US 10232286

Here is a concise summary of US patent 10232286:

US Patent: 10232286

• Title: Closed oil extraction booth with integrated ventilation system
• Current Assignee: ALIEN PROCESSING LLC
• Inventor: Linn D. Havelick
• Filing Date: December 12, 2016
• Issue Date: March 19, 2019
• Abstract: The patent describes an oil extraction booth made from securable pre-fabricated modules to create an air-tight interior workspace. It includes an inlet blower, an exhaust blower, a sensor to detect gases within the workspace, and a controller. This controller manages the speeds of the blowers based on the gas concentration detected by the sensor, operating them at a first speed for low gas levels and a second, higher speed if the gas level equals or exceeds a first predetermined value.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1: This claim describes an oil extraction booth that includes pre-fabricated wall and ceiling panels, a door, and a ventilation system. The ventilation system features an air intake for filtered air, a vertical exhaust duct with a low-lying vent, and an exhaust fan located outside the booth above the ceiling. The booth also has ports in its walls for piping from external equipment, an electrical panel outside for controlling this equipment, and a monitoring system. The monitoring system comprises at least one sensor detecting gases or liquids inside the booth and a monitor that triggers an alarm if the concentration of these substances exceeds a first predetermined level.

• Independent Claim 6: This claim details an oil extraction booth consisting of first and second pre-fabricated side modules that form an airtight interior workspace. It includes an inlet blower connected to ductwork in the first side module to bring air into the workspace, and an exhaust blower connected to ductwork in the second side module to remove air from the workspace. A sensor detects gas within the workspace, and a controller is electrically linked to both the sensor and the blowers. The controller is programmed to operate the blowers at a base speed when gas levels are below a first predetermined value and to increase their speed to a higher setting if the gas level meets or exceeds that first predetermined value.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
A search for "CAFC 2026 dockets US10232286" did not return any direct results regarding litigation involving US Patent 10232286 in the CAFC dockets for 2026. The patent information itself indicates that "Family has litigation" and points to a US case filed in the California Northern District Court (3:26-cv-01401), but this is not a CAFC docket.

Known Litigation Involving US Patent 10232286

As of April 26, 2026, the patent US10232286 is involved in at least one known litigation case:

• Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided patent information.
• Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent information.
• Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court.
• Case Number: 3:26-cv-01401.
• Filing Date: The patent information does not explicitly state the filing date of this specific case, but it notes that "First worldwide family litigation filed" and "US case filed in California Northern District Court" with this case number.
• Outcome or Current Status: Active litigation is indicated by the patent status information, "Family has litigation".

A search for "CAFC 2026 dockets US10232286" did not yield any direct results for litigation involving this patent in the CAFC dockets for 2026. The Unified Patents portal also indicates general patent litigation search capabilities but does not provide specific case details for US10232286 directly in the search results.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 10232286.

Strategic summary

As of today, July 13, 2026, all claims of US Patent 10232286 remain untested by any AIA trial proceeding. This means that a defendant facing assertion of this patent would have the full range of prior art grounds available for a potential inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR), assuming they meet the statutory requirements for filing such a petition. The absence of PTAB activity could suggest that the patent has not been extensively asserted or that previous challenges did not result in formal AIA trials.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of US Patent 10232286, the absence of PTAB activity indicates that all claims are currently presumed valid against AIA trial challenges. A detailed prior art search would be a crucial first step to evaluate the potential for filing an IPR or PGR petition, as there are no existing PTAB decisions to consider for claim construction or invalidity findings.

Inventors

• Linn D. Havelick (Employer: Not specified in the patent document)

No unusual patterns such as inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing are determinable from the provided information.

Original assignee

The original assignee, as listed on the issued patent, is Hal Extraction Technology Ltd. The patent document does not provide information about whether Hal Extraction Technology Ltd shipped a product embodying the claims, their primary line of business, or their current operational status.

Assignment timeline

• 2016-12-12 (executed) / recorded 2016-12-12 – Not available
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: HAVELICK, LINN D
  • Assignee: HAL EXTRACTION TECHNOLOGY LTD
  • Correspondent: Not available.
  • Context: Original assignment from inventor to initial assignee.
• 2024-01-05 (executed) / recorded 2024-01-05 – Not available
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: HAL EXTRACTIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LTD
  • Assignee: ALIEN PROCESSING LLC
  • Correspondent: Not available.
  • Context: Transfer of ownership.

The USPTO Assignment Center indicates that assignment records are available from August 1980 to the present. A search using the patent number US10232286 would typically provide reel and frame numbers if the assignments were recorded. However, the Google Patents legal events for this patent do not provide reel/frame numbers for the listed assignments. The information provided notes "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)" but does not expose the reel and frame directly.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10232286
    2016 : Filed by Hal Extraction Technology Ltd
         : Assigned from Havelick to Hal Extraction
    2019 : Issued
    2024 : Assigned to ALIEN PROCESSING LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer - Present. The patent was assigned from "HAL EXTRACTIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LTD" to "ALIEN PROCESSING LLC" in 2024. ALIEN PROCESSING LLC is described as a business registered in California and Nevada. The name "ALIEN PROCESSING LLC" could suggest a shell entity, and without further information about its products or operating business, this transfer raises a signal.
2. Known asserter in the chain - Unclear. There is no information in the provided text to suggest that ALIEN PROCESSING LLC is a known NPE from public lists like Acacia Research Corp, Marathon Patent Group, etc.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain - Unclear. The correspondent information is "Not available" for both assignments.
4. Cascading transfers - Not present. There are only two recorded assignments in the chain, occurring in 2016 and 2024, which is not multiple consecutive assignments in a short period.
5. Pre-litigation transfer - Unclear. The assignment to ALIEN PROCESSING LLC occurred on 2024-01-05. The litigation case in the California Northern District Court (3:26-cv-01401) is noted as "First worldwide family litigation filed" but a specific filing date for this case is not provided, making it impossible to determine if the transfer occurred within 6 months prior to litigation. The patent shows "Family has litigation" with the case number, but the specific filing date for the case is not specified.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale - Unclear. While some online discussions suggest that HAL Extraction Technology Ltd. might have gone out of business, the patent records themselves do not explicitly state a bankruptcy filing or a sale due to bankruptcy. One source mentions a former employee stating, "Unfortunately, HAL Extraction is no longer in business, and they are unable to support your extraction booth".
7. Privateering - Unclear. No information in the provided text suggests privateering.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) - Not present. The chain terminates with ALIEN PROCESSING LLC, which is not identified as a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.
The transfer to ALIEN PROCESSING LLC in 2024, combined with the lack of clear operating information about this entity and the indication of active litigation (Case 3:26-cv-01401 in California Northern District Court), suggests a possible NPE pattern. The original assignee, Hal Extraction Technology Ltd., appears to be out of business as of late 2022/early 2023. The reassignment to ALIEN PROCESSING LLC in 2024-01-05 after the original assignee ceased operations is a strong indicator of a potential assertion play.

USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 10232286, I will use the USPTO's Patent Public Search tool. The USPTO provides a web-based search application for patents and patent application publications.

Once I access the Patent Public Search tool, I will use the "Basic search" option to look for the specific patent number 10232286, as it is a single patent number lookup.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 10232286

Based on the patent document for US10232286, the sole patent citation listed under "Patent Citations" is US20080263968A1.

• Full Citation: US20080263968A1
• Publication Date: October 30, 2008
• Filing Date: April 25, 2007
• Brief Description: US20080263968A1 describes a prefabricated rapid response accommodation structure. This structure is designed for quick assembly and deployment, providing temporary shelter or workspace. It focuses on the modularity and ease of construction for various applications.
• Claims Potentially Anticipated:
  • Independent Claim 1: The concept of "a plurality of pre-fabricated wall panels" and "a plurality of pre-fabricated ceiling panels" in claim 1 of US10232286 could potentially be anticipated by US20080263968A1, which emphasizes a "prefabricated rapid response accommodation structure." The general idea of using prefabricated modules for quick assembly for a specific purpose aligns with this prior art, although the specific application (oil extraction booth with integrated ventilation) is distinct.
  • Independent Claim 6: Similarly, the aspect of "first and second pre-fabricated side modules securable to each other to create a first air-tight interior work space" in claim 6 of US10232286 may be anticipated. The prior art's focus on a "prefabricated rapid response accommodation structure" implies the use of securable, modular components to create an enclosed space. The "air-tight" nature and "work space" are further refinements in US10232286, but the foundational modular construction could be seen as predated.
  • Dependent Claim 10: This claim specifically mentions "at least one pre-fabricated expansion module securable between the first and second side modules." This concept of expandability through additional prefabricated modules is also a characteristic that could be found or implicitly suggested in a "prefabricated rapid response accommodation structure" designed for varying needs.

I'll ground this analysis with targeted searches on the references identified in the Prior Art section and on the industry standards that bear on motivation to combine.

Now let me ground the secondary-reference side of the combinations — ventilation/containment enclosures and gas-detection-driven blower control.

Let me strengthen the gas-detection → blower-speed control thread and the regulatory motivation.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10232286 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analyst note on scope: Per the task instruction, I am building on the Prior Art section already on the page. That section identified only one reference — US20080263968A1 (Day) — which is the sole patent citation appearing on the face of US 10232286. That single reference cannot carry a § 103 case for either independent claim, so this analysis constructs combinations using (a) the Day reference, (b) the prior-art candidates listed on the same page (Google Patents "Citations" / "Similar Documents"), and (c) industry/NPL evidence I retrieved to ground the motivation-to-combine rationale. Every reference is tagged by verification status.

1. Legal framework and critical date

Governing law. The application was filed 2016-12-12 with priority to provisional 62/320,466 filed 2016-04-09 (both dates confirmed from the patent record on this page). Because the effective filing date is after 2013-03-16, the AIA version of §§ 102/103 applies.

Critical date. 2016-04-09 (assuming all claims find § 112 support in the provisional). ⚠️ Flag: the provisional is not in the record I have. If any claim limitation is not supported by the provisional — candidates are the 500 cfm / 1,220 cfm values (claims 3, 9) and the 10%/25% LEL values (claims 4, 8), both recited in the specification only as "for example" — that claim's effective date drops to 2016-12-12, opening an eight-month window of intervening art. This should be the petitioner's first diligence item.

Framework. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (scope/content of prior art; differences; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (expansive rationales; predictable variations; design incentives; "obvious to try"). Under AIA § 103, the patent's own admissions in the Background Art are usable as evidence of what was known and required in the field.

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

Based on the references and the problem addressed, a POSITA here is a mechanical or chemical/process engineer with ~2–5 years of experience in industrial ventilation/HVAC and hazardous-location (classified-area) facility design, including solvent handling, or equivalent. The art is genuinely a combination art — the patent itself draws on prefabricated-structure practice (E04H5/02), solvent extraction (B01D11/02), and industrial ventilation (the "Ventilation" landscape tag on the patent page). This matters: the POSITA is charged with knowledge of NFPA 70 (Class I Div. 1/2 classification), NFPA 45/33 (lab/spray enclosure ventilation), and combustible-gas detection alarm conventions, and the patent's own Background concedes these codes exist and impose exactly these requirements.

3. Corrections to the previously-generated Prior Art section

Two items must be flagged before proceeding:

1. Contradiction / overreach. The Prior Art section states that Day "could potentially anticipate" claims 1, 6 and 10. This is not supportable and conflates § 102 with § 103. Anticipation requires all elements in one reference. Day discloses a disaster-relief dwelling kit and says nothing about: an exhaust duct, an exhaust fan, blowers, gas sensors, a monitor/alarm, a controller, or variable blower speed. Day is at best a § 103 primary reference for the enclosure elements — not an anticipatory reference. The Prior Art section's own framing ("could be seen as predated") is speculation; I replace it with element-level mapping below.
2. PTAB section error. The earlier PTAB section advises a defendant to consider "an inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR)." PGR is unavailable — the patent issued 2019-03-19, so the 9-month PGR window under 35 U.S.C. § 321(c) closed 2019-12-19. Only IPR remains, and only on §§ 102/103 grounds (not § 112). Also note the internal date inconsistency between the earlier sections ("As of April 26, 2026" vs. "as of today, July 13, 2026").
3. Reference verified. The Prior Art section's citation of US20080263968A1 (filed 2007-04-25; published 2008-10-30; app. 11/789,654; inventor Mark O. Day) is confirmed correct by my search.

4. Reference inventory (with verification status)

Note for the petitioner: none of Teagle, CO-98, Fumehood-VAV, CA'119, ACME, Intec, ParkSafe, or Frog appear on the face of US 10232286. Only Day does. The examiner therefore did not have these before him, which is the core IPR opportunity.

5. Independent Claim 1 — element mapping

Gap analysis: Day alone supplies the pre-fab enclosure, door, snap-lock air-tight joints, pipe/electrical cutouts, and exterior electrical panel — a surprisingly large fraction of claim 1's structural elements, in a single reference already cited on the patent's face. Day supplies none of the ventilation or monitoring elements. Teagle + CO-98 + ACME fill exactly those gaps. No single reference anticipates claim 1.

6. Independent Claim 6 — element mapping

Gap analysis: The two-threshold, two-speed, sensor-driven blower-control concept is squarely disclosed by the combination of fume-hood/VAV control art (speed-controllable blowers) with combustible-gas detection control art (threshold-driven staged fan speed). Day supplies the air-tight modular enclosure. The "ductwork between inner and outer walls" element is the only genuinely weak link.

7. Motivation to combine — articulated reasons (KSR-compliant)

A petition must supply an articulated reason with rational underpinning; conclusory "could have been combined" statements fail (see the Board's reasoning in the IPR2022-00625 excerpt retrieved in my search: "[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations", citing Belden v. Berk-Tek). The following rationales are available, in roughly descending strength:

1. Design incentive supplied by the applicant's own Background. US 10232286's Background Art states: "regulations and codes … often require the use of facilities equipped with explosion-proof electrical equipment, lighting and fixtures; explosion blast venting capabilities, ventilation rated for use with hazardous materials; and monitoring and alarm systems to detect the presence of hazardous conditions." This is an admission that (a) hazardous-rated ventilation, (b) blast venting, and (c) monitoring/alarm systems were known, required, and understood as the solution set. A POSITA reading Day's cheap, air-tight, relocatable panel structure has a direct, admitted incentive to outfit it for a hazardous process.

2. Known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Teagle is expressly about evacuating toxic/explosive vapors and VOCs from an enclosed interior room, using a blower "rated … for hazardous conditions" whose motor is isolated from the gas stream "to minimize an unwanted source of ignition," with venting to atmosphere. Applying Teagle's ventilation scheme to Day's enclosed modular room is the paradigmatic KSR rationale (c).

3. Locating unrated electrical equipment outside a classified area is a standard, code-driven technique. Day already discloses "an electrical panel for the exterior of said building" and pre-cut panel openings; Teagle isolates the drive motor from the vapor stream. Placing the exhaust fan above the ceiling, outside the booth, and the control panel on the outside wall, with piping passing through pre-cut ports, is the routine NFPA 70 practice of keeping non-rated equipment outside the Class I Div. 1/2 boundary. This is a simple substitution of a known element (KSR (b)) and known technique applied to a known device ready for improvement (KSR (d)).

4. Predictable variation from a small fixed base flow to a staged higher flow. AIVC documents that fume hoods must never be at zero flow, must maintain a minimum flow, and discusses two- and multi-speed exhaust fans; ACME (June 2011) and Intec/ParkSafe document minimum-speed base operation with a stepped increase to high speed on a gas threshold. The "first speed / second higher speed" structure is a predictable variation of known staged ventilation control, with the recognized benefit of energy savings through intermittent operation — a benefit ACME's 2011 datasheet expressly advertises.

5. Combustible-gas alarm setpoints and staged relays are conventional. The claimed 10%/25%-of-LEL two-stage scheme (claims 4, 8) and the low/high/alarm relay architecture (claims 2, 7) track the standard gas-detection convention of a low setpoint (≈10% LEL) and a high setpoint (≈20–25% LEL). Applying those conventional setpoints to Teagle's hazardous-area ventilation is a design choice within the ordinary skill level, with predictable results.

6. Dense-vapor behavior drives low-level exhaust. The patent admits the target solvents (butane, hexane, propane, acetone, IPA) are heavier than air, and therefore exhausts near the floor. That physical fact — and the corresponding low-level/high-level venting practice — was well known (see the smoke/fire exhaust art at title level and the AIVC LEL discussion). Claim 1's "exhaust vent in the lower end of the exhaust duct" is thus the predictable engineering response, not an inventive insight.

7. Modular expansion is the express premise of the primary reference. Day's kit is explicitly variable in size and offers multi-room configurations; Frog (pub. 2007) discloses a "sliding expansion module … attached to the shed." Adding an expansion module between side modules (claims 10–11) is a predictable variation using a known modular-construction technique (KSR (a), (c), and "obvious to try" (e)).

8. Proposed § 103 grounds

Not available: a single-reference § 102 anticipation ground. Day does not disclose any ventilation or monitoring element, and Teagle/CO-98 do not disclose pre-fabricated modular wall/ceiling panel construction.

9. Dependent claims 2–16

10. Strongest non-obviousness counterarguments (anticipate these)

A rigorous analysis must state where the § 103 case is weak:

1. "Ductwork between inner and outer walls" (claim 6). This is the single most vulnerable element for the petitioner. Teagle uses flexible hose to a separate blower/plenum; Fumehood-VAV/CA'119 use exposed laboratory ductwork. Neither expressly discloses a double-wall module whose inter-wall cavity itself forms the supply/exhaust plenum. Day's panels are foam-core sandwich panels, not hollow air-plenum walls. A patent owner will argue that no reference teaches or suggests an integral double-wall plenum duct, and that the petitioner's case is impermissibly retrospective. Mitigation: search specifically for cleanroom/biosafety-containment and "air-wall" construction art (the record on this page lists US20180163978A1 "Biosafety Containment System", EP3124882B1 "prefabricated white chamber structure", and CN108351144A), plus double-wall spray booth construction.

2. Analogous art. Day is a disaster-relief dwelling (E04B1/343; E04H1/1205). A patent owner will argue it is non-analogous. Counter: under In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the second prong asks whether the reference is "reasonably pertinent to the particular problem" — here, providing a cheap, rapidly assembled, air-tight, relocatable enclosure. Day is reasonably pertinent to that sub-problem. Further, Day is cited on the face of the patent, so the applicant cannot credibly disclaim it.

3. Claim 6's coupled dual-blower speed control. The claim requires both blowers to go from first speed to second, higher speed together. Garage-CO art (CO-98, Intec) varies the exhaust fan; Fumehood-VAV varies exhaust with supply tracking. Whether the prior art expressly discloses simultaneously raising both an inlet and an exhaust blower to a second speed on a single gas signal needs verification against the full texts of CA'119 and US5205783 (the claim language retrieved from CA'119 addresses blower-motor speed variation but I did not verify a coordinated supply/exhaust teaching in its claims).

4. Energy savings (secondary consideration). The patent asserts 90–93% energy savings versus an equivalent paint-spray booth (500 cfm vs. 5,000–7,000 cfm). If a nexus can be shown to the claimed combination and the accused product, this is the patent owner's best Graham factor. Reprisal: the advantage is expected, not unexpected — the laboratory-ventilation literature of record (AIVC; the Labs21/Neuman presentation retrieved in my search) already quantifies make-up-air tempering cost at ~$3/cfm/yr and reports VAV energy savings of ~80% in hood-dominated labs, and ACME's June 2011 datasheet markets gas-detection-driven ventilation explicitly for "energy savings through the intermittent operation of ventilation equipment." An expected advantage carries little weight. Also, the patent gives the same 500-cfm base flow only as an example, and its own other embodiment uses 300 cfm, further weakening any criticality/nexus argument.

5. No commercial success. The record on this page indicates the original assignee, Hal Extraction Technology Ltd, ceased operations (a former employee quoted on the web: "Unfortunately, HAL Extraction is no longer in business"), and the patent was assigned to Alien Processing LLC on 2024-01-05. That history undercuts any secondary-indicia argument premised on commercial success or industry praise — and it also aligns with the prior sections' NPE (moderate confidence) verdict.

6. § 112 issues are real but not IPR-available. The claim-5 "shut of" typo, the internal inconsistency regarding whether electrical equipment is all outside the booth (Summary) versus rated for hazardous environments (Detailed Description), and the inconsistent flow-rate regimes (150/300 cfm vs. 500/1,220 cfm) are meaningful invalidity themes — but § 112 is not a ground in an IPR. They belong in district court (case 3:26-cv-01401, N.D. Cal.) or in a motion for judgment/summary judgment posture, not before the Board.

11. Conclusion

Highest-value next steps for a petitioner:

1. Verify the provisional's support for the 500/1,220-cfm and 10%/25%-LEL limitations to lock the effective date.
2. Full-text verify US4944216A, US6776708B1, KR100717772B1, US20180163978A1 and EP3124882B1 against claims 6, 12–14 — the "inner/outer wall ductwork" gap is the case's pivot point.
3. Date-verify the Intec and AGS ParkSafe documents; do not rely on undated product literature in a petition.
4. Confirm the district-court service date to fix the § 315(b) one-year IPR bar, and confirm the real party in interest behind Alien Processing LLC for § 315(a)/(e) and RPI purposes.
5. Depose/obtain the original design file from HAL Extraction Technology's personnel — an inventor's own pre-filing documentation of the 10%/25% LEL and 500/1,220-cfm values as chosen conventions (rather than discovered optima) would substantially neutralize the secondary-considerations defense.

Caveat on the record: the Day reference's content is fully verified from primary sources; the Teagle, CO-98, Fumehood-VAV, CA'119, AIVC, ACME, and Frog disclosures summarized above are verified from the sources cited in the table. All references marked "Title-level only" are identified from the patent page's "Similar Documents" list but their disclosures are unverified and are flagged as such throughout.