specification actually lives. Category (ii) is what the Office saw on the sibling front pages. Category (i) — the literal answer to your question — I could not obtain.

C. Citations appearing on sibling front pages (verifiable proxy, explicitly NOT the '283's list)

The two most complete lists I could retrieve came from the (56) blocks of sibling/child Omni MedSci patents reproduced in litigation exhibits: US 10,874,304 and US 12,268,475. Reproduced as found (dates and inventor surnames are as printed; I have not adjusted them):

U.S. patent documents

U.S. patent application publications

Two caveats you must carry forward: (1) the truncated result I could read (2008/00…, 2002/…) means this list is incomplete; (2) the list belongs to other patents, so it tells you what the Office had on the table for the shared disclosure — not what it cited against the '283.

D. The art that has actually been used against this specification (PTAB record)

This is the only prior art with a proven track record against the '283's specification lineage. From the earlier-generated PTAB section: the Omni MedSci family IPRs were decided on § 103 over Lisogurski (U.S. 9,241,676), Tran (U.S. 8,108,036), Isaacson (U.S. 8,725,226), and Park.

I want to be explicit about a limitation in my own data here: I can name these four references and their use in IPR2019-00916 and IPR2021-00453, but I cannot, from what I retrieved, give you verified issue dates, publication dates, or assignees for each. I do not have the FWD documents in front of me in this session. Treat the citations as firm (they are named in the record) and the bibliographic details as unverified pending a PTAB Center / E2E pull.

§ 102 vs. § 103 note: these references were not used to anticipate — the Board invalidated under obviousness (Lisogurski in view of further art; Lisogurski + Tran). That matters for your § 102 question: the family's art has succeeded as combination art, not as single-reference anticipation.

E. § 102 analysis — applying the statute to this claim set

The gating issue is the effective filing date. The '283 issued 2018-11-13 from App. 16/004,154 (filed 2018-06-08) but claims priority to 2012-12-31 through the continuation chain. Whether any given reference is § 102 prior art depends entirely on whether the '283's claims are entitled to 2012-12-31:

• If entitled to 2012-12-31 (Omni's position, and the position Samsung did not contest for the sibling '475/'790): then a reference published after 2012-12-31 is not § 102(a)(1) art, and a reference whose effective filing date is after 2012-12-31 is not § 102(a)(2) art. Most of the "hot" art in Category D (Lisogurski, 2016; Isaacson, 2014) would fall away unless its own priority is carried back.
• If NOT entitled — i.e., if the '283's ToF/CMOS-photodiode-array claims lack § 112 written-description support in the 2012–2013 provisional/PCT applications — then the effective date slides forward and the AIA-era references (2013–2018) become available as § 102 art. Apple made exactly this argument against later family claims, and it is the single highest-leverage § 102 theory for the '283. This is a hypothesis in the earlier sections; nothing I retrieved today confirms or refutes it for the '283.

Element mapping for § 102 (claim-by-claim, using the framework from the earlier section). For anticipation, one reference must disclose every element. The '283's independent claims require, in combination:

Honest conclusion on § 102: none of the references I could identify — Shpunt (2009/0185274, depth mapping), the NIRS/oximetry publications, or Omni's own Islam publications — appears to disclose the entire combination, particularly (a) an NIR 700–2500 nm pulsed laser-diode array in a phone/tablet plus (b) a CMOS-coupled photodiode array detector performing ToF with (c) on/off frame differencing or lock-in at the modulation frequency. Shpunt is the most structurally analogous (IR depth-capture), but it is a structured-light/depth-mapping reference, and on its face it does not supply the NIR supercontinuum/laser-diode-array source limitations or the on/off differencing. On the art I can see, this is a § 103 case, not a § 102 case. That is also consistent with how the family actually fell at the PTAB (all obviousness, no anticipation).

Also material: many of the Category C listings are Omni's own earlier publications and patents by the same inventor (Islam). Self/commonly-owned art within the priority chain is not § 102(b)(2)(C)/§ 103(c)-excepted from § 102 as such, but it cannot be § 102 art against the '283 if it is in the same family and predates only by the common chain.

F. Bottom line

• I could not retrieve the enumerated patent citations printed on US 10,126,283. The full text I was given omits the (56) block, and my searches did not surface it. I am not going to invent it.
• What I can give you is (1) the sibling-patent (56) lists in Section C — a proxy for what the Office had before it on the shared disclosure; (2) the PTAB-instituted art (Lisogurski, Tran, Isaacson, Park) in Section D — the only art with a proven record against this specification, and it was applied under § 103.
• No reference identified here anticipates any of claims 1, 7, or 16 under § 102. The claim set requires a combination (NIR pulsed LD array in a phone/tablet + CMOS photodiode array + ToF + on/off differencing or lock-in) that no single reference I located discloses.
• The highest-value § 102 question is not "which reference" but "what is the effective filing date." If the '283's claims are not supported by the 2012–2013 priority applications, the 2013–2018 references become § 102 art. Verify that before doing anything else.

G. Verification steps to close the gap (in order)

1. USPTO Patent Public Search (ppubs.uspto.gov) → US 10,126,283 → "Referenced By / References Cited" tab. This is the authoritative (56) list and is the direct answer I could not obtain.
2. PatentCenter / Global Dossier for App. 16/004,154 → "Patent Citations" and the examiner's search history (SEARCH/121/892 forms). Continuations can issue with minimal citation activity, so a short list is itself informative.
3. Pull the two FWDs — IPR2019-00916, Paper 39 (2020-10-14) and IPR2021-00453, Papers 22 (2022-08-03) and 26 (2025-02-14) — from PTAB Center (ptacts.uspto.gov) to get verified citations for Lisogurski, Tran, Isaacson, and Park.
4. Confirm the priority-support question by comparing the '283 claims against the 61/747,472–61/747,553 provisionals and PCT/US2013/075767.

Flag: the "prior art keywords" shown on the Google Patents page for the '283 are light, array, detection system, laser diodes, tablet. Those are Google-generated class/text-clustering tokens, not examiner search terms, and they should not be cited as evidence of the examiner's search.

I'll verify the key references from the Prior Art section before building the § 103 combinations, since the earlier section flagged their bibliographic details as unverified.

Good — that confirmed key reference identities and surfaced an important discrepancy with the earlier section. Let me pull more on the ToF/CMOS sensor art and the sibling-cited references.

Obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 — US 10,126,283

Built on the Prior Art section. That section concluded, and I adopt, that (a) the '283's own (56) list could not be retrieved, (b) the only art with a proven record against this specification is the family IPR cluster (Lisogurski, Tran, Isaacson, Park), applied under § 103 and never under § 102, and (c) the highest-value question is the effective filing date. This section supplies: verified identities for the key references, a § 103-only ground set, explicit motivations, and the element-by-element mappings.

Claim numbering (independents 1, 7, 16; dependents 2–6, 8–15, 17–19) is carried forward from the earlier section and remains unconfirmed against the printed patent.

1. Threshold finding that reshapes the § 103 art set

This is the single most important analytical point, and it inverts the emphasis of the earlier Prior Art section:

The art that survives a 2012-12-31 priority date is the oldest art — and it is also the most on-point art. Under either AIA § 102(a)(1) or pre-AIA § 102(b), anything publicly available before 2012-12-31 is prior art regardless of which regime applies. That category includes the entire Canesta/Bamji cluster (1999–2008), Gokturk/Bamji, and the PrimeSense/Shpunt depth-mapping family (2007–2011). By contrast:

Practical consequence: the PTAB's winning family combination (Lisogurski + Tran + Isaacson + Carlson) may be unavailable against the '283 if Omni's 2012 date holds — but the '283 does not need it. The pre-2012 Canesta/PrimeSense art does the same work on this claim set, and does it more directly, because the '283's independent claims are directed to camera-module architecture (ToF sensor in a phone), not to the wearable-SNR subject matter the Board actually litigated. This confirms the earlier section's recommendation (step 3): attack the '283-specific ToF/synchronization/CMOS-photodiode subject matter with pre-2012 art, not with the sibling-IPR cluster.

2. Reference identities verified this session

Honest caveat: these quotations are drawn from search-result excerpts of the patent documents (patentimages/docket-alarm/Espacenet page text), not from full-text pulls I independently paginated. Column/line cites should be verified before filing.

3. Claim 1 — element mapping and ground

Ground 1 (claim 1): Bamji '942 in view of Bamji '740/'186/'793/'924, further in view of Gokturk/Bamji, further in view of the admitted prior art in the '283 specification, further in view of a mobile-device platform.

4. Claim 7 and claim 16

Ground 2 (claim 7): identical to Ground 1 but without the on/off-differencing element. Claim 7 is therefore the weaker claim to defend: it requires only a NIR pulsed laser-diode source, a lens, a CMOS-integrated photodiode-array ToF detector synchronized to the source, and 2‑D/3‑D image output — a limitation set Canesta '942 discloses element-for-element in a single document, except for the "array of laser diodes" and the phone chassis. Expect the § 102-vs-§ 103 line to collapse for claim 7; the earlier section's "no anticipation" conclusion is most vulnerable here.

Ground 3 (claim 16): Ground 1/2 further in view of Canesta's synchronous homodyne demodulation.

Corroborating motivation, from the '283's own specification: the specification describes a working reflection-spectroscopy rig with a 400 Hz chopper feeding "a lock-in amplifier 1208 setup for high sensitivity detection," with the lock-in time constant set to 100 ms for a ~1 Hz noise bandwidth. That is the patent owner's own evidence that lock-in detection at the modulation frequency was a routine, well-understood SNR technique in the relevant art at the relevant time.

5. Admitted prior art in the '283 specification (a distinct and unusually strong hook)

The '283 specification contains a passage that appears to describe the § 103 bridge for claims 1, 2, 9 and 16 as known technique:

"one way to improve the signal-to-noise ratio would be to use modulation and lock‑in techniques … change detection schemes may be used, where the detection system captures the signal with the light source on and with the light source off … Then, the signal with and without the light source is differenced."

Read literally, this is a survey of known options presented as SNR improvements, and it maps almost verbatim onto claim 1's on/off differencing and claim 16's lock-in.

Doctrinal caution, flagged honestly: this passage sits in the specification's "exemplary detection systems" discussion and may be characterised by the patent owner as describing the applicant's own contemplated embodiments rather than admitted prior art. The safe framing is therefore: use Canesta's express ambient-light-cancellation and synchronous homodyne detection as the primary evidentiary basis, and cite the specification passage as corroboration that a POSITA would have recognised these as available techniques. Where AAPA is the only support for an element, expect a fight over whether the statement is an admission.

6. Motivation to combine (the KSR/§ 103 rationale)

A POSITA at the 2012 priority date would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, for these reference-internal reasons — not merely "these are all in the same field":

1. Same field, same problem, same solution. Every reference is 3‑D depth acquisition. Canesta's stated applications expressly include "gesture recognition systems, object recognition," virtual input devices, and range finding. Gokturk/Bamji is a gesture-recognition system built on the Bamji sensor. Combining a disclosed sensor with a disclosed application of that same sensor is not a leap.
2. Explicit teaching to use laser diodes and multiple emitters. '186 and '376 expressly name "laser diode, VCSEL … or LED" and '376 expressly states "multiple light emitters 120 may be used." The "array of laser diodes" configuration is thus taught, not improvised — and is further supported by the '283's own discussion of laser diode bar stacks (FIG. 19) as the conventional way to scale illumination power.
3. Explicit reason to add the on/off differencing. '376 identifies ambient light as a source of phase error and the Canesta line claims ambient rejection; the '283's own figure of merit is SNR. Removing ambient/background from a ToF return is the recognised, predictable fix for a recognised problem.
4. Explicit suggestion of the mobile platform. Canesta's own materials state the technology is for integration into "cell phones, PDAs, or other mobile devices," and the SIGGRAPH/EE-Times record shows Canesta demonstrating the chip in a PDA/phone context. Combining a known depth sensor with a known handset is the paradigm KSR "arrange old elements / known technique, known elements, predictable result" case; the claim's wireless/display/voice/speaker recitation adds nothing beyond the ordinary hardware of the platform it is placed in.
5. Predictable results. Canesta had a working single-IC CMOS ToF sensor by 2002; PrimeSense/Apple shipped structured-light 3‑D sensing; by 2012 the design space (emitter choice, wavelength, modulation frequency, differential/ambient-cancelling pixel, per-pixel processing) was exhausted and predictable.

7. Weak points, counter-arguments, and secondary considerations

Where the patent owner will fight:

• "Array of laser diodes." Canesta discloses a single emitter (with "multiple light emitters" as an option); the claim recites an array. Expect the argument that no reference teaches a laser-diode array as the illumination architecture. Rebuttal: '376's express multiple-emitter teaching + the conventional diode-bar-stack/VCSEL-array art + the '283's own FIG. 19 discussion of "one or more diode bar stacks … an array of several single emitter LDs."
• "Time-of-flight measurement … measuring a time difference." Claim 1's words are direct-ToF (pulse arrival time), which '942 discloses squarely. The patent owner may instead argue the claim requires the '283's direct-ToF framing and that '740/'793 (phase-based/indirect) do not read on it. This actually helps a challenger: use '942 as the primary reference (direct pulsed ToF + clock-pulse counters) and '740/'376 only for the modulation/lock-in dependent claims, so the phase-vs-pulse distinction never arises.
• Wavelength breadth. Claim 1 recites 700–2500 nm with "at least a portion" in that range; Canesta's 850 nm is inside it literally. A patent owner will try to read in an eye-safe/SWIR requirement; the claim text does not support that, and reading it in would forfeit the 2012 priority argument.
• On/off differencing — see §5 caution.
• Secondary considerations. Expect assertions of industry adoption (Samsung laser AF) and licensing success. The nexus is the problem: Omni MedSci does not make a phone or tablet, the asserted products are the accused infringers', and the '283's commercial story is the accused feature, not the patented article. Also note the family record already cuts against non-obviousness: three family FWDs invalidated every challenged family claim and two were affirmed (Rule 36), i.e., the shared specification has repeatedly been found to describe obvious subject matter.

8. Contradictions and confidence flags

9. Bottom line

• No § 102 anticipation. On the art identified, no single reference discloses the full claim-1/7/16 combination. This is a § 103 case — consistent with how this specification has fallen every time it has been litigated at the Board (obviousness, never anticipation).
• Three workable § 103 grounds (Grounds 1–3 in §§3–4), all built on pre-2012 Canesta/Bamji art, so they are robust to the 2012-12-31 priority date — which is the opposite of the PTAB's Lisogurski/Tran-based family grounds, and a materially better runway for the '283 than the sibling IPRs provide.
• Claim 16 is the most vulnerable (express modulation-frequency + lock-in disclosure in Canesta's homodyne mixing, plus the '283's own 400 Hz lock-in amplifier rig). Claim 1 is next (ambient-cancellation + express pulsed laser + CMOS photodiode array + express ToF + express synchronisation, plus the specification's own change-detection passage). Claim 7 is the weakest to attack only because it drops the differencing element and requires you to rely on the "array of laser diodes" and phone-chassis elements — but it also arguably collapses toward § 102 over '942 once the phone chassis is treated as a known platform.
• Highest-value next step remains the one the earlier section identified: pull the '283's own (56) list from USPTO Patent Public Search and confirm the examiner did or did not see the Canesta/Bamji and Shpunt/PrimeSense art. If the examiner never cited Canesta '942 or '740, the § 325(d) concern the earlier section raised largely evaporates, and these grounds can be run without the "same art already before the Office" discretionary-refusal risk.