US 10318023

I'll verify against live sources before summarizing.

Search verification

I ran targeted lookups for the specific number 10318023 (and its granted form, US10318023B2). Findings:

• Patent-level authoritative text retrieved from Google Patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10318023](/patent/US10318023)/en (fetched 2026-09-30) — this is the basis for everything below.
• Corroborating full-text copy at FreePatentsOnline (pre-grant publication US2017/0220141A1): https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0220141.html
• No litigation, PTAB, or CAFC docket activity was found for this patent number. Several searches combining "10318023" / "10,318,023" with Federal Circuit, litigation, and infringement terms returned only (a) unrelated HP/HP-Enterprises suits over other patents, (b) unrelated IPRs, and (c) hits on the German application number DE 10318023 (EJOT GmbH & Co. KG, "Screwing element with an integrally formed spring element," priority 2003-04-19) — a different and unrelated identifier that I am not substituting for the US number. I found no evidence that US10318023 has been asserted or appealed. That is a negative finding from my searches, not proof of non-existence of a 2026 docket; treat it as unverified.

Bibliographic summary

Filing-date caveat: Google Patents lists the filing date as 2014-08-05, which corresponds to the international filing date of PCT/US2014/049657. The US national-stage application number 15/501,274 implies a 2017 national-stage entry (consistent with the 2017-08-03 pre-grant publication and the 2017-04-05 assignment recordation). I did not retrieve the USPTO PatentCenter filing receipt to confirm the exact US national-stage entry date, so treat "2014-08-05" as the effective filing/priority date rather than necessarily the §371 entry date.

Abstract (as printed)

"Data is captured by an image capture device of an input object that has a first retroreflective pattern and a second, different retroreflective pattern on a surface of the input object. A position of the input object in three dimensions is determined based on the received data."

Technology in one paragraph

The patent addresses the problem that capacitive touch surfaces cannot detect a hovering stylus and are awkward on vertically oriented displays. Its solution: put two different retroreflective patterns on the stylus (e.g., one near the top, one near the tip), illuminate the workspace with a light source (spec gives a wavelength range of "825 millimeters to 875 millimeters" — literally as printed, which reads as an apparent unit error for nanometers), and image the stylus with an infrared camera that also returns depth data. Image processing highlights the stylus (rejecting the user's hand and the mat) and produces 3D position/orientation data — including which end of the stylus is which, thanks to the two distinct patterns. That information is combined with wirelessly transmitted stylus state (plunger movement, button actuations, orientation-sensor data) to generate HID input events, and can also be used for unintended touch (palm) rejection.

Independent claims — plain language

Claim 1 — Method (independent)

A processor-implemented method with these steps:

1. Receive image-capture data of an input object that has a first retroreflective pattern and a second, different retroreflective pattern on its surface. The input object comprises a housing and a plunger moveable in the housing and relative to the housing.
2. Determine a 3D position of the input object from that data.
3. From that position, determine a region having a spatial relationship to a portion of the input object.
4. Based on that region, perform unintended touch rejection with respect to a touch on a touch-sensitive surface — where rejection means disregarding the touch.
5. Receive an indication of plunger movement relative to the housing, where the movement is responsive to interaction between the plunger and the touch-sensitive surface.
6. Aggregate the plunger-movement data with position data representing the input object's position, to produce aggregated data for processing an input event relating to both the position and the plunger movement.

In short: image a dual-pattern retroreflective stylus to get its 3D position, use that position to define a zone in which touches are ignored, and fuse wirelessly reported plunger (tip-pressure) events with the optically derived position into a single combined input stream.

Claim 8 — Non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (independent)

Instructions that cause a system to:

1. Receive image-capture data of an input object bearing a first retroreflective pattern and a second, different retroreflective pattern;
2. Generate 3D position data for the input object from that data;
3. Receive an indication of plunger movement of the input object, where the movement is relative to a housing of the input object and is responsive to interaction between the plunger and a touch surface;
4. Aggregate the position data and the plunger-movement data to produce aggregated data for processing an input event relating to the position and the plunger movement.

In short: the software-claim counterpart of claim 1 — the dual-pattern optical 3D position pipeline plus plunger-movement fusion, without the touch-rejection steps (those are the differentiator of claim 1/14).

Claim 14 — System (independent)

A system comprising:

• An input capture device (camera) to capture an image of an input object with a first and a second, different retroreflective pattern on its surface, the input object comprising a housing and a plunger moveable in the housing and relative to the housing; and
• A processor to: receive the captured data; determine a 3D position of the input object based on the data including data relating to the first and second retroreflective patterns; determine a region having a spatial relationship to a portion of the input object; based on that region, perform unintended touch rejection (disregarding the touch); receive an indication of plunger movement relative to the housing responsive to plunger/touch-surface interaction; and aggregate plunger-movement data with position data to produce aggregated data for processing an input event.

In short: claim 1's method re-cast as an apparatus/system claim (camera + processor), again expressly reciting the dual retroreflective patterns as the basis for the 3D position determination.

Notable dependent claims (for scope context)

• Cl. 2–3: the 3D position determination occurs while the object hovers above the touch surface, without contact or physical interaction.
• Cl. 4: retroreflective material runs substantially along the whole length (>50% of body length, per the specification) and includes both patterns.
• Cl. 5: receives activation of a user-activatable element and causes spray-paint-style painting of a displayed image region for the duration of activation.
• Cl. 6: the image capture device is an infrared camera.
• Cl. 7 / 15 / 16 / 19: the determined region is around the tip (cl. 15–16) or a specified distance from the tip (cl. 7, 19), and the rejected touch is by a different object (e.g., a user's finger) rather than the stylus.
• Cl. 9: first pattern near the bottom portion, second near the top portion.
• Cl. 10–13: button activation and plunger-movement indications arrive via the stylus's wireless interface, with the plunger movement detected by a sensor in the stylus.
• Cl. 17–18: system versions of the tip-region / different-object limitations.

Caveats and uncertainties

• No CAFC/2026 docket data: I could not locate any Federal Circuit appeal, district-court complaint, or PTAB proceeding for US10318023. My searches surfaced unrelated matters (e.g., HP/HPE cases on other patents, Largan v. AOET/Newmax, Q3 Networking v. HPE), none involving the '023 patent. I cannot affirmatively state the patent has never been litigated — only that I found no record.
• Filing-date nuance described above (PCT international filing date vs. US national-stage entry) is based on inference from the publication/assignment dates, not a retrieved filing receipt.
• Claim-dependency oddity: claim 15 recites "The method of claim 1" yet is positioned after independent claim 14; claims 15–16 are method claims, and 17–19 are system claims. This is reproduced literally from the printed claims and is not an error on my part.
• Apparent unit inconsistency in the specification ("825 millimeters to 875 millimeters" for the light source wavelength range) is quoted as printed; I am not auto-correcting it.
• A closely related HP publication, US 2017/0220202 A1 ("Determining the location of a user input device"), appeared in my searches and shares subject matter (retroreflective dual-pattern stylus positioning using ambient-image subtraction), but I did not verify its granted patent number or family relationship to the '023 patent, so I flag that connection as unconfirmed.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10318023.

Let me search more targeted sources.

Let me check dedicated litigation databases directly.

Litigation Search: US Patent 10,318,023

Bottom line: I found no evidence of any known litigation involving US Patent 10,318,023. As of today's search, no district court case, ITC investigation, or Federal Circuit appeal asserting or challenging this specific patent appears in the sources I was able to reach.

What the patent is (for identification purposes)

• Patent: US 10,318,023 B2, "Determining a position of an input object"
• Assignee: Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
• Inventors: David Bradley Short, Jinman Kang, Ben Wynne, Jamie Etcheson
• Application No.: 15/501,274 (U.S. national stage of PCT/US2014/049657)
• Priority/filing date: 2014-08-05 | Grant date: 2019-06-11
• Anticipated expiration: 2034-08-05
• Family: EP3177983B1, CN106796462B, TWI560583B, WO2016022097A1
• Claim subject matter: Image capture of an input object (stylus) bearing first/second retroreflective patterns; 3D position determination; unintended touch rejection based on a determined region; and aggregating plunger-movement data with position data (independent claims 1, 8, 14).

Searches performed and results

Items that are adjacent but NOT this patent — do not conflate

• Wacom Co. Ltd. v. Shenzhen Qianfenyi Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd. (d/b/a Maxeye), Case No. 2:24-cv-00702 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.), filed 2024 — asserts Wacom's U.S. Patents 9,280,220 / 9,977,519 / 10,108,277 / 10,437,356 / 9,690,399 / 9,933,866 / 10,768,720 against USI-compliant styluses (Maxeye/Penoval/Metapen). US 10,318,023 is not among the asserted patents, and the plaintiff is Wacom, not HP.
• Q3 Networking LLC v. HPE/Aruba/CommScope/Netgear (D. Del. and ITC, filed Sept. 2020) and R2 Semiconductor v. Intel / HP entities (Germany, France, Italy, 2022–2024) — these involve HPE/HP entities generally, on unrelated networking and semiconductor patents. Neither involves US 10,318,023.

Important caveats

1. Coverage limits. My primary free sources (Google Patents, general web search, and the Unified Patents litigation references that surfaced) are not exhaustive. A definitive negative requires paid/specialized dockets — Docket Navigator, LexisNexis PatentAdvisor/Litigation, RPX Insight, or PACER/CM-ECF full-text search — plus the USITC EDIS database for Section 337 actions. I was not able to query PACER or the Unified Patents portal's case list directly with a docket-level filter before my search budget ran out.
2. A "no litigation" finding may simply reflect the patent's profile. It is owned by a large operating company (HP), is part of a PCT family that has largely ceased or lapsed in the EP/CN/TW/WO jurisdictions, and has only one recorded maintenance fee payment (4th year, 2022). Patents of this kind are frequently never asserted.
3. Do not treat this as a legal conclusion. Confirm with a commercial litigation database before relying on it for a freedom-to-operate, validity, or damages opinion.

If a definitive, docket-level answer is required, I recommend running the patent number through Docket Navigator or RPX Insight and checking the ITC EDIS database for any Section 337 complaint naming US 10,318,023.

I'll verify the "no PTAB activity" default against live sources before reporting.

Let me run additional targeted checks on PTAB dockets and litigation involving this patent.

One more verification pass focused on PTAB case-type databases and any post-grant challenge.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 10,318,023: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal structured block for this patent returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings, and my independent searches (PTAB E2E / Patents-Review / docket aggregators, petitioner-name and patent-number queries) surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or Federal Circuit appeal involving this patent — so the breakdown is 0 active / 0 invalidated / 0 sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution-denied. Defensive posture: the patent is completely untested at the Board. All 19 claims stand as granted, unamended, and un-narrowed by any AIA trial — a defendant gets no free kill and no claim-level estoppel benefit, but also inherits no adverse FWD on the family's sibling art. Treat this as a clean-slate IPR target rather than a hardened patent.

One evidentiary caveat, stated plainly: "no proceedings" here means no proceedings found in the ODP block and in the sources I searched as of 2026-09-30. I did not have direct API access to PTAB E2E docket pages during this run, so before filing anything I would re-run a Patent Number search in PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov/) and confirm no petition has been accorded a filing date since the last ODP ingest.

No proceeding to report

There is no IPR/PGR/CBM number to populate the per-proceeding template with, and I will not invent one. Instead, here is the claim-status accounting a defendant actually needs:

Cancelled claims: none. Held patentable after challenge: none (nothing was ever challenged). "Survived IPR" would be a misleading way to describe this patent — surviving requires a challenge first.

Bottom line for a defendant: you cannot tell a court or a plaintiff that claims 1–19 are dead; they are not. Conversely, the patent owner cannot tell you the claims were tested and confirmed.

Strategic summary

Claim landscape. All of US 10,318,023's 19 claims are live and unamended. Nothing has been cancelled, disclaimed, or narrowed through any AIA trial, and there is no reexamination certificate or certificate of correction on the record that would have changed claim scope. Because no panel has ever construed "region having a spatial relationship with respect to a portion of the input object" (claims 1, 14), "disregarding the touch made with the touch-sensitive surface" (claims 1, 14), or the relative-weight term "plunger moveable in the housing and relative to the housing" (claims 1, 14), there is no PTAB claim construction to leverage and no PTAB construction to fear. The claim-scope fight is entirely yours to make, in district court or in a new petition.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estoppel is petitioner-specific: it bars a petitioner (and its privies) that obtained an instituted IPR and an FWD from re-litigating grounds raised or reasonably raisable. No one triggered that provision against this patent. That cuts both ways:

• No estoppel shields the patent owner. Any party is free to petition on any § 102/§ 103 ground, including art a prior petitioner used on a sibling HP patent.
• You are not estopped either — but only because you never petitioned. If you file now, expect a § 325(d) / General Plastic discretionary-denial argument only if the same art or substantially the same art already appears in the prosecution record. Note the file's citation list of 34 references, including the examiner-cited US20150199018A1 (Microsoft, "3D silhouette sensing system," priority 2014-01-14) and the non-patent citation Kim et al., "RetroDepth: 3D Silhouette Sensing for High-precision Input on and Above Physical Surfaces," CHI 2014, pp. 1377–1386 — that CHI paper is squarely in the same problem space (3D silhouette sensing for input on and above surfaces) and is the kind of reference the Board will ask "why wasn't this in the petition the first time?" about if you split grounds. Front-load everything in a single petition.
• Post-grant/Trial Practice Guide: since no petition has ever been filed, a first petition is not "follow-on" — the General Plastic factors weigh in your favor, subject to the Fintiv-type discretionary considerations if you are also in co-pending litigation.

Pattern signals. No petitioner has filed any IPR, let alone multiple. There is no Unified Patents / RPX defensive-aggregator filing in the chain, and the patent owner (Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P., assignee per the 2017-04-05 assignment recorded at Reel/Frame 041862/0616) has no PTAB appeal history on this patent because it has never had one. This is consistent with the reality that HP is a large operating company defending a portfolio rather than a serial PTAB campaigner — expect HP to defend, and expect it to have resources for a robust POPR and (if needed) a real motion to amend. The reason for the absence is almost certainly commercial, not legal: patents that are actually asserted with meaningful damages exposure attract IPRs. The corollary is that this patent is more likely to be a portfolio/defensive or cross-licensing asset than the centerpiece of a troll-style assertion campaign. If you are receiving a demand letter built on it, that is itself a signal — and it also means an early IPR is a strong, cheap lever, since there is no adverse precedent to overcome.

Timing/eligibility notes that matter here:

• PGR is unavailable. US 10,318,023 issued 2019-06-11; the § 321(c) nine-month PGR window closed on 2020-03-11.
• CBM is unavailable. It would fail the "covered business method" definition on the technological-invention exception, and the AIA transitional CBM program sunset on 2020-09-16 (see Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google LLC, 841 F.3d 995 (Fed. Cir. 2016), as to § 101-eligibility-based CBM review). So IPR under §§ 102/103 is the only AIA forum available to you. Section 112 (written description, enablement, indefiniteness) and § 101 arguments must be raised in district court or via ex parte reexamination (which is limited to patents/printed publications and cannot reach § 112 or § 101).
• Remaining term. Filed 2014-08-05 as PCT/US2014/049657 (WO 2016022097 A1); anticipated expiration 2034-08-05. Roughly eight years of enforceable term remain, which is more than enough runway to justify an IPR on damages exposure.
• Maintenance fee watch. Grant 2019-06-11; the 4th-year fee was paid 2022-11-16 (per the legal-events record, M1551, large entity). On that arithmetic the 7.5-year fee falls due 2026-12-11 (window opened 2026-06-11) — i.e., the payment window is open right now. A lapse there would extinguish the patent via § 41(c) and the intervening-rights provisions, so it is worth a direct check of USPTO Patent Center before committing to a petition budget. Verify at https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ rather than relying on my arithmetic.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant: Do not look for an FWD — there isn't one. There is no cancelled claim to point to, no 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) disposition to quote, and no Federal Circuit mandate to rely on. Any demand letter asserting claims 1–19 is asserting claims that are live, unamended, and never reviewed. Your leverage is prospective (file a petition), not retrospective.

Concretely:

1. Confirm zero proceedings, in the authoritative system, today. Search the patent number in PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov/) and, for the family, the related EP 3177983 B1 post-grant register at the EPO, plus CourtListener for any CAFC appeal naming the '023 patent (https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%2210318023%22). Absence of PTAB activity on a patent this old is a genuine finding, but it should be documented with a system-of-record screenshot for your file.
2. Check the 2026-12-11 maintenance fee in Patent Center. If it is unpaid and the six-month grace period lapses (2027-06-11), the patent expires — cheap resolution, no petition needed.
3. Build one consolidated IPR on the strongest § 102/§ 103 combination, and clear the § 325(d) hurdle deliberately. Given the examiner already had US20150199018A1 (Microsoft 3D silhouette sensing) and the CHI 2014 RetroDepth non-patent literature of record, your petition must either (a) use art entirely outside that record, or (b) affirmatively distinguish the earlier use with the Becton, Dickinson factors. Do not split grounds across two petitions — first-filer status helps on General Plastic but not on § 325(d).
4. Party alignment. HP's wireless plunger/button/orientation-sensor data path (claims 8–13, and the aggregation module at FIG. 6 producing USB-format aggregated data) is the narrowest technical hook and the most product-specific. Aim your art at the aggregation of plunger-movement data with camera-derived position data — that is the novel combination distinctive over the cited optical-marker art (US 6,917,033, "Passive touch-sensitive optical marker") and the Smart Technologies pen-tool art in the citation list.
5. Set the statutory clock for after you file, not now. If a petition is filed, the Board must decide institution within 3 months (§ 314(b)) and any instituted trial must conclude within 12 months of institution (§ 316(a)(11)). Track those two dates against your district-court Markman and trial schedule before filing, because a co-pending litigation is the main discretionary-denial risk you inherit by being first.

If you are the patent owner: the absence of IPRs is a strength, but a fragile one — it almost certainly reflects low assertion pressure rather than proven validity. Expect that filing suit will be followed promptly by a first-ever petition, and budget for a motion to amend under the Board's Motion to Amend Pilot Program, since the claims have never been tested against art.

Sources consulted (2026-09-30): USPTO ODP structured PTAB block for US 10,318,023 (zero proceedings); Google Patents full text and citation record, https://patents.google.com/patent/US10318023/en; PTAB E2E, https://ptab.uspto.gov/; USPTO Patent Center, https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/; CourtListener, https://www.courtlistener.com/. No IPR, PGR, CBM, or CAFC appeal number for this patent was found, and none is asserted here.

I'll verify the assignment record and check for any post-issuance transfers or litigation activity.

Let me check the assignment record directly and probe for any HP patent divestiture activity.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 10,318,023 B2

"Determining a position of an input object"
Application US 15/501,274 (PCT/US2014/049657) · Priority/filing 2014-08-05 · Granted 2019-06-11

Source-access note. I was not able to render the Assignment Center UI record page or a PEDS/ODP "ownership" pane directly — the retrievable data for this patent came from the Google Patents legal-events table, which reproduces Assignment Center reel/frame data verbatim, plus the EPO/INPI family status pages. The reel/frame below is reproduced from that legal-events feed. The correspondent of record field was not exposed in any source I could retrieve, so I have not fabricated one (see §3 of the signal table).

Inventors

Employment determination. The four inventors are identified as HP personnel because all four executed an assignment of their invention rights to Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. on dates falling on and immediately before the 2014-08-05 PCT filing date. That is an in-house employment-assignment pattern, not an arm's-length purchase.

Unusual-pattern check — negative. There is no evidence of the fire-sale precursor described in the brief (all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing). The four inventors signed to HP within days of the filing date; none appear as assignors on any subsequent conveyance, because there is no subsequent conveyance. The only unusual timing feature is on the recording side, not the inventive side: the assignment was executed in late July / early August 2014 but not recorded until 2017-04-05 — roughly 2.7 years later. That gap aligns with entry of the PCT into the US national stage (application 15/501,274) and with publication of US 2017/0220141 A1 on 2017-08-03. Recording a 2014-executed inventor assignment at national-stage entry is routine HP docketing practice, not a title-cleansing step ahead of a sale.

Original assignee

Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. — the long-standing patent-holding vehicle of HP Inc. (Houston, TX; registered in Texas). It is the original assignee on the face of the patent and remains the current assignee of record.

• Primary line of business. HP Development Company, L.P. is not itself an operating company; it is the IP-holding affiliate through which HP Inc. (personal systems, printers, supplies) and, historically, Hewlett Packard Enterprise hold and license patents. Its sole function is intra-group IP holding and licensing for the HP enterprise.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? The claimed subject matter — IR-camera-based 3D tracking of a retroreflective-patterned stylus, hover detection, plunger-pressure sensing, and palm/unintended-touch rejection — is squarely within HP's stylus and convertible/tablet PC product lines (e.g., HP Spectre x360, HP Elite x2/EliteBook x360 with active pens, and HP's Sprout/3D-capture line). I can confirm the technical alignment from the specification, but I cannot confirm from a retrieved product datasheet or teardown that a specific shipping HP product reads on the granted claims. Treat "HP ships embodiments" as well-supported by product-line proximity, not as a verified claim-chart.
• Current status. Operating. HP Inc. is a publicly traded, ongoing concern (NYSE: HPQ). The 2015 separation of Hewlett Packard Enterprise was a tax-free corporate reorganization, not a bankruptcy or insolvency event. No Chapter 7/11 filing by HP Inc. or HP Development Company, L.P. is reflected in the record.

Assignment timeline

Only one recorded assignment exists for this patent. There are no post-issuance transfers.

• 2014-07-29 → 2014-08-04 (executed) / recorded 2017-04-05 — Reel 041862 / 0616
  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
  • Assignor: David Bradley Short; Jinman Kang; Ben Wynne; and Jamie Etcheson
  • Assignee: Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (Houston, Texas)
  • Correspondent: Not determinable from the sources retrieved. The Assignment Center correspondent field was not exposed in the Google Patents legal-events reproduction, and I will not infer an attorney or firm. (For context only, HP's IP Administration has historically been the agent of record for HP filings out of Fort Collins, CO — but that observation is drawn from an unrelated 2004-era HP PCT filing and is not evidence of who filed reel 041862/0616.) The "repeat correspondent" signal is therefore unclear, not present.
  • Context: Original employment assignment — the founding inventors conveying their rights to their employer at filing. Not an acquisition, fire-sale, internal reorg, securitization, or transfer to an asserter.

Post-issuance activity (non-assignment legal events only):

• 2019-01-24 / 2019-04-09 — Notices of Allowance mailed (prosecution, not title).
• 2019-05-22 — Patent grant (STCF).
• 2022-11-16 — Maintenance fee, 4th year, paid; entity status large entity. This confirms the patent remains in force and is being maintained by a large-entity owner — inconsistent with abandonment or transfer to a small shell that let fees lapse.

Related family status (context, not ownership events). The same HP-owned family includes EP 3177983 B1 (recorded at Google Patents as "not_active"; the Portuguese INPI register shows "PATENT — NO NATIONAL EFFECT" effective 2021-02-01), CN 106796462 B ("Expired – Fee Related"), WO 2016022097 A1 ("Ceased"), and TWI560583 B ("IP Right Cessation"). These are foreign-family pruning/lapse events by HP, i.e., an operating company trimming annuity costs — not asset transfers, and not evidence of assertion.

Because there is no recorded post-issuance assignment, the chain terminates at the original assignee, HP. Per the brief's framing, that is itself the finding: HP still owns US 10,318,023.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10318023
    2014 : PCT application filed 05 Aug
         : Inventors execute assignment to HP
    2017 : Assignment recorded reel 041862 frame 0616
         : US national stage publication 03 Aug
    2019 : Patent issued 11 Jun
    2022 : Fourth year maintenance fee paid

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present.
No assignment out of HP exists. The sole assignee, Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P., is the established IP-holding affiliate of a large publicly traded operating company. Its Texas registration is the company's actual principal jurisdiction, not a registered-agent storefront. There is no single-purpose LLC, no "IP/Licensing/Ventures" suffix, and no licensing-only entity in this chain. Reel 041862/0616 (recorded 2017-04-05) is an inventor→employer assignment.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present.
The only named assignee is HP Development Company, L.P. It appears on none of the referenced NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). No Unified Patents or RPX high-frequency-plaintiff directory entry was surfaced for this patent or this assignee.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / not applicable.
There is exactly one assignment in the chain, so recurrence is structurally impossible — a single appearance is expressly not a finding under the brief's own standard. I could not retrieve the correspondent field for reel 041862/0616, so I cannot even name the recording attorney. Recorded honestly as unclear, with no adverse inference drawn.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present.
One recorded transfer total, executed 2014-07-29 → 2014-08-04 and recorded 2017-04-05. No chained LLCs, no shared correspondent addresses, no common-principal pattern, and nothing within any 24-month window.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present.
No infringement suit naming US 10,318,023 was found in searching. There is no litigation to precede. (For contrast, the hover-detection art area is being litigated — e.g., Kaifi LLC v. Apple Inc., 1:26-cv-00023, W.D. Tex. — but that case asserts U.S. 8,446,385, a JVC Kenwood patent assigned to Kaifi LLC on 2025-12-02, an unrelated patent and an unrelated chain. It is not this patent and must not be conflated with it.)

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present.
No Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 proceeding involving HP Inc. or HP Development Company, L.P. appears in the record. HP's 2015 split into HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise was a tax-free reorganization, not an insolvency sale. Compare the Kodak/Nortel/Polaroid/Sun pattern — none of those markers (asset-sale motions, stalking-horse bidders, §363 sale orders) exist here.

7. Privateering — Not present.
No transfer from HP to any asserting entity, and no SEC 8-K/10-K disclosure of a patent-transfer or IP-monetization arrangement involving this patent was surfaced. HP retains title; there is no assert-on-HP's-behalf relationship.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. Title remains with HP. (Note: absence of this signal is not a negative finding about the patent — it simply means the patent has not been "neutralized" by a defensive buyer, because HP never put it on the market.)

Verdict

Insufficient data — reading the brief's definition strictly ("no records, or only the original assignment"): the Assignment Center record for US 10,318,023 contains exactly one entry, reel 041862/0616, executed 2014-07-29 → 2014-08-04 and recorded 2017-04-05, conveying the four inventors' rights to Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. There is no post-issuance assignment, no transfer to any LLC, no litigation, and no NPE signal of any kind; the 4th-year maintenance fee paid as a large entity on 2022-11-16 confirms HP still holds and maintains the patent.

This verdict is about the strength of the record, not ambiguity about the owner. When that record is read as an ownership profile rather than a litigation predicate, it is unambiguously the profile of a large operating-company portfolio asset that has never been sold or asserted — HP Inc. / HP Development Company, L.P., with no shell-entity layer, no asserter, no transfer cascade, and no defensive-aggregator terminus. If a downstream assignment to an asserting entity is recorded after today's date, signal 3 (repeat correspondent on reels 041862/0616 and the new reel) and signal 5 (transfer dated within 6 months of the first complaint) are the fields to re-check first.

Verify at:

• USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 10318023; expect a single hit at reel 041862, frame 0616)
• USPTO Patent Assignment Search (legacy index, same records) — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events — https://patents.google.com/patent/US10318023/en
• USPTO Patent Center / PEDS for application 15/501,274 — https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/

Caveats stated plainly: (a) the reel/frame above is reproduced from Google Patents' legal-events table, which mirrors Assignment Center, rather than read off the Assignment Center UI itself — confirm before relying on it in a filing; (b) the correspondent of record was not available in any source I could retrieve, and I have deliberately left that field blank rather than infer it; (c) "HP ships an embodiment of the claims" is inferred from HP's product lines and the specification's technical scope, not from a verified claim chart or product teardown.

I'll search for the specific patent and analyze its cited prior art.

Let me verify details on the most closely-related examiner-cited references.

Target patent confirmed

US 10,318,023 B2 — "Determining a position of an input object"

• Application US 15/501,274 (national stage of PCT/US2014/049657, WO2016022097A1)
• Filing/priority: 2014-08-05; granted 2019-06-11; assignee Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
• Inventors: David Bradley Short, Jinman Kang, Ben Wynne, Jamie Etcheson
• Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10318023/en
• Family: EP3177983B1, CN106796462B, TWI560583B, WO2016022097A1

Independent claims are 1 (method), 8 (non-transitory storage medium) and 14 (system). All of them share the same core: (i) an image-capture device captures an input object bearing a first retroreflective pattern and a second, different retroreflective pattern; (ii) a 3-D position is determined from that data; (iii) based on the position, a region having a spatial relationship to a portion of the object is determined; (iv) unintended touch rejection is performed with respect to a touch on a touch-sensitive surface (the touch is disregarded); (v) an indication of movement of a plunger relative to the housing, responsive to interaction between the plunger and the touch-sensitive surface, is received; and (vi) position data and plunger data are aggregated to produce aggregated data for processing an input event.

Important methodological caveat (please read before the mapping)

The question asks "which claim(s) [each reference] potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102." Strictly, anticipation under § 102 requires a single reference to disclose every element of a claim, arranged as claimed. My review of the record and of the cited references indicates that no single cited reference discloses the full combination of the three independent claims — in particular, none of the cited art appears to disclose the combination of (a) two different retroreflective patterns on the input object used to distinguish its ends, and (b) a plunger that moves relative to the housing in response to contact with the touch surface, and (c) unintended-touch rejection driven by that 3-D position, and (d) aggregation of the plunger and position data. The cited art is therefore better characterized as § 103 (obviousness) material mapped element-by-element against the claims. Where I say a reference "potentially anticipates claim X," I mean it discloses the characterizing element of that claim; I flag explicitly where it is incomplete. Anticipation is a legal conclusion reserved for the examiner/courts.

Note also one literal reading point in the specification: the light-source wavelength range is recited as "825 millimeters to 875 millimeters" (¶ in the Detailed Description). Taken literally this is in the radio band, which is physically inconsistent with the laser/LED/IR context; it is almost certainly a typographical error for nanometers. I have not silently "corrected" it.

A. Examiner-cited references (the ones marked with * in the prosecution record), mapped to claims

These are the references the examiner actually relied on/applied, per the "Patent Citations (40)" list on the face of US10318023 and the prosecution record.

A1. US 2015/0363035 A1 — Hinckley et al., Microsoft (granted as US 9,727,161 B2)

• Full citation: U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0363035 A1, "Sensor correlation for pen and touch-sensitive computing device interaction," filed 2014-06-12, published 2015-12-17; granted as US 9,727,161 B2 (2017-08-08), Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC.
• Why it is the closest patent reference: It expressly addresses pen+touch interaction, palm-rejection / unintended-touch handling, pen-tip pressure sensing ("pen tip pressure is typically sensed by some type of pressure transducer inside the pen"), hover-range categories, sensor fusion to determine pen position/orientation, and aggregation of pen + device sensor streams. See ¶¶ 3.5–3.7 (palm detection, unintentional touch handling), ¶¶ 101/§5.1.2 (palm rejection module), ¶ 69 (tip-pressure transducer), ¶ 116 (3-D pen tracking), ¶ 175 (aggregate/time-stamp sensor data). Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9727161B2](/patent/US9727161B2)/en and https://uspto.report/patent/app/20150363035
• Prior-art status: Effective filing 2014-06-12, i.e. before the target's 2014-08-05 filing; qualifies as prior art (AIA § 102(a)(2); pre-AIA § 102(e) analog).
• Potential § 102 mapping:
  • Claim 1 — discloses the "determine 3-D position," "determine a region" (palm/hand region), "unintended touch rejection … disregarding the touch," "receive indication of [tip] movement/pressure responsive to interaction with the touch surface," and "aggregate … position data … and [pen] data" elements. It does not disclose the first and second different retroreflective patterns, so it cannot alone anticipate claim 1. It is highly probative § 103 art.
  • Claims 2–3 — hover-range sensing/without physical contact: relevant.
  • Claims 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 — region around a tip portion; touch by "another object" (palm/thumb) different from the stylus: strongly relevant (see palm/thumb rejection, ¶¶ 101, 157–158).
  • Claims 8, 11, 12, 13 — plunger/tip-pressure indication via pen sensor and wireless link: relevant (tip-pressure transducer; pen streams data over a 2 Mbps transceiver).

A2. US 2015/0199018 A1 — Kim et al., Microsoft (granted as US 9,720,506 B2)

• Full citation: U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0199018 A1, "3D silhouette sensing system," filed 2014-01-14, published 2015-07-16; granted US 9,720,506 B2, Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20150199018A1/en
• Brief description: A stereo camera + light source track a retroreflector and an object that partially occludes it; silhouettes/3-D contours are extracted; the system distinguishes hover vs. touch and approximates pressure from a depression of the (malleable) retroreflector; IR illumination and retroreflective material are used.
• Prior-art status: Filed 2014-01-14, published before the target's grant; prior art (§ 102(a)(2)/(a)(1)).
• Potential § 102 mapping:
  • Claim 1 — discloses retroreflective object tracking, 3-D position/contour determination, hover-vs-touch discrimination and a pressure value from retroreflector depression. It does not disclose two different retroreflective patterns, a plunger in a housing, or the aggregation step — so not a complete anticipation.
  • Claims 2, 3 — determining position while hovering and distinguishing touch: relevant.
  • Claim 6 — infrared camera: directly relevant (stereo IR camera).
  • Claim 4 — retroreflective material over a body: partially relevant (retroreflective objects/wands).
• Related non-patent art: the same team's Kim et al., "RetroDepth: 3D Silhouette Sensing for High-Precision Input On and Above Physical Surfaces," CHI 2014 — cited in the target's IDS. This is arguably the closest single piece of art to claims 1–4 as a printed publication (§ 102(a)(1)).

A3. US 2011/0234542 A1 — Paul Marson (Smart Technologies)

• Full citation: U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0234542 A1, "Methods and Systems Utilizing Multiple Wavelengths for Position Detection," priority 2010-03-26, published 2011-09-29.**
• Brief description: Position detection using multiple wavelengths (e.g., to distinguish multiple objects/pointers and reduce ambiguity) in an optical touch/position system.
• Potential § 102 mapping: Supports the claim 1 elements of (image-capture of an input object, position determination from optical data) and is relevant to claim 4/claim 6 (wavelength-selective detection). It does not disclose retroreflective patterns per se, plunger, or touch rejection.

A4. US 2011/0205189 A1 — John David Newton

• Full citation: U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0205189 A1, "Stereo Optical Sensors for Resolving Multi-Touch in a Touch Detection System," priority 2008-10-02, published 2011-08-25.
• Brief description: Uses stereo optical sensors to resolve multiple simultaneous touches/objects over a surface.
• Potential § 102 mapping: Relevant to claim 1 (image-capture device; determining positions in 3-D from stereo imagery) and claim 2/3 (object above/near the surface). Does not disclose retroreflective patterns on the object, plunger, or unintended-touch rejection.

A5. US 2011/0128218 A1 and US 2011/0128219 A1 — Smart Technologies ULC / Smart Technologies, Inc.

• Full citation: U.S. Pub. Nos. 2011/0128218 A1 and 2011/0128219 A1, "Interactive input system and bezel therefor," priority 2009-12-01, published 2011-06-02.
• Brief description: Camera-based interactive input system with an illuminated bezel/retroreflective frame, used to detect pointers over a surface.
• Potential § 102 mapping: Relevant background for claim 1 (image capture device + touch-sensitive surface context) and claim 14 (system with input capture device + processor). Does not disclose the claimed dual retroreflective patterns or plunger.

A6. US 2012/0068974 A1 — Yasuji Ogawa

• Full citation: U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0068974 A1, "Optical Position Detection Apparatus," priority 2009-05-26, published 2012-03-22.
• Brief description: Optical apparatus for detecting the position of a pointer/object.
• Potential § 102 mapping: Relevant to claim 1 element of determining position from captured image data. No retroreflective patterns, plunger, or touch rejection.

A7. US 2013/0249791 A1 — Timothy R. Pryor

• Full citation: U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0249791 A1, "Interactive video based games using objects sensed by TV cameras," priority 1997-08-22, published 2013-09-26.
• Brief description: Camera-based sensing/tracking of objects (including wands/pointers) for interaction.
• Potential § 102 mapping: General background to claim 1 (image-capture of a held input object; deriving position/motion). Not directed to retroreflective patterns, plunger, or touch rejection.

A8. US 9,195,351 B1 — Amazon Technologies, Inc.

• Full citation: U.S. Pat. No. 9,195,351 B1, "Capacitive stylus," filed 2011-09-28, granted 2015-11-24 (Amazon Technologies, Inc.).
• Brief description: Capacitive stylus with force/pressure sensing at the tip, used to detect contact/pressure with a touch screen.
• Potential § 102 mapping:
  • Claims 1 / 8 / 11 / 12 / 13 — the "plunger … moveable … relative to the housing" and "indication of movement … responsive to interaction between the plunger and the touch surface via a sensor" concepts. This reference is the most on-point for the plunger/tip-pressure element, though it does not disclose the image-based 3-D position element or the dual retroreflective patterns.

A9. US 2015/0205390 A1 — Egalax_Emphia Technology Inc.

• Full citation: U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0205390 A1, "Active stylus with switching functions," priority 2014-01-17, published 2015-07-23.
• Brief description: Active stylus with user-actuatable switches/modes and communication with a host device.
• Potential § 102 mapping: Relevant to claim 5 (user-activatable element on the input object) and claim 10 (activation of a user-activatable button). Does not disclose the retroreflective patterns, 3-D position determination, or touch rejection.

A10. US 2013/0257777 A1 — Microsoft Corporation

• Full citation: U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0257777 A1, "Motion and context sharing for pen-based computing inputs," priority 2011-02-11, published 2013-10-03.
• Brief description: Sharing pen motion/context (position/orientation/gesture) across devices for pen-based input.
• Potential § 102 mapping: Relevant to claim 1 element of using determined position/motion to generate input events and to claim 7 (position of a tip portion). No retroreflective patterns, plunger, or touch rejection.

B. Remaining cited references (from the "Citations (34)/Patent Citations (40)" lists)

These are cited on the face of the patent but do not map as closely to the characterizing elements. I list citation, date, brief description, and the claim element(s) they most plausibly touch.

Family-cited references (Family Cites Families: JP 4609054 B2 "Input support device"; IT 1396229 B1 "Optical interaction device with graphic interface…"; TW I409679 B "Optical touch panel and touch display panel…") are likewise only tangential (optical touch/input) and do not reach the plunger/dual-pattern/touch-rejection combination.

C. Non-patent literature cited (these can be § 102(a)(1)/(b) "printed publications")

1. Kim et al., "RetroDepth: 3D Silhouette Sensing for High-Precision Input On and Above Physical Surfaces," CHI 2014, pp. 1377–1386, ACM. — Closest single piece of art to claims 1–4: 3-D silhouette sensing of input objects/occluders on and above a physical surface using retroreflective elements and IR. Bear in mind CHI 2014 (April–May 2014) predates the 2014-08-05 filing.
2. Scheer et al., "Large area indoor tracking for industrial augmented reality," IEEE, 2010 (abstract only) — large-area optical tracking.
3. Izadi et al., "C-Slate: A Multi-Touch and Object Recognition System for Remote Collaboration using Horizontal Surfaces," IEEE, 2007, pp. 3–10 — camera/IR recognition of objects (including pens) on a horizontal surface.
4. Wong, "Low-cost Visual/inertial Hybrid Motion Capture System for Wireless 3D Controllers," University of Waterloo thesis, 2007, pp. 1–100 — hybrid visual/inertial 3-D tracking of a wireless controller/stylus.

D. Bottom line

• Closest patent art for the "unintended touch rejection + tip-pressure + pen/touch sensor fusion" cluster: US 2015/0363035 A1 (Hinckley et al., Microsoft) — it discloses palm/thumb rejection driven by pen context and tip-pressure transducers inside the pen, plus aggregation of pen and device sensor streams (mapped to claim 1 elements 1.4–1.7 and claims 7, 15–19, and 8/11–13).
• Closest patent art for the "retroreflective object + 3-D position/hover vs. touch" cluster: US 2015/0199018 A1 (Kim et al., Microsoft, 3-D silhouette sensing) — mapped to claim 1 element 1.1/1.3, claim 6 (IR camera) and claims 2–3.
• Closest art for the "plunger in the housing moved by contact with the surface" element: US 9,195,351 B1 (Amazon, capacitive stylus with tip force sensing) and the older pen-down-detection references (US 6,714,311 B2 / US 2002/0015159 A1).
• Closest overall single disclosure (as a printed publication): Kim et al., "RetroDepth," CHI 2014.

However, none of the cited references, taken individually, discloses every element of claims 1, 8 or 14 as arranged — most notably the recited combination of (i) two different retroreflective patterns that distinguish the ends of the object, (ii) a plunger moveable in and relative to the housing, (iii) touch-rejection driven by the 3-D position, and (iv) the aggregation of plunger-movement data with position data. The cited art is thus best framed as evidence of what a person of ordinary skill would have combined (a § 103 analysis), not as a clean § 102 anticipation. Any § 102 rejection would require the examiner to identify a single reference disclosing all of these elements, which the present record does not appear to contain.

I cannot verify with high confidence the internal page/paragraph content of every secondary reference in Section B (I have cited them at the level of title, dates and general subject matter as they appear in the patent's own citation lists on the Google Patents page); if you need paragraph-level pin cites for a specific § 102/§ 103 chart, I'd recommend pulling the individual PDFs from the URLs above.

I'll ground this analysis in the prior-art references actually listed on the patent page, verifying key ones before building the combinations.

Let me verify two more references central to the plunger/pen-down and 3D-position limitations.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,318,023 B2

Patent: "Determining a position of an input object" — Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
Inventors: Short, Kang, Wynne, Etcheson · Appl. No. 15/501,274 · Filed: 2014-08-05 · PCT: PCT/US2014/049657 (WO2016022097A1) · Granted: 2019-06-11
Priors used: the "Citations (34)/Patent Citations (40)/Non-Patent Citations (4)/Family Cites" listings on the Google Patents page, supplemented (and flagged) where I verified reference content through search.

Caveat: This is a technical analyst's §103 assessment, not a legal opinion. Dates below are taken from the page's listings; paragraph numbers attributed to published applications were verified against the published documents as retrieved, not against the certified USPTO copies.

1. Legal frame and the person of ordinary skill

Because the application was filed 2014-08-05, the AIA versions of §§102/103 govern. The relevant standards:

• KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): a combination is obvious if the claimed arrangement is "the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense," and a motivation to combine may be found in the general knowledge of a PHOSITA, in the nature of the problem, or in the teachings of the references themselves — no explicit teaching of the combination is required.
• In re Keller: the test is what the combined teachings would have suggested, not what each reference individually discloses.
• Any reference that is a U.S. patent, U.S. application publication, or printed publication effectively filed/published before 2014-08-05 is available, including under §102(a)(2) for publications filed before that date but published after it.

PHOSITA: a B.S. in EE/CS/Physics (or equivalent) plus ~2–3 years' experience in optical/vision-based interactive input, machine-vision pointer tracking, or pen-digitizer human-computer interaction.

Two date-sensitive references worth noting up front (both are cited on the face of '023):

No common-ownership exception (§102(b)(2)(C)) appears available: HP's named inventors are Short, Kang, Wynne and Etcheson — none of the Microsoft/Egalax/SMART references are commonly owned.

Reference shorthand used below

• [A] Hashimoto — US2002/0015159A1 / US 6,714,311 B2, Position detection device, position pointing device … and pen-down detecting method (Xiroku)
• [B] Microsoft — US2015/0363035A1 / US 9,727,161 B2, Sensor correlation for pen and touch-sensitive computing device interaction (Hinckley et al.)
• [C] SMART — US2011/0242006A1 (Thompson et al.), with relatives US2013/0100022A1 and WO2013/040691A1, Interactive input system and pen tool therefor
• [D] RetroDepth — Kim, Izadi, et al., 3D Silhouette Sensing for High-Precision Input On and Above Physical Surfaces, CHI 2014, pp. 1377–1386 (Non-Patent Citation)
• [E] Ogawa — US2012/0068974A1, Optical Position Detection Apparatus
• [F] Ogawa/Xiroku — US2001/0050669A1 / US 6,567,078, Handwriting communication system and handwriting input device used therein
• [G] Chavez — US2012/0162214A1, Three-Dimensional Tracking of a User Control Device in a Volume; [I] Microsoft — US2013/0257777A1, Motion and context sharing for pen-based computing inputs
• Plus: [J] Microsoft US2015/0199018A1; [K] Amazon US 9,195,351 B1; [M] IBM US 6,917,033 B2; [N] Izadi et al., C-Slate (2007); [Q] Seiko Epson US2012/0249482A1; [R] Sharp US 8,350,829 B2.

2. Claim 1 — limitation-by-limitation mapping (lead combination: [A] + [B] + [C] + [D])

Every limitation of claim 1 finds a home in the four-reference combination. Nothing in claim 1 requires a capacitive digitizer, a specific sensor type, or a wireless link — those appear only in dependent claims.

3. The grounds

Ground 1 (lead) — [A] in view of [B], further in view of [C] and [D]

[A] supplies the pen-down/pen-up plunger, [C]/[F] supply distinguishable retroreflective patterning on a machine-vision-tracked pen, [D] supplies 3D vision tracking on and above a surface, and [B] supplies the pen-referenced unintended-touch handling and the sensor-correlation/aggregation step. Renders claims 1–4, 6–9, 11–19 obvious.

Ground 2 — [C] in view of [B], further in view of [A]

Same result from the opposite direction: [C] is the closest vision-based retroreflective pen-tool art (it even identifies the very problem of distinguishing a finger from a pen tool at the input surface, [C] ¶[0007]); adding [A]'s plunger-based pen-down detection and [B]'s palm/touch suppression yields claim 1.

Ground 3 — [D] in view of [B], further in view of [A] and [C]

[D] teaches retroreflective-segmented, IR-stereo 3D tracking of a stylus both touching and hovering, with explicit touch/hover/pressure disambiguation — one step away from claim 1's "region" determination; [B] supplies the rejection and aggregation; [A]/[C] supply the patterned pen and plunger.

Alternative/additional: [E] (Ogawa, camera-based pointer detection above the surface, including specular-image touch detection) as a substitute for [D].

4. Motivation to combine

A PHOSITA in August 2014 had several independent, record-supported reasons to combine these teachings:

1. The references themselves identify the problem the '023 patent addresses. [B] states outright that "palm contact can cause significant false-activation problems during pen+touch interaction" and criticizes prior palm-rejection schemes that "require the user to bring the pen tip on or near the screen before setting the palm down, which requires users to modify their natural movements." That is an express invitation to use a different, non-contact tracking modality (i.e., vision tracking of the hovering pen, as in [C]/[D]) to define the reject region — precisely claim 1's ordering of steps.
2. Same field, same problem, same components. [C], [D], [E] and [A] are all machine-vision interactive input systems in which a camera images a retroreflective pointer above/at an input surface; [B] is a pen+touch computing-device input architecture. Combination requires no change in the principle of operation of any reference — only juxtaposition of known pointer-tracking with known pen/touch event handling (KSR; In re Keller).
3. Predictable result, known technique, known benefit. Correlating a pen's auxiliary sensor outputs (tip/pressure/button/orientation) with tracked position to emit a single input event is the ordinary, expected way to convert pen sensor data into user-interface actions — [B] does it, [I] does it, and the '023 specification's own FIG. 6 (aggregation module 602 → USB-format aggregated data → HID event data) is described as a routine data pipeline. KSR: "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."
4. Known technique improves a similar device in the same way. Adding a second, different retroreflective pattern to the pen body is a straightforward application of the known pointer-identification technique of [F] (plural spaced retroreflective materials distinguished by shape/color) and of [C]/WO2013/040691A1 (retro-reflective reflecting portion with a partial attenuating portion) to improve segmentation and to disambiguate the pen's ends — the exact rationale the '023 specification itself gives for the first vs. second pattern.
5. Design incentive / market pressure. The 2012–2014 trend in active-stylus and hybrid pen+touch systems is reflected across the cited art ([K] capacitive stylus; [H] active stylus with switching functions; [Q] pen-shaped input device; [R] input pen for touch panels; [M] passive optical marker; [N] C-Slate's multi-touch + object recognition). Skilled artisans were actively seeking a single stylus that both hovers/tracks in 3D and coerces pen-touch computing devices into correct behavior.
6. Applicant admission. The '023 specification itself states, in the "alternative implementations" passage, that a stylus "can also be used in conjunction with a touch-sensitive surface … the determined position of the tip portion … can be used to perform unintended touch rejection … any touch in the inactive region is to be disregarded." That is an admission that the touch-rejection concept, driven by the vision-determined tip position, was known; the only question is whether the combination with plunger-data aggregation and dual retroreflective patterns is inventive, and the art answers no.

5. Remaining claims

Independent claims 8 and 14 are narrower in one respect and broader in another. Claim 8 (CRM) contains no unintended-touch-rejection step; claim 14 (system) mirrors claim 1 plus an "input capture device." Both are rendered obvious by Grounds 1–3; claim 8 even more clearly so.

6. Where the patent might plausibly resist (and the counter)

7. Bottom line

The claims of US 10,318,023 appear obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over combinations of the references appearing on its own face:

• Primary: US2002/0015159A1 / US 6,714,311 B2 (Hashimoto) in view of US2015/0363035A1 (Microsoft, Hinckley et al.) in further view of US2011/0242006A1 (SMART, Thompson et al.) and Kim et al., RetroDepth (CHI 2014).
• Alternates: SMART '006 as primary with Microsoft '035 and Hashimoto; or RetroDepth as primary with Microsoft '035, Hashimoto and SMART '006. Ogawa US2012/0068974A1 is a suitable substitute for the vision-tracking element.

The strongest invalidity theory targets claim 1's ordering — vision-determined 3D position → region → touch rejection → plunger-movement aggregation — because each step, and each reason to link the steps, is either expressly stated in Microsoft '035 and RetroDepth or is a predictable application of Hashimoto's and SMART's pen-down/reflector teachings. Independent claim 8 is the weakest claim in the set, since it omits the touch-rejection limitation altogether.

Two practical notes for anyone acting on this: (i) the §102(a)(2) status of Microsoft '035 and Egalax '390 should be confirmed against the certified filing dates before relying on them as art; and (ii) I have not been given the file history (IDS/office actions), so an actual prosecution or IPR analysis should confirm which of these references were substantively applied or traversed, since that record can affect how a tribunal weighs them.