US 10996075

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

Let me verify litigation status with a couple more targeted searches.

US Patent 10,996,075 B2 — Summary

Caveat on scope of search: I do not have direct API access to USPTO PatentCenter or the CAFC docket system; my searches were via public web sources (Google Patents text, Justia Patents, PACER-derived docket aggregators, Unified Patents, Stanford NPE). Where I could not confirm something authoritatively, I flag it below.

Bibliographic data (confirmed)

Assignee note: A 2025–2026 C.D. Cal. corporate disclosure filing (see litigation section) identifies TDK Corporation as InvenSense's corporate parent, so InvenSense is now a TDK subsidiary. The '075 patent itself is recorded to InvenSense, Inc. (assignment reel 055799/0089, recorded 2021-04-01).

Abstract (verbatim core)

MEMS gyroscopes and related measurement/calibration techniques. Embodiments "facilitate phase estimation of an ideal phase for a demodulator mixer associated with an exemplary MEMS gyroscope using quadrature tuning, which can improve offset performance over life time." Embodiments comprise adjusting a quadrature component of the gyroscope sense signal; measuring a change in offset at the output of a demodulator mixer; estimating a phase error between the quadrature component and the demodulation phase angle of the mixer based on the change in offset; and periodically adjusting the demodulation phase angle based on the phase error.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 (method) — Three steps: (1) adjust the quadrature component of a MEMS gyroscope sense signal; (2) measure a change in the gyroscope's offset at the output of a demodulator mixer; (3) estimate a phase error between the quadrature component and the mixer's demodulation phase angle, based at least in part on that measured change in offset. (Dependent claims 2–4 add periodic adjustment of the demod angle, trimming to a near-zero offset change, and doing the adjustment by increasing/decreasing a voltage applied to the gyroscope.)

Claim 5 (apparatus) — The structural counterpart to claim 1: a quadrature injection component that adjusts the sense-signal quadrature component; a measurement component that measures the change in offset at the demodulator mixer output; and an error component that estimates the phase error between the quadrature component and the demod phase angle from that change. (Claims 6–9 add the voltage-based adjustment, a demod phase control component, trimming logic, and a phase estimation component.)

Claim 10 (system) — The broadest structural combination: a MEMS gyroscope plus an associated CMOS; a quadrature injection component; a demodulator mixer of the CMOS that outputs the Coriolis signal while suppressing the quadrature component; a measurement component; an error component; a phase estimation component that finds the demod phase angle yielding approximately zero offset change; and a demodulation phase control component that periodically adjusts the demod phase angle based on the phase error and/or that estimate, so as to pass Coriolis and reject quadrature. (Claims 11–12 add the voltage-based adjustment and a "predetermined variation" tolerance on the estimate.)

Claim 13 (apparatus, means-plus-function) — Four means: means for adjusting the quadrature component; means for measuring the change in offset at the demod mixer output; means for estimating the phase error between quadrature and demod phase angle; and means for periodically adjusting the demod phase angle based on the phase error. (Claims 14–15 add the voltage-increasing/decreasing means and the trimming means.)

Technical gist: Rather than measuring phase directly, the patent deliberately perturbs the gyroscope's quadrature (e.g., by varying a quadrature-tuning voltage) and watches how the demodulated offset changes. Where the demod phase sits exactly 90° from the quadrature, the offset change crosses zero; the polarity of the projected offset-change vector flips as the demod phase sweeps through that point (FIGS. 5–6, crossing near φ+0.07°). That zero-crossing identifies the ideal demod phase (φ_ideal), and the demod phase trim is corrected accordingly — enabling in-field/over-lifetime re-trim of offset that drifts with temperature, package stress, PCB mounting, and aging.

Prior art cited on the face of the patent

• US 2013/0121443 A1 — Raytheon Company, "Quadrature modulator balancing system"
• US 2013/0268228 A1 — Fairchild Semiconductor, "MEMS device quadrature shift cancellation"
• US 2015/0192415 A1 — The Boeing Company, "Gyro quadrature stabilization with demodulation phase error nulling"
• Non-patent: Jia et al., J. Micro/Nanolith. MEMS MOEMS 17(3), 035001 (2018); Mohamed et al., The Scientific World Journal 2014, Art. 107831.

Litigation / CAFC 2026 docket search

No CAFC or district-court litigation specifically asserting or challenging US 10,996,075 B2 was found. Specifically:

• CAFC 2026 dockets: No case naming US 10,996,075 was located. One apparent "10996075" hit in my search resolved to an unrelated Ninth Circuit docket-entry number (Cervantes appeal, case 18-35366, Aug. 2018) — that is a docket sequence number, not this patent. Do not conflate the two.
• District courts: The only recent InvenSense-related patent case surfaced is MEMS Innovations, LLC v. TDK Corporation, TDK Corporation of America, and InvenSense, Inc., No. 8:25-cv-02251-JVS (DFMx) (C.D. Cal., filed ~Oct. 2025; defendants' motion to dismiss/transfer noticed for hearing 2026-03-16). I could not confirm which patents are asserted in that complaint, and I found no indication that the '075 patent is among them. The complaint appears to reference an earlier lawsuit filed 2022-11-08 as the basis for willfulness knowledge, but again with no confirmation as to patent numbers.
• PTAB: No IPR/PGR petition against the '075 patent was found.
• Disambiguation warning: US 11,190,750 B2 (Ouster v. Hesai, Fed. Cir. No. 25-1786, dismissed by mutual agreement Jan. 13, 2026) is a different patent (optical/LiDAR imaging) and must not be confused with US 10,996,075. Similarly, US 10,996,983 (the InvenSense quadrature-tuning-electrode document in my first search result) is a different, related-family-style disclosure but a distinct patent.

Bottom line: The bibliographic and claim data above are well-corroborated by multiple sources and by the full patent text. The litigation finding is a negative result based on public aggregators, not a certified USPTO/CAFC docket check — so treat "no litigation found" as "none found in accessible public sources," with residual uncertainty for very recent or sealed filings.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10996075.

Let me search more specific litigation databases for this patent.

Litigation Search: US Patent No. 10,996,075

Result: No litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,996,075 was found.

I searched for litigation databases and news covering patent suits involving this specific patent number, and I found no record of any district court case, ITC Section 337 investigation, PTAB proceeding, or CAFC appeal in which U.S. Patent No. 10,996,075 is the patent-in-suit (or otherwise asserted or challenged).

Important disambiguation note

During my searches I encountered results that could be confused with this patent but are not the same patent. Under your instruction to interpret identifiers literally, I am flagging these explicitly rather than treating them as hits:

None of these involve U.S. Patent 10,996,075.

Context (for completeness, not litigation)

• Patent: US 10,996,075 B2, "Microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) gyroscope calibration," application 16/221,409, priority date Dec. 14, 2017, granted May 4, 2021, assigned to InvenSense, Inc. (inventors Dakshinamurthy, Senkal, Shirvani, Desai, Pinna). Adjusted expiration listed as 2039-11-06.
• The patent's Google Patents "Families Citing" list shows a related InvenSense patent, US 11,125,560 B2, "Robust method for tuning of gyroscope demodulation phase" (2021) — but that is a later citation/patent, not litigation (and I did not find litigation on that patent either from these results).
• Historically there has been substantial MEMS-gyroscope patent litigation in this industry (e.g., the InvenSense v. STMicroelectronics disputes, settled Feb. 10, 2014 via cross-license; and STMicroelectronics v. InvenSense, N.D. Cal. No. 3:12-cv-02475, filed May 16, 2012). However, these predate the '075 patent (priority 2017) and do not involve it.

Caveats

• I could not directly load a Unified Patents Portal case list filtered to this patent number, and the tooling returned only generic PTAB/litigation background pages. A negative result from these searches is therefore strong but not a guarantee of exhaustiveness.
• To confirm definitively, the authoritative checks would be: (1) the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board "Patent No. 10,996,075" case search; (2) Unified Patents Portal litigation case list filtered to US 10,996,075; (3) PACER / Docket Alarm / Lex Machina search on "10,996,075"; and (4) InvenSense/TDK SEC disclosures. None of these were directly accessible in this session.

Bottom line: As of this date, I found no known litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,996,075. I cannot confirm beyond the limits noted that none exists.

I'll verify the structured block's "no proceedings" default with targeted searches before finalizing.

Let me run a couple more targeted checks to be thorough before concluding.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on U.S. Patent No. 10,996,075: zero (0). The USPTO Open Data Portal structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (the canonical source for this analysis) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and my independent web checks surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or Federal Circuit appeal naming 10,996,075. Defensive posture: the patent is completely untested at the PTAB — no claims have been canceled, and no claims have been confirmed patentable in an AIA forum. A defendant today gets neither the benefit of a prior invalidation nor the deterrent of a prior survival; the entire 15-claim set is live and unadjudicated, and the petitioner would be a first mover with no § 315(e) estoppel baggage from prior petitioners.

---

Proceedings

None. There is no proceeding to describe at the level of proceeding number, petitioner/patent owner, grounds, institution, FWD, settlement, or appeal, because none exists on the record available to me.

I am deliberately not generating a proceeding-format block with a placeholder number — inventing an IPR/PGR number would violate the constraint against fabricating identifiers.

What I checked (YYYY-MM-DD)

• Structured ODP data (canonical): no AIA trial proceedings ingested for 10,996,075.
• Targeted web search, 2026-09-30: queries pairing "10,996,075" with "IPR," "inter partes review," and "Patent Trial and Appeal Board" returned only unrelated docket noise and generic PTAB materials. No hit tied 10,996,075 to any AIA proceeding.

False positives I encountered (flagged, not cited as proceedings)

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: all 15 claims UNTESTED. No claim of 10,996,075 has been canceled, and none has been sustained, in any AIA proceeding. Because there is no FWD, there is no claim-level disposition to quote — claims 1–15 remain as granted on 2021-05-04. If you structure a defense, there is no "the patent has already been narrowed" shortcut; whatever invalidity theory you develop is new ground.

Estoppel landscape: no § 315(e)(2) estoppel exists against anyone. Section 315(e)(2) estops a petitioner (and its real parties in interest and privies) from asserting, in a civil action, any ground it raised or reasonably could have raised in an instituted IPR that reached a final written decision. With no institution and no FWD, no party is estopped. Concretely: the prior art in the original prosecution (the examiner cited only three references — US 2013/0121443 A1 (Raytheon), US 2013/0268228 A1 (Fairchild), and US 2015/0192415 A1 (Boeing)) plus the non-patent literature (Jia et al., J. Micro/Nanolith. MEMS MOEMS 17(3), 2018; Mohamed et al., The Scientific World Journal, 2014) is entirely unexhausted by any post-grant challenge, and every § 102/§ 103 ground built on patents and printed publications remains available in a fresh IPR. One practical caveat: the "Jia et al." reference is dated Jul.–Sep. 2018, after the 2017-12-14 priority date, so if a defendant wants to rely on it, the critical-date analysis needs care — this is the kind of thing the examiner's citation does not resolve.

Pattern signals: none. There is no serial petitioner, no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents involvement visible), and no patent-owner PTAB-appeal activity, because there has never been an AIA proceeding. The patent is owned by InvenSense, Inc. (now part of TDK), a large, actively litigating operating company — not a classic troll target. Note that J.P. Morgan-style offensive/defensive dynamics in this space historically ran InvenSense v. STMicroelectronics (e.g., IPR2013-00241; ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-876), but those involved InvenSense's earlier-generation patents and do not touch '075.

Family context (not a proceeding): The '075 family sits alongside closely related InvenSense demodulation-phase patents — US 10,267,650 ("Demodulation Phase Calibration"), US 11,125,560 ("Robust method for tuning of gyroscope demodulation phase," which appears in '075's "Families Citing" list), and US 11,365,983 ("Demodulation phase calibration using external input"). If you are facing assertion, these siblings matter for § 102/§ 103 overlap and double-patenting/obviousness-type-double-patenting arguments, and they expand the prior-art surface you can mine. I did not find PTAB proceedings on those siblings in my searches, but that is outside the scope of this task and I would verify independently before relying on it.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm the negative directly against the authoritative sources (I could not load all of them this session): search USPTO PTAB E2E / Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End filtered to "10,996,075"; check Unified Patents Portal litigation and PTAB tabs for the patent; and run PACER / Docket Alarm / Lex Machina / CourtListener on "10,996,075." A clean result across those four is the strongest available confirmation that no proceeding exists.
2. If you are a defendant/respondent: there is no FWD to cite and no canceled claim to lean on. Your invalidity work must be built fresh. The most promising starting points are the three examiner-cited references and the general quadrature/demodulation-phase art, evaluated against claims 1–15 individually — and remember the '075 independent claims are method claim 1, apparatus claim 5, system claim 10, and means-plus-function apparatus claim 13 (claims 13–15 are drafted in § 112(f) "means for" form, which invites a distinct § 112 written-description/enablement and claim-construction attack).
3. If you are the patent owner: the absence of any IPR is a favorable signal (no prior petitioner has found a viable short-form challenge), but it also means your claims have never been stress-tested. Expect a first IPR petition to arrive with any serious assertion campaign.
4. Timing note for any new petition: a fresh IPR would be subject to the statutory 1-year trial deadline from institution (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)); as of today the ODP shows no proceeding on file, so no institution date, oral-hearing date, or FWD due date is currently scheduled.

Caveats on completeness

A negative result in the ODP structured data plus corroborating searches is strong but not a guarantee of exhaustiveness — recently filed petitions (within the ~3-month publication lag) and the ODP ingest window could mean a very new filing is not yet reflected. I did not directly load a PTAB E2E case list filtered to this patent number in this session. Bottom line: as of 2026-09-30, I found no AIA trial proceeding involving U.S. Patent No. 10,996,075, and I cannot confirm beyond the limits noted that none exists.

I'll research the assignment record for US 10,996,075.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 10,996,075 B2

Source note / honesty flag: I was not able to open the live USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) or its legacy mirror (assignment.uspto.gov) in this session — those tools returned generic pages, not a per-patent record. The reconstruction below is grounded in the Google Patents legal-events block supplied in the authoritative patent text (which is sourced from USPTO assignment data) and cross-checked against TDK/InvenSense corporate records and SEC filings. Where a field (notably the correspondent of record) is not exposed in the sources I could actually retrieve, I say so rather than inventing it.

---

Inventors

Pattern check — "all inventors departing within 12 months": Not present / unclear. All five named inventors executed the assignment to InvenSense (signing dates 2019-01-03 to 2019-02-27), which means all were still with the company at least through early 2019, ~13 months after the Dec. 2017 priority filing. I found no evidence that the entire inventor team left, and the patent was prosecuted to grant by the same assignee. The only departure-type hint — Dakshinamurthy appearing under Broadcom on an aggregator site — is weak and uncorroborated, and a single-inventor move is not a fire-sale pattern.

---

Original assignee

InvenSense, Inc. (San Jose, California) — named on the issued patent and the sole assignee of record.

• Primary line of business: Fabless designer of MEMS motion-sensor platforms (gyroscopes, accelerometers, IMUs, microphones) used in smartphones, wearables, drones, cameras, gaming, automotive and IoT.
• Does it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes. The patent claims methods/apparatus for calibrating the demodulation phase of a MEMS-gyroscope demodulator mixer — functionality implemented in the CMOS ASIC that accompanies InvenSense's MEMS gyroscopes. This is core operating-company technology, not a paper patent.
• Current status: Operating. InvenSense was a public company (NYSE: INVN) until TDK Corporation acquired it on 2017-05-18 for ~$1.3 B ($13.00/share); it is now a wholly owned subsidiary of TDK (TSE: 6762) and part of TDK's MEMS Sensors Business Group within its Sensor Systems Business Company. No bankruptcy, no dissolution.
• Important sequencing point: The TDK takeover closed May 18, 2017 — before this patent's Dec. 14, 2017 priority filing. So InvenSense was already a TDK subsidiary when the application was filed. The inventor→InvenSense assignment is an ordinary employer-employee assignment, not a transfer to solve TDK's title; no TDK-level assignment for this patent is on record.

---

Assignment timeline

USPTO Assignment records for US 10,996,075 B2 / application 16/221,409:

• 2019-01-03 → 2019-02-27 (executed) / recorded 2021-04-01 — Reel 055799 / 0089
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: Dakshinamurthy, Sriraman; Senkal, Doruk; Shirvani, Ali; Desai, Ronak Chetan; Pinna, Carlo (recorded as "…AND OTHERS"; signing dates 2019-01-03 to 2019-02-27)
  • Assignee: INVENSENSE, INC., California
  • Correspondent: Not exposed in the sources I could retrieve. The Google Patents legal-event record reproduces the reel/frame, assignors, assignee and recording/execution dates but not the attorney/firm of record. I did not obtain the face of reel 055799/0089. This field must be verified directly at the Assignment Center before any correspondent-based inference is drawn — I am deliberately not guessing a name.
  • Context: Ordinary employer → employee patent assignment of the inventors' rights to the operating company. This is the only recorded conveyance.

No other assignments are on record for this patent. There is no post-issuance assignment, no security agreement, no merger/change-of-name entry, and no license or release recorded against US 10,996,075. Under the site's convention, the absence of any post-grant transfer means InvenSense (TDK) still owns the patent outright.

Caveat: the reel/frame text above is taken from the legal-events block rather than from a live Assignment Center query; the execution-window and recording date are consistent between that block and the assignment cover data, but I flag it as second-hand.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10996075
    2017 : TDK acquires InvenSense
         : Provisional filed Dec 14
    2018 : Non-provisional filed Dec 14
    2019 : Inventors execute assignment
    2021 : Assignment recorded Apr 1
         : Patent issued May 4

(Event text kept short and punctuation-free for parser safety. The Dec-2017 provisional (US 62/598,553) and Dec-2018 non-provisional (US 16/221,409) precede the only recorded assignment.)

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Score: 0 present, 1 unclear, 7 absent. No concrete NPE indicator appears in any recorded event.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original assignment).

Justification (2–3 sentences): The entirety of the recorded chain is a single, ordinary inventor → InvenSense, Inc. assignment captured at Reel 055799 / 0089 (executed 2019-01-03–2019-02-27; recorded 2021-04-01); there is no post-issuance transfer, no shell entity, no known asserter, and no litigation naming the patent. Ownership therefore sits with the operating assignee InvenSense, Inc. (a wholly owned TDK Group company), which ships MEMS gyroscope products embodying the claims — the opposite of an NPE profile. Per this site's definition ("no records, or only the original assignment"), the honest label is Insufficient data, with the affirmative finding that every NPE/troll signal tested is absent and the sole open item is the unverified correspondent of record on reel 055799/0089.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center (search by patent number 10996075): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Legacy USPTO Assignments on the Web: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents record (legal events): https://patents.google.com/patent/US10996075/en
• TDK completion of InvenSense acquisition (2017-05-18): https://www.tdk.com/news_center/press/201705184433.html

Open items to close the analysis: (1) pull the face of reel 055799/0089 to capture the correspondent of record; (2) confirm at the Assignment Center that no security agreement, license, or later merger/name-change filing exists for this patent; (3) confirm no TDK-level or intra-group assignment was recorded after the 2017 acquisition (none surfaced).

I'll search for the patent's cited references and verify details on the USPTO record and each cited prior-art document.

Let me verify the granted-patent counterparts, the two non-patent citations, and check for closely related prior art.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,996,075 B2

Patent under analysis: US 10,996,075 B2 — "Microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) gyroscope calibration"
Application: 16/221,409 · Priority: 2017-12-14 (Prov. 62/598,553) · Filed: 2018-12-14 · Granted: 2021-05-04 · Assignee: InvenSense, Inc.
Source of record: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10996075/en (full text supplied as authoritative)

---

1. Search result and identifier discipline

I searched for the literal number 10996075. The USPTO/Google Patents record resolves only to US 10,996,075 B2 (app. 16/221,409; pre-grant pub. US 2019/0186950 A1). No other patent maps to this number. Note that the "Similar Documents" and "Families Citing" lists on the record contain different numbers (US 11,125,560 B2, US 11,754,397 B2, US 10,846,550 B2, etc.) — I have not treated those as this patent and they are not prior art against it (they are later-dated).

Timing framework (§ 102, AIA): The '075 patent is post-AIA. Its effective filing date is 2017-12-14 (assuming the provisional supports the claims). A reference can anticipate under § 102(a)(1) only if it was publicly available before that date. This is decisive for the Jia et al. citation (discussed in § 5).

---

2. Patent citations of record (all marked "cited by examiner")

Google Patents flags exactly three U.S. patent-application citations on the face of US 10,996,075, each with the examiner-citation asterisk. I verified each reference and its granted counterpart.

Reference 1 — Raytheon, "Quadrature modulator balancing system"

Brief description. A calibration scheme for an RF quadrature (IQ) modulator. The I and Q inputs are excited separately while the phase of the local-oscillator injection signal is swept 0–360°. The resulting DC components are recorded as a function of swept phase, converted to sinusoidal equivalents, compared, and used to compute gain/phase correction factors that predistort the I or Q path to null the image sideband. The stated core idea is to use "a mixer as a phase detector" — converting the undesired image directly to DC so that the phase error appears as a cosine-shaped DC/offset signature versus injection phase (see WO 2013/067291, [0038]).

§ 102 relevance to the '075 claims. No anticipation. This reference is in the RF-communications art, not MEMS gyroscopes; it has no "MEMS gyroscope sense signal," no "offset of the MEMS gyroscope," and no demodulation-phase trim for a gyroscope mixer. It therefore cannot disclose the "MEMS gyroscope" limitations of claims 1, 5, 10, 13.
It is highly relevant to the sub-generic technique recited in claim 1(c) — "estimating a phase error … based at least in part on the change in the offset" — because it discloses exactly the concept of sweeping the demod/injection phase and reading the resulting DC offset to locate phase error. Cite as § 103 art (see § 6).

---

Reference 2 — Fairchild Semiconductor, "MEMS device quadrature shift cancellation"

Brief description. Apparatus and methods for cancelling quadrature error in a MEMS gyroscope sense signal. Includes a drive C2V converter, a sense C2V converter, a phase-shift module that provides phase-shift information of the drive information, a drive demodulator and a sense demodulator, and a correction amplifier/summing node that injects an amplified (demodulated) drive signal into the sense path so the quadrature component is substantially cancelled — in analog, or digitally after separate ADCs. The motivation given is that analog quadrature-cancellation circuits "can also introduce noise and drift" into the sense signal.

§ 102 relevance to the '075 claims. No anticipation. This is the closest of the three on subject matter — it is a MEMS gyroscope with a quadrature component, a phase-shift/demodulation path, and an output from a demodulator. But it does not disclose:

• claim 1(a)/(4)/(6)/(11) — adjusting the quadrature component of the sense signal by a deliberate, controllable perturbation (its correction signal is applied to cancel quadrature, not to perturb it between two injection states);
• claim 1(b) — measuring a change in offset at the demodulator-mixer output; and
• claim 1(c) — estimating a phase error from that change in offset.

Its self-described advance is noise/drift reduction in the cancellation path, not phase-error/offset-drift estimation. So it cannot anticipate claim 1, 5, 10, or 13, and therefore none of the dependents (2–4, 6–9, 11–12, 14–15). It remains the best § 103 secondary reference for the "MEMS gyroscope sense signal / quadrature / demodulator mixer" environment of claims 1(a)/(b), 5, 10.

---

Reference 3 — The Boeing Company, "Gyro quadrature stabilization with demodulation phase error nulling"

Brief description. A disc-resonator gyroscope system with embedded drive/tuning/sense electrodes, comprising three cooperating feedback loops:

1. a demodulation phase tuning circuit that "measure[s] a demodulation phase angle error … and … adjust[s] a demodulation phase angle to about 90 degrees in response to the demodulation phase angle error" (¶[0009], ¶[0025]; claims 2, 4);
2. a quadrature stabilization circuit that measures a quadrature error and generates a quadrature regulating voltage applied to the tuning electrode (claims 1, 3); and
3. a frequency stabilization circuit.

Crucially, the demodulation phase tuning circuit works by: a demodulation filter producing a demodulated bias signal from the FTR signal; a synchronous error detection device measuring the peak-to-peak variation of the demodulated bias signal and generating a bias error signal; a demodulation phase compensator generating a demodulation-phase adjustment signal; and a phase filter adjusting the phase angle to drive the bias error signal to about zero (claim 9; ¶[0037] explains that at 90° the in-phase bias term and quadrature term decouple). Claim 11 additionally discloses "a sinusoid perturbation voltage … applied to the tuning electrode … to induce a selected change in quadrature when driving the bias error signal to about zero."

§ 102 relevance — this is the most relevant prior art of record. Boeing '415/'964 is the only citation that touches all three conceptual pillars of the '075 claims: (i) a perturbation of quadrature via a tuning-electrode voltage; (ii) observation of a demodulated bias/offset-type signal (the "bias error signal"); and (iii) estimation of a demodulation phase angle error that is then adjusted/trimmed toward ~90° (i.e., toward where the quadrature contribution vanishes).

• Claim 1 — potentially anticipates, and is the single best § 102 candidate. Claim 1(a) "adjusting a quadrature component of a MEMS gyroscope sense signal" ↔ Boeing's sinusoid perturbation voltage on the tuning electrode inducing "a selected change in quadrature"; claim 1(b) "measuring a change in offset … at an output of a demodulator mixer" ↔ the synchronous error detector measuring the variation of the demodulated bias signal; claim 1(c) "estimating a phase error between the quadrature component and a demodulation phase angle" ↔ the demodulation phase compensator's demodulation-phase-angle-error measurement.
  Where the mapping is contestable (and why the examiner evidently allowed the case): Boeing detects a peak-to-peak variation of the demodulated bias signal using a synchronous error-detection device to null a bias error — it does not expressly disclose measuring a change in offset that results from a change in the injected quadrature level and then solving for the demod angle from that offset change (the '075 FIGS. 5–6 zero-crossing-of-offset-change technique). If read narrowly, Boeing discloses the genus but not this specific arrangement.
• Claims 2 and 7 (periodically adjusting the demodulation phase angle based on the phase error) — potentially anticipated; Boeing's demod-phase loop does exactly this. Claims 3 and 8 (trim so that the estimate yields "approximately zero change in offset" and is "within a predetermined variation") — potentially anticipated on the "drive the bias error signal to about zero" disclosure.
• Claim 5 (apparatus) — potentially anticipated by mapped correspondence: "quadrature injection component" ↔ tuning-electrode drive + perturbation voltage; "measurement component" ↔ synchronous error detection device; "error component" ↔ demodulation phase compensator.
• Claim 10 (system) — potentially anticipated structurally (gyroscope + control loops + demodulator + phase estimation + demod-phase control), subject to the same offset-change caveat.
• Claim 13 (means-plus-function) — potentially anticipated if the corresponding structures are read as means for the recited functions.
• Claims 4, 6, 11, 14 (adjustment "by increasing or decreasing a voltage applied to the MEMS gyroscope") — potentially anticipated; Boeing applies a tuning voltage to the tuning electrode (and its perturbation voltage is a voltage-magnitude manipulation).

---

3. Non-patent citations of record (both examiner-cited)

NPL-1 — Jia et al. (2018)

Brief description. Proposes a Demodulation Phase Angle Compensation (DPAC) algorithm for dual-mass MEMS gyroscopes with small frequency split and low Q, to reduce quadrature interference on the Coriolis output. Analyzes quadrature error and demod-phase-angle drift, redesigns a quadrature-stiffness-correction (QSC) system, and implements DPAC via a back-propagation neural network. Reports bias-stability improvements of 88%/84%/97% across four test configurations.

§ 102 relevance — not prior art as of the priority date, and not anticipatory. Its publication (2018-07-10) is after the '075 priority date (2017-12-14) though before the actual filing date (2018-12-14). Under AIA § 102(a)(1) it therefore does not qualify as prior art against the '075 claims unless the 2017 provisional fails to support the claims (in which case the effective filing date shifts to 2018-12-14 and Jia would become § 102(a)(1) art). I flag this as a point requiring confirmation from the provisional (62/598,553) specification — I could not obtain that provisional text in this session. Independently, Jia does not disclose adjusting a quadrature component and measuring the resulting change in offset at the demod mixer output; its DPAC uses a trained neural network on frequency/Q samples. So it does not anticipate claims 1, 5, 10, or 13. Best characterized as § 103 background on the problem — demod-phase drift degrading offset stability.

NPL-2 — Mohamed et al. (2014)

Brief description. A communications-paper describing a sample-based QPSK demodulator.

§ 102 relevance — no anticipation. It is § 102(a)(1) art (published 2014), but it is unrelated to MEMS gyroscopes and to offset-based demod-phase estimation. Its relevance is generic demodulation background only; it cannot anticipate claim 1, 5, 10, 13 or any dependent claim. At most a § 103 tertiary reference showing that I/Q demodulation is a well-known technique.

---

4. Claim-by-claim anticipation matrix

"A" = arguably anticipatory on the reference's face (all limitations, or their clear structural equivalents, disclosed); "—" = a limitation is missing, so no anticipation; "§ 103" = useful only in an obviousness combination.

Bottom line: Only one reference of record — The Boeing Company's US 2015/0192415 A1, granted as US 9,605,964 B2 — presents a colorable § 102 anticipation of the independent claims (1, 5, 10, 13) and several dependents. The other four of-record references do not anticipate; the Fairchild and Raytheon references are best deployed under § 103, and Jia is likely not prior art at all vis-à-vis the 2017 priority date.

---

5. Why no single reference fully anticipates (the examiner's apparent basis for allowance)

Reading the three examiner citations against claim 1 side-by-side, each reference lacks at least one element as arranged:

• Raytheon supplies the "sweep phase → read DC offset → detect phase error" technique (claim 1(c)), but has no MEMS gyroscope (claims 1(a)/(b)).
• Fairchild supplies the MEMS-gyroscope + quadrature + demodulator environment (claims 1(a)/(b)), but its quadrature "adjustment" is a cancellation injection, and it never measures a change in offset to derive a phase error (claim 1(c)).
• Boeing supplies quadrature perturbation + demod-phase-error measurement + trim-to-null (claims 1(a)/(c), 2–4, 7), but its error signal is a peak-to-peak variation of a demodulated bias produced by synchronous detection, not a change in the gyroscope's offset caused by deliberately changing the injected-quadrature level as claimed.

The '075 patent's own specification draws the distinction explicitly: the disclosed process requires "measuring offset … with a first value of quadrature injection … with a second value of quadrature injection, and calculating the corresponding offset changes for a range of demodulation phases … estimating φ_ideal … where the offset change is approximately zero" (Description; FIGS. 5–6, zero-crossing near φ+0.07°). None of the three citations discloses that paired-injection-state offset-difference measurement.

---

6. Most relevant prior art — ranked, with proposed § 103 combinations

1. US 2015/0192415 A1 / US 9,605,964 B2 (Boeing) — primary reference; the only face-of-record reference that maps to all three pillars of claim 1. Anticipation candidate for claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14; weakest on the precise "change in offset" measurement.
2. US 2013/0268228 A1 / US 10,060,757 B2 (Fairchild) — secondary; the MEMS-gyroscope quadrature-cancellation/demodulation environment. Combine with Boeing and/or Raytheon for the claims as a whole (§ 103).
3. US 2013/0121443 A1 / US 8,913,693 B2 (Raytheon) — secondary; discloses the offset/DC-vs-swept-phase phase-detection methodology that directly reads on claim 1(c). A Boeing + Raytheon combination (§ 103) is the strongest obviousness attack: Boeing supplies the MEMS-gyroscope quadrature-perturbation and demod-phase-trim framework; Raytheon supplies the "sweep phase, observe DC offset, compute phase error" technique.
4. Jia et al. (2018) — prior art only if the 2017 priority fails; § 103 background on demod-phase-drift-induced offset error.
5. Mohamed et al. (2014) — generic demodulation background; minimal weight.

Not-of-record art worth a look (surfaced by search, not confirmed as before the examiner): Ezekwe, Geiger & Ohms (Bosch), "A 3-Axis Open-Loop Gyroscope with Demodulation Phase Error Correction," ISSCC 2015, Session 27.3. It expressly discusses continuously monitoring the quadrature error and correcting demodulation phase error as a means of reducing offset drift in MEMS gyroscopes — conceptually adjacent to the '075 gist. It is published Feb. 2015 and would be § 102(a)(1) art if reached. I could not verify whether it appears in the '075 file history (the Google Patents face record lists only the three patent citations and two NPL citations above), so treat this as a lead, not a confirmed citation of record.

---

7. Caveats and limits on this analysis

• Source basis. The list of citations is taken from the authoritative full text of US 10,996,075 supplied in the prompt (Google Patents, fetched 2026-09-24), which reproduces the face-of-record "Patent Citations (3)" and "Non-Patent Citations (2)" lists. I did not have live API access to USPTO PatentCenter / File Wrapper, so I cannot confirm whether additional references were submitted in an IDS but not printed on the face, nor whether the examiner relied on any non-cited art in an office action. The three patent citations are each marked "Cited by examiner" on that record.
• Date precision. Publication dates for the three patent citations are as shown on the record; the granted counterparts' grant dates (US 8,913,693 → 2014-12-16; US 10,060,757 → 2018-08-28; US 9,605,964 → 2017-03-28) come from secondary/aggregator sources and should be confirmed against the official patents before being relied on in a filing.
• Jia timing. My conclusion that Jia et al. is not § 102 prior art depends on the Dec. 14, 2017 provisional supporting the '075 claims. Confirm against Provisional 62/598,553.
• Anticipation vs. obviousness. Statements that a reference "potentially anticipates" a claim identify where a reference reads on each limitation; they are not conclusions that the claim is invalid. Where I say a mapping is "contestable" or "arguable," a § 102 anticipation rejection would likely fail on that limitation and the reference would instead support § 103.
• As noted in the earlier sections of this analysis, no litigation asserting or challenging US 10,996,075 was found in accessible public sources; nothing in that finding bears on the prior-art mapping above.

I'll research the cited prior art references to ground this obviousness analysis in their actual disclosures.

Let me research the remaining cited references.

Let me get more detail on the Boeing reference's demodulation-phase-tuning mechanism and the Mohamed reference.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,996,075 B2

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 · Prepared April 26, 2026

Builds on the bibliographic/claim summary and litigation summary already generated for this patent. Those sections are treated as authoritative; the claim language and reference disclosures below are drawn from the full patent text and the cited prior art.

---

0. Threshold issues that frame the analysis

Effective filing date. '075 claims priority to U.S. Provisional Ser. No. 62/598,553 ("Phase Estimation Using Quadrature Tuning"), filed 2017-12-14. If that provisional supports the claims (its title is squarely on point), the effective filing date for § 102/§ 103 purposes is 2017-12-14, not the 2018-12-14 non-provisional filing date.

This matters for one cited reference. The examiner-cited Jia et al., J. Micro/Nanolith. MEMS MOEMS 17(3), 035001 (2018) was published July 10, 2018 — after the 2017-12-14 priority date. It is a journal article (not a U.S. patent or U.S. application publication), so it does not qualify under § 102(a)(2). It therefore qualifies as prior art only if it was publicly available before 2017-12-14. On the date evidence I retrieved, it would not be prior art. I flag this rather than silently treating it as available art. (The other four references comfortably predate the priority date.)

Which references qualify (confirmed dates):

Admitted prior art inside '075. The specification itself concedes a great deal: factory trimming of MEMS gyroscopes, the requirement that "the demod phase of the demodulator should be 90° away from the quadrature component," and that offset drifts with PCB mounting, temperature, package stress and aging (see '075 Background and "Exemplary Embodiments"). These admissions narrow the gap the claims must clear.

Person of ordinary skill (POSITA). A designer of MEMS/vibratory gyroscope signal-conditioning circuitry with a working knowledge of quadrature error, I/Q demodulation, phase-locked demodulation and electrostatic quadrature/stiffness tuning. All five references are in that field.

---

1. What the independent claims actually require

The critical, non-redundant elements are:

• Claim 1 (method): (a) adjust the quadrature component of the gyro sense signal; (b) measure a change in offset at the demodulator-mixer output; (c) estimate a phase error between the quadrature component and the demod phase angle based at least in part on that change in offset.
• Claim 5 (apparatus): structural counterparts — quadrature injection component; measurement component; error component.
• Claim 10 (system): MEMS gyro + CMOS; quadrature injection component; demodulator mixer of the CMOS that outputs Coriolis and suppresses quadrature; measurement component; error component; phase estimation component (finds the demod angle giving ≈zero offset change); demod phase control component.
• Claim 13 (means-plus-function): four means mirroring claims 1–2.

Note that claim 1 does not recite periodic re-trimming, a "approximately zero" criterion, or any specific rate condition — those are the dependent claims. This makes claim 1 broad and, as shown below, closely approached by a single reference.

---

2. The references and what each actually discloses

2.1 US 2015/0192415 A1 — The Boeing Company (the linchpin)

This is not merely analogous art; it discloses the claimed methodology almost element-for-element. Key, directly-on-point disclosures:

• Demodulation phase error measured and nulled: "a demodulation phase tuning circuit configured to measure a demodulation phase angle error of the disc resonator gyroscope and to adjust a demodulation phase angle to about 90 degrees in response to the demodulation phase angle error." (Summary; confirmed at Google Patents and FreePatentsOnline.)
• Explicit statement of the underlying physics: the technique "takes advantage of the fact that the **in-phase bias term … is independent of stiffness asymmetry, but the quadrature term … is highly sensitive to perturbation in stiffness. The phase filter is automatically adjusted by the demodulation phase tuning circuit to optimize the demodulation phase angle." ([0038], patentsencyclopedia/FreePatentsOnline.)
• Perturbation of quadrature by applying a voltage: "With the AGC loop … and the FTR loop … operational, and the disc resonator gyroscope held at a substantially constant angular rate (Ω), a sinusoid perturbation voltage … may be applied to the tuning electrode … that induces a predetermined change in quadrature that is sufficiently large so that the induced perturbation in the quadrature signal is observable." ([0039].)
• Measuring a change in the demodulated bias/output: "The phase angle error … may be measured by demodulating an FTR signal and an AGC signal … to produce a demodulated bias signal or rate signal and a demodulated quadrature signal. A peak-to-peak variation of the demodulated bias signal or rate signal may be measured and fed back as a bias error signal …" (FIG. 5 methodology, block 506.)
• Voltage adjust (in/decrease) of quadrature: a "quadrature regulating voltage" is added to or subtracted from the tuning voltage in a summing circuit ([0043]-region, FPO).

Mapping to claim 1:

Mapping to dependent claims:

• Claim 4 (increase/decrease a voltage applied to the gyroscope) → Boeing's sinusoid perturbation voltage on the tuning electrode and the quadrature regulating voltage added/subtracted from the tuning voltage.
• Claim 2 (periodically adjust demod phase) → Boeing's automatic feedback adjustment of phase filter 414.
• Claim 3 (trim based on estimation giving ≈zero offset change, within a predetermined variation) → Boeing adjusts the phase to "about 90 degrees," where the in-phase bias and quadrature terms decouple; Boeing further subtracts a "constant offset signal" so the loop drives the demodulated quadrature to a controlled value.

Claim 10 mapping is largely satisfied by Boeing plus the ordinary CMOS context, except that Boeing frames the electronics generically (FTR/AGC loops, demodulators) rather than expressly as a "CMOS."

2.2 US 2013/0268228 A1 — Fairchild Semiconductor

• Cancelation of quadrature error in a MEMS gyroscope sense signal using a drive C2V converter, a sense C2V converter, a phase-shift module, a drive demodulator and a sense demodulator, and a correction amplifier whose gain is adjusted to cancel quadrature, summed into the sense path (FIG. 1, FIG. 2, FIG. 3).
• Expressly recognizes that quadrature cancellation circuits "can also introduce noise and drift … that can deteriorate the accuracy and performance," and proposes demodulating drive and sense with "nearly identical components … fabricated within the same integrated circuit" so drift cancels — i.e., an on-chip (CMOS-type) implementation.
• Supplies the MEMS-gyroscope architecture with on-CMOS drive/sense demodulators that claim 10 recites ("a demodulator mixer of the CMOS"), and supplies the "adjust the quadrature component" function in a MEMS (non-DRG) device.

2.3 US 2013/0121443 A1 — Raytheon Company

• A quadrature modulator balancing method: excite an I or Q path and sweep the phase of an injection signal through a range (0–360°), determine the resulting DC components, form sinusoidal equivalents, and derive correction factors to null the undesired component.
• The core insight — "converting the undesired image signal directly to DC, essentially using a mixer as a phase detector," where "the resulting DC signal will also be a cosine function with a phase that is related to the phase errors" — is precisely the mathematical/algorithmic construct the '075 relies on (its FIGS. 5–6 plot the change in demodulated output vs. swept demod phase and find the zero-crossing / polarity flip at φ_ideal).
• Raytheon also states the calibration is "invisible to the end user" and can compensate "variations of temperature or … ageing" — the same over-lifetime motivation the '075 asserts.

2.4 Mohamed et al. (2014) and Jia et al. (2018)

• Mohamed et al. is a general sample-based QPSK demodulator paper — background on I/Q demodulation with a reference; peripheral, useful only as evidence that I/Q demodulation with controllable reference phase is routine. Weak.
• Jia et al. (if it were prior art) discloses demodulation phase angle compensation (DPAC) for MEMS gyroscopes to "reduce the quadrature interference on Coriolis signal output," analyzing "demodulation phase angle drift" and its effect on bias, and using quadrature stiffness correction (QSC) plus a BP neural network to compute the optimal demod phase. Conceptually the closest non-patent art, but see the date caveat in §0.

---

3. The obviousness combinations

Combination A (primary): Boeing '415 — alone, or with the '075 specification's own admissions

Rationale. Boeing expressly teaches every step of claim 1 (perturb quadrature via voltage → measure variation in demodulated bias → adjust demod phase to ~90° to null the coupling). The only question is whether the differences, if any, are patentable distinctions. They are not:

• The '075 characterizes its contribution as discovering that the ideal demod phase sits at the zero-crossing of offset-change vs. demod phase. But Boeing already teaches that the quadrature term is "highly sensitive to perturbation in stiffness" while the in-phase bias is not, and it uses that asymmetry — perturbing the quadrature and observing the demodulated bias — to find the demod phase. Same principle, same mechanism, same result. A POSITA implementing Boeing's feedback loop would necessarily observe the offset-change signal crossing zero at the optimum demod phase.
• "Periodically adjusting" (claim 2) is inherent in Boeing's feedback loop and, more importantly, is exactly the over-lifetime re-trim the '075 specification itself frames as the goal.

Result: Claims 1–4 and 5–9 would have been obvious over Boeing '415 alone (and, independently, over the admitted prior art in '075's Background). For several elements this is arguably anticipation-adjacent; framing as § 103 is the safer characterization given Boeing's DRG-specific wording.

Combination B: Boeing '415 + Fairchild '228 — for the system claims (10–12)

Claim 10 requires a MEMS gyroscope + a CMOS, a demodulator mixer of the CMOS, and the phase-estimation/phase-control components. Boeing supplies the method and control architecture; Fairchild supplies:

• the MEMS gyroscope with an on-chip (CMOS) drive/sense demodulator and phase-shift architecture, and
• the express recognition that quadrature-handling circuitry should be integrated/digital to limit noise and drift.

Motivation (KSR factors). Both references are in the same field (vibratory/MEMS gyroscope signal conditioning), address the same problem (quadrature error corrupting the demodulated rate/offset), and would predictably combine: a POSITA seeking to implement Boeing's demod-phase-nulling loop in a commercial CMOS MEMS gyroscope (rather than a disc resonator) would naturally adopt the on-chip demodulator/phase-shift/correction-amplifier architecture of Fairchild — including its voltage/adjustable quadrature correction. No teaching away; the references point the same direction.

Combination C: Boeing '415 + Fairchild '228 + Raytheon '443 — for the trim criterion (claims 3, 12, 15) and the sweep algorithms

Raytheon '443 supplies the "sweep the demod/reference phase and locate the DC (offset) null / zero-crossing" algorithm and the mathematical justification that the relevant DC component behaves as a sinusoid in phase error. This supplies the specific limitations of claim 3/12 ("demodulation phase angle estimation … that results in an approximately zero change in offset … within a predetermined variation") and claim 15's "trimming" means.

Motivation. A POSITA looking to make Boeing's inner loop a deterministic calibration (rather than a mere feedback null) would look to the established quadrature-modulator balancing art, where Raytheon teaches precisely this: sweep the injection/reference phase, convert the error to DC, and solve for the phase that nulls it. Raytheon's stated goals — user-invisible, compensates temperature and aging — mirror the '075's stated goals, supplying the "why combine."

Combination D (fallback / cumulative): add Jia et al. — with the § 0 caveat

If Jia et al. is not established as pre-priority art, using it compounds rather than cures any § 103 problem. If it is available, it independently teaches compensating demod phase angle drift for quadrature error via stiffness correction — squarely on point, and reinforcing motives to combine.

---

4. Dependent-claim analysis (summary)

---

5. What the patent owner would argue (and how it fares)

1. "Boeing is a disc resonator gyroscope — different device class." Weak. Both are vibratory MEMS gyroscopes suffering quadrature error with a demod phase that must align orthogonal to quadrature; the '075 specification treats its problem generically across MEMS gyroscopes.
2. "Boeing nulls continuously; '075 is a periodic calibration." Weak — continuous feedback adjustment subsumes periodic adjustment, and claim 1 does not even require periodicity.
3. "The polarity-switch/zero-crossing detection is the novel insight." Weak-to-moderate. This is the strongest argument, but Raytheon's "mixer as a phase detector / DC is a cosine of the phase error" plus Boeing's perturbation-and-observe-bias teaching make arriving at a zero-crossing criterion routine.
4. "Nonobvious because Boeing needs a controlled angular rate (Ω)." Weak — '075's independent claims impose no rate condition, and claim 1's steps are performed without reference to rate.
5. Secondary considerations. None of record. The prior-art sections already established no litigation, no IPR/PGR, and no confirmed assertion of '075, so there is no probative nexus evidence for unexpected results, commercial success, licensing, or industry praise. Absent such evidence, the KSR "predictable results" and "design incentive" rationales control.

---

6. Bottom line

• Claims 1–4 and 5–9 would likely have been obvious over US 2015/0192415 (Boeing) alone, reinforced by the '075 specification's own admissions about factory demod-phase trimming.
• Claims 10–12 would likely have been obvious over Boeing + Fairchild (US 2013/0268228), with the "CMOS"/on-chip demodulator and MEMS-gyroscope architecture supplied by Fairchild.
• Claims 3, 12, 15 (and the "approximately zero"/"predetermined variation" limitations) are further supported as obvious over Boeing + Fairchild + Raytheon (US 2013/0121443), whose sweep-the-phase/DC-null methodology supplies the specific trim criterion and the temperature/aging motivation.
• The Jia et al. 2018 and Mohamed et al. 2014 references are, respectively, date-questionable and peripheral; neither is needed for a prima facie § 103 case, and Jia et al. should not be relied upon unless its pre-2017-12-14 public availability is established.

Confidence and caveats. The Boeing, Fairchild and Raytheon disclosures summarized above are grounded in the quoted text I retrieved (Google Patents / FreePatentsOnline / patentsencyclopedia / patentimages PDFs). Claim-element mappings to Boeing are strong; the mapping of the "CMOS" and "means-plus-function" limitations relies on ordinary-art reasoning rather than a single express statement, and claim 13–15 means-plus-function construction under § 112(f) introduces additional uncertainty. I did not obtain the complete Boeing specification or the full Jia/Mohamed texts, and I could not confirm the pre-priority public availability of Jia et al.; those gaps are the principal residual uncertainties in this analysis.