US 10641695

I'll verify current status via search, then compile the summary from the authoritative patent text provided.

Let me try more targeted searches for litigation and current ownership status.

Let me run a few more targeted checks for any court proceedings or PTAB activity on this specific number.

US Patent 10,641,695 — Analyst Summary

Source of record: the authoritative full text you provided (Google Patents mirror of the USPTO grant, fetched 2026-09-24), cross-checked against Justia and uspto.report listings. No separate USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR or CAFC docket retrieval succeeded in my searches — see the litigation note at the end.

---

Bibliographic Data

Ownership chain (per recorded USPTO assignments): inventors → Koninklijke Philips N.V. (recorded 2019-09-04) → Philips Photonics GmbH (effective 2019-03-28) → Trumpf Photonic Components GmbH (change of name, effective 2019-06-04, recorded 2020-03-27). Family members exist in EP (EP3370311A1 withdrawn; EP3590161B1 active), JP (JP6830545B2), KR (KR102233064B1), CN (CN110326175B), BR, and WO.

---

Abstract (as granted)

A method for determining operating conditions of a particle detector that includes a multimode Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Laser (VCSEL): providing an electrical drive current to the multimode VCSEL so a laser beam is emitted, and varying the drive current within a predefined range. The method further includes determining, as a function of the drive current, an intensity signal of an optical wave within the laser cavity; determining a noise measure of the intensity signal as a function of the drive current; determining a range of drive currents for which the noise measure is below a predefined threshold noise measure value; and determining operating conditions by choosing an electrical drive current for particle detection out of the determined low‑noise range.

---

Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

Claim 1 — Method (the core claim).
You have a particle detector that senses particle density of particles smaller than 20 µm in a fluid, built around a multimode VCSEL. The method works in two phases:

1. Characterization phase: Drive the VCSEL, sweep the drive current across a predefined range, and — as a function of that current — measure (a) an intensity signal of the optical wave inside the laser cavity and (b) a "noise measure" of that intensity signal. Then identify the current ranges where the noise measure sits below a preset threshold (i.e., electrically quiet, mode‑stable regions) and pick the particle‑detection operating current from that low‑noise range.
2. Runtime re‑characterization phase: During actual operation, detect a trigger event; re-measure the cavity noise measure on the fly; if it exceeds an operating threshold (e.g., the laser has drifted into a mode‑hop/noise region due to temperature, aging, or production spread), determine a new low‑noise current range and select a new detection current from it.

Claim 8 — Computer program product. Computer‑executable code stored on at least one memory device, containing instructions that carry out the method of claim 1.

Claim 9 — Particle detector (apparatus). A device for detecting particle density of sub‑20 µm particles in fluid, comprising: a laser that is a multimode VCSEL; an electrical driver; a detector coupled to the laser and configured to determine a self‑mixing interference (SMI) signal of the optical wave in the laser cavity; and a controller. The detector is configured to determine a trigger event, and the controller is configured to (i) sweep the drive current over a predefined range after the trigger event, (ii) derive a noise measure of the cavity intensity signal from the detector's signals, (iii) find the sub‑threshold low‑noise current range, (iv) select a detection current from that range, and (v) run the driver at that current during operation.

Claim 14 — Mobile communication device. A mobile communication device (e.g., a smartphone) incorporating the particle detector of claim 9.

Representative dependent claims for scope context: ambient‑temperature dependence (cl. 2) and operating‑temperature dependence (cl. 3) of the chosen current; trigger event defined as SMI signal‑to‑noise ratio below a threshold (cl. 4), power‑on (cl. 5), or expiry of a predetermined time period (cl. 6); calibration at the new current (cl. 7, 11); VCSEL aperture diameter 5–7 µm (cl. 12); outcoupling semiconductor surface offset from a standing‑wave anti‑node by ≥20 nm (cl. 13).

Technical thrust: the patent's stated problem is that single‑mode VCSELs (used for reliable SMI particle sensing) need tiny 2–3 µm active diameters with tight tolerances and high current density, while multimode VCSELs are cheaper/robust but drift across optical modes with temperature, aging, and process spread. The claimed solution is to use the cavity noise itself as a health/operating‑point indicator, continuously re‑sweeping current to stay in quiet (mode‑stable) regions — see FIG. 2, reporting intensity‑noise peaks at ~1.2, ~2.4, and ~3.3 mA corresponding to mode onsets, with suggested quiet windows of 1.5–2.1 mA and 2.6–3.0 mA. Notably, the specification stresses that the SMI measurement signal itself is not required to obtain the noise measure used for reliability assessment.

---

Litigation / CAFC Docket Check (2026)

Finding: I found no court action, and specifically no CAFC 2026 docket, involving US 10,641,695.

• Searches for the literal number "10641695" in connection with CAFC/Federal Circuit dockets returned no relevant hits — only an unrelated numeric collision in an EPA toxicity dataset (an internal record ID "M4ID: 10641695"), which is plainly not this patent.
• Searches for "10,641,695" plus district‑court/litigation terms returned no complaint, docket, or § 290 report naming this patent.
• The notable 2026 Trumpf‑related patent litigation that did surface is unrelated to this patent and to this assignee: Trumpf SE/Laser‑ und Systemtechnik and Trumpf Laser UK v. IPG Laser GmbH, in the UPC Mannheim (EP 2,951,625) and Düsseldorf (EP 2,624,031) divisions, plus IPG Photonics' declaratory complaint in E.D. Tex. (Case No. 2:26‑cv‑00035, filed Jan. 15, 2026) asserting US 9,356,415. Those parties, patents, and technology (high‑power fiber‑laser safety controls) differ from the particle‑detector subject matter and from assignee Trumpf Photonic Components GmbH. I flag this deliberately to avoid conflation: these are different patent numbers and a different Trumpf entity.

Confidence caveat: this is a negative finding from open web search, not an exhaustive PACER/PatentCenter or CAFC CM/ECF query. I could not confirm from an authoritative docket source that no litigation exists. Treat "no known litigation" as no evidence found, not as a certified clearance.

Other accuracy caveats: I did not independently verify the inventor citizenship/residence data, the exact EP3390161 vs. EP3590161 family designations, or the current real‑party ownership beyond the recorded assignment chain shown on the patent face. If any of those are material to your analysis, they should be confirmed directly in USPTO PatentCenter and the assignment record.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10641695 across patent litigation databases.

The initial searches returned unrelated results (a connector patent "'416" and an EPA chemical dataset). Let me search more specifically.

Let me search additional litigation-specific databases.

Findings: Litigation Search for US Patent No. 10,641,695

Short answer: I found no litigation (district court, ITC, PTAB, or UPC) involving U.S. Patent No. 10,641,695 ("the '695 patent"). The searches did not surface any case in which this specific patent number appears as an asserted patent, a challenged patent, or otherwise.

What the patent is

US 10,641,695 B2 ("Method of determining operation conditions of a laser-based particle detector"), assignee Trumpf Photonic Components GmbH (originally Koninklijke Philips N.V. / Philips Photonics GmbH; priority EP 17158808.0, filed 2017-03-02; granted 2020-05-05). It is directed to a multimode VCSEL-based particle detector and a method of selecting a low-noise drive current for SMI-based particle detection. This context matters: it is a relatively recent grant, and its corporate family (Philips → Trumpf Photonic Components) is primarily a component supplier rather than a serial litigant in the U.S. over this asset.

Search method and caveats

• I searched general litigation-indexed sources (Google/web results that index Unified Patents' portal, CourtListener, PTAB filings, and court documents) for the exact string "10641695" / "10,641,695."
• No result referenced US 10,641,695. I was not able to directly load the Unified Patents litigation caselist (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) or run a live PACER/Docket Navigator query within this session, so I cannot rule out a low-profile, recently filed, or sealed case that is not yet indexed publicly.
• Per your instruction, I am deliberately excluding results for similar — but different — patent numbers that did appear and could be mistaken for the '695 patent. For transparency, these non-matches were:
  • A PTAB petition discussing a connector-related "'416 Patent" (different patent; the number is not US 10,641,695).
  • A Dexcel Pharma litigation document referencing a "'695 patent" in a pharmaceutical suit (Dexcel Pharma Technologies — clearly a different patent, not the Trumpf particle-detector patent).
  • UPC proceedings involving TRUMPF Laser UK Ltd. and IPG Laser GmbH — these concern EP 2 951 625 (fiber/dual-beam lasers), a different patent owned by a different Trumpf entity, not US 10,641,695.

Litigation summary table

Also relevant to validity challenges (not litigation, but distinguishable)

No IPR/PGR petition against US 10,641,695 was identified either. The patent's public record shows only its prosecution history, a 2023 4th-year maintenance-fee payment, and the corporate reassignments noted above — no adversarial proceedings.

Recommendation

Because I could not query the paid/behind-login litigation databases directly in this session, if you need a litigation-grade clearance statement, I recommend a confirmatory manual check of:

1. Docket Navigator (patent-level case lookup),
2. Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) filtered by patent number,
3. PACER (all district courts) and the ITC EDIS docket,
4. PTAB (Patent Trial & Appeal Board) petition search, and
5. UPC case registry (Europe).

If you'd like, I can attempt targeted queries against any of those specific sources next.

Caveat: This reflects search results available as of the current session; it is not a legal opinion and does not substitute for a formal litigation search. I did not fabricate any case details, and I am explicitly flagging the absence of confirmable results rather than guessing.

I'll verify the structured data against live sources before reporting.

The first pass returned mostly unrelated hits. Let me run targeted searches on the patent owner and the patent number.

No PTAB hits for the patent so far. Let me check litigation/assertion history and any Unified Patents challenge as a cross-check.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 10,641,695: zero (0). No IPRs, no PGRs, no CBMs — nothing instituted, nothing denied, nothing settled, and no claims invalidated. The bottom line for a defendant: the patent is completely untested at the PTAB, and all 14 claims (1–14) remain in force exactly as issued on 2020-05-05. There is no FWD to hide behind and no canceled claim to point at — but equally, there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel on the petitioner side, so the full prior-art space is still open to you.

No per-proceeding sections follow, because there are no proceedings to describe. I will not invent proceeding numbers to fill the template.

Verification performed (so you can reproduce it)

Confidence / caveat: the negative result is well-supported, but the ODP feed can lag and PTAB E2E is the authoritative docket. Before relying on this for a § 315(b) strategy or an IPR budget decision, re-run the patent number against USPTO PTAB E2E and Patent Center. If a proceeding was filed in the last few months and simply has not been indexed, this analysis would not yet capture it.

Strategic summary

Claim status of US 10,641,695. All claims are UNTESTED. Claims 1–7 (method for determining operating conditions of a multimode-VCSEL particle detector, incl. the low-noise drive-current selection and the trigger-event/new-drive-current recapture of claim 1), claim 8 (computer program product), claims 9–13 (particle detector, incl. the 5–7 µm aperture of claim 12 and the ≥20 nm anti-node offset of claim 13), and claim 14 (mobile communication device) have never been construed by the Board and have never been subject to an instituted validity challenge. Nothing is canceled; nothing is sustained. The patent's term runs to an anticipated expiration of 2038-02-28, and it is held by TRUMPF Photonic Components GmbH (originally Philips Photonics / Koninklijke Philips N.V., renamed effective 2019-06-04) — an operating company in the photonics business, not an NPE. The 4th-year maintenance fee was paid on 2023-10-25, so the patent is being actively maintained.

Estoppel landscape. Because there is no FWD under § 318(a), no § 315(e)(2) estoppel exists against anyone. Any defendant served with a complaint can file an IPR on any ground, subject only to jurisdictional limits:

• § 315(b) one-year bar: if you or a privy/RPI were served with a complaint alleging infringement of '695, the clock is running — file within one year of service or lose the IPR.
• PGR is unavailable. PGR must be filed within 9 months of grant (§ 321(c)); grant was 2020-05-05, so the window closed 2021-02-05. Note that the § 102/§ 103 art you'd want is post-AIA art anyway, so IPR is the only realistic vehicle.
• CBM is unavailable. The patent is a technological invention (semiconductor VCSEL + self-mixing interferometry), and the transitional CBM program stopped accepting petitions on 2020-09-16.

Pattern signals. None of the classic IPR-trigger conditions are present: no NPE plaintiff, no litigation campaign against handset or sensor-box vendors, no Unified Patents or other defensive aggregator in the chain, and no multiplicity of petitions by a repeat petitioner. The family (EP 3590161 B1, CN 110326175 B, JP 6830545 B2, KR 102233064 B1) is active, which tells you the owner values the subject matter and will likely defend it — but the enforcement history simply does not exist yet. Absence of PTAB activity here is a "not yet asserted broadly" signal, not a "hardened patent" signal. Treat the claims as presumptively valid and completely unconstrued.

Prior-art posture if you do file. The examination record itself hands you the roadmap: the face of the patent cites WO 02/37410 A1, US 2010/0134803 A1 (self-mixing interferometry with increased detection range), US 2012/0002189 A1 (flow property of a fluid), US 2013/0120759 A1 (distance measurement), US 2014/0368832 A1 (Hexagon, interferometric distance change), US 2016/0313243 A1 (Bosch, particulate sensor), DE 10 2015 207 289 A1 (Bosch, particle sensor with VCSEL + integrated photodiode), and WO 2017/016888 A1 (Philips, laser sensor for particle density detection — note this is the owner's own family member). The examiner also cited two non-patent references on the temperature/current dependence of VCSEL SMI sensors: Matharu et al., "Temperature and current dependence of Doppler SNR in a VCSEL based self-mixing sensor," IEEE Sensors 2009, and Matharu et al., "Influence of ambient temperature on the performance of VCSEL based self-mixing sensors: Flow measurements," IEEE Sensors 2011 — these are directly on the temperature-dependence limitations of claims 2 and 3, but because they were of record and considered, expect a § 325(d) fight (Advanced Bionics step 1) if you lead with them.

Recommended next steps

1. There is nothing to link to. No FWD, no institution decision, no termination — so there is no disposition to quote. Anyone telling you a claim of '695 "has been invalidated" or that "the IPR settled" is wrong; insist on the proceeding number and pull it from PTAB E2E.
2. Re-verify against the authoritative docket before you commit budget. Search the patent number in USPTO PTAB E2E and Patent Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/) rather than relying on the ODP feed. If a recently filed petition surfaces, the clock matters: institution decision is due within 6 months of the petition's filing date (§ 314(b)), and the FWD is due within 1 year of institution (§ 316(a)(11)), extendable up to 6 months for good cause. None of those milestones are currently running against this patent.
3. Calendar the § 315(b) bar immediately if you have been served with a complaint on '695. That one-year date is your hard deadline and it is not extendable. If you have not been served, you have no bar — and you can file proactively on the claims you actually practice. Claim 1 (the noise-measure/low-noise-range selection plus trigger-event recapture) is the broadest and most vulnerable target; claims 12 and 13 carry structural limitations (5–7 µm aperture; ≥20 nm anti-node offset) that will narrow any invalidity theory built on them.
4. If you need claim scope, you'll have to build it yourself. With no Board construction to lean on, your § 282 invalidity case in district court and any IPR petition start from the intrinsic record: the EP 17158808.0 priority document (2017-03-02), the PCT/EP2018/054853 filing (2018-02-28), and the FIG. 2 disclosure of a ~1.2 mA fundamental-mode onset with preferred ranges of 1.5–2.1 mA and 2.6–3.0 mA. Those numeric anchors are where a written-description or obviousness argument over the Matharu and Bosch references will live.

I have the authoritative assignment events from the patent record. Now let me try to retrieve the USPTO Assignment Center records (reel/frame, correspondent) for this patent.

Useful leads emerged — including a reported sale of Trumpf's Photonic Components unit. Let me dig into those.

Inventors

Notes / caveats:

• The authoritative patent text does not list inventor residence/citizenship. The recorded assignee chain (Philips N.V. → Philips Photonics GmbH, Ulm) is the only reliable indicator of the inventors' employer; I could not independently verify individual residences.
• The assignment from the inventors was executed 2018-03-06 through 2018-07-25, i.e., before the Dec. 17, 2018 Trumpf–Philips transaction was even announced. So the inventors assigned to Philips pre-sale; they did not "depart to sell." There is no evidence of inventors leaving within 12 months of filing, and no evidence of a mass inventor departure. I could not determine current inventor employment — treat that as unclear, not as a finding.
• The four-inventor team plus the "AND OTHERS" language in the assignment record indicates a normal corporate R&D team, not a single-inventor NPE-style patent.

Original assignee

The record has two "original" reference points:

• Applicant / first owner: Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Eindhoven, NL), via the inventor assignment on Reel 050256/0700.
• Entity named on the issued patent (2020-05-05): Trumpf Photonic Components GmbH, Ulm, Germany (Reel 052251/0791, effective 2019-06-04).

Trumpf Photonic Components GmbH — primary line of business: manufacture of VCSELs and photodiodes (vertical-cavity surface-emitting lasers for 3D sensing, datacom, automotive/industrial sensing; formerly Philips Photonics, founded 2000, ~280–300 employees, HQ Ulm with sites in Aachen, the Netherlands, China, Taiwan, Korea, USA). It is a component supplier, not a serial litigant. It does ship products in the relevant technology space — VCSEL/self-mixing-interference sensing chips are precisely the building blocks of the claimed particle detector — although a standalone particle-density detector embodying the claims is an application rather than a clearly identified catalog product.

Current status (important): As of 2026 the parent, TRUMPF SE + Co. KG, divested its Photonic Components business unit through several partial disposals — most Ulm/Eindhoven assets (including most VCSEL production) to a U.S. buyer, with other activities to a Taiwan acquirer and another U.S. acquirer (Gleiss Lutz mandate notice; PitchBook lists the company as "Acquired/Merged," dated 16-Apr-2026). Status therefore: operating through 2025, then divested/acquired in 2026. See the open item under NPE signals.

Assignment timeline

Three assignments are recorded for US 16/558,184. (Chains sourced from the patent's own legal-events record; reel/frame confirmable, but see correspondent caveat below.)

• 2018-03-06 → 2018-07-25 (executed; signing dates) / recorded 2019-09-04 — Reel 050256/0700

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Weichmann, Ulrich; Hellmig, Joachim Wilhelm; Van Der Lee, Alexander Marc; and others (all four inventors)
  • Assignee: Koninklijke Philips N.V., Eindhoven, NL
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable in this session (the Assignment Center correspondent field did not surface via search, and the patent's legal-events extract does not include it). See the correspondent note at the end of this section.
  • Context: Standard inventor-to-employer assignment of a Philips Photonics R&D team; classic in-house IP housekeeping, not a fire-sale.

• effective 2019-03-28 / recorded 2019-09-04 — Reel 050260/0344

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Koninklijke Philips N.V.
  • Assignee: Philips Photonics GmbH, Germany
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable in this session.
  • Context: Intra-group transfer of the patent into the exact legal entity being sold to Trumpf — effective 2019-03-28, three days before the 2019-04-01 closing of the Trumpf acquisition. Textbook "IP follows the business unit, parked in the target entity pre-closing."

• effective 2019-06-04 / recorded 2020-03-27 — Reel 052251/0791

  • Conveyance: Change of Name (not an assignment/purchase — name only)
  • Assignor: Philips Photonics GmbH
  • Assignee: Trumpf Photonic Components GmbH
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable in this session.
  • Context: Change of name only, consequence of the Trumpf acquisition; not a transfer of ownership to a new party.

Correspondent caveat (read carefully): The task asks specifically for the correspondent of record on each recording. I was unable to retrieve the correspondent field for any of the three reels/frames: the searches returned no Assignment Center record pages exposing correspondent data, and the authoritative patent-text extract provides reel/frame, conveyance, assignor/assignee and dates but not correspondent. I am not going to guess a name. For context only (not asserted as the correspondent of record): the German agency indexed for Trumpf Photonic Components' patent filings is Witte, Weller & Partner Patentanwälte mbB (Stuttgart), and the U.S. firm appearing alongside Trumpf Photonic Components patent records is Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Philips' long-standing U.S. prosecution firm). Whether either filed these three recordings is unverified — confirm in Assignment Center.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10641695
    2017 : Priority EP application filed
    2018 : Inventors assign to Koninklijke Philips
    2019 : Assigned to Philips Photonics GmbH
         : Trumpf acquires Philips Photonics
    2020 : Renamed Trumpf Photonic Components
         : Patent granted
    2023 : 4th year maintenance fee paid
    2026 : Trumpf divests Photonic Components unit

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. Every assignee is a well-known operating entity: Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Reel 050256/0700), Philips Photonics GmbH (Reel 050260/0344), Trumpf Photonic Components GmbH (Reel 052251/0791). No "IP/Holdings/Ventures" suffix, no registered-agent addresses, no single-purpose LLCs.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. None of the three assignees matches any public NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, Spangenberg entities, etc.). All are European industrial corporates.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (not a finding). I could not retrieve the correspondent of record for any reel/frame, so I cannot say whether one attorney/firm recurs. Note the structural point that undermines the signal even if it were present: all three recordings involve a single corporate chain (Philips → Philips Photonics → Trumpf), so a recurring correspondent here would simply be a recurring corporate firm, not an NPE operator. Per the task's own warning, a single or recurring appearance by a general-practice firm (e.g., Witte Weller; Leydig Voit) is not evidence of NPE activity.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. Only three recordings exist, and two are not ownership purchases: Reel 050260/0344 is an intra-group push-down, and Reel 052251/0791 is a Change of Name. No chained LLCs, no shared anonymous addresses. The 2019-03-28 → 2019-06-04 sequence is a single M&A event, not a cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. No infringement suit, ITC action, PTAB petition, or UPC proceeding naming US 10,641,695 was identified (consistent with the earlier litigation section). There is no litigation to be "pre-" to.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. Neither Philips nor Trumpf was in bankruptcy; the transfers are a strategic divestiture (Philips exiting VCSEL) and a strategic acquisition (Trumpf entering it). Not a distressed sale.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT / partly UNCLEAR. No evidence that any transfer was made to an NPE to assert on a sponsor's behalf. Flag for monitoring: the 2026 divestiture of the Trumpf Photonic Components unit (partial disposals to a U.S. buyer for the Ulm/Eindhoven VCSEL assets, plus a Taiwan acquirer and a second U.S. acquirer) could, in principle, move this patent to a new owner. As of the 2026-09-24 patent-record fetch, no post-2023 assignment appears on the '695 patent, and Trumpf Photonic Components GmbH is still shown as current assignee. So either the patent did not move with the divested assets, or the transfer is not yet recorded. This is an open item, not a finding.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. The patent has not been neutralized into a defensive pool.

Non-matches I explicitly exclude (to prevent conflation): a Patentcloud-database entry shows TRUMPF PHOTONIC COMPONENTS GMBH → ROBERT BOSCH GMBH on 2026-02-18 (reel 73817-946, 5 patents, "Eye Movement Detection and Tracking Methods") — that is a different transaction and different patents, not US 10,641,695. Likewise the earlier-noted UPC/IPG–Trumpf Laser UK cases concern EP 2 951 625 / US 9,356,415, different patents and a different Trumpf entity.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion (with an explicit caveat about the framework — see below).

Justification: the entire recorded chain — Reel 050256/0700 (inventors → Koninklijke Philips N.V.), Reel 050260/0344 (Philips → Philips Photonics GmbH, eff. 2019-03-28), Reel 052251/0791 (Change of Name → Trumpf Photonic Components GmbH, eff. 2019-06-04) — is a single, continuous chain-of-title within large operating industrial companies, with no shell entity, no known NPE, no cascading LLC transfers, no pre-litigation transfer, and no bankruptcy. The current assignee manufactures the very VCSEL/self-mixing componentry the claims describe, so this is decidedly not an NPE asset.

Flagged contradiction / framework gap (per instructions): the verdict option "Operating-company assertion" is defined as requiring that the assignee "is suing actual competitors." No litigation involving US 10,641,695 was identified, so the "assertion" prong is unestablished; equally, "Defensive / non-asserting" does not fit because the chain terminates at an operating manufacturer, not a defensive aggregator. The option set has no clean bucket for "operating company, non-litigious," so I selected the option whose "operating company" component is verified while expressly noting the unproven assertion element. If the '695 patent moves with the 2026 Photonic Components divestiture, this verdict must be re-run — a transfer to a financial or non-practicing buyer would change the analysis (signal #7).

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 10641695; the mirrored index at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html surfaces the same records). Reels/frames to confirm: 050256/0700, 050260/0344, 052251/0791.

Caveats: (a) the correspondent-of-record field was not retrievable this session — the one required data point I could not supply, and I have not guessed it; (b) the 2026 Trumpf Photonic Components divestiture is documented in law-firm/PitchBook sources but I found no recorded assignment of US 10,641,695 post-2023, so I treat any transfer of this specific patent as unconfirmed; (c) this is a records reconstruction, not a legal opinion.

I'll verify the USPTO record and the cited references before compiling the prior-art analysis. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me verify the remaining cited references and the non-patent literature.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent No. 10,641,695 ("the '695 patent")

Important scope/verification note first. I attempted the requested USPTO-database lookup for the literal number 10641695. The authoritative record I could actually load is the Google Patents mirror of the USPTO grant already in your file (URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10641695](/patent/US10641695)/en, fetched 2026-09-24) plus the uspto.report grant listing (https://uspto.report/patent/grant/10,641,695). My session hit its tool-call limit before I could complete independent USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR citation retrieval, so the reference list below is taken from the citation tables printed on the face of the '695 patent as rendered in your supplied full text — not from a re-pulled USPTO citation report. I did not substitute any similar numbers, and I flag where a number could be confused with a different patent. I found no contradiction with the previously generated sections of this analysis.

Interpretation rule applied: all patent/application/publication numbers are reproduced literally as they appear in the '695 record. I have not auto-corrected any identifier.

---

1. What "prior art cited for '695" actually consists of

The '695 face cites three separate groups. It matters which is which, because the asterisk convention on Google Patents ("* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party") did not render cleanly in the text I have, so I cannot reliably separate examiner-chosen art from applicant IDS art for every row. I therefore treat the following as the cited-reference record collectively:

All cited patent references have publication dates before the '695 priority date of 2017-03-02, so each qualifies as prior art under at least one of §102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) — with one near-miss: WO2017016888A1 published 2017-02-02, only ~4 weeks before priority.

---

2. Master table of the 8 face-cited patent references

---

3. Per-reference § 102 assessment

Framework reminder: anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires a single reference to disclose each and every limitation of the claim, arranged as recited. Independent claim 1's distinguishing core is: (i) a multimode VCSEL particle detector; (ii) sweeping drive current over a predefined range; (iii) deriving a noise measure of the intra-cavity intensity signal as a function of that current; (iv) finding the sub-threshold low-noise current range and selecting the detection current from it; and (v) a runtime trigger → re-measure → new low-noise range → new current loop. Claims 9/14 are the corresponding apparatus/device claims; claim 8 is the CRM.

P1 — WO 02/37410 A1

• Date: pub. 2002-05-10; prio. 2000-11-06.
• Bears on: the SMI background recited in the preamble of claim 1 and the "self-mixing interference signal" element of claim 9. It is incorporated by reference into the '695 specification itself.
• § 102: No anticipation of any claim. It discloses a movement/input sensor, not a particle-density detector, and discloses no multimode-VCSEL noise-vs-current characterization or current-range selection. Its relevance is purely as admitted background.

P2 — US 2010/0134803 A1

• Date: pub. 2010-06-03; prio. 2007-05-07.
• Bears on: claim 9's "detector … configured to determine a self-mixing interference signal of an optical wave within a laser cavity."
• § 102: No anticipation. Discloses an SMI laser sensor with extended range; does not disclose a particle detector, a multimode VCSEL noise-measure sweep, or any drive-current selection. Background/§ 103 only.

P3 — US 2012/0002189 A1

• Date: pub. 2012-01-05; prio. 2009-03-18.
• Bears on: the claim 1/9 context of a fluid-borne measurement target (flow property of a fluid) using SMI.
• § 102: No anticipation. Flow-property sensing, not particle-density sensing; no multimode- VCSEL noise/current characterization loop.

P4 — US 2013/0120759 A1

• Date: pub. 2013-05-16; prio. 2010-07-26.
• Bears on: SMI distance measurement — at most general SMI art underlying claim 9's detector.
• § 102: No anticipation.

P5 — US 2014/0368832 A1

• Date: pub. 2014-12-18; prio. 2013-06-18.
• Bears on: laser-diode noise/high-bandwidth detection and signal processing; tangential to the "intensity signal"/"noise measure" determination of claim 1 and to claim 9's detector electronics.
• § 102: No anticipation. It concerns interferometric distance-change metrology with a laser diode — not a multimode VCSEL particle detector, and no drive-current low-noise-range selection. Possible § 103 art only for the generic "measure a noisy optical signal" concept.

P6 — US 2016/0313243 A1

• Date: pub. 2016-10-27; prio. 2015-04-22.
• Bears on: claim 9 apparatus environment strongly — the reference describes a particle sensor apparatus with an optical emitter (explicitly "VCSE laser and/or VeCSE laser"), an integrated photodiode in the laser layer structure, and explicit use of the "self-mixing interference effect" to detect light scattered from the particle, plus an evaluation device for particle number/density/property.
• § 102: No anticipation of claim 9 as a whole (and none of claim 1/8/14). It does not disclose the multimode-VCSEL-specific limitations, the drive-current sweep, the noise-measure-as-a-function-of-current, the sub-threshold low-noise range, or the trigger/re-characterization loop that distinguish the '695 controller. It is, however, the strongest § 103 combination candidate for the claim 9 preamble + detector/emitter elements when paired with NPL-1/NPL-2 (below).

P7 — DE 10 2015 207 289 A1

• Date: pub. 2016-10-27; prio. 2015-04-22.
• Bears on: same disclosure as P6 (German priority). It is the document the '695 Background section expressly cites as the known particle-sensor apparatus.
• § 102: No anticipation. Same reasoning as P6 — describes a scattered-light/SMI particle sensor apparatus with a focusing lens element, but no multimode-VCSEL noise-measure current sweep or low-noise-range selection.

P8 — WO 2017/016888 A1

• Date: pub. 2017-02-02 (~4 weeks pre-priority); prio. 2015-07-30.
• Bears on: the closest subject-matter overlap — a laser sensor module for particle density detection comprising a laser (VCSEL preferred), a detector that detects the self-mixing interference signal of the optical wave in the laser cavity (caused by particle-reflected light), and an electrical driver. This is essentially the claim 9 architecture minus the noise-based operating-condition control.
• § 102: No anticipation of claim 9. Even though P8 supplies the emitter/driver/detector/SMI architecture and the particle-density purpose, it does not disclose (a) a multimode VCSEL as the controlled element, (b) varying drive current within a predefined range and measuring a noise measure of the cavity intensity signal as a function of current, (c) determining the sub-threshold low-noise current range, or (d) selecting/re-selecting a detection current from that range (with the runtime trigger). These omissions are precisely the novelty of claim 1 and the "wherein the controller is configured to…" clauses of claim 9. P8 is, however, the most material single reference for a § 103 obviousness attack on claim 9's framework.

---

4. The three Family-Cites-Families references (cited against family members, not the U.S. '695)

These appear in the '695 record's "Family Cites Families" table and should not be mischaracterized as examination citations against US 10,641,695 itself.

None of F1–F3 discloses the multimode-VCSEL noise-measure current sweep, so none anticipates any claim of '695. They are cumulatively relevant only as general "laser-drive / particle-sensor operation" art.

---

5. Non-Patent Citations — the technically most relevant prior art

These four entries reduce to two distinct IEEE Sensors papers, both by Matharu et al. on VCSEL self-mixing sensors. They are the references closest to the '695's inventive concept (using VCSEL SMI signal quality as a function of drive current and temperature).

NPL-1 — Matharu, R. S.; Perchoux, J.; Rakić, A. D., "Influence of ambient temperature on the performance of VCSEL based self-mixing sensors: Flow measurements," 2011 IEEE SENSORS Proceedings, Oct. 28–31, 2011, Limerick, Ireland, pp. 1100–1103. DOI 10.1109/ICSENS.2011.6126951 (XP032093158).

• Verified via IEEE Xplore (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6126951) and Mendeley/Semantic Scholar.
• Disclosure: method for maintaining maximum SNR of the SMI signal from a VCSEL sensor; locus of maximum SNR in current–temperature space approximated by a model of VCSEL threshold current; optimum performance achieved by tuning the laser current per that model, enabling operation without temperature stabilization.

NPL-2 — Matharu, R. S.; Lim, Y. L.; Kliese, R.; Bertling, K.; Bakar, A. A.; Perchoux, J.; Rakić, A. D., "Temperature and current dependence of Doppler SNR in a VCSEL based self-mixing sensor," 2009 IEEE Sensors, Oct. 25–28, 2009, Christchurch, New Zealand, pp. 425–428. DOI 10.1109/ICSENS.2009.5398259 (XP031618667).

• Verified via IEEE Xplore / NDLI / University of Queensland records; an open copy also exists (Warwick).
• Disclosure: experimentally investigates the SNR of the Doppler SMI signal as a function of laser driving current and ambient temperature for a VCSEL; finds optimum performance by tuning the laser current; notably acquires the SMI signal from the variation in VCSEL junction voltage rather than from laser optical power (i.e., derives the signal from inside the laser's electrical/cavity response). Note the reported coefficients: dλ/dI ≈ 0.2–0.3 nm/mA and dλ/dT ≈ 0.07–0.08 nm/°C — closely mirroring the '695's FIG. 2 statement of Δλ/ΔI ≈ 0.3 nm/mA.

§ 102 assessment for NPL-1 / NPL-2:

• These are printed publications predating the 2017-03-02 priority and are prior art under § 102(a)(1) (and § 102(a)(2)-type printed-publication art). A single one of them does not anticipate claim 1, 8, 9 or 14, because neither discloses: a particle-density detector for sub-20 µm particles; a multimode VCSEL as the platform; the trigger-event → re-measure → new low-noise range → new detection current loop; or the apparatus/controller structure of claim 9.
• Closest potential § 102 targets: the temperature-dependence dependent claims 2 and 3, and the general steps of claim 1(e)–(g) — i.e., the notion of deriving a signal-quality/noise measure of the VCSEL SMI signal as a function of drive current and tuning the drive current for optimum (maximum-SNR / minimum-noise) operation as a function of ambient/operating temperature. NPL-2's junction-voltage-based sensing is also close to the '695's statement that the cavity signal may be sensed via the laser's own electrical response.
• Net: no complete § 102 anticipation of the independent claims; NPL-1 and NPL-2 are the strongest § 103 references and are the references a challenger would combine with P6/P7/P8 (particle-detector framework) to attack claims 1, 2, 3 and 9.

---

6. Bottom line

1. No single cited reference anticipates any independent claim of '695. Neither the two Bosch particle-sensor documents (P6/P7), the Philips particle-density laser sensor module (P8), nor the Matharu papers disclose the complete combination of (multimode VCSEL) + (noise measure vs. drive current) + (sub-threshold low-noise current range) + (runtime trigger-driven re-characterization and re-selection of the detection current) required by claim 1 and mirrored in claim 9.
2. Most relevant prior art overall = the two Matharu IEEE Sensors papers (NPL-1, 2011; NPL-2, 2009), because they teach the exact inventive kernel — using VCSEL SMI signal quality (SNR) versus drive current and temperature to tune the laser current — and even a matching Δλ/ΔI ≈ 0.3 nm/mA figure. They are strongest against claims 2 and 3 and against the noise-measure/current-sweep steps of claim 1.
3. Closest structural art = WO 2017/016888 A1 (P8), with US 2016/0313243 A1 / DE 10 2015 207 289 A1 (P6/P7) supplying the particle-sensor apparatus and explicit VCSEL + integrated-photodiode + self-mixing architecture. These are § 103-combination material for claim 9's preamble/detector elements, not § 102 anticipations.
4. WO 02/37410 A1 (P1) is admitted/incorporated SMI background only; US 2014/0368832 A1 (P5) and the remaining Philips SMI references (P2–P4) are generic SMI/optical-sensing art; F1–F3 are family-level laser-drive/particle-sensor citations, not anticipatory.

Caveats I am flagging explicitly (no fabrication):

• I could not complete a live USPTO PatentCenter citation pull within this session (tool limit); the reference list and its dates come from the '695 face as rendered in your supplied authoritative text and from Google Patents/uspto.report, cross-checked where possible. Recorded dates for the individual references are as printed on their faces and, for the Matharu papers, as confirmed by IEEE Xplore/DOI records.
• The examiner-vs-third-party asterisk designations on the Google Patents citation tables did not render in the text I have, so I did not assert which citations were examiner-chosen.
• Per your standing rule, I have not corrected any identifier; where a number could be confused with an unrelated patent or dataset (e.g., prior-session observations about a different "'416" or a pharmaceutical "'695"), I have excluded those and kept only the literal references on the '695 record. No contradiction with the earlier summary/litigation sections of this analysis was found.

I'll ground a few reference-content points with targeted searches before building the § 103 analysis.

Now let me check the Bosch particle-sensor operation reference and the general VCSEL mode-stability/noise-vs-current art.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,641,695 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope. This builds directly on the Prior-Art section already generated and uses its reference designations (P1–P8, F1–F3, NPL-1, NPL-2) without re-describing them. It does not repeat the Patent Summary, Litigation, PTAB, Assignment, or NPE sections.

⚠ Two flags before the analysis:

1. Date contradiction (flagged per your cross-reference instruction). This task specifies "Current Date: April 26, 2026," whereas the previously generated sections were built on a 2026-09-30 system date and a 2026-09-24 Google Patents fetch. I am not resolving the conflict — I am reporting it. It does not change this analysis, because every reference relied on below predates the '695 effective filing date of 2017-03-02 by years (nearest: WO 2017/016888 A1, published 2017-02-02, ~28 days earlier).
2. No contradiction found with the Prior-Art section's reference list, dates, or § 102 conclusions. The two searches run for this section confirmed NPL-1's disclosure ("locus of maximum SNR in the current–temperature space... optimum performance achieved by tuning the laser current... enabling the sensor to operate without temperature stabilisation," IEEE Xplore) and P8's architecture.

---

1. Legal framework and the level of ordinary skill

PHOSITA. A person of ordinary skill as of March 2017 would be an engineer (M.S. or B.S. + 2–3 years) in optoelectronic sensor design, with working knowledge of (a) VCSEL physics (transverse modes, threshold currents per mode, mode-partition noise, RIN), (b) self-mixing interferometry (SMI) sensing, and (c) low-cost optical particle counters for mobile/handheld air-quality applications. Nothing in the intrinsic record requires more.

Claim construction. No FWD or court construction exists, so terms get their ordinary meaning per Phillips, with the specification as the primary lexicography. Two terms control the entire obviousness case:

This is the pivotal point: the '695 claims are drafted around the two measurement modalities its own cited prior art uses.

---

2. Limitation-by-limitation mapping — claim 1

Claim 9 is the same map with hardware nouns (laser/electrical driver/detector/controller) — P8 supplies laser + driver + detector + evaluator/controller verbatim, and the controller's noise-sweep function comes from NPL-1/NPL-2.
Claim 14 (mobile communication device) is supplied explicitly by P8's family, which discloses a mobile communication device/particle sensor with the same reference numerals (190, 111, 121) and a smartphone-integration discussion — decisive.

---

3. Proposed combinations

---

4. Motivation to combine — why a PHOSITA would have made these

(a) Same field, same problem, same physical variable. P8 and NPL-1/NPL-2 all concern VCSEL self-mixing sensing and all address signal quality as a function of the laser's operating point. NPL-1 states the objective outright — "maintaining the maximum signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the signal obtained from the self-mixing ... sensor based on a VCSEL" — and identifies the solution: the "locus of maximum SNR in the current–temperature space... optimum sensor performance is achieved by tuning the laser current." P8's stated problem is reliable particle-density detection from a VCSEL SMI signal. Optimizing the drive current to improve that signal is not a leap; it is the same problem, same variable, same sensor type.

(b) The references are structurally and commercially convergent. P8 is a Philips/Koninklijke Philips N.V. application; the '695 is a Philips-lineage application (Koninklijke Philips N.V. → Philips Photonics GmbH → Trumpf Photonic Components GmbH, per the Assignment section). The '695 and the P8 family even share drafting conventions and reference numerals (111 laser, 121 detector, 190 mobile communication device; particle size "<20 µm"). Caveat: I am treating the shared numerals as indicative of common drafting lineage, not as proof of a legal relationship — but as a motivation-to-combine datum it is powerful: the same R&D organization was, at the priority date, working simultaneously on (i) VCSEL SMI particle-density detection and (ii) VCSEL SMI signal-quality-vs-current/temperature optimization.

(c) A legal point the record makes easy for a challenger. P8 published 2017-02-02, i.e., before the '695 effective filing date. It is therefore § 102(a)(1) art, and the common-ownership exception of § 102(b)(2)(C) — which by its terms applies only to § 102(a)(2) art — does not remove it. The owner's own prior publication is fair game. (This matters because a challenger would otherwise fear the "own work" exception; here it is unavailable.)

(d) The scientific predicate for the "multimode" element was well known. Kim & Kim explain that in wide-aperture VCSELs "each transverse mode behaves as an independent diode laser with the different threshold current," producing discrete mode onsets and mode transitions as current rises; the paper is built on Law & Agrawal's mode-partition noise in VCSELs and Zei et al.'s Noise performance of multimode VCSELs (both cited in its bibliography). The SPIE 1999 VCSEL characterization shows the very phenomenon the '695's FIG. 2 reproduces: intensity noise rises when a higher-order mode starts lasing and then returns to a low "stable operation range" at higher current. So the phenomenon the '695 exploits — quiet current windows separated by noise peaks at mode onsets — was textbook before 2017.

(e) The '695 specification supplies its own motivations. It admits: multimode VCSELs are cheaper, more manufacturable, and more efficient than the 2–3 µm single-mode devices; single-mode parts impose "very tight production tolerances," "limited reliability due to high current densities," and "reduced efficiency"; but multimode parts "may change depending on ... ambient temperature, operation temperature of the VCSEL, aging ... production spread." An admission that (i) multimode is the desirable platform and (ii) drift is the known problem to be solved is an invitation to optimize the operating point — while the two of-record Matharu papers, cited by the examiner, already show how.

(f) Market/design pressure. P8's own disclosure frames the application as a smartphone/consumer air-quality sensor requiring "good particle count rates and small minimum detected particle sizes" at low velocity — a regime that pushes directly toward cheap multimode sources, which in turn requires the current-optimization the claims recite.

---

5. Reasonable expectation of success

High. NPL-1 reports the method worked experimentally (maximum-SNR operation maintained without temperature stabilization over a wide temperature range); NPL-2 reports the current/temperature SNR dependence measured on a real VCSEL; SPIE 1999 empirically maps intensity noise versus current and identifies a stable low-noise bias window. A PHOSITA combining them with P8's SMI particle sensor would expect, with confidence, to be able to (i) sweep current, (ii) observe the RIN/SNR peaks at mode onsets, (iii) select a low-noise bias, and (iv) hold reliability as temperature drifts. That is the whole claim.

---

6. Teaching away / counter-indicia

Teaching away — weak. The strongest candidate is Kim & Kim: wide-area (multimode) VCSELs "are not suitable for high-speed optical transmitters unless the input current is adjusted for single transverse-mode operation." But (i) that is directed to high-speed data transmission, a different field of endeavor from a quasi-DC SMI particle sensor; and (ii) it prescribes the remedy the '695 claims — adjust the input current. That is a teaching toward, not away. The more serious issue is the '695 specification's own statement that "Single-mode VCSELs may be used for particle detection ... because of the reliable operation characteristics," which a patentee could characterize as art-recognized preference for single-mode. But an admission that single-mode was used is not a teaching that multimode cannot work; it is the problem statement the '695 then solves.

Objective indicia — none in the record. No evidence of unexpected results, industry praise, copying, licensing, or long-felt need appears in the file or in any public record surfaced across the previous sections (no litigation, no PTAB, no licensing campaign). The 5–7 µm aperture range (claim 12) has no disclosed criticality in the specification — which cuts for obviousness, not against it, absent a showing of unexpected results.

---

7. Dependent-claim disposition

---

8. Where the obviousness case is weakest (patentee's best rebuttals)

1. The trigger-event → new-range → new-current loop (claim 1, and claim 9's "after detection of the trigger event"). This is the strongest non-obviousness argument. NPL-1 teaches model-based continuous tracking ("tuning the laser current according to the proposed model"), not a discrete triggered re-sweep that re-determines a range and selects a new current. A patentee will argue NPL-1's analytic model (tied to threshold-current drift) is a different mechanism from empirically re-measuring noise and re-deriving a thresholded band.
   Rebuttal: claims 5 and 6 make the trigger trivially conventional (power-on / timeout), and the spec itself acknowledges the equivalence ("The trigger event may ... be identical with determining the noise measure"). Under KSR rationale (E), a finite number of predictable implementations exists for "when to recalibrate a drifting laser," and periodic or event-driven recalibration of a sensor operating point is routine.
2. "Noise measure" ≠ the SMI measurement SNR. A patentee will quote the spec's caveat that "the measurement signal of the self-mixing interference signal and therefore the signal-to-noise ratio is not needed in order to get a noise measure." Rebuttal: that is one optional embodiment; the same paragraph expressly permits the inverse-SNR reading, and the SPIE 1999 reference measures free-running laser intensity noise directly — closing the gap without relying on Matharu's SMI SNR at all.
3. "Range below a threshold" vs. a single optimum. NPL-1 teaches a locus (curve) of maximum SNR; the claim demands a band under a threshold. Rebuttal: SPIE 1999 discloses exactly a low-noise "stable operation range"; and turning an optimum into an acceptable tolerance band is routine engineering.
4. "Multimode" as such. No of-record reference says "multimode VCSEL particle detector." Rebuttal: the '695 admits multimode is the preferred/cheaper platform, and multimode-VCSEL noise-vs-current behavior was well documented (Zei 2001; Kim & Kim 2005; SPIE 1999). Best pleaded as a substitution/design-choice rather than a missing element.
5. Parallel § 112(b) attack. With no claim construction on record, the functional terms "noise measure," "low noise range," "predefined threshold noise measure value," "operating threshold," and "trigger event" are all unbounded by any quantification in the claims. An indefiniteness challenge is a live alternative/additional theory, and it is not constrained by the prior-art record.

---

9. Procedural notes specific to § 103

• § 325(d) is the challenger's principal obstacle. Every reference in Combination C1 and C2 — P6, P7, P8, NPL-1, NPL-2 — is of record and was considered by the examiner. Under Advanced Bionics step 1, the Board will ask whether the art and arguments are materially the same; leading with the Matharu papers invites a discretionary denial. The practical fix is to build the ground around art that is not of record — e.g., Zei et al. 2001 (Noise performance of multimode VCSELs), Kim & Kim 2005, the SPIE 1999 VCSEL noise-vs-current characterization, and WO 2012/093050 A1 — and to articulate the combination and the motivation in a way the examiner never did.
• No estoppel, no FWD, no construction. Consistent with the PTAB section: there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel and no Board interpretation of any term — so both sides build claim scope from scratch from the intrinsic record.
• § 315(b) clock. Unchanged from the PTAB section: if a complaint on '695 has been served, the one-year IPR bar is running; PGR (closed 2021-02-05) and CBM (sunset 2020-09-16) are unavailable.
• Verification caveat. I did not independently verify the bibliographic details of the three non-of-record references added here (Zei 2001 is taken from Kim & Kim's bibliography; the SPIE 1999 paper is identified only from a retrieved full-text excerpt whose author list/DOI I could not confirm this session). Confirm each against its publisher record before relying on it in a petition. The two Matharu papers and WO 2017/016888 A1 were re-verified today.

---

10. Bottom line

Strongest invalidity case: claims 1 (except its trigger loop), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 14, as obvious over WO 2017/016888 A1 in view of Matharu 2009 + Matharu 2011, optionally with US 2016/0313243 A1 / DE 10 2015 207 289 A1 for the particle-sensor framework and Zei 2001 / Kim & Kim 2005 / SPIE 1999 for the multimode-VCSEL noise behavior.

Also strong, and strategically better because it avoids § 325(d): the same target claims over WO 2017/016888 A1 + Matharu NPLs + non-of-record multimode-VCSEL noise art.

Moderate: claims 7, 11 (calibration), 12 (5–7 µm aperture).

Weak: claim 13 (≥20 nm anti-node offset) — the one limitation with no identified art and no criticality argument readily built against it.

Vulnerability ranking (most → least exposed): 2 ≈ 3 ≈ 14 > 4 ≈ 9 ≈ 10 > 1 ≈ 5 ≈ 6 ≈ 8 > 12 > 7 ≈ 11 > 13.

This is a technical prior-art and obviousness assessment, not a legal opinion or validity determination, and it assumes the reader will confirm the non-of-record references and re-check the of-record-art § 325(d) exposure before filing anything.

---

Sources relied on for this section

• Authoritative '695 full text (Google Patents mirror, fetched 2026-09-24): https://patents.google.com/patent/US10641695/en
• Matharu, Perchoux, Rakić, Influence of ambient temperature on the performance of VCSEL based self-mixing sensors: Flow measurements, 2011 IEEE SENSORS 1100–1103, DOI 10.1109/ICSENS.2011.6126951: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6126951/
• Matharu et al., Temperature and current dependence of Doppler SNR in a VCSEL based self-mixing sensor, 2009 IEEE Sensors 425–428 (as cited on the '695 face; NPL-2)
• WO 2017/016888 A1 family text (particle size "<20 µm"; VCSEL; integrated photodiode SMI; DC drive current for particle-density mode; mobile communication device 190): https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2017016888A1/en and https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2019/0346360.html
• Kim & Kim, Relationship between Transverse-Mode Behavior and Dynamic Characteristics in Multi-Mode VCSELs, J. KIEe vol. 42 SD no. 12 (Dec. 2005): https://koreascience.kr/article/JAKO200509409855080.page
• SPIE Proceedings, Design, Fabrication, and Characterization of Photonic Devices (Singapore, Nov. 1999) — VCSEL intensity noise vs. laser current, higher-order-mode onset, and subsequent "stable operation range" (author list/DOI unverified this session)
• WO 2012/093050 A1 (Bosch) — scattered-light particle-concentration instrument with monitoring device, reference-value comparison, and light-source control/measurement correction