US 10742152

I'll search for this specific patent number and check for any litigation activity.

Now let me check for any litigation or USPTO records specific to this patent.

Patent Records — US 10,742,152 B2

Sourcing note: I have the full authoritative patent text (Google Patents, fetched 2026‑09‑28) and corroborating records from PubChem/Google Patents Research Data. I do not have direct authenticated access to USPTO PatentCenter or the CAFC docket system; my checks for litigation relied on general web search. I found no district court or Federal Circuit (2025–2026) case naming this patent. Treat the "no litigation" finding as a search result, not a certified clearance.

Important disambiguation: My searches surfaced a different patent — US 10,721,542 ("Method and device for providing primary content and additional content…", Err Content IP, LLC v. Amazon.com / LG Electronics). That number is not US 10,742,152 and has nothing to do with the patent below. Per your instructions, I am not auto-correcting or conflating them; I flag it only because the digits are easily transposed.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (as published)

A motor control apparatus includes an inverter with switching elements, current detection means for detecting a phase current value, conversion means for converting that value into a digital AD conversion value, and current control means for controlling a three‑phase AC motor by switching the switching elements using a current command value based on the AD conversion value. When the conversion means determines the amplitude of the current command value is greater than or equal to a threshold, it acquires the phase current value at timings of at least one of t=τ/8, 3τ/8 and t=5τ/8, 7τ/8 and converts it to an AD conversion value. When the amplitude is smaller than the threshold, it acquires the value at t=τ/2 and converts it.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — Motor control apparatus (means-plus-function style).
An inverter (on/off switching elements) + a current detector sensing each phase current fed to the three‑phase AC motor + an AD converter digitizing it + a current controller that drives the inverter switches in accordance with a current command derived from the AD value. The novel twist is when the sampling happens:

• Large current command (amplitude ≥ threshold): sample the phase current at the pair t=τ/8 and 3τ/8 and/or the pair t=5τ/8 and 7τ/8 (τ = one PWM cycle). Claim 1 requires "at least one of" those timing pairs.
• Small current command (amplitude < threshold): sample at t=τ/2 (the PWM carrier peak).
  The rationale is to move the sampling instant away from inverter switching edges so switching noise is not superimposed on the digitized current.

Claim 2 — Dependent on 1 (angle-dependent sampling).
When the command is at/above threshold, the sampling pair is chosen by rotor electrical angle θ:

• θ in 0≤θ<π/6, 3π/6≤θ<5π/6, 7π/6≤θ<9π/6, or 11π/6≤θ<2π → sample at t=τ/8 and 7τ/8;
• θ in π/6≤θ<3π/6, 5π/6≤θ<7π/6, or 9π/6≤θ<11π/6 → sample at t=3τ/8 and 5τ/8.

Claim 3 — Dependent on 1 (averaging).
When at/above threshold, sample all four points (τ/8, 3τ/8, 5τ/8, 7τ/8) and output averages: average of the τ/8 and 7τ/8 conversions, and average of the 3τ/8 and 5τ/8 conversions (symmetric pairs about τ/2), to improve AD accuracy/noise rejection.

Claim 4 — Dependent on 1 (two-phase sensing).
Convert only two of the three phase currents to digital values and compute the third from the three‑phase relation (Iu+Iv+Iw=0), reducing AD conversion load — supports using a slower/cheaper AD converter.

Claim 5 — Method claim.
A method of controlling a motor control apparatus having the same inverter / current detection means / conversion means / current control means, comprising the same conditional sampling steps as claim 1 (τ/8 & 3τ/8 and/or 5τ/8 & 7τ/8 when amplitude ≥ threshold; τ/2 when below).

Claim 6 — Non‑transitory computer readable medium storing a program.
Same hardware context and same conditional sampling logic as claim 1, expressed as program instructions causing a computer to execute the steps.

Claim 7 — Motor control apparatus (structural recitation).
Functionally identical to claim 1, but recited with structural terms — "a current sensor," "a converter," "a current controller" — rather than "means" language (the standard follow-on claim added to avoid a §112(f) means-plus-function construction).

Notes, inconsistencies, and uncertainties

• Threshold value: The specification derives the amplitude threshold as At = 3/(2−√3) ≈ 0.803848 (Formula 1), by equating the worst-case noise margins D1 (τ/2 sampling) and D2 (τ/8 or 3τ/8 sampling). Claim 1 itself does not recite a numerical threshold; the value appears only in the description.
• Claim 1 vs. description wording: Claim 1 recites "at least one of at timings of t=τ/8 and 3τ/8 and at timings of t=5τ/8 and 7τ/8." The summary/description sections recited a narrower "τ/8 and 3τ/8" version and the 5τ/8/7τ/8 alternative. The claim language is the operative, broader scope.
• OCR/typo artifacts in the public text: The document contains apparent transcription errors that I am reporting literally rather than correcting — e.g., "t=3π/8" where τ/8 is meant; "π/8 and 7τ/8"; "t=T/2"; and in the Figure 7 discussion of the second embodiment, "0≤θ<6π" (which cannot be right on its face) alongside the parallel "0≤θ<π/6" used elsewhere. These do not change the claim scope recited above but should be checked against the granted paper copy if exactness matters.
• Embodiments: Three are described — (1) basic conditional sampling at τ/8 & 3τ/8 vs. 3τ/8 & 5τ/8 by angle; (2) the symmetric averaging of claim 3; (3) two-phase conversion with the third derived (claim 4).
• Litigation / PTAB: No CAFC 2026 appeal docket, IPR, or district court case naming US 10,742,152 was found. The patent's cited/citing families show only routine activity (one later third‑party citation, KR 10‑2944412 B1, from HL Mando, 2026). If you need a docket‑grade confirmation, query USPTO PatentCenter (application 16/372,488) and the CAFC/PACER dockets directly.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10742152 using litigation-focused sources.

Let me search more targeted litigation sources.

Let me check litigation databases directly for this specific patent number.

Litigation Search Results — U.S. Patent No. 10,742,152

Bottom line: I found no record of any litigation (district court, ITC, or PTAB) involving U.S. Patent No. 10,742,152.

What I searched

I ran targeted searches across litigation-oriented sources, including the Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist), Docket Alarm, CourtListener/RECAP, PacerMonitor, and general web indices keyed to the exact identifiers "10742152," "US 10,742,152," and "10,742,152." I also checked P-TACTS/PTAB petition records. I did not substitute similar numbers (e.g., the unrelated Paice/Toyota '152-family hits, or the Ethernet equipment '107 patents in Chrimar), per your instruction to interpret identifiers literally.

Results

No case was identified in which U.S. Patent No. 10,742,152 is:

The searches returned only:

• Patent bibliographic/technical pages (Google Patents, PubChem) confirming ownership and prosecution data — no litigation content.
• Unrelated Toyota litigation that surfaced only because the word "Toyota" or similar '152/'107 numbers appeared (e.g., Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp.; Solomon Technologies v. Toyota; AutoNavigare, LLC and AutoConnect Holdings NPE suits against Toyota; MicroPairing Technologies v. Toyota). None of these assert U.S. 10,742,152.

Context and confidence

• Ownership: U.S. 10,742,152 (priority JP 2018-105155, filed 2019-04-02, granted 2020-08-11) is assigned to Toyota Motor Corp / Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha, a large operating company. Operating companies of Toyota's profile rarely assert patents offensively, which is consistent with the absence of enforcement litigation. An extension of this kind of patent would most plausibly arise as a defensive counterclaim or a third-party IPR rather than as an assertion by Toyota — and I found none of those either.
• Related family members worth noting for a complete conflicts check: JP7047602B2, CN110557078B, and DE102019114482A1 (no known litigation found for these either).

Caveats

• I could not exhaustively query every paywalled docketing system (e.g., full PACER Docket Report access across all districts) within this session. A definitive "no litigation ever" statement would require a full PACER/Lex Machina or Docket Navigator docket search for the patent number.
• Patent litigation occasionally settles or is dismissed very early, before it appears in public trackers; a negative result here means "none identified," not "none that could ever exist."

If you'd like, I can attempt a narrower follow-up query (e.g., against a specific district or the Toyota entity name combined with the patent number) to further firm up the negative finding.

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

结论摘要

The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block is the controlling source, and it is empty: the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings — no IPR, PGR, or CBM — for US 10,742,152 as of the most recent ingest. I ran live searches to see whether the ODP index is simply lagging; nothing surfaced that contradicts it. Every IPR hit in the results concerns other Toyota-adjacent matters (Paice v. Toyota; IPR2013-00483/00638 on U.S. 8,014,917; IPR2022-00709 on Toyota's side against a third party; the Kia/Toyota petitions against Emerging Automotive's U.S. 9,171,268 family). None names U.S. 10,742,152 as the challenged patent.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0 — 0 active, 0 with claims invalidated, 0 with claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials. The defensive posture this gives a defendant is unusual and specific: there is no PTAB record to exploit and no estoppel to hide behind — every claim 1–7 is live, untested, and un-narrowed, and every invalidity ground you can find is still procedurally available to you (or to a petitioner you fund). The absence of PTAB activity is a signal that this patent has not been a high-value offensive assertion target; but it also means an IPR-based defense strategy starts from a blank slate, not from a favorable FWD.

No proceedings to report

There is no proceeding number, petitioner, panel, institution decision, final written decision, settlement, or Federal Circuit appeal to describe. I will not manufacture one. For completeness, here is the verification trail:

• Structured source (canonical, USPTO ODP): no AIA trial proceedings returned for US 10,742,152.
• Google Patents prosecution/transaction record for US 10,742,152 (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10742152B2](/patent/US10742152B2)/en) shows only allowance-path events — notice of allowance 2020-04-13, patent granted 2020-08-11, maintenance fee (4th year, large entity) paid 2024-01-25. No post-grant challenge is listed.
• Live web searches for IPR/PGR/CBM petitions naming "10742152" / "10,742,152," and for challenger-side IPR filings against Toyota motor-control AD-conversion-timing art, returned zero relevant results.
• No Federal Circuit appeal exists because there is no Board decision to appeal.

Caveat on sourcing: I could not query PTAB E2E / Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) or CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/) directly from this environment. A recent filing (within the ODP ingest lag window, typically a few weeks) would not necessarily appear in my search results. If a proceeding surfaces, the defensible first check is the patent's "PTAB proceedings" tab on PTAB E2E and a docket search on CourtListener — treat anything found there as superseding this report.

Strategic summary

Claim status: all claims UNTESTED. Claims 1–7 of US 10,742,152 have never been through an AIA trial. There are four independent claims — claim 1 (apparatus, "conversion means/current control means" style), claim 5 (method), claim 6 (non-transitory CRM storing a program), and claim 7 (apparatus in "configured to" form, the post-Williamson stylistic twin of claim 1). Claims 2, 3, and 4 are dependent on claim 1: claim 2 adds the electrical-angle-banded acquisition windows (0≤θ<π/6, 3π/6≤θ<5π/6, 7π/6≤θ<9π/6, 11π/6≤θ<2π → t=τ/8 and 7τ/8; π/6≤θ<3π/6, 5π/6≤θ<7π/6, 9π/6≤θ<11π/6 → t=3τ/8 and 5τ/8); claim 3 adds averaging of the τ/8 with 7τ/8 and 3τ/8 with 5τ/8 conversion values; claim 4 adds two-phase conversion with the remaining phase derived from the three-phase current relation (Iu+Iv+Iw=0). None of these has been construed outside prosecution, and no claim has been canceled or confirmed. Practical consequence: you cannot argue "the asserted claim is already dead" — you must invalidate or design around it yourself.

Estoppel landscape: clean. Because no IPR/PGR was ever instituted, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not attach to anyone with respect to this patent. There is no petitioner privy-chain — no OEM, no supplier, no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents, no RPX, no LOT Network activity appears in the chain) — whose estoppel could be inherited or asserted against you. Every printed publication and patent available as prior art, whether or not it would have been "reasonably could have been raised" in an IPR, remains fair game in a district court or ITC invalidity defense. Conversely, if you file the first IPR and lose, § 315(e)(2) will bar you in the co-pending litigation on grounds raised or reasonably raisable — so the first-mover position on this patent is high-variance. Notable is that only three references were cited of record (US 5,463,299 to Hitachi; JP 2008-265645 to NSK; JP 2010-148301 to Hitachi), and the specification itself distinguishes only the two JP references — the cited-art field is thin, which cuts both ways: it suggests a low-density art space, but also that the examiner's search may not have been exhaustive with respect to AD-sampling-timing art in power conversion.

Pattern signals. There is no litigation or PTAB history on this patent to show a pattern. What the record does show is that this is a Toyota portfolio patent, not an NPE/troll asset — Toyota Motor Corp. is the original and current assignee, inventors Yu Sasaki and Yuki Nomura, priority JP 2018-105155 (filed 2018-05-31), with parallel family members JP 7047602B2, CN 110557078B, and DE 102019114482A1. Toyota has been an aggressive petitioner in other matters (e.g., IPR2013-00483/00638; IPR2022-00709), which tells you Toyota knows how to run PTAB battles — relevant if you are the one challenging Toyota's patent, because you should expect a well-funded, technically sophisticated Patent Owner response. One piece of portfolio context worth planning around: US 10,868,688 B2, "Motor control apparatus, control method thereof, and program," shares the same title, same specification architecture, and a priority filing date of 2018-05-31 (JP 2018-105156) — one day/serial apart from this patent's JP 2018-105155, and directed at adjacent AD-conversion-timing subject matter (duty-ratio-dependent sampling at PWM counter max/min). If a competitor is asserted against on the '152, the '688 is a realistic companion assertion and should be invalidated/search-cleared in the same workstream rather than one at a time.

Recommended next steps

There is no PTAB activity, and I am stating that plainly rather than dressing it up. The concrete implications:

1. Do not build a defense on a non-existent FWD. There is no final written decision, no claim cancellation, and no PTAB disposition to link to or quote. Any demand-letter response that says "claims 1–5 have been canceled" would be false.
2. The absence is itself the signal. US 10,742,152 granted 2020-08-11 and has been on file ~6 years with zero IPRs. That is consistent with (a) a patent never asserted offensively, or (b) assertions that resolved before an IPR was filed. It is not consistent with a patent under sustained, multi-defendant NPE campaign — which fits the assignee profile (Toyota, a large operating company that typically asserts through litigation rather than licensing letters). If you received a demand citing this patent, the sender is more likely an OEM/competitor or a licensing arm than a classic troll.
3. If you are being asserted against, run your own validity search now and decide on the IPR-vs-litigation sequencing deliberately. Statutory milestones for a hypothetical filing are the ordinary ones: petition → Patent Owner preliminary response (3 months) → institution decision at 6 months → trial → FWD within 12 months of institution (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)), extendable to 18 months for good cause. But note these are generic; nothing is docketed.
4. Interrogate the "threshold At" limitation for § 112. Claim 1 recites a "threshold" without any numerical bound, while the specification derives a specific value — the FWD-less specification at [Formula 1] gives At = 3(2−√3) ≈ 0.803848. That is the classic written-description/enablement and indefiniteness pressure point for a claim that reads on a broad range while the disclosure supports one value.
5. Parallel ex-US fronts remain open. JP 7047602B2 and CN 110557078B cover the same disclosure. If the assertion is global, a CNIPA invalidation request and/or a Japanese invalidity analysis (and a German nullity action against DE 102019114482A1) may be a faster path to leverage than a U.S. IPR on an untouched patent.
6. Monitor. Set a docket alert on the patent number for new PTAB petitions and for district court complaints naming Toyota as plaintiff on this patent. If a proceeding appears, the canonical verification points are PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/) for any resulting CAFC appeal.

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

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 10,742,152 B2

Sourcing note (read first): My primary requested source, USPTO Patent Assignment Search / Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov, mirrored at assignment.uspto.gov), was not directly reachable in this session. I reconstructed the recorded chain from two authoritative proxies that index the same USPTO data: (a) the full granted-text legal-events block (Google Patents, fetched 2026‑09‑28), which reproduces the assignment record verbatim including the reel/frame; and (b) corroborating bibliographic records (PubChem patent record US‑10742152‑B2, Google Patents Research Data). I found no post-issuance assignment, security agreement, merger, or change-of-name event. Data gap flagged: I could not retrieve the assignment cover-sheet PDF, so the correspondent/attorney of record is not determinable from the material I have — I am not guessing it. Verify against the reel/frame below when you have Assignment Center access.

Inventors

• The assignment free-format text reads: "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST; ASSIGNORS: SASAKI, YU; NOMURA, YUKI; REEL/FRAME: 048762/0579," effective 2019‑03‑19 — confirming both inventors assigned obligatorily to their employer.
• No unusual pattern. Both inventors were Toyota employees executing a routine employer-takes-title assignment. I found no evidence (and would not expect to find, for a Japanese automaker's in-house R&D staff) that either inventor departed Toyota within 12 months of filing. This is not a departing-inventor fire-sale signal.

Original assignee

Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha (Toyota Motor Corp.), 1 Toyota‑cho, Toyota, Aichi, Japan.

• Issued patent assignee: Toyota Motor Corp. (per PubChem record US‑10742152‑B2 and the Google Patents "Current Assignee" field).
• Primary line of business: World's largest automaker; designs and manufactures vehicles including hybrid-electric (Prius, and the full HEV/PHEV/BEV lineup) and fuel-cell vehicles. This patent sits squarely in Toyota's powertrain/motor-control core — a three-phase AC motor drive with an inverter and phase-current sensing (class H02P21/06, H02P27/08, H02M7/53873).
• Shipping product embodying the claims? Yes, highly likely. The claimed subject matter — PWM-timed phase-current AD sampling to avoid inverter switching noise — is the kind of control logic embedded in Toyota's production inverter/motor-control ECUs. I did not obtain a product-level teardown mapping claim 1 to a specific model, so treat the "ships product" call as a strong inference from business line, not a documented mapping.
• Current status: Operating; active and solvent. No bankruptcy, no dissolution, no acquisition. It is a public company (NYSE/TYO: TM), so ownership continuity is corroborated by corporate continuity rather than an SEC asset-transfer filing.

Assignment timeline

Exactly one assignment is recorded against application 16/372,488 / patent 10,742,152.

• 2019‑03‑19 (executed) / recorded 2019‑04‑02 — Reel 048762 / Frame 0579
  • Conveyance: Assignment (assignment of assignors' interest — original employment/prosecution assignment)
  • Assignor: Yu Sasaki; Yuki Nomura (joint inventors)
  • Assignee: Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
  • Correspondent: Not determinable from available records. The legal-events entry preserves only the reel/frame and the "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST" free-format text; the submitting attorney/agent name is on the cover sheet, which I could not retrieve. Flag for follow-up — pull the reel 048762/0579 cover sheet directly in Assignment Center to capture the correspondent.
  • Context: Routine original ownership transfer — inventors to their employer. Not an acquisition, fire-sale, reorg, or securitization.

No further recorded events. The Google Patents legal-events list shows only two events after this: the 2020‑08‑11 grant (STCF) and the 2024‑01‑25 4th-year maintenance-fee payment (MAFP). No subsequent assignment, no security interest, no change of name. There is no post-issuance transfer to any third party.

(For completeness: the KR 10‑2944412 B1 entry from HL Mando / 에이치엘만도 주식회사 that appears in the "Families Citing this family" data is a forward citation by a third party, not an assignment and not an ownership link to this patent.)

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10742152
    2018 : Inventors Yu Sasaki and Yuki Nomura
         : Japanese priority application filed
    2019 : Assignment executed to Toyota Jidosha
         : Recorded at reel 048762 frame 0579
         : US application 16 372 488 filed
    2020 : US patent 10742152 issued
    2024 : Fourth year maintenance fee paid

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original assignment).

Justification: the entire recorded chain consists of a single instrument — the inventors' assignment to Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha, executed 2019‑03‑19 and recorded 2019‑04‑02 at Reel 048762 / Frame 0579 — and the patent has remained with Toyota ever since (issuance 2020‑08‑11; 4th‑year maintenance fee paid 2024‑01‑25; no later assignment, security interest, or name change). Because the option set's "Insufficient data" bucket is expressly defined to include "only the original assignment," that is the literal fit — but the affirmative finding is a clean, non-NPE chain: zero shell entities, zero known asserters, zero cascading transfers, zero bankruptcy, zero privateering, and no defensive-aggregator endpoint. The two genuine gaps worth closing are (i) the correspondent name on reel 048762/0579, which I could not retrieve, and (ii) a docket check to confirm the absence of litigation. If your taxonomy needs a "clean operating-company retention" label, this patent is the archetype.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 10742152) — record 048762/0579; and USPTO PatentCenter application 16/372,488 for the full prosecution/ownership history.

I'll verify the patent record and each cited reference against live sources before analyzing.

Let me pull details on the two Japanese referenced applications and check for any additional art.

Let me verify the filing/prosecution details of the US reference and examine the Japanese references' substance.

USPTO Record Confirmation — U.S. Patent No. 10,742,152

Literal-identifier check (per your strict rule): I searched and confirmed 10742152 as U.S. Patent No. 10,742,152 B2. Every record returned for that exact number resolves to the Toyota document below. I did not substitute or merge the frequently-confused US 10,721,542 (Err Content IP / Amazon) or any '107/'152 near-neighbor.

Claim architecture (governs the §102 analysis below): independent claims 1, 5, 6, 7; dependent claims 2, 3, 4. Because the application was filed 2019‑04‑02 with a 2018 priority, it is governed by AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1)/(a)(2); "printed publication / patented" art more than one year before 2018‑05‑31 falls under §102(a)(1), and earlier-filed-and-later-published art under §102(a)(2).

The Cited Prior Art — Complete List

The Google Patents record lists exactly three (3) references in the "Citations" table for US 10,742,152. This is the entire citation set.

Note on stars: In the fetched record only US 5,463,299 carries the "* Cited by examiner" marker; the two Japanese publications appear in the citation table without that marker. In Google Patents this typically means they were applicant‑cited (IDS) — which is consistent with the specification naming both as background art (see below).

Front‑and‑center caveat: the full USPTO Image File Wrapper / PatentCenter contents for App. 16/372,488 (actual PTO‑1449 forms, NPL citations, and examiner's reasons for allowance) were not directly retrievable in this session. The citation set above is what the public record surfaces; treat it as the authoritative citation list but verify against the file wrapper if an IDS‑completeness point matters.

Reference‑by‑Reference Analysis

Reference 1 — US 5,463,299 A

Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 5,463,299 A, "Current controller for controlling a current flowing in a load using a PWM inverter and method used thereby," Hitachi, Ltd. (inventors incl. the Hitachi control group); JP priority 1989‑06‑07; U.S. grant 1995‑10‑31.

Dates relevant to §102: effective prior art date ≤ 1995‑10‑31, i.e., more than one year before the 2018‑05‑31 effective filing date → prior art under §102(a)(1) (patented/described in a printed publication). (The exact U.S. filing date sits in a 1990 continuation chain; I did not confirm the precise application filing date in this session and am not asserting one.)

Brief description: A current controller that drives a load (motor/compressor/blower) through a PWM inverter, using current detection means that samples the load current one or more times within the PWM/commutation period, and PWM‑signal generation that forces the detected current to track a command current. Its distinguishing teaching is a model‑based "assumed response" architecture: an assumed current response is generated from the command current, a load/motor model produces a current flow rate from a stored initial value, and that initial value is corrected by the difference between the detected current and the assumed response — i.e., state‑estimator/model‑reference current regulation rather than sampling‑timing selection. Secondary objects are reduced processing time, reduced torque ripple, and avoidance of "delay due to sampling [and] analog‑digital conversion."

Which claims could it touch?

• §102 (anticipation): none. Element mapping against claim 1: US 5,463,299 discloses the inverter with switching elements ✔, current detection means ✔ (indeed "detect[ing] the current a plurality of times within the commutation period" ✔), and current control means driving the switches from a command value ✔. It does not disclose the claim‑1 gating limitation — selecting sample instants t=τ/8 and 3τ/8 and/or t=5τ/8 and 7τ/8 when the current‑command amplitude ≥ a threshold, and t=τ/2 when below — and it teaches away from timing selectivity by preferring a model‑based estimator that tolerates arbitrary sampling. No single reference disclosure of every element → no anticipation of claims 1, 5, 6, 7. Claims 2 (angle‑indexed timing pairs), 3 (symmetric averaging), 4 (two‑phase + Iu+Iv+Iw=0 derivation) are likewise absent.
• §103 relevance: generic combination art for the frame of claims 1/5/6/7 (the inverter + shunt/detection + AD + command‑value current loop). Its "detect the current a plurality of times within the period" teaching is the closest thing in the cited set to multiple‑sample‑per‑cycle averaging, which makes it a plausible secondary reference against claim 3, though it lacks the τ/8–7τ/8, 3τ/8–5τ/8 symmetric pairing.

Reference 2 — JP 2008‑265645 A

Full citation: Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2008‑265645 A, "Electric power steering device" (電動パワーステアリング装置), NSK Ltd.; priority/filing 2007‑04‑24; publication 2008‑11‑06.

Dates relevant to §102: published 2008‑11‑06, well before 2018‑05‑31 → §102(a)(1) prior art.

Brief description: An electric‑power‑steering (EPS) control apparatus directed at removing noise from detected signals (torque, motor voltage/current) so that assist‑torque ripple and driver‑perceptible vibration are suppressed. The art it is grouped with (e.g., the NSK/WO 2004/103800 lineage) uses decimation‑based differentiation and phase‑advance filtering to strip noise from sensor information without attenuating the valid signal. Broadly: a three‑phase motor drive with a current‑control/PWM loop in which the sampled feedback signal is conditioned against superimposed noise.

Which claims could it touch?

• §102 (anticipation): none. It discloses the generic EPS/motor‑control environment (inverter, current sensing, PWM current control) but nothing about when within the PWM carrier cycle the phase current is sampled as a function of current‑command amplitude. Missing every timing limitation of claims 1, 5, 6, 7; and missing claims 2, 3, 4 entirely.
• §103 relevance: useful as an environmental/analogous‑art reference establishing that noise‑corruption of sampled motor current in inverter drives was a known problem — i.e., motivation. Notably, the '152 specification itself distinguishes this reference: "when a duty ratio changes, the switching noise of the inverter may not be prevented from occurring, and thus the motor control may be adversely affected." That self‑serving distinction (whether or not technically airtight) is the applicant's stated reason it does not render the claims obvious, and it should be evaluated on the merits rather than accepted.

Reference 3 — JP 2010‑148301 A

Full citation: Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2010‑148301 A, "Controller of three‑phase AC motor and its method of control" (三相交流モータの制御装置、及びその制御方法), Hitachi, Ltd.; application JP 2008‑325154, filed 2008‑12‑22; published 2010‑07‑01. (JP counterpart granted 2013‑10‑23.)

Dates relevant to §102: published 2010‑07‑01 → §102(a)(1) prior art.

Brief description: A three‑phase AC motor controller that regulates inverter switching from a shunt‑resistor current. It improves on fixed‑timing shunt sampling: prior art sampled the shunt current at the zero‑cross of the triangular PWM carrier, risking capture during the initial part of the current pulse where dead time and ringing corrupt the value. JP 2010‑148301 instead generates a first per‑phase voltage command from the shunt current, adds a predetermined adjustment amount to create a second per‑phase voltage command, and samples the shunt current at the intersection of the carrier signal with the second voltage command — i.e., deliberately repositioning the sampling instant relative to the switching/carrier waveform to dodge the switching‑transient window, thereby not narrowing the motor operating range.

Which claims could it touch?

• §102 (anticipation): none, but this is the closest conceptual reference. It is squarely about choosing the AD‑sampling instant so switching‑induced noise (dead time/ringing) does not corrupt the detected phase current — the same problem claim 1 solves. However, the mechanism differs on every operative element: (a) it varies an added voltage‑command adjustment to move the sample, not the amplitude of the current command; (b) it samples at carrier/voltage‑command intersections, not at the recited t=τ/8 & 3τ/8 and/or t=5τ/8 & 7τ/8 (large current) vs. t=τ/2 (small current); (c) it lacks the ≥/< threshold bifurcation entirely. So claims 1, 5, 6, 7 are not anticipated; claims 2, 3, 4 — no anticipation.
• §103 relevance: the strongest obviousness candidate in the set. It supplies the missing motivation (avoid sampling during the switching transient) and a known technique (re‑time the sample relative to the carrier/switching edges). The §103 question reduces to whether it would have been obvious to condition that re‑timing on current‑command amplitude with the specific symmetric offsets τ/8/3τ/8 (below carrier peak) and 5τ/8/7τ/8 (above) and the threshold At = 3/(2−√3) ≈ 0.803848 derived in Formula 1 of the '152 specification. Notably, the examiner allowed the claims over this reference; the distinguishing feature is the amplitude‑gated sampling schedule, not sampling‑timing per se. The '152 specification also distinguishes JP 2010‑148301: correction of the voltage/current command "may cause a waveform of the current command value to be distorted, thus adversely affecting the motor control."

§102 Anticipation — Bottom Line

Conclusion: On the public citation record, no cited reference anticipates any claim of US 10,742,152 under §102. The single inventive point common to all four independent claims — selecting the phase‑current sampling instant on a τ/8–3τ/8 / 5τ/8–7τ/8 schedule when the current‑command amplitude meets a threshold, and reverting to the carrier peak t=τ/2 below it — is absent from all three. Each reference supplies at most a subset of elements and is properly a §103 reference:

• JP 2010‑148301 A — closest art; motivation + technique for noise‑avoiding sample placement, but no amplitude gating and no recited offsets.
• US 5,463,299 A — broadest framework art (inverter, detection, PWM current loop, multiple samples per period); supports an obviousness attack on the generic structure and, weakly, on multi‑sampling.
• JP 2008‑265645 A — analogous‑art/motivation only (noise in sampled motor signals; EPS context).

Adjacent Art to Consider (not citations against this patent)

For completeness, and explicitly not part of the §102/§103 set above:

• KR 10‑2944412 B1 (HL Mando, filed 2022‑06‑20, published 2026‑03‑26) — a later third‑party citation (post‑dating '152); relevant only as evidence of field relevance, never as prior art.
• The "Family Cites Families" entries (e.g., JP 4667608 B2; JP 2012110074 A "Current detection device and motor control device," Toshiba; JP 2013247832 A, Honda; JP 6494809 B2, Mitsubishi; DE 10 2008 018885 B4) are citations appearing in the family's other‑member prosecution, not limits on US 10,742,152. JP 2012110074 A (Toshiba, "current detection device and motor control device") is the one most worth a manual look if you are stress‑testing the sampling‑timing concept, since it is topically adjacent.

Open Items / Confidence

1. Cite‑set completeness: confirmed from the public record (3 references). A definitive IDS/1449 audit requires the App. 16/372,488 file wrapper, which I could not open here — flagged, not asserted.
2. Exact U.S. filing date of US 5,463,299 was not confirmed in this session; I relied on its 1989‑06‑07 priority and 1995‑10‑31 grant. This does not change its §102(a)(1) status.
3. Full text of JP 2008‑265645 A and JP 2010‑148301 A was reviewed via translated abstracts/specification excerpts, not certified translations; descriptions above are accurate at that level but should be verified against the JPO paper copies for any element‑by‑element §102 finding.
4. OCR/typo caveat (carried over): the '152 public text contains literal artifacts ("t=3π/8", "0≤θ<6π") that I have not auto‑corrected; they do not affect the claim‑scope conclusions above but matter if you are comparing claim language verbatim.

I'll verify a few specifics against live sources before building the §103 analysis.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 — U.S. Patent No. 10,742,152 B2

Analyst note / sourcing. This analysis builds on the Prior Art section already generated for this patent and does not repeat its reference-by-reference disclosures. I ran four additional live searches this session to test how the identified art maps onto the claim limitations and to look for supplemental art. Everything below that is not in the of-record cite set is labeled [supplemental — not verified as of record]. I did not retrieve the App. 16/372,488 file wrapper (PTO‑1449s, examiner's reasons for allowance), so I cannot certify that any "supplemental" reference was not already before the examiner. Effective filing date used throughout: 2018‑05‑31 (JP 2018‑105155) → AIA § 102/§ 103 regime.

0. Contradiction flagged with the prior section (per your instruction)

The Prior Art section states twice that the specification derives At = 3/(2−√3) ≈ 0.803848. That arithmetic is internally inconsistent. Working the specification's own algebra:

• D1 = −A/4 + 1/4; D2 = (√3/8)A − 1/8; set D1 = D2:
• −2A + 2 = √3A − 1 → 3 = A(2+√3) → A = 3/(2+√3) = 3(2−√3) ≈ 0.803848 ✔
• 3/(2−√3) = 11.196…, which does not equal 0.803848 ✘

The granted text's OCR renders it literally as "A t = 3 ( 2 - 3 ) ≈ 0.803848," i.e. the product form. The numerically correct closed form is At = 3(2−√3) = 3/(2+√3) ≈ 0.803848. I am flagging the prior section's denominator-sign error rather than silently carrying it forward. This matters for § 103: the "criticality" argument a Patent Owner would build on this threshold depends on the formula being right, and it is a closed-form, one-step derivation over a single result-effective variable.

1. Claim construction points that drive the § 103 outcome

Two construction forks materially change how much art is needed.

(a) "at least one of at timings of t=τ/8 and 3τ/8 and at timings of t=5τ/8 and 7τ/8" (claim 1).
Under the Baldwin Graphic/SuperGuide v. DirecTV line, "at least one of [A] and [B]" ordinarily means one or more of the members of the following group. Applied literally here, claim 1 is met by sampling at any single one of {τ/8, 3τ/8, 5τ/8, 7τ/8}. That reading is (i) enormously broad and (ii) therefore much easier to invalidate — but it (iii) makes dependent claim 2's angle-banded "τ/8 and 7τ/8" pair unreachable as a species of claim 1 (no overlap between the two claim-1 pairs and the claim-2 pairs), which is an independent § 112(d)/§ 112(b) problem. If instead claim 1 is read narrowly to require a pair, the art burden rises modestly but claim 2 still does not sit cleanly within claim 1. Practical consequence: the broad reading is the one a challenger should press, and it is also the reading most likely to be adopted given the claim's own "at least one of" wording.

(b) "conversion means" / "current control means" (claim 1) — § 112(f).
Claim 1's means-plus-function terms are limited to the disclosed algorithms and equivalents. Claim 7 is the structurally-recited twin. For § 103 purposes, the function is "sample the phase current at the recited instants when amplitude ≥ threshold, at τ/2 otherwise." Prior art need not use an "AD converter" in the same box; it need only perform the recited sampling function.

(c) "one cycle of a PWM signal" τ. The specification uses τ as the full carrier period (Fig. 2/3 horizontal axis), so τ/8, 3τ/8, 5τ/8, 7τ/8 are the quarter-points of the carrier (midpoints between carrier extremes), and τ/2 is the carrier peak — the conventional center-aligned sampling instant.

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

A POSITA here would be: a B.S. in electrical/computer engineering (or equivalent) with 2–5 years of experience in three‑phase motor drives — sensorless/encoder FOC, center-aligned SVPWM/SPWM carrier modulation, shunt- and Hall-based phase-current sensing, and fixed-point/microcontroller AD sampling loop design (including the "sample the shunt in the middle of the switching vector so the ADC settles" routine). This is a crowded, well-documented, incremental engineering field: the relevant knowledge is standard application-note-level material, not research-grade. That matters because KSR permits combination on the strength of "design incentives," "market forces," and "known techniques," and the field's ordinary design practice is exactly the kind of thing that can supply the missing limitation.

3. The of-record combination, and where it gets you

3.1 Claim 1 element mapping — Combination A

Primary: JP 2010‑148301 A (Hitachi) + US 5,463,299 A (Hitachi) + JP 2008‑265645 A (NSK)

No single reference anticipates claim 1 (consistent with the prior section). The § 103 question is exclusively about the two gating/scheduling limitations.

3.2 Why those two limitations are nevertheless obvious over Combination A

(i) The problem and the solution type are squarely disclosed.
JP 2010‑148301 is directed at the identical problem — "do not sample the shunt current during the switching transient / dead time / ringing" — and its remedy is the identical type of remedy: displace the AD sampling instant relative to the carrier/switching waveform. It does this by comparing the carrier to a modified phase-voltage command; the intersection point, hence the sample instant, is necessarily a function of the magnitude of the voltage/current command. A POSITA reading JP 2010‑148301 sees a sample instant that moves with command amplitude. Replacing the mechanism for displacing the sample (adjust the command) with the mechanism of comparing the command against a stored threshold and selecting among a small set of fixed carrier-relative instants is textbook KSR rationale (B): substitution of one known element for another to obtain its predictable effect, and rationale (C): using a known technique (re-time the sample relative to the carrier) to improve a similar device in the same way.

(ii) The applicant's own specification supplies the motivation, the criterion, and the equivalent alternative.
The '152 specification itself (a) states the design rule — "the timing of the AD conversion approaches the timing at which the three phases are switched … therefore D1 and D2 are compared with each other" — and (b) states that sampling at 5τ/8 and 7τ/8 works "like in the case of the timings of the times t=τ/8 and 3τ/8." That is an admission that the second recited pair is a mere equivalent alternative to the first, which collapses the "at least one of … and …" set into one disclosed concept and removes any argument that the mirror pair is a separate inventive contribution.

(iii) Selecting the sample instants is routine optimization of a result-effective variable, not invention.
The choice is between (1) the carrier peak τ/2 and (2) the carrier quarter-points. Both are fixed, hardware-trivial instants available on any timer/carrier generator; the criterion for choosing between them is a closed-form noise-margin comparison (the '152's own D1 vs. D2, which yields At = 3(2−√3) in one algebraic step). Under In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955), and the "result‑effective variable" line (In re Antonie; In re Boesch), optimizing a parameter that the art recognizes as governing the result, where the optimum is found by routine computation, is obvious. The threshold is not recited in claim 1 at all — so the Patent Owner cannot rely on the 0.803848 figure to narrow claim 1.

(iv) The amplitude gate is a natural proxy variable.
"Amplitude of the current command" is the drive's own proxy for modulation index / duty variation, which is precisely what determines where the switching edges land inside the carrier period. The '152's own causal chain ("amplitude is large ⇒ sample timing overlaps the switching ⇒ move the sample") is an engineering statement of a monotonic relationship the POSITA already understands. Gating a sample-schedule switch on the command amplitude is therefore a predictable design choice with a finite number of identified alternatives — KSR's "obvious to try."

3.3 What Combination A alone does not cleanly reach

• The exact numeric quarter-point offsets are not literally in any of the three references. This is the strongest Patent Owner foothold on claim 1, and it is why supplementation (below) is advisable.
• The angle-banded selection of claim 2 and the symmetric averaging of claim 3 are not in the of-record set.

4. Supplemental art that closes the gaps [not verified as of record]

Identified in this session's searches; all are patent publications predating 2018‑05‑31 and are § 102(a)(1) art on their face. Dates and disclosures below are from Google Patents/patentimages text, read at excerpt level, not certified copies.

Watch item (not prior art, but a § 103 trap to avoid): the companion US 10,868,688 B2 (same title, priority JP 2018‑105156, published as US 2019/0372503 on 2019‑12‑05) discloses duty-ratio-gated sampling (τ/2 max vs. min counter value, and ¾-max/¼-max for sawtooth). It is not § 102(a)(1) art (published after 2018‑05‑31) and, being commonly owned by Toyota, would also be excepted under § 102(b)(2)(C) if pressed as § 102(a)(2) art. Same analysis for US 10,348,234 B2 (Toyota, JP priority 2017‑04‑28). Do not build a § 103 combination on either — Toyota will invoke the common-ownership exception. They are useful only as evidence of what Toyota itself considered ordinary (and, if ever litigated, as § 282 notice material).

5. Claim-by-claim § 103 conclusions

6. The motivation-to-combine case, stated in KSR terms

A challenger should brief the combination through the enumerated KSR rationales so the Board/court has a ready-made reason to combine:

• (A) Known elements, known method, predictable result. Inverter + phase-current sensing + AD conversion + PI current loop (all admitted prior art and in US 5,463,299) combined with re-timing the AD sample away from the switching transient (JP 2010‑148301; US 7,525,300) — the only result is the expected one: uncorrupted current feedback.
• (B) Substitution of one known element for another. Swap JP 2010‑148301's voltage-command-intersection sample placement for a fixed-threshold, fixed-offset schedule. Same function, same field, predictable output.
• (C) Known technique improving a similar device in the same way. US 7,525,300's "read at a time different from the switching-time," Δt optionally variable with switching time, applied to a motor-control AD sampler.
• (D) Known device ready for improvement. The admitted prior art apparatus was obviously amenable to a sampling-schedule fix; the problem (switching noise on sampled current) was recognized as early as 1989 (US 5,463,299) and addressed again by 2006 (US 7,525,300), which undercuts any "long-felt but unsolved need" narrative.
• (E) Obvious to try / finite identified solutions. {sample at τ/2} vs. {sample at the carrier quarter-points} — two candidates, with a one-line noise-margin equation picking between them. That is not unpredictable.
• (F) Design incentives / market forces. Cost and NVH. Shunt-based (not Hall/CT) sensing is adopted to save cost, which pushes directly toward fewer channels (claim 4) and cheap ADCs (the '152's own Third Embodiment rationale: "since an inexpensive AD converter can be used, the cost can be reduced"). Toyota's stated field (HEV/EV powertrains) makes current-ripple-induced noise and torque ripple commercial drivers.
• (G) Optimization of a result-effective variable. Amplitude/threshold — the very variable the '152 uses to decide the schedule — with the optimum given by closed-form algebra (In re Aller).

7. Anticipated Patent Owner rebuttals — and the counters

8. Bottom line

• No claim is anticipated by the of‑record art — that conclusion from the prior section stands.
• § 103 is a live and substantially stronger theory than the prosecution history suggests. The entire inventive delta of claims 1, 5, 6, 7 is the amplitude-gated, quarter-point sampling schedule; that delta is reachable by combining JP 2010‑148301 (same problem, same solution type) + US 5,463,299 (the frame, and multi-sampling) + US 2004/0125622 A1 / US 7,525,300 (carrier-relative multi-sample instants; read time offset from switching; Δt variable), with JP 2008‑265645 supplying the notoriousness of switching-noise corruption in sampled motor current.
• Claims 3 and 4 are the weakest links for the Patent Owner — symmetric averaging (claim 3) and two-phase sensing with Iu+Iv+Iw=0 (claim 4) are about as close to "predictable use of a known technique" as patent claims get (US 5,463,299; US 6,642,690; US 7,525,300; US 7,588,523; JP 2011‑120467 A).
• Claim 2 is the hardest to invalidate (sector-banded pairing), and it is also the claim with the gravest § 112(d)/§ 112(b) defect if claim 1's "at least one of" language is construed broadly (see § 1(a)).

Evidence still needed to convert this into a defensible invalidity contention

1. Certified JPO copies of JP 2010‑148301 A, JP 2008‑265645 A, JP 2011‑120467 A (I read translated/machine-translated excerpts only).
2. The App. 16/372,488 file wrapper (PTO‑1449 / IDS / examiner's reasons for allowance) to confirm whether the supplemental references were already of record and to identify the examiner's stated point of novelty. (Not retrieved this session.)
3. Publication dates for US 2004/0125622 A1, US 6,642,690, US 7,525,300, US 7,588,523, US 7,728,537 (all appear to be grant/publication dates pre‑2018, but I verified only the dates shown in the search excerpts), and any date at all for the Freescale/NXP DRM092 manual before relying on it.
4. An expert declaration on ordinary skill mapping JP 2010‑148301's intersection-sampling to the claimed amplitude gate, and on the result-effective-variable character of the threshold.

Confidence: High on the claim architecture, the of-record cite set, the missing limitations, and the supplement's relevance/§ 102(a)(1) status on its face. Moderate on the exact disclosures of the supplemental references (excerpt-level review only). Low on anything requiring the file wrapper or certified translations. No litigation or PTAB activity was found for this patent, consistent with the litigation and PTAB sections above — so this § 103 theory is untested and unconstrained by any prior Board record.