US 10739202

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number and check for any 2026 CAFC activity.

US Patent 10,739,202 — summary

Caveat up front on your two research requests: I found no litigation, IPR/PGR, or CAFC docket activity for U.S. Patent No. 10,739,202 in my searches, including no 2026 Federal Circuit docket entries. The only 2026 CAFC decision involving LG Electronics that surfaced was Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc. (No. 2024‑1822, decided 04/28/2026), which concerns different patents — U.S. 8,842,761; 10,693,700; 11,019,509; and 11,018,922 — and is not this patent. I could not access the CAFC docket or USPTO PatentCenter/PTAB directly in this session, so I cannot rule out an unreported filing; treat the "no activity found" statement as a search limitation, not an authoritative negative. Everything below is grounded in the patent text you supplied (Google Patents record for US10739202B2), which I treated as authoritative.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (as recorded)

The patent discloses a smart device with a temperature sensor for measuring the temperature of an object at a distance, where the sensor has a measurement range that varies with distance to the object. The control method includes: measuring the distance from the device to the object; if the sensor's measurement range at that distance is not placed within the object, notifying the user that the object's temperature cannot be measured; and guiding the user to place the measurement range within the object.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The claim set itself was not included in the material you provided (the fetched text stops in the "Best Mode" description). Based on the specification's "Technical Solutions" section — which mirrors the claim language — the patent appears to have two independent method claims:

1. Non-contact temperature measurement (distance-based). A method of controlling a smart device that has a non-contact temperature sensor whose measurement "footprint" grows as it moves away from the target. The device measures the distance to the object, compares the sensor's measurement area at that distance against the object's size, and if the measurement area is not fully inside the object, warns the user the temperature can't be measured and guides the user to move closer so the footprint fits within the object. (The spec frames the sensor's measurement range as the area whose temperature the sensor actually measures; a camera captures the object image, the object is recognized — automatically by center/largest size, as a human body, or by user designation — and the measurement footprint is displayed over the image.)

2. Contact temperature measurement during a call (body temperature). A method of controlling a smart device with a contact temperature sensor in which the device detects an incoming call, then detects whether the user's body is in contact with the sensor (e.g., the user's ear against the front sensor near the receiver), and if so, measures the user's body temperature. Optional features include pre-configuring automatic measurement during calls, notifying/guiding the user if no contact is detected, and terminating measurement after a timeout.

Likely-dependent subject matter described in the specification includes: sensor/camera co-location (sensor within an 8 mm radius of the camera; measurement angle 45° vs. camera angle of view 80°) so the measurement and camera fields overlap with a common center; display of the measurement range; and a cooking-assistant embodiment (recognizing ingredients, suggesting recipes, and measuring oil/food temperature).

Uncertainty note: because the literal claim text (including exact independent-claim numbering, any device/apparatus independent claims, and any dependent claims) was not supplied, this claim overview is reconstructed from the specification's summary sections and should be verified against the granted claims on USPTO PatentCenter/Google Patents before being relied on.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 10739202. Let me search multiple sources.

Initial results are not on point. Let me search litigation-specific databases.

Let me try more targeted searches on litigation databases and Google Patents.

Litigation Search Results: U.S. Patent No. 10,739,202

Bottom line: I found no evidence of any litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,739,202.

What I searched and what I found

I ran multiple web searches directed at litigation aggregators and general sources, including queries keyed to the exact patent number ("10739202", "US10739202", "10,739,202"), the assignee and subject matter (LG Electronics, temperature sensor smart device), and litigation-specific sites (Unified Patents portal, RPX Insight, CourtListener/Justia, CAFC). No case docketed against or asserting this specific patent was surfaced.

Notably, the results that came back were not about this patent at all, which underscores the need to be precise:

• 10739202 returned as a DOI, not a patent — the identifier appears as a Digital Object Identifier in a 2024 IEEE conference paper (ICECET 2024) on restaurant ordering systems. This is a coincidental numeric match and has nothing to do with the patent.
• U.S. Patent No. 10,739,916 (FlatFrog Laboratories AB v. Promethean Ltd./Promethean Inc., D. Del.) appeared repeatedly. This is a different patent (touch-sensing) and is not U.S. 10,739,202.
• Other hits (e.g., '739 patents, Netlist/Samsung, Arendi/LG, Ozmo Licensing) involve entirely different patents and parties.

Per your instruction, I am not treating these as results for 10,739,202 — none of them asserts or concerns this patent.

About the patent itself (for context)

From the authoritative patent text:

The patent covers a smart device with a temperature sensor (contact and non-contact) plus control methods, including camera/temperature-sensor field-of-view alignment and body-temperature measurement during a call.

Important caveats and limitations

1. This is a negative finding, not a guarantee. I could not directly query PACER, Docket Navigator, or the Unified Patents litigation portal (search limits were reached before those targeted queries returned). No litigation surfaced in the searches that did complete.
2. Consistent with expectations. U.S. 10,739,202 is owned by LG Electronics, an operating company that is an infrequent patent plaintiff. Its "Expired – Fee Related" status further reduces the likelihood of active assertion. Neither factor forecloses litigation, but neither suggests any.
3. No litigation is known to me. I am not aware of any suit asserting U.S. 10,739,202, and I will not fabricate parties, case numbers, or dockets to fill the requested fields.

If you need a definitive docket-level answer, the authoritative next steps would be to run the patent number through PACER/RECAP (CourtListener), Docket Navigator, Unified Patents' litigation portal, and RPX Insight, and to check whether the patent appears in any ITC Section 337 complaint — none of which I was able to complete within available search steps.

I'll verify the structured block's default ("no PTAB activity") against web sources before writing up.

The first search's "'302 Patent" hit is a different patent (Safecast's ad-insertion patent, filed 2013 from PCT/GB2011/052259) — not this one. Let me run more targeted checks.

Let me do a final round of checks across PTAB dockets and litigation databases.

PTAB Proceedings — US 10,739,202 B2

Preliminary verification note. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP) returned no AIA trial proceedings for this patent. I attempted to corroborate that default with web searches across PTAB decision/petition text, docket aggregators, and general patent news. No IPR, PGR, or CBM naming U.S. Patent No. 10,739,202 surfaced. One near-miss that must be affirmatively excluded: a Patent Owner Preliminary Response in a PTAB proceeding repeatedly refers to a "'302 Patent" challenged over Plotnick and Parekh — that is a different patent (Safecast Limited LLC; directed to ad insertion into recorded programming, filed 2013-05-29 from PCT/GB2011/052259), not this LG Electronics temperature-measurement patent. Do not let that hit propagate into a defense memo.

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings on file for US 10,739,202 — no IPRs, no PGRs, no CBMs, and therefore no Final Written Decisions, no terminations, and no Federal Circuit appeals. Because the patent has never been before the Board, the defensive posture is not "hardened by surviving IPRs" and not "claims canceled" — it is untested: the patent owner (LG Electronics Inc.) holds all of its originally issued claims, but no tribunal has yet construed or adjudicated their validity, so every claim remains challengeable and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel has attached to anyone.

No proceedings to itemize

<No AIA trial proceedings exist for this patent. The per-proceeding template (proceeding number, petitioner, judge panel, grounds, institution decision, FWD, settlement, appeal) is intentionally left empty rather than populated with invented data.>

What the absence means, precisely:

• No claim-level outcomes exist. Nothing has been canceled, nothing has been confirmed. Every claim of the patent is UNTESTED. (Note: the claim listing itself was not present in the patent text supplied to me — the fetch ends within the written description — so I cannot enumerate claim numbers. Do not accept any claim-by-claim assertion about this patent that is not taken directly from the issued claims at https://patents.google.com/patent/US10739202/en.)
• No estoppel. § 315(e)(2) estoppel is triggered only by a final written decision (and § 315(e)(1) by petitioner/privy participation). With no IPR, every prior-art ground under §§ 102/103 remains fully available to a defendant, in both district court and a future IPR.
• No prior PTAB art record. No claim has been construed by the Board, so there is no useful Board claim-construction law to borrow, but also no § 325(d) risk of "same or substantially the same art previously presented to the Office" beyond the prosecution file history.

Strategic summary

Claim status. All claims are UNTESTED at the PTAB — zero canceled, zero sustained, zero litigated. There is nothing in the patent's administrative record narrowing any claim, and no prosecution-history disclaimer or adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) has been created by a PTAB proceeding.

Estoppel landscape. No § 315(e)(2) estoppel applies to any party, because no FWD has issued. A defendant today may run any § 102/§ 103 ground it can support — including art that the examiner did or did not consider — in court and at the Board. Conversely, the patent owner also faces no adverse record and no prosecution disclaimer to argue around; the ordinary presumption of validity (§ 282) is fully intact, and the file history is the only intrinsic narrowing evidence.

Pattern signals. No petitioner has filed even one IPR against this patent, so there is no serial-challenge pattern and no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) in the chain. LG Electronics appears as patent owner here, not as petitioner — note that LG is itself a frequent and sophisticated IPR petitioner in other technology areas (see, e.g., LG Electronics, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., IPR2015-00323, and LG Electronics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies ULC, IPR2015-00326, FWD finding claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, 15, 17, 18 unpatentable and claim 20 not shown unpatentable). That is context about the owner's litigation posture, not activity on this patent.

Two registry facts worth flagging to a defendant, both requiring independent verification:

1. Legal status. The Google Patents record for this patent reads "Expired - Fee Related," with an adjusted expiration of 2036-05-02 (priority 2015-11-02; filed 2015-11-19; granted 2020-08-11; assignee LG Electronics Inc.). "Expired - Fee Related" typically means a maintenance fee went unpaid and the patent lapsed early. Google's status field is expressly an assumption, not a legal conclusion, so verify at USPTO Patent Center before relying on it. If the lapse is real, it is by far the most powerful defensive fact in this file — a lapsed patent cannot be asserted as a live right, although reinstatement is possible by petition (37 C.F.R. § 1.378) and parties who commercialized during the lapse may have intervening-rights arguments. Confirm the fee history and the reinstatement window with counsel; do not take the Google status as dispositive.
2. Institution climate (policy context, not patent-specific). A petition filed today lands in a materially different environment than pre-2025 practice: the Director has reserved merits institution decisions for IPR petitions filed after 2025-10-20, denials are increasingly issued by summary notice, and age/parallel-litigation-based discretionary denials ("settled expectations," Fintiv-style parallel-litigation limits) have sharply reduced institution rates — see Smith Anderson, Navigating the Brave New World of PTAB Discretionary Denials (2025-10-31), https://www.smithlaw.com/printpilot-news-navigating-the-brave-new-world-of-ptab-discretionary-denials.pdf, and Unified Patents, 2025 in Review (PTAB petitions down ~5.8% year-over-year; 607 procedural denials in 2025; ex parte reexamination requests at an all-time high of 726), https://thenaplesroundtable.org/wp-content/uploads/formidable/29/2025-in-Review-Unified-Patents.pdf. A patent granted 2020-08-11 is no longer young; if you are weighing an IPR, weigh ex parte reexamination as a parallel or substitute channel.

Recommended next steps

• Because there is no PTAB activity, say so plainly and do not manufacture a PTAB-based defense. There is no FWD to cite, no claim to characterize as canceled, and no estoppel to invoke. Any brief that cites an IPR against this patent is citing the wrong patent (see the Safecast " '302 Patent" false positive above).
• Verify the maintenance-fee status first. Pull the fee/reinstatement history for US 10,739,202 at USPTO PatentCenter (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/) and cross-check the Patent Term Adjustment/expiration record. If the patent lapsed for non-payment, get a written opinion on lapse, any reinstatement petition, and intervening rights before responding to any demand.
• Confirm the litigation picture independently. My search did not surface a district court case asserting this patent, but the litigation-database sweep was not exhaustive. Run Docket Navigator, CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/), and RPX/Unified Patent Litigation Clearinghouse searches on the patent number and the family member publication US 2018/0313695 A1 (published 2018-11-01) to identify any assertion, its service dates, and any § 315(b) one-year bar.
• If you intend to file an IPR, preserve the § 315(b) clock and the § 102/103 record now. With no prior petition, you have a clean slate — but file-complete invalidity contentions and expert analysis early, because the current discretionary-denial regime (parallel litigation, patent age, prior validity findings) can defeat an otherwise meritorious petition before the merits are reached.
• Run a prosecution-history analysis before choosing art. The claims appear to center on a distance-dependent measurement range of a non-contact temperature sensor, camera/sensor AOV-vs-angle-of-measurement geometry (angle of view 80°, angle of measurement 45°, sensor within 8 mm of the camera), and a call-triggered contact-based body-temperature measurement; the strongest art is likely to target those specific geometric and call-trigger limitations, and art already of record gets § 325(d) scrutiny if you later petition.

Sources consulted for this verification: Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/US10739202/en (patent text, legal status, dates, assignee); USPTO PTAB petition/decision text hosted at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/ (no hits for this patent); the structured USPTO ODP "PTAB proceedings on file" block (zero records). All proceeding numbers and claim-level findings referenced for other patents are quoted from the sources above and belong to those other patents, not to US 10,739,202.

I'll research the assignment record for this patent, starting with the authoritative patent text and then targeted searches for the recorded assignment details.

Let me try targeted queries on the assignment databases and the specific inventor-company chain.

Let me attempt to retrieve the specific Assignment Center record and any reel/frame data.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,739,202

Data limitation flagged up front: The authoritative source I was given (the Google Patents record for US10739202B2) documents the existence of one post-filing assignment event but does not expose the reel/frame number, execution date, or correspondent. My web searches did not return the USPTO Assignment Center record (assignment.uspto.gov / assignmentcenter.uspto.gov), Unified Patents, or RPX entries for this patent number. Accordingly, reel/frame and correspondent fields below are marked not retrievable in this session rather than guessed. Per your constraint, I will not fabricate them. Everything below is anchored to the patent text's legal-events block, which Google Patents mirrors from USPTO assignment data.

---

Inventors

Seven named inventors, all listed on the face of US 10,739,202:

Basis for employer: The application is the §371 national stage of PCT/KR2015/012485 claiming Korean priority KR 10-2015-0153133 (filed 2015-11-02), all naming LG Electronics Inc. as applicant/assignee. This is an employer-originated filing, and the inventors are Seoul-based (Korean inventor addresses, e.g., 06772 Seoul as reflected on the sibling family record below).

Pattern note (not a fire-sale signal): This same seven-person team co-appears on several contemporaneous LG Electronics filings from the same R&D group — e.g., WO 2017/090810 A1 ("Wearable device and operating method therefor," priority KR 10-2015-0166027 filed 2015-11-26), EP 3 244 288 A1 / US 10,241,613 (stylus/mobile terminal, priority KR 10-2016-0056537), and US 10,556,567 B2 (watch-type mobile terminal). The team staying together across multiple 2015–2016 LG filings is evidence against the "inventors departed within 12 months → portfolio fire-sale" pattern. I found no evidence of inventor departure or reassignment away from LG.

---

Original assignee

LG Electronics Inc. — named as both original and current assignee on the face of the patent.

• Primary line of business: Global consumer-electronics and home-appliance manufacturer (TVs, appliances, mobile devices, vehicle components); Korea's second-largest electronics conglomerate. An operating company, not a holding/licensing vehicle.
• Product embodying the claims: Not clearly determinable. The spec describes a generic "smart device" (mobile terminal) with a contact/non-contact temperature sensor and camera-assisted measurement. Whether LG shipped a commercial handset embodying these claims is unverified — and moot in part because LG wound down its mobile-phone business in 2021. Note the sister filings above suggest this was a wearable/mobile UX R&D line, not a product-defining patent.
• Current status: Operating (LG Electronics remains a going concern). No bankruptcy, no dissolution, no acquisition of the assignee.
• Legal status of the patent: Expired – Fee Related; adjusted expiration listed as 2036-05-02. Fee-related lapse is consistent with the patent having been simply abandoned by its owner rather than monetized.

---

Assignment timeline

Only one assignment event appears in the legal-events record for this patent. The reel/frame number, execution date, and correspondent of record are not retrievable from the sources available to me.

• 2018-05-02 — Recorded (execution date not retrievable)
  • Reel/Frame: not retrievable in this session
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST — SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS")
  • Assignors (all seven): KIM, HYUNWOO; Kim, Seonghyok; Lee, Hyunok; PARK, JISOO; PARK, MIHYUN; Shim, Hongjo; Sohn, Youngho
  • Assignee: LG ELECTRONICS INC.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable in this session (no repeats to flag)
  • Context: Standard inventor→employer assignment recorded on national-stage entry (the §371 filing date of the US application is 2018-05-02, matching this event). This is an ordinary corporate-capture assignment, not an acquisition, fire-sale, reorg, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.

No post-issuance assignments of any kind appear. There is no record of the patent moving to an IP-holding LLC, aggregator, or asserter. On the record before me, title remains with LG Electronics Inc. Because the "Assignment Center" does contain one record (the original assignment), I proceed past this section, but the practical finding is: the patent was never transferred off the operating company.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10739202
    2015 : Priority filed by LG Electronics
    2018 : Inventors assign rights to LG Electronics
    2020 : Patent issued to LG Electronics
    2021 : LG exits mobile phone business
    2036 : Adjusted patent expiration

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Caveat on Signal 2 (litigation): My earlier litigation research found no suit asserting US 10,739,202; the closest 2026 CAFC activity (Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 2024-1822) concerns different patents. That is a search-based negative, not an authoritative docket negative.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — specifically, only the original assignment is recorded, which is the express fallback condition for this verdict.

Justification: The sole assignment record is the 2018-05-02 inventor→LG Electronics Inc. capture, matching the national-stage entry date; there is no subsequent transfer, no shell-entity LLC, no known asserter, and no pre-litigation transfer — all eight NPE signals are either absent or (Signal 3, correspondent) unverifiable for lack of the reel/frame. The absence of any post-issuance assignment means title stayed with the operating company, and the patent's own "Expired – Fee Related" status indicates it was allowed to lapse rather than monetized. This is a non-asserting operating-company holding, not an NPE chain.

Verification link: Search USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (legacy: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) — by application 15/772,519 or patent 10,739,202 to confirm the single record's reel/frame, execution date, and correspondent, which were not retrievable in this session.

What would change this verdict: any post-2020 assignment to an IP-holding LLC, or a suit naming this patent; neither is evidenced in the sources consulted.

I'll research the prior-art citations for US 10,739,202. Note that the authoritative text provided earlier omitted the "References Cited" section, so I'll need to locate the citation lists from external sources.

Let me try to retrieve the actual "References Cited" section from patent database mirrors.

I found a forward-citation list but need the "Patent Citations" (references cited by the patent). Let me target the Google Patents and FPO pages directly.

Prior-Art Analysis of US 10,739,202 — Critical Retrieval Limitation First

I must flag a material gap before answering, per the "don't fabricate" rule.

The authoritative full text you supplied does not contain the "References Cited" (front-page citation) section, and the Google Patents record as fetched stops inside the "Best Mode / description" before reaching the citation tables. Within the search steps available to me this session, I could not retrieve US10739202B2's own list of cited patent documents. The tool budget was exhausted before I could pull the FPO / Google Patents citation tables or the PCT/KR2015/012485 international search report (ISR) for the parent application.

Consequence: I cannot responsibly provide "each patent citation for 10739202" with per-reference claim-by-claim § 102 mapping, because I do not have that citation list. Any such enumeration would be fabricated. What follows is (a) what I did verify, (b) candidate prior art in the same art that my searches surfaced, appropriately caveated, and (c) the exact steps to close the gap.

---

1. What the authoritative record actually gave me (prior-art information)

• The Google Patents record lists "Prior art keywords: smart device, user, temperature, temperature sensor, measurement range." These are algorithmic text-mining tags, not citations — they cannot be used as § 102 references.
• Priority / effective filing date: 2015-11-02 (KR 10-2015-0153133). This is the § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) cutoff for the two independent method claims (non-contact distance-based measurement; contact measurement during a call).
• No "References Cited" list, no examiner-cited art, and no ISR box-C citations were recoverable.

I am explicitly not going to invent citations to fill this section.

---

2. Forward citations I did find (relevant context — NOT § 102 prior art)

These are references that cite US10739202 (i.e., they are later art). They are not anticipatory prior art, but they confirm the field and the "most similar" technology set:

These establish that the art is smartphone / handheld non-contact thermometry and body-temperature monitoring, but they post-date the patent and cannot anticipate it.

---

3. Candidate prior art surfaced in the same art (screening only — requires full-text verification)

My searches returned a cluster of temperature-measurement references that are temporal candidates for § 102. I have not reviewed their full texts, so I cannot state they anticipate any specific claim — I am flagging them because they meet the date bar and are on-point, and because they are the kinds of documents that would appear in the patent's own citation list.

I am not asserting anticipation for any of these. The date bar is satisfied for the first two; the technical overlap is plausible but unproven by me.

---

4. Why the § 102 mapping cannot be completed yet

Two prerequisites are missing and both are essential to a defensible anticipation analysis:

1. The literal granted claim text. The earlier summary reconstructed the claims from the specification's "Technical Solutions" section; the actual granted claims (and any apparatus independent claim) were never verified.
2. The patent's actual cited-art list. Without it, "look at each patent citation for 10739202" is impossible to execute faithfully.

§ 102 anticipation also requires that a single reference disclose every element arranged as claimed. The two independent claims each contain multi-element combinations — e.g., (a) measuring distance → comparing measurement-range footprint to object size → notifying → guiding for the non-contact claim; and (b) detecting incoming call → detecting body contact with sensor → measuring body temperature for the contact claim. Anticipation therefore turns on whether one reference discloses the whole ordered combination, which I cannot test without both missing inputs.

---

5. Exact steps to complete this task definitively

1. USPTO PatentCenter / Patent Full-Text (US10739202) → "References Cited" and "Referenced By" tables — gives the examiner-cited U.S. and foreign patent documents and NPL.
2. Google Patents — US10739202B2 → scroll to the "Patent Citations" and "Cited By" tables (backward vs. forward).
3. PCT/KR2015/012485 ISR (WO publication of the parent) → Box C documents with "X/Y/A" categories and claim-number relevance — this is the closest thing to an examiner's § 102/§ 103 opinion and mirrors the claim mapping you asked for.
4. Global Dossier / Espacenet → search-report and family citations for the KR priority case.
5. Cross-check each retrieved reference's effective filing date against 2015-11-02 to classify under AIA § 102(a)(1) vs. § 102(a)(2).

If you can paste the "References Cited" block from the US10739202B2 front page (or the granted claim text), I will immediately produce the requested per-reference deliverable: full citation, publication/filing dates, brief description, and a claim-by-claim § 102 novelty analysis.

Bottom line: I could not retrieve US10739202's own cited prior art within this session's limits, so I will not present a fabricated citation list. The two most promising candidate anticipatory references on the record I could see are US 10,226,184 B2 (Samsung, filed 2014-07-31) and US 2016/0262631 A1 (Shen, filed 2015-03-12) — both predate the 2015-11-02 priority and address the same non-contact vs. contact body-temperature subject matter — but their § 102 relevance is unverified and must be confirmed against the actual citation list and the literal claims.

I need to flag a critical gap before analyzing: the "Prior Art section of this page" referenced in your task was not included in the material provided to me. What I received is (a) the full patent text for US 10,739,202 and (b) the previously generated Patent summary and Litigation summary. There is no prior-art search result set, no reference list, no examiner citations, and no IDS in either. The Google Patents record you supplied contains only "Prior art keywords" (smart device / user / temperature / measurement range) — not actual references.

Rather than fabricate a "prior art section," let me run fresh searches to locate real, verifiable references I can ground an obviousness analysis on.

Good — the searches surfaced several highly relevant references. Let me now pin down (a) the actual granted claims of US 10,739,202 (which the earlier summary flagged as missing) and (b) prior art on body-temperature measurement via a phone during a call.

Excellent — I now have the granted claim text. Let me pull the complete claim set (claims 5–20) and verify filing dates for the closest references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,739,202 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

0. Two threshold caveats (please read before the analysis)

Caveat 1 — the "Prior Art section of this page" was not supplied. Your task directs me to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page." No such section exists in the material I was given. What I received was (i) the full Google Patents text of US 10,739,202, (ii) the previously generated Patent summary, and (iii) the Litigation summary. The Google Patents record contains only "Prior art keywords" (smart device / user / temperature / temperature sensor / measurement range) and no reference list, no examiner citations, and no IDS. I therefore generated my own reference set by search and have labeled each reference with the source URL. Treat this as a candidate-art analysis, not as a reproduction of an examiner's or a previous section's art.

Caveat 2 — I have only partial claim text. The earlier Patent summary correctly flagged that the literal claim set was missing. I have now recovered claims 1–4 and claim 16 verbatim (from Justia's page for this patent, https://patents.justia.com/patent/10739202#4). I could not recover claims 5–15 and 17–20 verbatim in this session (search limit reached). For those, I rely on the specification's "Technical Solutions" passage, which mirrors the claim language, and I flag every inference. Verify against the granted claims before relying on anything about claims 5–15/17–20.

Caveat 3 — dates. For most references I verified only the publication identifier (which encodes the year) and the dates shown in the search results. I flag each. General effective-filing context: priority = 2015‑11‑02 (KR 10‑2015‑0153133); PCT filed 2015‑11‑19. Because the effective filing date is after 16 March 2013, AIA § 102/§ 103 apply.

---

1. The claims to be analyzed

Independent claim 1 (non-contact / distance-based)

A method for controlling a smart device configured to measure a temperature of an object at a position away from the object and comprising a temperature sensor with a measurement range varying according to a distance from the smart device to the object, the method performed by the smart device and comprising:

• measuring the distance from the smart device to the object to measure the temperature of the object;
• determining whether the measurement range of the temperature sensor is within the object at the measured distance by: calculating a size of the object and the measurement range of the temperature sensor at the measured distance by using an image of the object obtained by the smart device; and comparing the calculated size of the object to the calculated measurement range of the temperature sensor;
• notifying a user that the temperature of the object cannot be measured when the measurement range of the temperature sensor is not within the object at the measured distance; and
• guiding the user to place the measurement range within the object.

Note: the "determining" limitation in the granted claim is narrower than the specification's summary — it requires the object size and the measurement range to be computed using an image obtained by the smart device. That image-centric limitation is the feature the obviousness case must reach.

Dependent claims 1–4 (verbatim)

• 2: measurement range = area in which the temperature can be measured by the sensor.
• 3: obtaining the image through a camera prior to measuring; recognizing the object from the image.
• 4: recognizing = automatically recognizing the object at the image center or the largest object, or recognizing an object designated by the user.

Independent claim 16 (contact / during-call)

A method for controlling a smart device, wherein the smart device comprises a temperature sensor configured to measure temperature of a predetermined object when contacting with the object, the method comprising: detecting that there is an incoming call to the smart device; if the incoming call is received, detecting whether a body of a user is contacted with the temperature sensor; and if the user's body is contacted with the temperature sensor, measuring body temperature of the user.

Spec-supported dependent subject matter (claims 5–15/17–20, unverified verbatim)

From the "Technical Solutions" passage: auto-recognition of a human body; measuring the distance between the recognized object and the device; displaying the measurement range at the measured distance before the "cannot measure" notification; the "larger/smaller" comparison logic; guiding by telling the user to reduce distance; measuring and reporting when the range is within the object; sensor/camera co-configuration with overlapping measurement angle and camera angle of view (80° camera AOV vs 45° measurement angle; sensor within an 8 mm radius of the camera); and, for the call embodiment, pre-configuring automatic measurement, notifying/guiding on non-contact, and terminating measurement after a timeout.

---

2. Legal framework and person of ordinary skill

• Governing law: AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103; KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
• Graham factors: (1) scope/content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) PHOSITA level; (4) secondary considerations.
• KSR rationales available here (MPEP 2143): (A) combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) simple substitution of one known element for another; (C) use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way; (D) applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement; (F) "obvious to try" from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions; and (G) design incentives / market forces.
• PHOSITA (proposed): a person with a B.S. in electrical/computer engineering (or biomedical engineering) and ~2–3 years of experience in mobile-device sensing, camera image processing, and non-contact (IR) thermometry — a level at which both the thermometer art and the smartphone-camera art are readily accessible.

Scope-of-art observation: the four "Prior art keywords" the Office associated with this patent — smart device, user, temperature, temperature sensor, measurement range — map directly onto the two well-developed fields that, by 2015, were converging: (a) handheld non-contact IR thermometry (D:S ratio, spot size, distance measurement) and (b) smartphone camera/computer-vision user guidance. The claimed invention sits at that intersection.

---

3. The candidate prior-art set (search-derived)

(Also surfaced but not relied on: US 2022/0128410 A1 and US 2025/373934 A1 (Google) and US 10,226,184 — these post-date the priority date and are not § 102 art; I did not verify US 10,226,184's filing date.)

---

4. Claim 1 — element-by-element § 103 analysis

Claim 1 has five limitations. Mapping them to the art:

Primary combination A: P1 + P3 (or P1 + P4)

P1 supplies the entire logical core of limitations (a), (c-comparison), and (d): it teaches that the IR spot varies with distance, that accuracy depends on object size vs. spot size, and that a measurement is erroneous when the object does not fill the spot — i.e., the very "cannot measure / inaccurate" determination.

P3 (or P4/P11) supplies (b), (c-image), (d-notification) and (e): a mobile phone that has both a camera and an IR sensor, uses the image to locate/size the target and to infer distance, and actively guides the user to reposition the device ("closer, further, left, right, up, down") until the measurement is accurate — exactly the "guiding the user to place the measurement range within the object" step.

Why a PHOSITA would combine them (KSR rationales):

1. Same field / same problem. Both P1 and P3 address the identical problem: ensuring an IR thermometer's spot lands on the intended target so the reading is accurate. P1 states the criterion; P3 provides the camera-and-guidance apparatus to satisfy it.
2. The references themselves point to the combination. P2 — a handheld IR thermometer — already mounts a digital camera on the radiometer and already computes and displays the FOV at the measured distance; P3/P11 already place a camera next to an IR sensor on a phone. Combining image-based object sizing (P3) with spot-size computation (P1/P2) is the predictable union of two elements each known to improve the same device.
3. Known-technique-for-improvement (KSR rationale C). P1's size-comparison is a known technique for judging IR-measurement accuracy; applying it to a camera-equipped mobile IR thermometer (P3) improves the device in the same, predictable way.
4. Predictable result / finite solutions. Given a phone with a camera and an IR sensor, the designer has a finite set of options to make the reading accurate: zoom the FOV, or move the device closer. The claimed solution (compute spot size from distance, compare to object size, then guide the user) is one of a small number of predictable approaches.
5. Market/design incentive (KSR rationale G). By 2015 the smartphone industry was actively adding health sensors (P10 shows an IR thermometer in a smartphone). Adding accuracy-guard logic to such a device is an obvious design need.

Primary combination B: P2 + P3 (alternative to A)

P2 alone discloses (a) distance measurement, (b) computing the FOV size/diameter at the measured distance, and (c) displaying the FOV — plus a camera. Substituting P2's laser-ring/FOV display for P3's on-screen image guidance, or adding P3's "move closer/further" coaching to P2's FOV display, is a simple substitution of one known element for another (KSR rationale B) yielding a predictable improvement in usability. P2's camera mounted on the radiometer makes the "image obtained by the smart device" limitation a straightforward adaptation.

P4 as a reinforcing reference for limitation (c)

P4 independently discloses (i) a smartphone/tablet with a camera adjacent the temperature-sensing element, (ii) software that frames the region of the object in the image, and (iii) selection of an FOV ≤ the frame — which is the functional equivalent of "the measurement range is within the object." A PHOSITA seeking to implement claim 1's comparison step would find in P4 both the camera/sensor co-location and the "keep the sensing FOV inside the imaged region" rule.

Conclusion for claim 1: claim 1 would have been obvious under § 103 over P1 in view of P3 (and/or P2 in view of P3, with P4/P11 as reinforcing art). The motivation is strong, articulated in the references themselves, and the result is predictable.

---

5. Dependent claims 2–15

---

6. Independent claim 16 — body temperature during a call

Claim 16 requires: (i) detecting an incoming call; (ii) detecting whether the user's body is in contact with the temperature sensor; (iii) if contacted, measuring the user's body temperature.

Combination: P7 (or P8, P9, P10) in view of the standard proximity/call-state functionality of a mobile phone.

Motivation (KSR rationales A, C, F, G):

• P7 expressly motivates the improvement: its stated object is to add a body-temperature function to a phone so the user can "easily manage health even in a busy daily life," and it teaches measuring during a call.
• Known technique to improve a similar device (C): automating an already-known measurement (P7) with an already-known trigger (call state + proximity) yields a predictable result — no manual key-press needed.
• Obvious to try (F) / finite solutions: once the phone already knows (via its proximity sensor) that it is against the user's ear, automatically reading the ear temperature is a natural and expected use of that signal.
• Market/design incentive (G): automatic, hands-free health capture during a routine activity (calls) is a recognized design goal (P10; the '202 specification itself states users "use the phone function most frequently").

Spec-supported dependents (17–20, unverified): "disposed adjacent to a receiver" (P7, P9); "notify the user the temperature cannot be measured" if no contact (P5's signalling concept; conventional UI); "guide the user to contact the body with the sensor" (routine); "pre-configure automatic measurement during a call" (P7 automates measurement); "terminate after a timeout" (routine).

Conclusion for claim 16: claim 16 would have been obvious over P7 in view of the conventional proximity-sensor/call-state functionality of mobile phones, with P8/P9/P10 as corroborating art.

---

7. Overall § 103 assessment

• Claims 1 and 16 (independent): A prima facie case of obviousness exists. The two independent claims recite combinations of long-known elements (distance measurement + spot-size-vs-target comparison + camera-based object recognition + user guidance; and ear-temperature sensing during a call) where each element was known, the combination yields predictable results, and the references themselves supply the motivation.
• Dependent claims 2–14, 17–20: Largely cumulative of the independent claims; the imaging-based recognition and the "display-then-guide" features are directly taught by P2/P3/P4/P6.
• The real battleground is claim 15 (80°/45°/8 mm) and any claim expressly tying the guidance to a numeric overlap geometry. These are best attacked as design/optimization choices (MPEP 2144.04) rather than as fully disclosed. A patentee could plausibly argue that the particular camera-AOV-to-measurement-angle relationship produces an unexpected overlap benefit; however, absent evidence of unexpected results, the Federal Circuit's design-choice line of authority would likely sustain an obviousness rejection once the co-location of the camera and sensor is found in the art (P3/P4).
• No secondary considerations are known. The patent is listed as Expired – Fee Related (adjusted expiration 2036‑05‑02), and my earlier searches found no litigation, IPR/PGR, or CAFC activity, which cuts against any inference of commercial success / industry praise / long-felt need that might rebut obviousness.

---

8. Explicit uncertainties and limits (do not over-read this analysis)

1. I did not have the "Prior Art section" the task referenced. The reference set above is my own search output. If a different, authoritative prior-art section exists (e.g., an examiner's cited art or an IDS), the analysis should be re-run against it.
2. Claims 5–15 and 17–20 were not recovered verbatim. Their mapping is inferred from the specification's summary. Any dependent claim whose actual wording differs materially (e.g., a claim requiring a specific sequence, a specific notification modality, or additional structural elements) could change the analysis.
3. Reference dates/assignees were not all verified from primary sources (search limit reached). In particular: P6 (Milwaukee US 9,696,362 / US 2016/0274164) is shown as filed 2016‑06‑01, which is after the 2015‑11‑02 priority date — it must be date-verified (possible earlier provisional benefit) before use. P1's assignee and the exact publication dates of P2, P3, P5 were taken from search snippets, not confirmed against the front pages. The date-sensitive ones should be confirmed before any formal rejection is drafted.
4. This is a technical obviousness assessment, not a legal opinion or a validity conclusion. No claim charts were built against files histories, and prosecution-estoppel/prosecution-history nuances were not considered.

Bottom line: On the art I was able to locate, US 10,739,202 is vulnerable to a § 103 obviousness challenge — claim 1 over US 2010/0292952 A1 in view of US 8,825,112 B1 (reinforced by US 2006/0050766 A1 and WO 2014/149976 A1), and claim 16 over JP 2002‑027051 A in view of routine mobile-phone call-state/proximity detection — with claim 15's numeric geometry (80°/45°/8 mm) the most defensible point of distinction.