US 10156475

I'll verify the patent details and check for any 2026 litigation activity before summarizing.

Let me check for any litigation or PTAB activity specifically involving this patent.

US Patent 10,156,475 B2 — Analyst Summary

Bottom line: Verified. This is a real, granted US patent to Arable Labs, Inc. titled "Radiation measuring systems and methods thereof." I found no evidence of any CAFC 2026 docket, district-court suit, or PTAB proceeding involving this patent number. I also want to flag one literal-identifier collision up front (see "Identifier caveats").

---

Bibliographic record

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10156475B2](/patent/US10156475B2)/en and the granted-PDF OCR at https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a6/20/99/d1d4ea9cbe2e35/US10156475.pdf

---

Abstract (verbatim from the granted front page)

"A radiation measuring device for measuring electromagnetic radiation originating from an external source. The radiation measuring device includes, a spectrometer, a pyranometer, a pyrgeometer, a diffuser, and a control unit. The spectrometer and a pyranometer are positioned in a sensor zone of a housing of the radiation measuring device. The spectrometer measures visible shortwave radiation and near-infrared shortwave radiation received at the sensor zone. The pyranometer measures shortwave radiation received at the sensor zone. The pyrgeometer is positioned in another sensor zone of the housing and measures longwave radiation received at the other sensor zone. The control unit receives radiation measurements from the spectrometer, pyranometer, and pyrgeometer. A corrected amount of radiation received at the sensor zones of the radiation measuring device is determined from the received radiation measurements. Other embodiments are described and claimed."

---

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

There are three independent claims: 1, 14, and 24.

Claim 1 — single-sided instrument (apparatus). A radiation measuring device with a housing carrying: (a) a spectrometer, (b) a pyranometer placed next to the spectrometer, (c) a first diffuser covering both the spectrometer and pyranometer that scatters visible and NIR shortwave radiation, (d) a pyrgeometer, (e) a second, different diffuser covering only the pyrgeometer, and (f) a control unit that receives the measurements from all three sensors. The core structural idea is one diffuser material/shape optimized for the shortwave pair, and a separate, different diffuser for the longwave sensor.

Claim 14 — two-sided instrument (apparatus, "up-looking + down-looking"). A housing with a top side defining a first top recess and a bottom side defining a first bottom recess. A first spectrometer + first pyranometer sit in the top recess, covered by a first diffuser that scatters visible/NIR received there. A second spectrometer + second pyranometer sit in the bottom recess, covered by a second diffuser doing the same job for the bottom. One control unit receives measurements from all four sensors.

Claim 24 — system (instrument + remote analysis). A two-part system: a radiation measuring device with four recesses — first and second recesses on the top side in a first orientation to receive downwelling radiation, third and fourth recesses on the bottom side in a second orientation to receive upwelling radiation; first spectrometer + first pyranometer in the first recess, first pyrgeometer in the second recess, second spectrometer + second pyranometer in the third recess, second pyrgeometer in the fourth recess, plus a control unit — combined with a radiation analysis device (processor executing stored instructions) that receives the measurement data and computes (i) an amount of downwelling radiation and (ii) an amount of upwelling radiation.

Notable dependents worth knowing about for scope/validity work:

• Cl. 2: sensor-by-sensor function recitation (spectrometer = visible + NIR; pyranometer = shortwave; pyrgeometer = longwave).
• Cl. 3: housing defines first and second recesses housing the respective sensors.
• Cl. 4 / 6: first diffuser = polycarbonate or acrylic; second diffuser = polyethylene.
• Cl. 7–8: communication circuitry for outbound measurement + GPS location data.
• Cl. 10–11: measurement within a water absorption band (≈950 nm or ≈1450 nm).
• Cl. 25: ratio of hemispherical upwelling to hemispherical downwelling radiation in at least one spectral band.
• Cl. 27–28: reference measurement correction factors and solar-position / direct-vs-diffuse determination (Stefan-Boltzmann & Mie-scattering context from the spec).
• Cl. 29: computing PRI, NDVI, CI, or combinations.

(Claim text for 15–30 as corroborated at https://patents.justia.com/patent/10156475; the full-text fetch in my working copy was truncated mid-claim 16, so I cross-checked the tail against the Justia and pre-grant-publication records.)

---

Litigation / post-grant check

• No CAFC 2026 docket found for 10,156,475. I ran targeted searches for the patent number combined with "CAFC / 2026 / appeal / docket," "IPR / PTAB / petition," and "Arable Labs" infringement litigation. Nothing surfaced naming this patent. My searches did surface unrelated Fed. Cir. 2026 activity (e.g., Apple v. Smart Mobile Techs., No. 25-1090; Spero v. Mercedes-Benz, No. 25-1470), but none involves 10,156,475.
• Confidence caveat: My ability to query PACER, Docket Alarm, and the CAFC docket directly is limited here; absence of results is not proof of absence of litigation. Treat "no known 2026 litigation" as unverified negative, not as a finding.

---

Identifier caveats (strict literal reading)

Per the standing rule against auto-correction, two things must be flagged rather than silently reconciled:

1. "10156475" collides with an unrelated German number. Search results repeatedly return DE 10156475 A1 — a German patent application (Rheinzink GmbH, "Method for the production of dark protective layers on flat objects made from titanium zinc"). That is a different jurisdiction and a different subject matter entirely; it is not the same identifier as US 10,156,475 B2. I have not conflated them.

2. "pyrecometer" vs. "pyrgeometer." The granted-PDF OCR renders the term as "pyrecometer" in the abstract and claims, whereas the Google Patents HTML and the specification use "pyrgeometer." The evident recurring OCR error does not change claim meaning, but if you are quoting the printed patent verbatim, quote it as-printed and note the discrepancy.

3. Claim-count/continuity note. The granted front page states the parent 15/642,150 issued as US 9,939,319, and carries a terminal disclaimer with 0 days of PTA. Google's listed 2037-07-05 expiration runs from the 2017 parent filing date, not the 2018 continuation filing date — consistent with the continuation relationship and the terminal disclaimer.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10156475B2/en · https://patents.justia.com/patent/10156475 · https://patents.justia.com/patent/20180188109 · https://www.ipqwery.com/ipowner/en/owner/ip/88406-arable-labs-inc.html

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10156475 across patent litigation databases.

Let me refine my searches to specific patent litigation databases.

Let me check specific litigation databases and IPR/PTAB records.

Litigation Search Report — U.S. Patent No. 10,156,475

Patent identified (literal): US 10,156,475 B2 — "Radiation measuring systems and methods thereof"

• Application No. US 15/907,359; filed 2018-02-28; granted 2018-12-18
• Priority date: 2016-07-05 (continuation of Ser. No. 15/642,150, filed 2017-07-05, claiming benefit of Provisional 62/358,377, filed 2016-07-05)
• Original/current assignee: Arable Labs Inc. (assignment recorded 2018-02-28)
• Anticipated expiration: 2037-07-05
• Inventors: Lawrence Adam Wolf; Benjamin Joseph Siegfried

Result: No litigation located

Based on the searches performed, I was unable to identify any litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,156,475. Specifically, I found no:

• District court actions in which 10,156,475 was asserted (as plaintiff or counterclaim) — no case name, docket number, jurisdiction, or filing date to report;
• ITC Section 337 investigations referencing the patent;
• PTAB proceedings (IPR, PGR, CBM) challenging the patent; or
• Federal Circuit appeals arising from any such proceeding.

Because no case was found, I cannot provide plaintiff(s), defendant(s), jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome/status for any matter. I am not able to say affirmatively that no litigation exists — only that my searches did not surface any, and I have no high-confidence knowledge of any.

Important caveat on the search results

My searches for the string "10156475" returned only false positives, i.e., unrelated documents that happen to contain the same digit string but are not U.S. Patent 10,156,475. These should not be treated as litigation involving this patent:

Per the operating rule to interpret identifiers literally, I note these matches are literal occurrences of "10156475" but correspond to entirely different documents and do not evidence any lawsuit over U.S. 10,156,475.

Recommended verification steps

Because litigation records can be incomplete in general web indexes, I recommend confirming directly in authoritative sources before concluding the patent has never been litigated:

1. Unified Patents litigation portal — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation (search patent number 10156475)
2. PACER / CourtListener RECAP — docket search by patent number
3. USPTO PTAB — https://ptacts.uspto.gov (search for IPR/PGR on 10,156,475)
4. USPTO Patent Center — the "Litigation" / assignment records for application 15/907,359
5. RPX Insight and Docket Navigator — for any Arable Labs enforcement campaigns

Bottom line: No litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,156,475 was identified in this search. I have no confident knowledge of any such case and recommend the verification steps above to finalize that conclusion.

AIA Trial Proceedings — US Patent 10,156,475 ("Radiation measuring systems and methods thereof")

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block for US 10,156,475 (Arable Labs, Inc., Appl. No. 15/907,359, filed 2018-02-28, priority 2016-07-05) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings as of the most recent ODP ingest, and independent web searches for a petition against this patent number returned no petition, institution decision, final written decision, or Federal Circuit appeal. Breakdown by status is therefore: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0 — there is nothing to classify.

Bottom-line defensive posture for a defendant: This is not the "hardened by two IPRs" scenario (nothing has been tested at the Board), and it is equally not the "claims are already canceled" scenario. US 10,156,475 is an untested, un-amended patent with all 30 claims intact. Do not treat the absence of PTAB activity as evidence of strength or weakness — as of today the patent's validity has never been adjudicated by the Board, and the asserted claims (likely independent claim 1 and/or independent claim 14) remain fully live.

Important caveat on the negative finding: I can only report what is publicly indexed. Absence of indexed proceedings does not affirmatively prove no petition was ever filed — a petition filed very recently may not yet appear in ODP or in search indexes. If you are litigating this patent, confirm by pulling the patent's "Litigation" and "Trials" tabs directly at https://patents.google.com/patent/US10156475/en and the PTAB E2E docket (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) under both the patent number and patent owner "Arable Labs, Inc."

---

(No per-proceeding sections follow, because there are no proceedings to describe. I will not fabricate proceeding numbers, panels, grounds, or dispositions.)

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: all claims UNTESTED; none canceled, none affirmed. The patent issued 2018-12-18 with 30 claims. Independent claim 1 is directed to a radiation measuring device comprising a housing, a spectrometer, a pyranometer "adjacently positioned to the spectrometer," a first diffuser covering the spectrometer and the pyranometer and "configured to scatter the visible shortwave radiation and the near-infrared shortwave radiation," a pyrgeometer, a second diffuser covering the pyrgeometer, the second diffuser is different from the first diffuser, and a control unit. Independent claim 14 is the two-sided variant: a housing with a top side defining a first top recess and a bottom side defining a first bottom recess, with first spectrometer/pyranometer in the top recess under one diffuser and a second spectrometer/pyranometer in the bottom recess under another diffuser. The specification (and Fig. 7‑12 embodiment) supports dependent claims on recess structure (claims 3, 15, 16), polycarbonate/acrylic vs. polyethylene diffuser materials (claims 4, 5, 6), communication circuitry and GPS (claims 7, 8), orientation sensor (claim 9), and water-absorption-band sensors at ~950 nm/~1450 nm (claims 10, 11). Because no IPR has run, there is no statutory disclaimer, no certificate of correction canceling claims, and no adverse PTAB judgment narrowing this patent.

Estoppel landscape: empty. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel is triggered only by a Final Written Decision under § 318(a). With no FWD, no petitioner is estopped, and no prior-art ground is foreclosed. For a defendant being asserted against today, every printed-publication/patent art ground under § 102 and § 103 remains available in district court and in a fresh IPR petition — subject only to the § 315(b) one-year clock running from service of the complaint on you (or your RPI/privy), and to Fintiv-style discretion if there is parallel litigation. That is the practical upside of a blank PTAB docket: you are playing on an open board.

Pattern signals: none. There is no serial petitioner, no joinder activity, no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents, RPX, or similar filing in the record I can locate), and no Arable Labs appeal of any PTAB decision, because there is no decision to appeal. The one structural signal worth noting is business, not procedural: the patent sits in a four-patent family with a common 2016-07-05 priority (including US 9,939,319, US 10,156,475, USD 799,998, and WO 2018/009574), all Arable Labs — so a defendant facing assertion should expect a portfolio campaign rather than a single-patent campaign, and should map which family member the demand actually reads on before investing in an IPR on one patent only. (Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10156475/en ; https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2018009574A1/en)

---

Recommended next steps

1. State it plainly in any validity opinion: no PTAB activity exists on US 10,156,475. The absence is a signal in one direction only — this patent has never been through an AIA trial, so the Board has not construed the key claim terms ("adjacently positioned," "the second diffuser is different from the first diffuser," "configured to scatter the visible shortwave radiation and the near-infrared shortwave radiation") and there is no Phillips-style PTAB construction to inherit.
2. Verify the negative directly at the source. PTAB E2E: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/ (search by patent number and by "Arable Labs"). USPTO Patent Center / Global Dossier for the reexamination, disclaimer, and certificate of correction history: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10156475/en (see the "Trials" and "Litigation" tabs). No FWD exists to link, because none has issued.
3. If you are a defendant and a demand letter cites claims 1 and/or 14, the operative point is that those claims are live and untested, not canceled — there is no FWD to quote, and no "claim is dead" argument available. Your leverage is the § 315(b) window: calendar the one-year date from service now, because a first-filed IPR on this patent would face no General Plastic serial-petition risk and no Fintiv evidence of a prior IPR.
4. If you are the patent owner, the blank docket cuts the other way: nothing about this patent has been stress-tested, and the broadest diffuser/adjacency recitations in claim 1 are exactly the kind of claim that attracts a § 103 combination of conventional pyranometer/pyrgeometer instrument design. Assume a first IPR petition will be filed by the first well-funded defendant served, and prepare the § 316 POPR/patent-owner-response evidence (objective indicia, secondary considerations, and any § 325(d) arguments about art already of record) in advance.

Confidence note: The negative PTAB finding rests (a) on the structured ODP block supplied in this prompt and (b) on searches that returned no proceeding for this patent number or patent owner. I could not locate any IPR/PGR/CBM number, institution decision, FWD, or CAFC appeal, and I have deliberately not guessed at any. If a proceeding exists that ODP has not yet ingested, the verification steps in item 2 will surface it.

I'll research the assignment chain for US 10,156,475, starting with the USPTO assignment records and Arable Labs' corporate history.

The searches returned false positives again (DE 10156475). Let me search for Arable Labs' corporate history and any patent transfers.

Let me dig into the assignment record specifics and the inventors' status.

I've hit my search-step limit. Here is the assignment analysis based on the records I retrieved.

---

Assignment & Ownership Report — U.S. Patent No. 10,156,475

Patent: US 10,156,475 B2 — "Radiation measuring systems and methods thereof"
Application: US 15/907,359 (continuation of Ser. No. 15/642,150, filed 2017-07-05; benefit of Provisional 62/358,377, filed 2016-07-05)
Filed: 2018-02-28 | Granted: 2018-12-18 | Anticipated expiration: 2037-07-05

Method note / caveat: The USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) is an interactive search interface that did not surface machine-readable reel/frame records through the web searches available to me. The ownership facts below are drawn from (a) the Google Patents legal-events record for this patent, (b) the front page of the granted patent PDF, and (c) corporate/funding reporting on the assignee. I was not able to retrieve the reel/frame numbers or the recording correspondent for the one assignment that exists. I state that limitation explicitly rather than inventing reel/frame values.

---

Inventors

Both inventors appear on the front page of US 10,156,475 ((72) Inventors: Lawrence Adam Wolf, Princeton, NJ (US); Benjamin Joseph Siegfried, Oakland, CA (US)), and both are the named assignors on the recorded assignment of 2018-02-28, which is consistent with both being founders of the assignee operating company rather than employees who assigned and departed.

Unusual patterns: None detected in the data I could retrieve. There is no evidence that either inventor departed the original assignee within 12 months of filing, and the low inventor count (2) plus founder status argues against the "all inventors depart → fire-sale" pattern. I cannot confirm current employment status of either inventor with high confidence from the records retrieved, so any departure claim would be speculation and is not made here.

---

Original assignee

Arable Labs, Inc. (branded simply "Arable"), a Delaware/California corporation headquartered in San Francisco, CA. At the time of filing, the patent front page lists the applicant as being in Princeton, NJ — an address that predates the company's move to its current San Francisco HQ.

• Line of business: Agriculture technology — in-field sensing hardware plus agronomic modeling/analytics software ("crop intelligence"). The company was formerly named PulsePod Designs.
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes. Arable's flagship product, the Arable Mark (now Mark 3), is an all-in-one weather/crop sensing device described as containing "a seven-band spectrometer, 4-way net radiometer, and acoustic rain gauge" and reporting radiation, NDVI and chlorophyll-index data — squarely the subject matter of this patent's spectrometer + pyranometer + pyrgeometer combination. This is a strong indicator that the original assignee is a practicing operating company, not a holding vehicle.
• Current status: Operating, privately held, venture-backed. Arable has raised roughly $73M across eight disclosed rounds through a $40M Series C (2022-07-25) led by Galvanize Climate Solutions, with Qualcomm Ventures, Prelude Ventures, S2G, Middleland, Ajax Strategies and Grupo Jacto/Tridon participating. It continues to receive 2023 industry awards and announce partnerships (e.g., with Shell on agricultural carbon measurement). No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition of Arable was surfaced in the search.

---

Assignment timeline

Only one post-issuance/at-issuance transfer is recorded for this patent in the sources I could retrieve. No reel/frame or correspondent could be verified.

• Executed 2018-02-28 / recorded 2018-02-28 — Reel/Frame not retrievable from available sources
  • Conveyance: Assignment of inventors' interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)"), per the Google Patents legal-events entry
  • Assignor: SIEGFRIED, BENJAMIN JOSEPH; WOLF, LAWRENCE ADAM (both inventors)
  • Assignee: Arable Labs, Inc.
  • Correspondent: Not determined. I could not retrieve the attorney/agent of record for this recording. (For context only, the sibling design patent in the same portfolio, US D799,998, lists Ulmer & Berne LLP as its prosecution firm — this is a hint about the family's prosecution counsel, not a verified assignment correspondent for US 10,156,475 and should not be treated as one.)
  • Context: Founder-to-company assignment — the two inventors transferring their rights to their own startup on the same day the continuation application was filed. Routine, expected, and not indicative of any transaction.

No further assignments (no security agreements, mergers, changes of name, licenses, or releases) were identified after 2018-02-28. No transfer away from Arable Labs to any licensing entity or aggregator was found.

If the Assignment Center shows no additional records beyond this founder assignment, that is itself the finding: the original operating assignee still owns the patent.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10156475
    2016 : Provisional filed by Wolf and Siegfried
    2017 : Parent application filed in family
    2018 : Continuation filed on Feb 28
         : Founders assign rights to Arable Labs
         : Patent granted on Dec 18
    2022 : Arable Labs raises 40M Series C

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

---

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original assignment).

Justification: The assignment record I could verify consists of a single founder-to-company assignment executed and recorded 2018-02-28, in which inventors Benjamin Joseph Siegfried and Lawrence Adam Wolf transferred their rights to Arable Labs, Inc. — the operating company that ships the Arable Mark sensor embodying the claims. No subsequent assignment, security interest, merger, or transfer to any third party was identified, so every NPE signal is either "not present" or (for the repeat-correspondent test) unmeasurable with a single-link chain. I could not retrieve reel/frame numbers or the recording correspondent, so the record is incomplete on those specific fields; verification against the USPTO Assignment Center is recommended before treating this as final.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 10156475; the same underlying records are indexed at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html).

---

Items I could not confirm (stated explicitly, not inferred)

• The reel/frame of the 2018-02-28 assignment.
• The recording correspondent (attorney/agent of record) and their firm.
• Whether any security interest or change-of-name filing exists that did not appear in the legal-events summary.
• The current employment of either inventor relative to Arable Labs.

I'll research the prior-art citations for US 10,156,475, starting with the patent's own citation lists and related family members.

I have the citation list from Justia. Let me verify it against the Google Patents "Patent Citations" table and pull details on each reference.

Now let me research each cited reference to characterize them accurately.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,156,475 B2

Scope note. This section builds on the bibliographic and litigation sections already generated (which I do not repeat). Per the standing rule, "10156475" is treated literally as US 10,156,475 B2 only; the German DE 10156475 A1, the Japanese 10156475 application number, and the two IEEE/ACC 10156475 record numbers previously flagged are not treated as this patent or as its prior art.

Verification limitation — please read. I retrieved the patent's cited-reference list from the Google Patents / Justia record for US 10,156,475 specifically (no similar-number substitution). However, I was not able to complete individual subject-matter verification for every cited reference — I exhausted the session's search/tool budget partway through that step. Accordingly:

• Citation numbers and dates below are as recorded in the just-mentioned reference list (a reliable, grounded source).
• Descriptions and the §102 mapping are given only where I have defensible support, and are explicitly labeled where unverified. I have not fabricated titles or subject matter for references I could not confirm.

I could not directly query USPTO Patent Public Search / Patent Center / the file wrapper inside this session, so I also cannot confirm which items were examiner-applied (e.g., marked X/Y under §102 or §103) versus applicant-submitted IDS references — the flat "References Cited" list does not carry those relevance codes.

---

A. Patent documents cited in US 10,156,475

Source for the list: Justia's "Referenced Cited" record for this patent — https://patents.justia.com/patent/10156475

A.1 U.S. patent documents

A.2 Foreign patent documents

A.3 Non-patent literature cited

• Arain, M. A., et al., "Year-round observations of the energy and water vapour fluxes above a boreal black spruce forest," Hydrological Processes 17(18): 3581–3600 (2003).
• Bao, Y., Gao, W., & Gao, Z., "Estimation of winter wheat biomass based on remote sensing data at various spatial and spectral resolutions," Frontiers of Earth Science in China 3(1): 118–128 (2009).
• Thomas et al., "Field testing of a powdery mildew disease forecast model on grapes in California," Phytopathology 84:1070 (1994).
• Gubler et al., "Use of a weather station based disease risk assessment for control of grapevine powdery mildew in California," Phytopathology 87:S36 (1997).
• Moges, S. M., "Differences Between Red and Green NDVI, What they Predict and What they Do Not Predict," student presentation, Oklahoma State University, SOIL/BAE 4213 Precision Agriculture, May 2, 2001.

These five NPL items are agricultural/remote-sensing background; on their face they bear on the vegetation-index and agronomic-application aspects of the specification (e.g., dependent claim 29 — PRI/NDVI/CI), not on the structural claim 1/14/24 apparatus limitations.

---

B. What claim 1 (and 14/24) actually require — the anticipation targets

For §102 purposes, the discriminating limitations in the independent claims are:

• Claim 1: (i) spectrometer and pyranometer adjacently positioned; (ii) a first diffuser covering both the spectrometer and the pyranometer and scattering visible + NIR shortwave radiation; (iii) a pyrgeometer; (iv) a second diffuser, different from the first, covering the pyrgeometer; (v) a control unit receiving measurements from all three.
• Claim 14: top-side recess holding spectrometer+pyranometer under a first diffuser plus bottom-side recess holding a second spectrometer+pyranometer under a second diffuser, one control unit.
• Claim 24: four recesses (two up-looking for downwelling at a first orientation, two down-looking for upwelling at a second orientation) + a remote radiation analysis device computing downwelling and upwelling amounts.

A single reference anticipates under §102 only if it discloses every one of these elements as arranged. That is a demanding standard here because the asserted point of novelty is the split-diffuser architecture (one diffuser material optimized for the shortwave pair; a different diffuser for the longwave sensor) placed in dedicated recesses, plus the twinned up/down spectroradiometers.

---

C. Preliminary §102 assessment

Caveat: the following is a preliminary, low-to-medium-confidence assessment. Because I could not open the full text of most cited references this session, I cannot honestly assert element-by-element anticipation for them. Treat the cells below as hypotheses to test, not findings.

---

D. Key analytical points and contradictions to flag

1. Critical-date problem for a chunk of the cited list. The effective prior-art date is the 2016-07-05 provisional (App. 62/358,377), carried through the continuation chain. At least five listed items (US 9,841,533, US 2017/0261647, US 2016/0231171, US 2017/0223947, WO 2018/009574) post-date that date on their faces. If the provisional fully supports the claims (the record implies it does, given the listed 2016-07-05 prior-art date), none of them can be §102(a)(1) art, and §102(a)(2) applies only to the published applications among them and only if effectively filed earlier by another inventor. Any assertion that these anticipate claims 1/14/24 should be rejected on the critical-date threshold alone. If, instead, a defendant relies on the 2017-07-05 parent filing date, that threshold shifts — worth testing both.

2. This citation list does not distinguish §102 from §103, nor X/Y relevance. The list is a flat "References Cited" compilation. I have no verified basis to say which items the examiner applied under §102 versus §103, or which were merely IDS-submitted. Anyone doing an invalidity or validity opinion must pull the file wrapper (USPTO Patent Center, app. 15/907,359) to see the examiner's Form PTO-892/PTOL-326 and any reasons-for-allowance.

3. No contradiction with the previously generated sections — the reference list (including the applicant's own Arable patents/designs, #12 and #13) is consistent with the continuity and assignee facts already stated.

4. Family-record caution. Justia-type "Referenced Cited" lists are sometimes aggregated at the family level. I could not confirm this list is the exact set printed on the '475 front page versus the parent 15/642,150 / pre-grant publication. Cross-check the printed "References Cited" column of the granted PDF before quoting any item as "cited in the '475 patent."

---

E. Recommended next steps (to convert this into a defensible prior-art report)

1. Pull the granted front page's "References Cited" column from https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a6/20/99/d1d4ea9cbe2e35/US10156475.pdf and reconcile it against the Justia list above (they should match; if not, the Justia list is family-aggregated).
2. Retrieve the file wrapper for app. 15/907,359 at USPTO Patent Center / Public Search to obtain examiner citations, PTO-892s, and the notice of allowance — this is the only way to know X/Y relevance and the §102/§103 split.
3. Full-text pull, in priority order: US 9,037,521; 9,201,991; 9,292,796 (Mewes) and US 9,488,630 (Coram) — the most likely candidates for the "paired sensor + shared diffuser + separate longwave diffuser" architecture.
4. Confirm effective filing dates and inventor identity for the post-priority publications (Assefa, Gall, WO 2018/009574, and the Arable 9,841,533/2017/0261647) to settle §102(a)(2) eligibility.
5. Consider searching beyond the cited list for the classic net-radiometer art (pyranometer + pyrgeometer up/down pairs, e.g., CNR-type instruments) — none appears in this citation list, yet such art is squarely on the claim 14/24 subject matter. (This is a suggestion for search, not a verified reference.)

Bottom line: The '475 patent cites a mixed bag — a sensor/radiometer cluster (Mewes, Salmi, Osborne, Gao, Coram, Mannstein, Garrett), several design patents, the applicant's own Arable design and disdrometer patents, pre-grant publications, and agronomy NPL. On the record I can verify, no cited reference is confirmed to disclose the full claim-1 combination, and the strongest-looking formal candidate, the applicant's own US 9,841,533 / US 2017/0261647, is post-dated and same-inventor and therefore not §102 art. I could not complete per-reference verification this session, so the specific descriptions marked "unverified" and the §102 mappings in Section C must be confirmed against the references' full texts before being relied upon.

Before analyzing, one process note: the prompt directs me to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page," but no Prior Art section was included in the material I was given — I received the full patent text plus the previously generated Patent Summary and Litigation Summary. I'll flag that and supplement with my own prior-art searching, clearly labeling which references I verified versus which I'm asserting from background knowledge. Let me do that searching now.

Let me pull the patent's own front-page cited references and search for directly analogous patented devices.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Pat. No. 10,156,475 B2

35 U.S.C. § 103, Graham v. John Deere / KSR framework

---

0. Threshold caveat on the record I was given

The task says to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page." No Prior Art section was transmitted to me. The material I received was (a) the full patent text, (b) the previously generated Patent Summary, and (c) the previously generated Litigation Summary. Per the operating rule against fabricating, I am therefore not reporting a "Prior Art section" I never saw.

What follows is my own § 103 analysis built from references I located by search plus references admitted in the patent's own specification. Every reference is tagged below with its verification status and, critically, its date relative to the 2016-07-05 critical date — because a § 103 analysis is worthless without that check.

---

1. Governing dates (from the patent, not re-derived)

Flag: the parent, US 9,939,319 (filed 2017-07-05), the PCT publication WO 2018/009574 A1, the sibling US 10,386,296 B1, and US 2019/0369009 A1 are the same-family/own-work disclosures. They are not § 103 prior art against this patent. I list them only to rule them out. Likewise the Arable Mark commercial product is not prior art.

---

2. Level of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

Given the field (ground-based solar radiometry and optical instrumentation) and the prior-art sophistication at the 2016 date, a POSITA would be:

• a B.S. in physics, electrical engineering, optical engineering, or atmospheric science, or equivalent field experience, and
• 2–5 years designing, calibrating, or deploying broadband AND spectral solar radiometers (pyranometers, pyrgeometers, spectroradiometers) in field/mast-mounted networks.

This is a low-to-moderate skill level, which cuts in favor of obviousness: the art is mature, highly standardized (ISO 9060, WMO/BSRN guidance), and instrument-component substitution is routine.

Claim construction points that matter:

• "adjacently positioned" (cl. 1) is unbounded — any co-housing satisfies it.
• "a first diffuser" / "a second diffuser … different from the first" (cl. 1) reads on any two non-identical window/dome/diffuser elements. The spec's own embodiments (polycarbonate or acrylic vs. polyethylene) are exemplary only.
• "spectrometer" is not limited to a dispersive instrument; the spec's own § 2 usage (one or more visible sensors 112 + NIR sensors 114) reads on a filtered-photodiode multi-band array — which is exactly the MFRSR architecture (below). This is the single most important construction point for invalidity.

---

3. The prior-art references

3.1 The patent's own admissions (Applicant Admitted Prior Art — AAPA)

These are the strongest and most-procurable references, because they are in the four corners of the patent:

1. "Spectrometers can also be used to improve the performance of pyranometers or pyrgeometers by providing estimates of phenomena that can introduce noise or error… spectral correction of incident light onto a photodiode."
2. "…corrections using an accompanying spectrometer can improve performance of photoelectric pyranometers."
3. "…errors introduced by [diffuser degradation/contamination] may also be diagnosed by an accompanying spectrometer, which can detect slow and persistent changes in the spectral quality of received radiation."
4. The direct/diffuse/"air mass"/Mie-scattering analysis is described as a known spectrometry technique, not an invention.

Citations: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10156475B2](/patent/US10156475B2)/en (spec. ¶¶ discussing pyranometer spectral limitations).

Effect: the motivation to combine a spectrometer with a pyranometer/pyrgeometer is conceded by the applicant. The only live question for claim 1 is the packaging (co-housing + two different diffusers), not the combination itself.

3.2 Kipp & Zonen CNR4 (and predecessor CNR1/CNR1-L) Net Radiometer — verified, pre-dates 2016

URL: https://s.campbellsci.com/documents/eu/product-brochures/b_cnr4.pdf ; https://www.kippzonen.com/products/cnr4_net_radiometer

Discloses, in a single compact housing:

• an upward-facing pyranometer + pyrgeometer pair and a downward-facing complementary pair (= four recesses/sensor zones in two opposite orientations);
• shortwave and longwave detectors under different windows: upper pyrgeometer = silicon meniscus dome; pyranometers = glass domes — i.e., different diffusers for the SW vs. LW detectors;
• an integral bubble level;
• four separate analog (µV) outputs;
• internal temperature sensors for LW correction.
• CNR4 introduced 2010; CNR1 introduced in the 1990s → comfortably pre-2016.

3.3 Yankee Environmental Systems MFRSR — Harrison, Michalsky & Berndt (1994), Applied Optics 33:5118 — verified, pre-dates 2016

URLs: https://patarnott.com/atms748/pdf/mfr_handbook.pdf ; https://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf03/extended_abs/michalsky_j.pdf

Discloses:

• a single protruding diffuser + integrating cavity (Spectralon) that covers and feeds BOTH (i) a hexagonal close-packed array of six narrow-band filtered photodiodes (415, 500, 615, 673, 870, 940 nm) and (ii) an open/broadband silicon photodiode channel;
• computed solar position from an ephemeris, and derivation of direct = global − diffuse;
• an explicit rationale for putting all channels under one diffuser: "greatly reducing intercalibration worries about both absolute sensitivity and spectral passband, and guaranteeing that the measurements are synchronous." — this is a motivation-to-combine statement, from the prior art itself;
• an accompanying "Multi-Filter Radiometer" (MFR) and "Normal Incidence Multi-Filter Radiometer" (NIMFR) variants;
• an associated pyranometer (Eppley PSP) co-located and corrected against the MFRSR channels (see the DOE report DoEER/6/072-14, https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc679152/), which derives spectral-correction equations (γ ratios) by regressing the thermopile pyranometer against the spectral channels.

3.4 Decagon Devices / METER Group Spectral Reflectance Sensor (SRS) — verified, pre-dates 2016

URL: https://library.metergroup.com/Retired%20and%20Discontinued/Manuals/14597_SRS_Print.pdf

Discloses:

• a two-band radiometer measuring NDVI (650 / 810 nm) or PRI (532 / 570 nm);
• hemispherical versions built with Teflon diffusers for cosine-corrected, 180° up-looking irradiance measurement, and down-facing versions;
• explicit teaching: "Sensors can be mounted facing up or down, singly or in tandem"; "Calculating NDVI or PRI requires knowing both incoming and reflected radiation… you only need one up-facing radiometer to compute the vegetation indices for many down-facing radiometers."
• NIST-traceable radiometric calibration stored in-sensor.
  (Decagon = METER naming change occurred July 2017, i.e., after the critical date; the SRS itself predates it.)

3.5 Gamon et al., Biogeosciences Discuss. 12:2947 (2015) — verified, pre-dates 2016

URL: https://bg.copernicus.org/preprints/12/2947/2015/bgd-12-2947-2015.pdf

Discloses automated up-looking (irradiance) and down-looking (radiance) PRI/NDVI sensor networks, and a sensor cross-calibration coefficient obtained with a 99% Spectralon panel to normalize radiance vs. irradiance sensors for differing foreoptics/responses.

3.6 US 10,209,132 B2 (SolarSIM-G) — verified as a document; priority date NOT verified — see caveat

URL: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/00/b5/91/c237f65570115b/US10209132.pdf

Discloses a spectroradiometer with:

• a diffuser plate comprising six mini-diffusers each optimized per wavelength channel, the plate acting as front cover and diffuser;
• channels at ~410–430, 480–505, 600–620, 670–690, 860–880, and 930–960 nm (= the water-vapor band);
• a recess into which the assembly sits, plus a shadow pole used to derive the ratio of global (incident) to diffuse irradiance.

Caveat: I could not confirm its effective filing/priority date within this session. If its priority post-dates 2016-07-05 it is not § 103 art here (and its grant date 2019 confirms it is late). Do not rely on this reference without pulling its priority data.

3.7 References I identified but that are NOT prior art (dates too late) — flagged deliberately

• WO 2022/135931 A1 (pyranometer with an optical filter compensating the spectral selectivity of dome/diffuser/thermopile) — 2021/2022. Post-dates the critical date. Useful only as evidence that spectral correction remained a known, unsolved engineering problem.
• US 2021/0203163 A1 (SUNY; combination radiometer + sky imager with 415/500/610/665/860/940/1640 nm channels) — post-2019.
• ES 2656737 A1 (autonomous solar irradiance registration system with PV power, processor board, communications) — publication date unverified; treat as date-provisional only.

---

4. Claim-by-claim § 103 combinations

4.1 Claim 1 — the core structural claim

Primary combination: CNR4/CNR1 (or the admitted-knowledge net radio-meter) in view of MFRSR, further in view of AAPA.

Motivation to combine is essentially provided by the primary reference plus the patent's own admissions:

• AAPA: the applicant concedes the desirability of spectral correction of a broadband detector by an accompanying spectrometer.
• MFRSR express motivation: synchronicity and removal of inter-instrument calibration mismatch by putting all channels under one diffuser.
• CNR4 express motivation: "all four sensors integrated into a single compact housing, yet individually calibrated" — i.e., the field already valued single-housing integration and accepted heterogeneous detector/window types in one housing.
• The spec's own definition frames the "radiation budget" as shortwave plus longwave; a POSITA building a budget instrument from a known net radiometer + known spectroradiometer reaches the claim with a predictable result and no change in operational principle (KSR).

Secondary evidence that the pairing was routine: the DOE/PSP + MFRSR spectral-correction work (3.3) shows a pyranometer and a multi-band spectral radiometer operated together for the very purpose of spectral correction.

Assessment: Claim 1 is weak. The delta over MFRSR alone is the pyrgeometer + second, different diffuser — both squarely and expressly taught by CNR1/CNR4, with every incentive to combine (full radiation budget). I would rate this high likelihood of obviousness, subject to the § 102(b)(2) provenance of any specific reference used.

4.2 Claim 14 — two-sided (up-looking + down-looking) spectrometer/pyranometer pairs

Combination: CNR1/CNR4 (opposed top/bottom sensor architecture with dedicated top and bottom windows) in view of Decagon SRS (or Gamon 2015), in view of MFRSR.

Motivation: the Decagon manual states the reason explicitly — NDVI/PRI require paired up- and down-looking measurements, and the up-looking irradiance sensor must be matched to the down-looking radiance sensors. Gamon 2015 supplies the further motivation (cross-calibration to normalize mismatched foreoptics). Opposed-view packaging is old in radiometry (CNR1/CNR4; albedometers).

Assessment: High likelihood of obviousness. The only arguably novel concept — "put a pyranometer next to a spectrometer on each face" — is the result of KSR's "known technique, predictable result" and simple duplication of parts on the two faces (a design choice).

4.3 Claim 24 — four-recess system + remote radiation analysis device

Combination: CNR1/CNR4 (four-recess opposed architecture) + MFRSR/Decagon + conventional networked data-processing.

Assessment: High as to the apparatus half; the analysis-device half adds only conventional computing applied to data the apparatus already generates. Note the separate § 101 exposure of the analysis-side claims (a point outside this task but worth carrying forward).

4.4 Dependent claims

Teaching-away counterpoint (the one real non-obviousness hook): the LW-dome art trended away from polyethylene toward silicon (Kipp & Zonen CG4 flat silicon dome; Eppley PIR silicon window), and PE domes suffer sagging/aging. One could argue claim 6's express "polyethylene" second diffuser is contrary to the art's direction. This is a narrow, single-dependent-claim argument; it does not rescue claims 1, 14, or 24, and even for claim 6 the PE-dome pyrgeometer has long pedigree, so a stronger showing (unexpected result, criticality) would be needed.

---

5. Motivation-to-combine synthesis (the KSR factors)

1. The combination was explicitly suggested by the prior art. MFRSR's own rationale for one diffuser over spectral + broadband channels; CNR4's rationale for heterogeneous sensors in one housing; Decagon's rationale for paired up/down diffused sensors.
2. The applicant conceded the motivation. The AAPA passages state the reason to put a spectrometer with a pyranometer/pyrgeometer.
3. Known problem, known solution, predictable result. Photodiode/spectral-selectivity error in broadband radiometers was a documented problem with documented corrections (DOE/PSP-vs-MFRSR γ equations; RSR/LI-200 angular and spectral adjustments).
4. Design need / market pull. Standardized networks (BSRN, SURFRAD, ARM) were already co-locating spectroradiometers and pyranometers and demanding synchronous, co-located sampling.
5. Routine packaging. Two different windows for two different spectral regimes is the defining feature of the pre-existing net radiometer; the "different diffuser" limitation is met by the mere presence of any two unlike domes — a result-effective-variable selection within the ordinary skill level.

Reasonable expectation of success: high. The patent alleges no unexpected result, no criticality of any parameter, and provides no comparative data — so there is no evidentiary basis to rebut with "unexpected results." Expect § 103 to be established if the examiner/defendant secures a clean pre-2016 date for the MFRSR-family and CNR4-family references.

Secondary considerations (objective indicia): I found no licensed, praised, or industry-adopted specific embodiment tied to the claimed combination; commercial success of the Arable Mark (if argued) would face a nexus problem because the claim covers generic sensor co-packaging, and the success would more plausibly derive from the agricultural-analytics platform, not the claimed diffuser/housing arrangement.

---

6. Confidence, gaps, and required verification before relying on this

High confidence: CNR4/CNR1 and MFRSR are genuine, pre-2016, publicly accessible printed publications, and their disclosures I quoted are direct from their text.

Medium confidence: Decagon SRS manual and Gamon 2015 as pre-2016 printed publications (both appear to be, but I did not extract an explicit publication/deposit date for each).

Low confidence / must verify:

• US 10,209,132 B2 (SolarSIM-G) priority date. If post-2016-07-05, excise it from the combination; claims 3, 10, 11 and the "recess" limitations then rest on CNR4 + MFRSR alone. ⚠️
• ES 2656737 A1 publication date. ⚠️
• I did not have access to the patent's own IDS/cited-references list, which is exactly the document a § 103 analysis should start from. Retrieve the front-page "References Cited" from the grant PDF (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a6/20/99/d1d4ea9cbe2e35/[US10156475](/patent/US10156475).pdf) and PATENTCENTER before finalizing — the applicant's own cited art is often the shortest path.
• AIA § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership carve-outs: if any reference shares ownership/obligation-of-assignment with Arable, it drops out under 102(b)(2)(C). Check assignment records.

Consistency check against the earlier sections: the Patent Summary flagged a "pyrecometer" vs. "pyrgeometer" OCR discrepancy and a terminal disclaimer (0 days PTA). Neither affects this analysis; the OCR variant does not change any claim limitation, and the terminal disclaimer affects term, not validity. No contradiction found between the earlier sections and this one — except that the earlier sections also referenced a "Prior Art section" only implicitly, and I reiterate that no such section was actually provided to me.

---

7. Bottom line

Claims 1, 14, and 24 are, on the record I can assemble, vulnerable under § 103 via CNR1/CNR4 (net radiometer: opposed SW/LW sensors, distinct SW and LW windows, integral bubble level, four recesses, single housing) in view of MFRSR (single diffuser over co-located multi-band spectral channels plus a broadband channel, with express synchronism/intercalibration motivation), further in view of Decagon SRS / Gamon 2015 (paired up-/down-looking diffused sensors for reflectance, and explicit cross-calibration coefficients) — with the applicant's own specification supplying the motivation to combine the spectrometer with the pyranometer/pyrgeometer. The strongest invalidity ground is therefore not on the sensors themselves but on the packaging and data-processing claims, where the art is dense and the applicant has already conceded the design rationale.

The only claim with a plausible non-obviousness story is claim 6 (polyethylene second diffuser), and only on a teaching-away theory.