US 11022419

I'll verify the patent details against authoritative sources and check for any litigation activity.

US 11,022,419 B2 — Verified Summary

Note on process: I did not find a USPTO-hosted full-text record for this number in my search returns, so the bibliographic data below is drawn from the authoritative full patent text supplied in your message (Google Patents rendering), cross-checked against IPQwery, Justia/CompanyProfiles assignee listings, and the pre-grant publication record. Where sources conflict, I flag it rather than silently resolving it.

Bibliographic snapshot

Priority chain (from the specification itself): this patent is a continuation of Ser. No. 15/216,952, filed July 22, 2016 and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 10,436,564; that application was a non-provisional of Provisional Ser. No. 62/196,110, filed July 23, 2015. The 2036-07-22 expiry is consistent with a 20-year term measured from the July 22, 2016 parent filing.

Abstract (verbatim)

"A screw thread measurement system and methods may comprise a frame having a reference surface, a carrier coupled to the frame and configured to translate relative to the frame, a dimension measurement system coupled to the carrier and having a thread contact element configured to translate relative to the frame and orthogonally the translation axis of the carrier. The dimension measurement system configured to determine thread dimensions relative to the frame reference surface."

Independent claims in plain language

Claim 1 — the apparatus claim. A screw thread inspection system with (a) a body having a first portion serving as a datum reference and a second portion that supports a dimension measurement system; (b) the dimension measurement system coupled to that second portion and carrying a measurement tip; (c) the system measures the distance from the datum reference to the measurement tip along a first measurement axis; and (d) the measurement tip is able to translate relative to the body along a second axis perpendicular to the first. The claim is deliberately broad — it recites a two-axis, datum-referenced thread measuring tool without requiring a processor, display, or wireless link (those appear in dependent claims 6–7 and in the specification, not in claim 1).

Claim 8 — a method claim tied to the claim 1 system. Steps: contact the datum reference to a dimensional reference of the thread system; translate the measurement tip along the first axis to a first thread artifact; zero the system at that first artifact; translate the tip along the second axis away from the first artifact; translate along both axes to a second thread artifact; and display the first-axis distance between the two artifacts on a visual indicator. Note a drafting subtlety worth flagging: claim 8 zeroes at the first artifact (e.g., a flank), not at the datum reference as the detailed description's general method summary describes — so the claim is directed at a relative flank-to-flank width measurement rather than an absolute datum-referenced one.

Claim 9 — an independent method claim specific to wedge threads. It recites inspecting a wedge thread system "having a plurality of stab flanks and a plurality of load flanks" using the claim 1 system, and begins re-reciting the body/datum-reference and dimension-measurement-system structure. The text I have is truncated mid-claim, so I cannot state the full scope of claim 9 with confidence.

Unresolved: the identity of any further independent claims. Because the record supplied cuts off partway through claim 9, I cannot confirm whether claims 10–20 include an additional independent claim (for example, a data-processing/calculation claim covering the "sweet spot," lead, or "drunken lead" functionality that the specification heavily emphasizes) or are all dependent. This is the single largest gap in the claim analysis.

Litigation / CAFC docket check

I searched for litigation and Federal Circuit activity involving this number (including terms pairing Gagemaker with other thread-inspection market participants) and found no results — no district court infringement action, no IPR/PGR, and no CAFC 2026 appeal surfaced in the sources available to me. I would characterize this as "nothing found," not as confirmation that no proceedings exist: I do not have live PACER or CAFC docket access, sealed and very recent filings would not surface, and null search returns are weak evidence. Treat the absence of litigation as unverified.

Sources and reconciliation

• Full patent text (authoritative, as supplied): https://patents.google.com/patent/US11022419/en
• Assignee/inventor/date confirmation: https://www.ipqwery.com/ipowner/fr/owner/ip/[499508](/patent/499508)-gagemaker-lp-gagemaker-management-llc.html and https://companyprofiles.justatic.com/assignee/gagemaker-lp
• Family member (parent, US 10,436,564 / pub. US 2017/0038190): https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0038190.html

One conflicting search result I want to put on the record rather than bury: a PlainSite page titled "Patent Application No. 11022419: Pneumatically Adjustable Apparatus For Coating Toner Fusing Belt Substrate And Method For Using Same" (https://www.plainsite.org/patents/application/11022419/) associates the identifier 11022419 with an unrelated toner-fusing-belt subject matter, along with security-interest assignment records. I did not auto-correct or discard this. My assessment is that it is a numbering collision in that aggregator rather than a genuine second US 11,022,419, because every primary-type source — the full granted text, IPQwery, and the assignee profiles — consistently identifies US 11,022,419 as the Gagemaker thread inspection patent, and "11022419" is not a valid USPTO application-number format. I am flagging it because you asked for literal treatment of identifiers and because the two records cannot both be correct.

Further uncertainty notes

• "IEEE 80215" vs. "IEEE 802.15": the specification's summary section literally reads "another IEEE 80215 wireless transmission," while the detailed description reads "IEEE 802.15." Per your literal-interpretation rule I have not amended the summary-section text; the discrepancy appears to be a typographical omission of the decimal point, not a distinct standard.
• The two prior-art figures (FIGS. 1–2) reference the Gagemaker DG-1000 series depth gage, and FIG. 2's stated sweet-spot example is a 0.2841 in. (7.2161 mm) width at 5.24215 in. (133.151 mm) from the datum. These are descriptive of the background art, not claim limitations.
• I could not independently verify current USPTO fee/maintenance or assignment status, nor the accuracy of the "Active" legal-status tag, which the patent text itself notes is an assumption rather than a legal conclusion.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11022419.

Let me search more specifically for this patent.

Let me check the litigation-specific databases directly.

Litigation Search: US Patent No. 11,022,419

Result: No litigation involving US Patent No. 11,022,419 was found.

I searched for the specific patent number across public litigation-oriented sources (including patent-docket aggregators, CourtListener/RECAP, and Unified Patents-style litigation listings). No district court case, CAFC appeal, ITC investigation, or PTAB post-grant proceeding asserting or challenging US 11,022,419 was located.

What the patent is, for context

• Patent: US 11,022,419 B2 — "Thread inspection systems and methods"
• Assignee/Patent Owner (listed): GAGEMAKER LP (Pasadena, TX)
• Inventors: James R. Douglas; Kris L. Dawson; Stephen C. Janes
• Application: US 16/595,206, filed 2019-10-07
• Priority date: 2015-07-23 (non-provisional continuation chain: Ser. No. 15/216,952, issued as US 10,436,564; provisional 62/196,110)
• Granted: 2021-06-01
• Status per the patent record: Active; anticipated expiration 2036-07-22

Notably, the patent's own specification and prosecution history describe this as a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 10,436,564 (the earlier-issued family member). If any enforcement activity exists, it would more likely be docketed under the family's earliest-issued patent (US 10,436,564) rather than under 11,022,419 itself — but I found no publicly indexed litigation for either number in my searches.

Important caveats and non-matches (do not treat as litigation of this patent)

1. False positive to ignore: A PlainSite page titled "Patent Application No. 11022419" relates to application Ser. No. 11/022,419 ("Pneumatically Adjustable Apparatus For Coating Toner Fusing Belt Substrate"), an entirely different and unrelated filing — not US Patent 11,022,419. See: https://www.plainsite.org/patents/application/11022419/
2. Several search hits for the digit string "11022419" were unrelated (a Chinese criminal-prosecution notice referencing an ID number, a UK company registration number, a Spanish government gazette entry, and various immigration/habeas dockets). None involve this patent.
3. The strongest hits discussing "thread inspection" and Gagemaker concern the company's patent portfolio generally (Justia company profile, IPqwery/OnScope owner pages), not litigation.

Conclusion

Based on publicly available sources, there is no known litigation involving US Patent No. 11,022,419. If enforcement has occurred, it has not surfaced in the public dockets I could access.

Confidence note: I could not complete an exhaustive, paid-database review (e.g., Docket Navigator, Lex Machina, full PACER/RECAP docket sweep, or the Unified Patents litigation portal query for this exact number). Given that gap, this should be read as "no litigation found in public search" rather than a certified negative. A definitive confirmation would require a targeted Docket Navigator/Lex Machina query on the number 11,022,419 and on the family members 10,436,564 and application 15/216,952, plus a check of Gagemaker LP's litigation history as plaintiff.

I'll verify the canonical "no PTAB activity" default against web sources before drafting.

PTAB proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: ZERO. The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block for US 11022419 returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding, and my independent web checks surfaced none either — no petition, no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, and no Federal Circuit appeal arising from a Board trial on this patent. The breakdown by status is therefore: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0.

Bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB-based defense to inherit and no invalidating FWD to lean on. All 20 claims as issued remain in force and untested at the Board. If you are on the receiving end of a demand or a complaint asserting US 11022419, you start from scratch: whatever invalidity position you want, you must build and file it yourself (subject to the § 315(b) one-year bar if you've already been served).

No qualifying proceedings to report

There is no {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} to populate. Per the task constraints — "Do not invent proceeding numbers" — I am not offering a placeholder or an analogized case. The following is the negative finding, stated plainly:

• IPR (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319): none found.
• PGR (35 U.S.C. §§ 321–329): none found. Note the PGR window on this patent is long closed in any event — it is a continuation claiming priority to 2015-07-23, and PGR is limited to patents with a claim having an effective filing date on or after 2013-03-16, so a PGR would have had to be filed within nine months of issuance.
• CBM (AIA § 18): none found, and in any case the CBM program sunset for new petitions on 2020-09-16 — before this patent issued on 2021-06-01. CBM is not an available vehicle for a defendant today.
• Derivation, supplemental examination, ex parte reexam, or reissue: no evidence found of any of these either. (Reexamination, if one existed, would not be an AIA trial anyway.)

Search basis and its limits (stated so you can calibrate confidence): I searched on the patent number, on the parent patent number (US 10,436,564, which issued from application 15/216,952 on 2019-10-08), and on the assignee (Gagemaker, LP, Pasadena, TX) combined with IPR/PTAB terms. Google Patents' "Also Published As" / family listings for US 10,436,564 and US 11,092,421 show no PTAB case links, and no third-party docket aggregator surfaced a petition. I could not reach PTAB E2E or Docket Navigator directly in this session, so treat this as high-confidence-but-not-exhaustive. Before relying on the negative finding in a litigation hold or an IPR budget decision, run a fresh check in:

• PTAB E2E / PTAB Center search on patent number 11022419: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations
• USPTO Patent Center "Legal Events" and "Transaction History" for the patent: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
• CourtListener docket search for "Gagemaker" (to catch any district-court case and the IPRs it would likely spawn): https://www.courtlistener.com/

Strategic summary

Claim status: all claims UNTESTED. Claims 1–20 of US 11022419 have never been through an AIA trial. Independent claim 1 is directed to a screw thread inspection system (body with a datum reference and a carrier portion, a dimension measurement system with a measurement tip, Z-axis distance determination from the datum, and X-axis translation of the tip). Independent claim 8 is a method of inspecting a screw thread system using the claim-1 apparatus, and independent claim 9 is a wedge-thread-specific method reciting stab flanks and load flanks. There is no claim-level narrowing, no certificate of correction canceling claims, and no statutory disclaimer of record that I found. Nothing is CANCELED. Nothing is SUSPENDED. Everything is live.

Estoppel landscape: wide open. Because no IPR, PGR, or CBM was ever instituted, § 315(e)(2) estoppel never attached to anyone. No petitioner, and no privy of any petitioner, is barred from raising any § 102 or § 103 ground in a district court or ITC action that they "raised or reasonably could have raised." Practically, that means the entire prior-art universe is available to a defendant — including the standard printed-publication art (analog and digital depth gauges, bore/thread gauges, cam-and-follower displacement sensors) and any system prior art from Gagemaker's own long commercial history. Note the important corollary in the other direction: § 315(b) may cut against you. If you have been served with a complaint alleging infringement of this patent more than one year ago, you are time-barred from filing your own IPR.

Pattern signals. (1) Gagemaker, LP appears to be a practicing entity — an accredited gauge manufacturer in Pasadena, Texas (A2LA-certified lab), not a defensive-patent troll. The prompt's default "troll" framing does not fit this patent owner, and that matters for strategy: a manufacturer of the patented inspection systems is less likely to settle cheaply and more likely to assert the patent against competing gauge makers, whom it knows well. (2) The patent sits in a densely related family — the same inventors (Douglas, Dawson, Janes) and assignee also hold US 10,436,564 (same specification, same title), US 10,677,577 (diameter determination), US 11,092,421 and US 11,808,566 (automated dynamic dimensional measurement), and US 9,752,427 / US 11,319,799 (stator bore gage). A defendant facing one of these is very likely facing — or about to face — assertions on the siblings. Do not scope your invalidity work to a single family member. (3) No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, AST) appeared anywhere in the chain of record for this patent. (4) The patent owner has not pursued any PTAB appeal on this patent — because it has never needed to; it has never lost a claim at the Board.

The real validity pressure point is the priority date, not the Board. Priority runs to 2015-07-23 (provisional 62/196,110), with the non-provisional 15/216,952 filed 2016-07-22 and this continuation 16/595,206 filed 2019-10-07. Anticipated expiration is 2036-07-22. That means art must predate mid-2015 to be squarely prior art, but the applicant's own 2016-filed parent and the 2017 publication of the parent (US 2017/0038190 A1, 2017-02-09) are not prior art against this continuation. The favorable art window is roughly 2010–mid-2015 — a decade-plus of depth-gauge and thread-inspection literature to work with.

Recommended next steps

If no litigation has been threatened yet: the absence of PTAB activity is itself a signal worth weighing. Well-asserted, commercially significant patents in a niche like oilfield thread gauging typically attract IPRs within a year or two of a first infringement suit — as happened across the gauge and metrology space generally. The fact that US 11022419 has been in force since 2021-06-01 with zero PTAB challenges suggests either that Gagemaker has not yet sued anyone on this patent, or that it has sued parties who chose to license or settle rather than petition. Both readings counsel doing your own freedom-to-operate and invalidity work early rather than waiting for a letter.

If you are a defendant already sued: file your IPR inside the § 315(b) one-year window measured from service of the complaint, and confirm the service date before you do anything else. There is no prior petition you can join or piggyback on, so budget for a full standalone petition with its own expert declaration.

Prosecution-history diligence you should do before drafting. The strongest § 112 and § 103 arguments usually live in the file wrapper. Pull the complete file histories of 15/216,952 and 16/595,206 on Patent Center and look specifically for: (a) art cited and overcome during prosecution of the parent that a continuation petition can now reframe; (b) claim scope that was narrowed to distinguish art and whether that narrowing is now an estoppel-flavored prosecution-history disclaimer; and (c) any § 101 subject-matter exposure on the data-processing/reporting claims (the specification's "sinusoidal mathematical curve," "look-up table," and calculation-heavy claims are the most vulnerable to an Alice challenge — and note that § 101 is a district-court and PGR ground, not an IPR ground, so plan the forum accordingly).

Note on the real prior-art anchors in the specification itself. The patent's own background section hands you the starting references: the Gagemaker DG-1000 series depth gage (FIG. 1) and the gage-pin method (FIG. 2), both described as known and conventional. Gagemaker's own earlier patents — e.g., US 4,524,524 (1985) and the indicating-thread-gage lineage going back to 1991 — are also fair game. The obvious § 103 theory writes itself: DG-1000-style depth gauge plus a gage pin plus a conventional X-axis carriage, with the "measure every flank between 0° and 360°" and "calculate groove width" features argued as routine automation. That is a theory worth developing — but it is untested, and patent owners in this space have a credible story that measuring width at multiple angular positions with a rigidized slider was not routine in 2015.

Caveats, restated. I found no PTAB proceeding, and I am not manufacturing one to fill the template. Two verification gaps remain: I could not reach PTAB E2E or a commercial docket database in this session, and web coverage of unindexed recent petitions can lag. Re-run the three links above before you commit resources on the assumption that the field is clear.

I'll research the assignment chain for US 11022419 using the sources specified.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 11022419 (Thread inspection systems and methods)

Access caveat (read first): I was unable to reach the USPTO Patent Assignment Search backend (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov) with the tools available in this session — no reel/frame records could be retrieved or verified. Everything below is reconstructed from the patent front matter, Google Patents legal events as fetched, and third-party IP-ownership aggregators (ipqwery/onscope, Justia, patsnap). No reel/frame numbers are asserted, because I could not verify any. Where a section would ordinarily cite a reel/frame, I say so explicitly.

Inventors

Pattern note: No unusual inventor-departure pattern. On the contrary, Douglas is still associated with the assignee a decade after the 2015 priority filing, and he is a co-inventor on Gagemaker's later filings (e.g., the 2017 stator bore gage application with Kris L. Dawson and Craig Cloud). Three-inventor, all-employee teams like this are the classic signature of a functioning R&D shop, not of a portfolio assembled for resale. No evidence of inventors transferring rights away from Gagemaker.

Original assignee

Gagemaker LP (styled GAGEMAKER, LP), 712 E. Southmore Ave., Pasadena, TX 77502. A Texas limited partnership founded 1982 (brand materials say "Since 1979"), ~50 employees, estimated revenue ~$23–40M.

• Primary business: design and manufacture of precision mechanical/dimensional inspection equipment — tapered and straight thread measurement gages, API 5B / 5CT tubing & casing gages, thread profile and lead gages, the MRP® ovality/crest-diameter gages, MIC TRAC® setting systems, and TDWIN® gage-calculation software. Oilfield, automotive, and general machining end markets.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes — this is a handheld digital thread-inspection instrument, and Gagemaker's commercial line (the "JSS" Tubular Good Inspection System, digital depth/cross-thread gages, and the DG-1000 series referenced as prior art in this very patent at col. "FIG. 1") covers it. The spec expressly describes gages "available from Sylvac or Gagemaker LP."
• Current status: Operating. Not dissolved, not in bankruptcy. Gagemaker took two SBA PPP loans (approved 2020-04-09, $1,145,400; and 2021-03-28, $1,145,000), both reported Paid in Full (2021-04-22 and 2021-12-22) with 72 and 56 jobs reported — consistent with a going concern that survived COVID.
• Related-entity flag: Aggregators list the owner block as "GAGEMAKER, LP, Gagemaker Management, LLC" — a Texas limited liability company. The same joint designation appears on Gagemaker's MIC 360 trademark (SN 87189063) owner record. The most likely reading is that Gagemaker Management, LLC is the general partner / management entity of the LP, not an arms-length assignee. I could not verify this with a reel/frame and I do not treat it as an NPE signal.

Assignment timeline

Unable to enumerate a verified timeline. The USPTO Assignment Center could not be queried in this session, so I cannot list recorded assignments, execution/recording dates, reel/frame numbers, or correspondents of record.

What the available sources do show:

• Google Patents (as fetched) lists Current Assignee: GAGEMAKER LP and Original Assignee: GAGEMAKER LP, with no intervening assignment events surfaced. Google's "Current Assignee" field is populated from recorded USPTO assignment data, so a divergence between original and current assignee would normally appear here. It does not.
• Third-party ownership aggregators (ipqwery/onscope owner profile 499508) carry the owner as Gagemaker, LP / Gagemaker Management, LLC across the whole family, with the earliest listed invention back to 1983 — i.e., a continuous corporate portfolio, not a traded patent.
• Family history consistent with continuous in-house ownership:
  • 2015-07-23 — provisional 62/196,110 filed
  • 2016-07-22 — non-provisional 15/216,952 filed; published as US 2017/0038190 A1
  • 2017-09-05 — 15/216,952 issues as US 10,436,564
  • 2019-10-07 — continuation 16/595,206 filed by Gagemaker LP
  • 2021-06-01 — 16/595,206 issues as US 11022419 B2
  • Status: Active; anticipated expiration 2036-07-22 (i.e., 20 years from the 2016-07-22 non-provisional filing).

Conclusion for this section: On the evidence available, there is one original assignment (inventor → Gagemaker LP, the ordinary employment/obligation-to-assign instrument) and no post-issuance chain. Because I could not open the Assignment Center, treat this as unverified rather than as a positive finding of "no records." Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11022419B2](/patent/US11022419B2)/en (Legal Events tab).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11022419
    2015 : Provisional filed by three inventors
    2016 : Non provisional filed by Gagemaker LP
    2017 : Parent patent issues
    2019 : Continuation filed by Gagemaker LP
    2021 : US 11022419 issues to Gagemaker LP
    2021 : PPP loans repaid in full

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No evidence of transfer to a licensing-only LLC. The only candidate shell-like name in the record, Gagemaker Management, LLC, is a Texas entity co-designated with Gagemaker, LP on the latter's own trademark filings and owner profiles — i.e., an intra-group management vehicle, not a transferee of record. Not treated as a finding absent a reel/frame.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Assignee matches none of: Acacia, Marathon Patent Group, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or Spangenberg entities. No Unified Patents / RPX high-frequency-plaintiff match was surfaced for Gagemaker.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / no data. The Assignment Center could not be queried, so no correspondent of record could be captured for any entry. This is the single most important gap in this analysis and the item most worth re-running against a live Assignment Center session.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. No consecutive LLC-to-LLC transfers detected; ownership appears continuous since the 2015 priority date.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No assignment dated within 6 months of any suit, and no infringement suit naming this patent was found in the searches run.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Assignee is an operating manufacturer; two PPP loans were reported Paid in Full in 2021, and the company still markets product and files new applications (portfolio continued through 2023–2024 filings, e.g., in-process diameter measurement gage and automated dynamic dimensional measurement systems).
7. Privateering — not present. No evidence Gagemaker transferred rights to an NPE to assert against competitors; no SEC-reportable parent (it is a private Texas LP).
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. Chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN.

Verdict

Insufficient data — but with the strong directional indication of ordinary operating-company ownership.

Justification: I could not retrieve any USPTO Assignment Center record, so no reel/frame entry can be cited for or against an NPE reading; under the stated rules, "could be a shell" without a concrete reel/frame is not a finding. The affirmative evidence instead points the other way — Google Patents lists both Original and Current Assignee as GAGEMAKER LP, the assignee is a ~50-employee Pasadena, Texas manufacturer whose commercial gages embody these claims (its own DG-1000 depth gage is cited as prior art in the same specification), the priority family runs 2015 → 2016 → 2019 → 2021 with continuing in-house prosecution and later filings through 2023–2024, and the company's two PPP loans were discharged in full rather than followed by insolvency.

Verify here: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "11022419"), cross-checked against https://patents.google.com/patent/US11022419B2/en (Legal Events) and the parent https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10436564B2](/patent/US10436564B2)/en.

I'll research this systematically, starting with the patent's own citation records.

Let me pull the citation lists directly from the patent's Google Patents record and related family members.

I found the family's citation table. Let me verify it against the US patent's own record and get details on each reference.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent No. 11,022,419 B2

Note on methodology / limitations: I could not run a direct USPTO Patent Center/PatFT query in this session; I worked from the patent's Google Patents record (which mirrors the USPTO-issued front page and citation tables) and its published family members. The tool budget was exhausted before I could pull the full text of each individual reference, so the § 102 element-by-element mappings below are labeled for confidence. I flag every inference explicitly rather than asserting it.

1. Patent identified (literal number match)

This is the correct record — not the unrelated ser. No. 11/022,419 / PlainSite false positive noted in the earlier litigation section.

Legal-regime note: The application has an effective filing date after 16 March 2013, so AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)–(2) governs. Every reference identified below published well before the 2015 priority date and therefore qualifies as prior art under § 102(a)(1) ("patented… or described in a printed publication") irrespective of the pre-/post-AIA distinction.

2. The citation record (references cited in this family)

The family's citation table (visible on the PCT sibling WO2017015546A1, the same 2016-07-22 filing / 2015-07-23 priority) lists five (5) patent citations. Because US 11,022,419 is a straight continuation of US 10,436,564 with the same examiner and specification, these are the references material to this patent's prosecution:

Confidence: High that these five are the cited references — they appear in the family's "Patent Citations" table pulled from Google Patents. Caveat: I could not confirm whether the continuation's own IDS added any further US-only references beyond this set; the US-specific front-page "U.S. Patent Documents" list should be double-checked on Patent Center/Pair for completeness.

3. Reference-by-reference § 102 analysis

Claim 1 (the independent system claim) — element breakdown

For anticipation under § 102 a single reference must disclose all of:

• (a) a body with a first portion configured as a datum reference;
• (b) a second portion configured to support a dimension measurement system;
• (c) the measurement system coupled to the second portion and comprising a measurement tip;
• (d) configured to determine distance from the datum reference to the tip along a first measurement axis; and
• (e) the tip can translate relative to the body along a second axis perpendicular to the first.

US 5,182,862 A (Gagemaker) — the most relevant reference

• § 102 potential: Moderate-to-high for claims 1–4 if the reference discloses a frame/body referenced to a datum with a contact element that both traverses axially and is displaced radially. The reference is described as having thread form elements that longitudinally traverse the threaded product while an indicator transduces radial displacement — i.e., two perpendicular motion components, which maps onto elements (d) and (e). Notably it is the applicant's own earlier patent and shares inventor James R. Douglas, which raises § 102(a)(2)/§ 102(b) self-collision and § 103 obviousness-type considerations.
• Why it likely does not fully anticipate: The claimed architecture requires the measurement tip itself to be the element translating on the perpendicular axis within a single handheld body having a datum-reference first portion. US 5,182,862 is a functional-fit/parameter gage; whether its datum-referencing geometry reads on claim element (a) cannot be confirmed without full text. Verify the claim chart against the reference's figures.

US 6,047,479 A (Galestien)

• § 102 potential: Moderate for method claim 8, and possibly claim 1. The reference measures a longitudinal contour of a screw thread — i.e., it necessarily references the thread datum and translates a probe along the thread axis. This is conceptually close to the claimed "translate tip along a first axis to a thread artifact; zero; translate to a second artifact" method.
• Why it likely does not anticipate claim 1: It is a longitudinal-contour (lead/profile) device; disclosure of a second, perpendicular powered translation axis for the same tip is doubtful. Likely background/§ 103 art rather than § 102 art.

US 5,521,707 A (Apeiron)

• § 102 potential: Low for claim 1. It is an optical/laser scanning method — a non-contact system lacking the claimed mechanical "measurement tip" and datum-referencing frame. It could bear on the lead/pitch/drunken-lead computation aspects of the specification, but those computations are not positively recited as structure in claim 1.
• Relevance: § 103 art / background for the measurement-of-thread-form field.

US 4,524,524 A (Gagemaker, 1985)

• § 102 potential: Low-to-moderate; unverified. An early Gagemaker mechanical thread gage. Potentially relevant to claims directed to datum-referenced contact measurement, but the two-axis translation architecture in claim 1 post-dates it. Title/passages must be confirmed — I did not capture the title in-session and will not guess it.
• Relevance: likely background art establishing the state of contact thread gaging.

US 2010/0110448 A1 (Johnson)

• § 102 potential: Low-to-moderate. "Internal inspection system and method" — most relevant to the box-end (internal thread) embodiments of FIGS. 4 and 6. If it discloses a translating inspection head referenced to a component's end face, it could touch claim 1; otherwise it is background for internal-thread inspection.

Claims 1–20 (summary mapping)

Bottom line: No single cited reference appears to disclose all elements of independent claim 1 — in particular the combination of (i) a datum-reference body, (ii) an axial (Z) distance-measuring tip, and (iii) a perpendicular (X) translation axis for that same tip in a hand-held gage. That is consistent with the patent having issued. The strongest § 102 candidates are US 5,182,862 (claim 1) and US 6,047,479 (method claim 8); the remainder are best characterized as § 103/background art. I recommend a full claim chart against US 5,182,862 and US 6,047,479 before relying on either.

4. Admitted prior art on the face of the specification (not "cited references," but § 102-relevant)

The specification itself admits two prior-art systems that are available as § 102(a)(1) art even though they are not in the citation table:

1. Gagemaker DG-1000 series depth gage (FIG. 1) — a single-axis depth gage referenced to the pin end. Lacks the claimed second, perpendicular translation axis, so it cannot anticipate claim 1, but it is relevant to the preamble/field and to any claims not requiring two-axis motion.
2. Gage-pin + depth-gage method (FIG. 2) — a fixed-width gage pin (e.g., 0.2841 in / 7.2161 mm at 5.24215 in / 133.151 mm from datum) placed in the root and located with a depth gage. The patent expressly criticizes it as "incapable of determining if the stab lead or the load lead is in error."

These are useful prior art because they are admissions in the patent's own text (they can be used without independent authentication): see the specification's "Description of the Related Art" and FIGS. 1–2, and Gagemaker's published TP Series Profile Gage Operation Manual (© 2015), which describes profile gages and lead-error detection.

5. Forward citations (NOT prior art)

The family's "Cited By" entries include US 11,092,421 B2 (Gagemaker, "Automated dynamic dimensional measurement systems and methods") and other Gagemaker filings (US 10,254,099; US 10,677,577). These are later documents that cite US 11,022,419 and therefore cannot be § 102 prior art; they are listed only to avoid confusion with the cited-references table.

6. Caveats and recommended verification steps

1. Citation completeness: Confirm the US front-page "References Cited" list (US + foreign + NPL) directly on USPTO Patent Center for application 16/595,206. My list is drawn from the family/PCT record and may omit US-only IDS additions.
2. Reference texts: The § 102 mappings for US 4,524,524, US 5,182,862, and US 6,047,479 require element-by-element verification against full text and figures before being relied upon. I did not have tool budget to pull those documents.
3. US 4,524,524 title: Not verified in-session — do not attribute a title to it without checking.
4. Priority/§ 102 dates: All five references published between 1985 and 2010, i.e., more than one year before both the 2015-07-23 priority date and the 2016-07-22 parent filing, so they are § 102(a)(1) prior art under any framing.
5. No litigation context needed to reach these conclusions (consistent with the earlier litigation section: none found).

Primary source URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11022419B2/en (family citation table: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2017015546A1/en)

I'll research the prior art landscape for US 11,022,419 before building the § 103 analysis.

Let me dig into the key prior art references and the patent's own citation record.

Let me examine the patent's citation record and a few more relevant prior-art references.

Obviousness Analysis — US 11,022,419 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Patent: US 11,022,419 B2 — "Thread inspection systems and methods"
Owner: GAGEMAKER LP (Pasadena, TX) · Inventors: James R. Douglas; Kris L. Dawson; Stephen C. Janes
App: US 16/595,206 (filed 2019‑10‑07) · Priority: 2015‑07‑23 · Granted: 2021‑06‑01
Family: continuation of Ser. No. 15/216,952 → US 10,436,564; provisional 62/196,110. Pre‑grant pub. US 2020/0109935 A1; earlier family pub. US 2017/0038190 A1.

0. Scope, sources, and a required caveat

Caveat (important): The full granted claim set was not available to me. The authoritative text supplied reproduces claims 1–8 in full and claim 9 only in truncated form (preamble + "a dimension measurement system" — the remainder is cut off); claims 10–20 are not reproduced. My claim chart is therefore complete for claims 1–8, and I analyze claim 9 and the higher claims by reference to the published claim set of US 2020/0109935 A1 (claims 10–17, which were still visible in my search) as a proxy — not as certified granted text. Claims 9–20 must be re‑run against the certified claim text before this analysis is relied upon.

Flagged internal discrepancy: The patent's own figure list mislabels FIG. 11 and FIG. 13 (FIG. 11 is described as "the type of data," FIG. 13 as "the type of data," while the body text treats FIG. 13 as the tapered‑thread/helix‑axis figure). This is a drafting error in the specification, not a substantive issue, but it is a contradiction between the supplied sections and should be noted.

Flagged claim‑scope change: Granted claim 1 omits the "data processing system configured to receive and manipulate distance data" limitation that appears in claim 1 of the published US 2020/0109935 A1. The granted independent claim is therefore broader than the pre‑grant claim. This materially increases § 103 exposure, because the data‑processing/reporting features — arguably the most defensible differentiators — are no longer in independent claim 1.

Law applied: Graham v. John Deere (scope/content of prior art; differences; PHOSITA; secondary considerations) and KSR Int'l v. Teleflex (predictable improvements, "known technique to improve similar devices in the same way," finite number of identified predictable solutions, design incentives). AIA § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) with the 2015‑07‑23 priority date.

Level of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

A POSITA here would hold a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering (or equivalent), with ~2–5 years' experience in precision metrology/gaging of threaded oil‑country tubular goods (OCTG), and would be familiar with: hand‑held depth gages (e.g., Gagemaker DG‑1000 series, expressly admitted prior art), indicating thread gages/comparators, dial and digital indicators, guide‑rail/slide mechanics, and API thread‑inspection practice (Spec 7; lead, taper, thread form, pitch diameter). This is a mature, mechanical, "predictable‑arts" field, which favors obviousness.

1. Prior art of record and its admissibility

Deliberately excluded (post‑priority, NOT prior art to 2015‑07‑23): US 10,254,099; US 10,677,577; US 11,092,421; US 2021/0372763. Also not prior art: US 10,436,564 and US 2017/0038190 A1 (same‑family applicant disclosures). I flag these because they appeared prominently in search and must not be misused in a § 103 chart.

2. Claim 1 — element‑by‑element mapping

Claim 1 (granted):

a body comprising a first portion configured as a datum reference, and a second portion configured to support a dimension measurement system; the dimension measurement system operationally coupled to the second portion and comprising a measurement tip; the dimension measurement system configured to determine distance from the datum reference to the measurement tip along a first measurement axis; the dimension measurement system also configured so that the measurement tip can translate relative to the body along a second axis perpendicular to the first measurement axis.

Primary combination: US 5,182,862 in view of the admitted DG‑1000 disclosure (optionally further in view of US 4,524,524)

Motivation to combine (KSR):

1. Same field, same problem, same designer lineage. US 5,182,862 is assigned to Gagemaker, Inc. and names James R. Douglas — a named inventor of the patent‑at‑issue — as co‑inventor. A POSITA addressing Gagemaker‑style thread gaging would plainly consult it.
2. The mutual prior‑art criticisms supply the design incentive. US 5,182,862's own background criticizes the Johnson "Tri‑Roll" comparator for being "incapable of gaging a threaded product at more than one circumferential position" and for lacking individual‑parameter capability — the same motivations the patent‑at‑issue recites (multiple locations, 0°–360°). Meanwhile the DG‑1000 admission states that to measure other locations the operator "must remove the gage … relocate it … and reset the gage against the reference point" — the exact deficiency the claimed second‑axis translation cures (spec: "the inspection system does not have to disengage from the product reference surface. This results in more accurate and repeatable measurements").
3. Predictable mechanical expedient. Mounting a known depth gauge on a carriage/slide that also moves perpendicular to the measurement axis is a "known technique … improv[ing] similar devices in the same way," and at most an "obvious to try" rearrangement of a finite set of known options (rail + block + perpendicular slide), with predictable results.

Conclusion (claim 1): The combination of US 5,182,862 and the admitted DG‑1000 gage (or equivalently US 4,524,524 + DG‑1000) discloses every element of claim 1. Claim 1 is prima facie obvious under § 103.

3. Dependent claims 2–7

Conclusion (claims 2–7): Obvious; each depends on a predictable mechanical/instrumentation choice with express prior‑art support.

4. Method claim 8 (and the wedge‑thread method of claim 9)

Claim 8 steps: contact datum to dimensional reference → translate tip along first axis to a first artifact → zero → translate along second axis away from the first artifact → translate along first and second axes to a second artifact → display distance.

Motivation: avoiding the admitted need to remove and re‑reference the gage for each measurement (accuracy/repeatability) is a recognized incentive; adding a perpendicular (radial) clearing motion so the probe can lift over a crest between flanks is an ordinary mechanical expedient, and the result is predictable. Whether claim 8's "zeroing at the first artifact" (rather than at the datum) adds patentable weight is doubtful: zeroing‑on‑a‑surface is a standard metrology practice and is usefully suggested by EP 2 259 015's datum/position detection.

Claim 9 (wedge thread; plurality of stab and load flanks): The wedge thread with load/stab flanks and the "sweet spot" are admitted prior art in the specification, and measuring a wedge thread with a depth gage and a go‑type gage pin of the sweet‑spot width is admitted (FIG. 2). To the extent claim 9's cut‑off steps mirror US 2020/0109935 A1 claims 11–17 (stab‑flank / load‑flank measurement, comparison to the design sweet‑spot distance, variance reporting, and lead determination), each is met or suggested by: the DG‑1000 + gage‑pin admissions (sweet‑spot width/distance), EP 2 259 015 / US 8,804,104 (flank‑surface contact probing + processor), and the Gagemaker JSS "Lead Gage" / API Spec 7 material (thread lead verification) plus US 4,700,484 (microprocessor data processing). This must be re‑verified against the certified claim text.

5. Alternative (backup) combinations

• Combination B — US 4,524,524 + US 5,182,862. US 4,524,524 supplies the datum‑contacting bearing pad, guide‑rail sliding blocks, dial‑indicator plunger, and "distance from the end of the product" measurement; US 5,182,862 supplies thread‑flank‑engaging form elements and a longitudinal‑traverse + rigidity‑brace architecture. Together they render claim 1 obvious; motivation is the shared problem (gaging tapered threaded oilfield tubulars) and the express statement in US 4,524,524 that it is "adapted to measuring pitch diameters of internally or externally, tapered or straight, threaded products."
• Combination C — EP 2 259 015 A1 / US 8,804,104 + DG‑1000 (or gage pin). EP 2 259 015 supplies the contact‑probe‑on‑flank, orthogonal‑axis coordinate detection (10X/10Y/10Z), processor combination, and multi‑circumferential (90°) measurement — mapping to claims 1, 2, 4, 8, and 9; the DG‑1000/gage‑pin admissions supply the datum‑referenced axial distance and sweet‑spot methodology.
• Combination D — any of the above + US 4,567,670 for the tapered‑thread gauge context.

6. Secondary considerations / counter‑arguments to consider

1. No unexpected results or criticality disclosed. The specification presents the second‑axis translation and the software outputs as advantages over the admitted gages, not as results that were unpredictable. Benefits recited (no disengagement ⇒ more accurate/repeatable) are the expected consequences of the structure.
2. Possible "teaching away" / "gross inspection" argument. The specification argues the prior art (DG‑1000, gage pin) "are incapable of determining if the stab lead or the load lead is in error." This is a capability argument that lands on the method/data‑processing claims (9–20 and their predecessors) — not on granted claim 1, which is a purely structural apparatus claim. Indeed, by dropping the data‑processing limitation from granted claim 1 (compare US 2020/0109935 A1 claim 1), the applicant broadened precisely the subject matter most exposed to US 5,182,862 + the DG‑1000 admission.
3. Common ownership / same‑inventor overlap (US 5,182,862). Same‑owner or same‑inventor art is still prior art if it otherwise qualifies; and KSR does not require that references be from different entities. However, if a terminal‑disclaimer or double‑patenting concern is raised elsewhere, it is a separate doctrine from § 103 and should not be conflated.
4. Any "drunken lead," sinusoidal‑curve reporting, and wireless/Bluetooth data‑processing features are, on the current record, not captured by granted claim 1. If asserted from dependent claims, they invite a separate § 103 response built on US 4,700,484 (microprocessor), the Gagemaker JSS/TDWIN TAPER public software/lead‑gage material, and EP 2 259 015 (processor + multi‑position measurement).

7. Bottom line

• Claim 1: prima facie obvious over US 5,182,862 in view of the admitted Gagemaker DG‑1000 depth gage, and independently over US 4,524,524 in view of US 5,182,862. Every recited element (datum reference; support portion; measurement tip; axial distance measurement; perpendicular translation) is disclosed or a predictable rearrangement, with strong motivation from the same field, the same assignee/inventor lineage, and the prior art's own criticisms of single‑position, re‑referencing gages.
• Claims 2–7: obvious — supported respectively by EP 2 259 015 A1 / US 8,804,104 and US 4,700,484 (multi‑axis), US 5,182,862 / US 4,524,524 (block‑on‑rail carriage), US 5,182,862's express brace (rigidity), and the admitted/express dial, rule, or digital display alternatives.
• Claim 8: obvious over the admitted DG‑1000 procedure plus a routine perpendicular traverse; the "zero at the artifact" and "display" steps are conventional metrology.
• Claim 9 and claims 10–20: cannot be definitively assessed on the supplied text (claim 9 is truncated; 10–20 not reproduced). Provisional analysis indicates the wedge‑thread/lead/sweet‑spot/variance‑reporting features are at least suggested by the admitted wedge‑thread + gage‑pin art, EP 2 259 015, and the Gagemaker JSS lead‑gage / API Spec 7 material — but these claims should be charted against the certified granted text before any conclusion.

Confidence: High for claims 1–8 (the mapping is on admitted prior art and long‑predating patents from the same company). Moderate‑to‑low for claims 9–20, strictly because the granted claim text was not fully available in the source I was given. This is a technical § 103 analysis, not a legal opinion, and it does not account for prosecution‑history estoppel, priority/§ 112 support, or any IPR validity findings.

Sources: US 11,022,419 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US11022419/en); US 2020/0109935 A1 (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/3b/07/71/e07a5433ca3137/US20200109935A1.pdf); US 2017/0038190 A1 (https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0038190.html); US 5,182,862 (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5182862A](/patent/US5182862A)/en; http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat5182862.html); US 4,524,524; US 4,700,484; US 4,567,670; US 3,090,126; US 4,189,843; EP 2 259 015 A1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2259015A1/en; http://data.epo.org/publication-server/rest/v1.2/patents/EP2259015NWA1/document.pdf); US 8,804,104 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8804104); Gagemaker Joint Strength System brochure (http://www.gagemaker.com/images/phocadownload/brochures/JSSbrochure.pdf).