US 11031677

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 11031677:

US Patent: 11031677

• Title: Multiple-body-configuration multimedia and smartphone multifunction wireless devices
• Assignee: Fractus SA
• Inventors: Carles Puente Baliarda, Josep Mumbru, Jordi Ilario
• Filing Date: March 27, 2020
• Issue Date: June 8, 2021

Abstract:
A multifunction wireless device (MFWD) is disclosed, featuring at least multimedia functionality, smartphone functionality, or both. This device comprises an upper body and a lower body designed to move relative to each other in clamshell, slide, or twist configurations. The MFWD also includes an antenna system located within either the upper or lower body. The antenna's contour possesses a specific level of complexity, defined by complexity factor F21 having a value between 1.05 and 1.80, and a value between 1.10 and 1.90 for an unspecified second complexity factor (implied to be F32 from other patent text descriptions).

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims (as inferred from the "Definitions" section, as formal claims numbering was not provided in the authoritative text):

1. Claim 1 (Inferred): A multifunction wireless device (MFWD) that includes at least multimedia or smartphone capabilities. This MFWD has an upper and a lower body designed to move relative to each other (e.g., clamshell, slide, twist). Crucially, it incorporates an antenna system located in either the upper or lower body. This antenna system's shape has a specific complexity level, where its contour is defined by a complexity factor F21 ranging from 1.05 to 1.80, and another complexity factor (implicitly F32) ranging from 1.10 to 1.90.

2. Claim 2 (Inferred): A multifunction wireless device (MFWD) having multimedia or smartphone functionalities. This MFWD specifically includes a microprocessor and an operating system capable of running standard productivity software like word processing, spreadsheets, and slide presentations. It also has at least 1 GB of memory coupled with the microprocessor. The device further comprises an antenna system whose contour's complexity is defined by factor F21 (between 1.05 and 1.80) and factor F32 (between 1.10 and 1.90).

3. Claim 3 (Inferred): A multifunction wireless device (MFWD) with multimedia or smartphone capabilities. This MFWD is equipped with a receiver for analog or digital sound signals, and an image recording system that includes at least one of: an image sensor of at least 2 Megapixels, a flash light, an optical zoom, or a digital zoom. It also features data storage with a capacity of at least 1 GB. Similar to the other claims, it includes an antenna system with a contour complexity defined by factor F21 (between 1.05 and 1.80) and factor F32 (between 1.10 and 1.90).

Uncertainty Note: The provided "Full patent text" contains a "Definitions" section that describes aspects of the invention and what appears to be summaries of independent claims. However, it lacks the formal "Claims" section with numbered claims. Therefore, the independent claims overview above is based on the most distinct claim-like descriptions found within the "Definitions" section.

Litigation Search:
A search of CAFC 2026 dockets for patent number 11031677 did not yield specific case filings. However, Google Patents indicates that the patent family is involved in litigation, with cases filed in the California Southern District Court and Texas Eastern District Court, as well as multiple PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) cases (IPR2025-01026, IPR2026-00191, IPR2026-00196) that are currently pending or instituted.

Known litigation involving US patent 11031677 includes both district court cases and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.

Here is a list of known litigation:

• Case Number: 3:25-cv-02680

  • Plaintiff(s): Fractus, S.A.
  • Defendant(s): ResMed Inc. and ResMed Corp. (ResMed Inc. dismissed without prejudice, ResMed Corp. remains)
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
  • Filing Date: October 9, 2025
  • Outcome or Current Status: Ongoing. As of January 26, 2026, ResMed Inc. was dismissed without prejudice, while ResMed Corp. remained a defendant. Fractus, S.A. filed a complaint alleging patent infringement, and ResMed Corp. has filed a motion to dismiss.

• Case Number: 2:24-cv-01009

  • Plaintiff(s): Fractus, S.A.
  • Defendant(s): Verizon Connect Inc. and others (Verizon is a named defendant)
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Filing Date: December 6, 2024
  • Outcome or Current Status: Settled with Verizon as of March 25, 2026. Fractus filed patent infringement lawsuits against Geotab and Verizon alleging unauthorized use of Fractus' patented antenna innovations.

• Case Number: 2:24-cv-01008

  • Plaintiff(s): Fractus, S.A.
  • Defendant(s): Geotab Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Filing Date: December 5, 2024
  • Outcome or Current Status: Ongoing. Fractus filed patent infringement lawsuits against Geotab alleging unauthorized use of Fractus' patented antenna innovations.

• Case Number: IPR2025-01026

  • Petitioner(s): Geotab Inc. et al.
  • Patent Owner(s): Fractus, S.A.
  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in search results, but noted as "Pending - Instituted" in previous analysis.
  • Outcome or Current Status: Pending - Instituted. The Board has denied the Patent Owner's request for discretionary denial.

• Case Number: IPR2026-00191

  • Petitioner(s): Resmed Corp.
  • Patent Owner(s): Fractus, S.A.
  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
  • Filing Date: January 2, 2026 (based on document filing dates)
  • Outcome or Current Status: Pending.

• Case Number: IPR2026-00196

  • Petitioner(s): Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless
  • Patent Owner(s): Fractus, S.A.
  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
  • Filing Date: January 5, 2026
  • Outcome or Current Status: Settlement. Challenged claims include 1-20.

Proceedings overview

There are three AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 11031677. One IPR is currently at the "Trial Instituted" stage, another is "Pending," and one has been "Terminated-Settled." This gives a defendant a mixed defensive posture; while no claims have been formally invalidated by a Final Written Decision, the instituted trial presents a live challenge, and the settled case suggests a resolution was reached, though the terms are confidential.

IPR2025-01026 — Geotab Inc. et al. v. Fractus, S.A.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-06-06
• Status: Trial Instituted (as of 2026-05-20). This means the PTAB has determined that the petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, and the trial phase has begun.
• Judge panel: Information not explicitly found in search results.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims are 1-20. The petition referenced a decision where the Board denied the Patent Owner's request for discretionary denial based on Fintiv factors.
• Institution decision: Instituted. The Board denied Fractus's request for discretionary denial. The institution decision was issued on February 4, 2026.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not yet issued, as the case is in the "Trial Instituted" status. The statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision is typically one year from institution.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated or settled.
• Appeal: Not applicable yet, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This is an active proceeding challenging all claims (1-20) of the patent. If the petitioner prevails, these claims could be invalidated. A defendant currently facing assertion of this patent should monitor this IPR closely, as a successful outcome for the petitioner could significantly weaken the patent owner's position. The denial of discretionary denial means the PTAB proceeded to examine the merits despite parallel district court litigation.

IPR2026-00191 — Resmed Corp. v. Fractus, S.A.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-01-02
• Status: Pending. This indicates the petition has been filed and is awaiting a decision on institution. The last modification was 2026-05-14.
• Judge panel: Information not explicitly found in search results.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims are not explicitly stated in the provided snippets for this specific IPR, but ResMed is involved in a patent infringement suit filed by Fractus in the Southern District of California, alleging infringement of multiple Fractus patents, including US11031677.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. The Board typically has six months from the petition filing date to decide on institution.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable yet, as institution has not occurred.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated or settled.
• Appeal: Not applicable yet.
• Defensive value: This is a pending IPR, meaning the patent claims are currently under review for a potential trial. Given the ongoing infringement litigation between Fractus and ResMed, this IPR is a key defensive move by ResMed. A favorable institution decision for ResMed could provide significant leverage.

IPR2026-00196 — [Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Cellco%20Partnership%20d%2Fb%2Fa%20Verizon%20Wireless) et al. v. Fractus, S.A.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-01-05
• Status: Terminated-Settled (as of 2026-04-16). This means the parties reached a settlement agreement, leading to the termination of the IPR before a final decision on the merits.
• Judge panel: Information not explicitly found in search results.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims are 1-20. Grounds included obviousness over Dou in view of Ciais-Quadband for claims 1-9, and adding Nakano for claims requiring a third antenna. The petition asserted calculated complexity factors F21=1.31 and F32=1.57 for claim 1, and F21=1.49 and F32=1.46 for claims requiring a third antenna.
• Institution decision: The petition referenced a decision in the related Geotab IPR (IPR2025-01026) where the Board denied the Patent Owner's request for discretionary denial. This suggests the Fintiv factors were considered, and institution was likely.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated-Settled on 2026-04-16. Fractus and Verizon settled their patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, leading to a joint motion to dismiss the case with prejudice. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential, but Fractus CEO Jordi Ilario stated the company was "pleased to have reached a resolution with Verizon."
• Appeal: Not applicable, as the case was settled.
• Defensive value: While this IPR was terminated due to a confidential settlement between Verizon and Fractus, it indicates that Verizon found it strategically advantageous to settle rather than pursue the IPR to a Final Written Decision. The fact that the IPR challenged claims 1-20 provides insight into the scope of claims asserted against Verizon. The settlement suggests that Fractus, S.A. is actively licensing its technology. For other defendants, this means the claims were not invalidated, but it also removes Verizon as a potential co-litigant or IPR participant on these specific grounds.

Strategic summary

Currently, no claims of US11031677 have been formally CANCELED by a Final Written Decision from the PTAB. One IPR (IPR2025-01026) is in the "Trial Instituted" phase, challenging claims 1-20, meaning these claims are currently under active review for patentability. Another IPR (IPR2026-00191) is "Pending" for an institution decision, also posing a live threat to the patent. The third IPR (IPR2026-00196) was "Terminated-Settled," meaning the claims (1-20 were challenged) were not adjudicated by the PTAB but resolved through a private agreement, likely a license. This suggests that the patent owner, Fractus, S.A., is successfully enforcing and licensing its patent portfolio.

The estoppel landscape is evolving. For IPR2026-00196, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (and its privies) would be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting invalidity grounds in district court or the ITC that it raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. However, since the IPR was settled, the exact scope of estoppel might be nuanced and could depend on the terms of the settlement agreement. For IPR2025-01026, if a Final Written Decision is issued, Geotab Inc. et al. (and their privies) will be similarly estopped regarding the challenged claims and grounds. For the "Pending" IPR2026-00191, no estoppel has yet attached. New USPTO policies effective March 11, 2026, direct the PTAB to weigh U.S. manufacturing activity when deciding whether to institute an AIA trial, and also encourage petitioners to stipulate that they will not pursue §102/103 invalidity in district court if they seek institution. This could make future IPRs more difficult to institute, particularly for petitioners without a U.S. manufacturing footprint.

A clear pattern signal is that Fractus, S.A. is actively asserting this patent in district court litigation, which has led to these IPR filings. The settlements (like with Verizon) indicate a strategy of licensing and enforcement. There is no indication of a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents being the petitioner for these specific IPRs on this patent, though Unified Patents does track the litigation.

Recommended next steps

• For IPR2025-01026 (Geotab Inc. et al. v. Fractus, S.A.): This IPR is in the trial phase. Defendants should actively monitor the PTAB's docket for upcoming milestones, including the oral hearing (if scheduled) and the statutory deadline for the Final Written Decision, which is approximately one year from the institution date (early February 2027). The institution decision for this IPR denied Fractus's request for discretionary denial, indicating the Board found sufficient merit to proceed.
• For IPR2026-00191 (Resmed Corp. v. Fractus, S.A.): This IPR is currently pending an institution decision. The Board has until July 2, 2026 (six months from the filing date) to decide whether to institute a trial. Monitoring the institution decision for this proceeding is critical, as it will determine if the patent faces a second active PTAB challenge.
• For IPR2026-00196 (Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v. Fractus, S.A.): This IPR has been terminated due to a settlement. While the terms are confidential, it suggests a license agreement was reached for the challenged claims (1-20). This outcome means these claims were not invalidated by the PTAB in this specific proceeding. However, the prior art grounds raised by Verizon could still be available to other defendants who are not in privity with Verizon and not estopped.
• Given the evolving PTAB landscape with new Director guidance regarding discretionary denials and potential stipulations, any new IPR petitions should carefully consider these factors.## Proceedings overview

There are three AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 11031677. One IPR is currently at the "Trial Instituted" stage, another is "Pending" an institution decision, and one has been "Terminated-Settled." This provides a defendant with a mixed defensive posture; no claims have been formally invalidated by a Final Written Decision from the PTAB, but the instituted trial presents a live challenge to all claims, and the settled case indicates a resolution was reached outside of a Board adjudication on the merits.

IPR2025-01026 — Geotab Inc. et al. v. Fractus, S.A.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-06-06
• Status: Trial Instituted (as of 2026-05-20). The PTAB has determined that the petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim, and the trial phase has commenced.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific judge panel was not explicitly found in the provided search results.
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-20 of US11031677 were challenged. The petition referenced a decision where the Board denied the Patent Owner's request for discretionary denial under Fintiv factors.
• Institution decision: Instituted. The institution decision was issued on February 4, 2026. The Board denied Fractus's request for discretionary denial, proceeding to a merits review.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not yet issued. The case is in the "Trial Instituted" status, meaning the trial is ongoing. A Final Written Decision is typically due within one year of institution.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated or settled.
• Appeal: Not applicable yet, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This is a critical ongoing proceeding that challenges all claims (1-20) of the patent. A defendant currently facing assertion of this patent should monitor this IPR closely, as a successful outcome for the petitioner could lead to the invalidation of all claims, significantly impacting the patent owner's enforcement capabilities.

IPR2026-00191 — Resmed Corp. v. Fractus, S.A.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-01-02
• Status: Pending. The petition has been filed and is awaiting an institution decision from the PTAB. The last modification was on 2026-05-14.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific judge panel was not explicitly found in the provided search results.
• Petition grounds: While specific challenged claims are not detailed in the provided snippets for this IPR, Resmed Corp. is involved in parallel district court litigation with Fractus, S.A. concerning alleged infringement of multiple Fractus patents, including US11031677.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. The PTAB generally has six months from the petition filing date to render a decision on institution.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as the IPR has not yet been instituted.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated or settled.
• Appeal: Not applicable yet.
• Defensive value: This is a live IPR petition that could lead to another trial challenging the patent's claims. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, the outcome of the institution decision is significant. If instituted, it would represent a second active IPR challenging the patent.

IPR2026-00196 — Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v. Fractus, S.A.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-01-05
• Status: Terminated-Settled (as of 2026-04-16). This IPR concluded due to a settlement agreement between the parties before a Final Written Decision was reached.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific judge panel was not explicitly found in the provided search results.
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-20 were challenged. Grounds included obviousness over prior art references such as Dou in view of Ciais-Quadband for claims 1-9, and further in view of Nakano for claims requiring a third antenna. The petition included calculations of the complexity factors (F21=1.31, F32=1.57 for claim 1; F21=1.49, F32=1.46 for claims with a third antenna). The petition referenced the Board's denial of a Fintiv discretionary denial request in the related Geotab IPR (IPR2025-01026).
• Institution decision: Although not explicitly stated as "instituted," the reference to the Fintiv denial in IPR2025-01026 suggests the PTAB was inclined to proceed to the merits. However, the case settled before a formal institution decision for IPR2026-00196 was publicly available.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued, as the proceeding was terminated due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: The IPR was terminated due to a settlement reached between Fractus, S.A. and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. This settlement also resolved parallel patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, resulting in a joint motion to dismiss the court case with prejudice. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as the case was settled prior to a Final Written Decision.
• Defensive value: This settlement indicates that Verizon, facing infringement allegations on claims 1-20, chose to resolve the matter through agreement rather than PTAB adjudication. While the claims were not invalidated, the settlement suggests a successful outcome for the patent owner in terms of securing a license or other resolution. For other defendants, the prior art and arguments raised by Verizon in its petition may still be available as a defense, provided they are not in privity with Verizon and not otherwise estopped.

Strategic summary

As of today, May 28, 2026, no claims of US11031677 have been formally CANCELED or SUSTAINED by a Final Written Decision from the PTAB. All three "Inferred Claims" (which align with the general scope of claims 1-20 challenged in the IPRs) remain UNTESTED by a final PTAB verdict.

• IPR2025-01026, challenging claims 1-20, is currently in the "Trial Instituted" phase, meaning these claims are under active review and could potentially be invalidated.
• IPR2026-00191 is "Pending" an institution decision, which could lead to a second active trial.
• IPR2026-00196, which also challenged claims 1-20, was "Terminated-Settled," meaning the claims were not adjudicated by the PTAB on the merits but resolved through a private agreement. This suggests a successful licensing or settlement outcome for the patent owner.

The estoppel landscape is currently limited. For IPR2026-00196, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (and its privies) would be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting invalidity grounds in district court or the ITC that it raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. However, the precise scope of this estoppel, given a settlement rather than a Final Written Decision, might be governed by the confidential settlement terms. For IPR2025-01026, if a Final Written Decision is issued, Geotab Inc. et al. (and their privies) will be similarly estopped. Given new USPTO policies in early 2026, which emphasize considerations like U.S. manufacturing activity and petitioner stipulations against parallel litigation, instituting future IPRs may become more challenging.

A clear pattern signal is Fractus, S.A.'s active enforcement of this patent through district court litigation, which has prompted these IPR filings. The settlements (such as with Verizon) reinforce Fractus's strategy of pursuing licensing agreements. There is no evidence from the provided data that a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents is the petitioner in these specific proceedings against US11031677, although Unified Patents does track related litigation.

Recommended next steps

• For IPR2025-01026 (Geotab Inc. et al. v. Fractus, S.A.): This proceeding is in the trial phase. A defendant should actively monitor the PTAB's docket for all upcoming filings, particularly those related to claim construction, expert testimony, oral arguments, and the statutory deadline for the Final Written Decision (approximately early February 2027, one year from institution). The institution decision for this IPR denied Fractus's request for discretionary denial, indicating the Board found sufficient merit to proceed.
• For IPR2026-00191 (Resmed Corp. v. Fractus, S.A.): This IPR is pending an institution decision. The Board has until early July 2026 (six months from the filing date) to decide whether to institute a trial. A defendant should monitor for this institution decision, as its outcome will significantly influence the defensive landscape for US11031677.
• General Recommendation: Given the ongoing litigation and Fractus's apparent success in reaching settlements, any defendant being asserted against should carefully evaluate the prior art grounds raised in IPR2026-00196 (Verizon's settled IPR) and IPR2025-01026 (Geotab's active IPR) to determine if any of these unadjudicated grounds could form the basis of a strong independent invalidity defense, provided no estoppel applies. Defendants should also consider the implications of the recently enacted USPTO discretionary denial policies when planning any new PTAB challenges.

Inventors

• Carles Puente Baliarda: Fractus SA (at time of original priority date/filing, based on assignee information)
• Josep Mumbru: Fractus SA (at time of original priority date/filing, based on assignee information)
• Jordi Ilario: Fractus SA (at time of original priority date/filing, based on assignee information)

Original assignee

The original assignee named on the issued patent is Fractus SA. Fractus SA is a Spanish antenna technology company that designs and licenses antenna technology for wireless devices. They are an operating company in the business of developing and licensing antenna solutions. Their current status is operating.

Assignment timeline

• 2023-06-27 (executed) / recorded 2023-07-06 — Reel 055928/0879
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: ILARIO, JORDI; PUENTE BALIARDA, CARLES; MUMBRU, JOSEP
  • Assignee: FRACTUS, S.A.
  • Correspondent: BLANK ROME LLP, 1825 EYE STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20006.
  • Context: Reassignment of inventors' interest to the original assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11031677
    2020 : Filed by Fractus SA
    2021 : Issued to Fractus SA
    2023 : Inventors reassigned to Fractus SA

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The only recorded assignment is from the inventors back to Fractus SA, an operating company.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Fractus SA is an operating company.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. There is only one assignment record for this patent in the USPTO assignment database, so recurrence cannot be observed in this chain.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Only one assignment is recorded.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Unclear. While Google Patents indicates litigation, the single assignment in the USPTO assignment record (2023-06-27) is not within 6 months of the original filing date (2020-03-27) or issue date (2021-06-08). However, the priority date of the earliest related litigation (Unified Patents case filed 2024-07-24, District Court case filed 2024-07-24) is more than 6 months after the assignment.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No evidence of bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — Not present. No evidence of privateering.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent remains with Fractus SA.

Verdict

Insufficient data. The single assignment recorded on reel 055928/0879 is a reassignment from the inventors to the original assignee, Fractus S.A. This does not provide sufficient information to identify an NPE or operating company assertion pattern, other than Fractus S.A. is actively managing its patent ownership. The Google Patents information indicates litigation, but the assignment records do not show a transfer to a known NPE.

USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

The USPTO database search on Google Patents (which is linked to the USPTO data) for US patent 11031677 provides access to the patent document itself, including its cited prior art. As of the current date, US11031677B2 is an active patent, granted on June 8, 2021, and is anticipated to expire on December 21, 2026.

The patent document lists a significant number of patent and non-patent citations. To identify the most relevant prior art for potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a comprehensive review of all 616 patent citations would typically be required. However, for this exercise, I will highlight some of the key prior art documents that appear to be directly related to the lineage of US11031677B2, as indicated by the "Priority and Related Applications" section of the Google Patents record. These are the continuation and provisional applications from which US11031677B2 claims benefit. While these are related applications rather than prior art in the strict sense for a 102 analysis of the granted claims, understanding their content is crucial as they represent the evolutionary path of the claimed invention.

For a true 35 U.S.C. § 102 anticipation analysis, we would typically look at patents not in the priority chain but cited against the application during prosecution. The Google Patents link lists "Patent citations (616)", but it does not immediately present the details of those citations or indicate which were specifically cited by the examiner against the claims. Without access to the full prosecution history (e.g., an Image File Wrapper from USPTO PatentCenter), it's impossible to definitively state which specific prior art references were deemed most relevant by the examiner or could anticipate the claims.

However, based on the provided text, the patent US11031677B2 claims benefit from the following earlier applications:

• U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/856,626

  • Filing Date: December 28, 2017
  • Description: This is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/738,090.
  • Potential Anticipation: This is a parent application in the chain. Its disclosures would be part of the inventive entity's own prior work and not used to anticipate claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 unless the priority claim is invalid for some reason. The claims of 11031677 would need to be considered in light of the earliest effective filing date derived from this chain.

• U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/738,090 (now U.S. Pat. No. 9,899,727)

  • Filing Date: June 12, 2015
  • Publication Date (for the granted patent): February 20, 2018
  • Description: This is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/246,491.
  • Potential Anticipation: Similar to the above, this is a parent application. Its granted form, US Pat. No. 9,899,727, would constitute prior art if the claims of US11031677B2 did not have an earlier effective filing date than the publication of 9,899,727. Given the continuation chain, the claims of US11031677B2 would likely claim priority back through this application.

• U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/246,491 (now U.S. Pat. No. 9,099,773)

  • Filing Date: April 7, 2014
  • Publication Date (for the granted patent): August 4, 2015
  • Description: This is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/614,429.
  • Potential Anticipation: Another parent application in the chain. Its granted form, US Pat. No. 9,099,773, would be considered similarly to 9,899,727 regarding prior art analysis.

• U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/614,429 (now U.S. Pat. No. 8,738,103)

  • Filing Date: December 21, 2006
  • Publication Date (for the granted patent): May 27, 2014
  • Description: This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/831,544 and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/856,410.
  • Potential Anticipation: This is a foundational non-provisional application in the chain. Its granted form, US Pat. No. 8,738,103, would be relevant as a potential prior art date if the claims in US11031677B2 do not have an effective filing date prior to May 27, 2014.

• U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/831,544

  • Filing Date: July 18, 2006
  • Description: This is an early provisional application in the priority chain.
  • Potential Anticipation: This provisional application provides the earliest priority date (July 18, 2006) for subject matter disclosed therein and later claimed in US11031677B2. Therefore, any other prior art would need to have a filing or publication date before July 18, 2006, to anticipate claims in US11031677B2 that are fully supported by the disclosure of this provisional application.

• U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/856,410

  • Filing Date: November 3, 2006
  • Description: This is another early provisional application in the priority chain.
  • Potential Anticipation: Similar to the above, this provisional provides a priority date for subject matter disclosed within it.

Without the detailed list of examiner-cited prior art and the specific claims from the "Claims" section (which were inferred for this analysis), identifying the most relevant prior art that anticipates a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is speculative. A proper analysis would involve comparing each element of an independent claim to the disclosure of a piece of prior art published before the effective filing date of the patent. The related applications listed above are primarily for establishing the priority date, not for anticipation against the current patent if the priority claim is valid.

Due to the absence of specific prior art patent or publication numbers within the provided "Prior art keywords" or "Definitions" section of US11031677B2, a detailed obviousness analysis combining specific prior art documents cannot be performed. However, based on the patent's own description of the state of the art and the problems it seeks to solve, a hypothetical obviousness argument under 35 U.S.C. § 103 can be constructed.

Background in the Art (as described by US11031677B2)

The patent describes a landscape where multifunction wireless devices (MFWDs), including multimedia terminals (MMT) and smartphones (SMRT), were prevalent. These devices often featured movable bodies (e.g., clamshell, slide, twist configurations) and increasingly sophisticated functionalities, requiring compact, multi-band, and efficient antenna systems. Key challenges in the prior art included:

• Maintaining performance (e.g., bandwidth, gain, efficiency) in small antennas due to fundamental physical limits related to volume.
• Achieving multi-band operation, particularly for broad bands like UMTS, within limited space without performance degradation or increased size.
• Overcoming the limitations of suitable antenna types for slim/movable devices, such as patch antennas (including PIFA), which were known for poor gain and narrow bandwidths.
• Integrating antennas efficiently alongside other electronic components and additional antennas, while meeting strict size, weight, and battery consumption constraints.
• The general understanding that increased gain and directivity often required larger antenna sizes, contrasting with the need for omni-directional patterns in portable devices.

The patent itself lists "antenna, contour, rectangle, wireless device, complexity" as prior art keywords, indicating that these concepts were known in the field before the 2006-07-18 priority date.

Hypothetical Combination of Prior Art for Obviousness

To establish obviousness for the claims of US11031677B2, a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would likely combine the following types of generic prior art, based on the problems and solutions described in the patent:

1. Prior Art Reference A: A Multifunction Wireless Device (MFWD) with a Movable Body (e.g., a generic mobile phone patent or commercial product from pre-2006).

   • This reference would disclose an MFWD featuring an upper and a lower body adapted to move relative to each other (e.g., clamshell, slide, or twist). It would also include multimedia and/or smartphone functionalities, encompassing components like a microprocessor, operating system (capable of running productivity applications), memory (e.g., greater than 1GB), a receiver for sound signals, and an image recording system (e.g., with a 2 Megapixel sensor, flash, or zoom capabilities), as well as data storage (e.g., greater than 1GB). Such devices were widely available and documented in various forms prior to 2006.

2. Prior Art Reference B: Known Antenna Design Techniques for Compact, Multi-band Antennas (e.g., an antenna engineering textbook or patent illustrating antenna shaping for mobile devices from pre-2006).

   • This reference would teach established methods for designing antennas to operate in multiple frequency bands (e.g., GSM, UMTS) within limited spatial volumes. It would describe techniques such as introducing slots, gaps, slits, cuts, or apertures into conductive plates; removing portions of the antenna structure; bending, folding, or curving antenna parts; meandering, sinuous, zig-zagging, or curving the perimeter; and employing multiple coupled antenna elements. These techniques were known means to achieve miniaturization, multi-band resonance, and impedance matching, addressing the inherent trade-offs between antenna size and bandwidth.

3. Prior Art Reference C: Methods for Quantifying Geometric Complexity (e.g., a technical paper or textbook discussing fractal geometry, box-counting methods, or other metrics for shape complexity from pre-2006).

   • This reference would disclose methods for characterizing the geometric complexity of two-dimensional or three-dimensional shapes. Such methods could include grid-based counting techniques (similar to those described for F21 and F32 in the patent), fractal dimension calculations, or other means to quantify "edge-richness, angle-richness and/or discontinuity-richness" of a contour at different levels of scale.

Motivation to Combine and Obviousness Rationale

A PHOSITA in antenna design, seeking to improve the performance of antennas in compact, multi-body MFWDs (Reference A), would have been highly motivated to apply known antenna shaping techniques (Reference B). The patent explicitly states the desire "to provide an enhanced wireless connectivity" and "to optimize the efficiency of an antenna for a MFWD device while observing the constraints of small device size and enhanced performance characteristics". The recognized shortcomings of conventional antennas, such as the narrow bandwidth of PIFAs for UMTS operation in slim devices, would further compel a PHOSITA to explore advanced geometries.

Given that the "complexity" of antenna shapes was a known concept in the prior art, and that engineers frequently sought to maximize surface area within a given volume to improve bandwidth, a PHOSITA would naturally experiment with more intricate antenna contours. If methods for quantifying geometric complexity (Reference C) were known or readily derivable, a PHOSITA would be motivated to utilize such quantitative analysis to systematically design and optimize antenna shapes. Such quantification would allow for a more objective comparison and refinement of various complex geometries (e.g., meanders, slots, multiple branches) beyond qualitative assessment.

The specific parameters F21 and F32, as defined in the patent, are presented as tools to "capture and characterize certain aspects of the geometrical details of the antenna contour... when viewed at different levels of scale" and to guide antenna design and optimization. The patent even suggests that these "parameters may also be used in numerical optimization algorithms as target values or to define target intervals in order to speed up such algorithms".

Therefore, a PHOSITA, aiming to optimize antenna performance (multi-band, broadband, efficiency, gain, miniaturization, isolation) in a movable MFWD (Reference A) using known shaping techniques (Reference B) and informed by methods of quantifying geometric complexity (Reference C), would have been motivated to iteratively design and test various complex antenna contours. Through routine experimentation and optimization, a PHOSITA could reasonably arrive at antenna designs whose contours fall within the claimed ranges for complexity factors F21 (1.05-1.80) and F32 (1.10-1.90). The selection of these specific ranges, while beneficial, would be considered an obvious result of such a systematic optimization process, driven by the known engineering objectives for mobile device antennas.

For example, a PHOSITA aware that highly convoluted perimeters (which would increase F32) can aid miniaturization and broad frequency response, and that branched structures (which would increase F21) can improve multi-band operation, would be motivated to combine these features. The discovery of specific quantitative ranges (F21 and F32) that yield optimal results within these design goals would be an expected outcome of applying known design principles and optimization techniques to address known problems in the art.

The current date is May 30, 2026.

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) for US11031677

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) compensates patent applicants for certain delays caused by the USPTO during the prosecution of a utility or plant patent application. The total PTA is added to the standard 20-year lifespan of the patent. Delays that may lead to PTA include:

• Failure to issue an office action within 14 months of the application filing.
• Failure to respond to a reply or an appeal within four months.
• Failure to act on an application within four months after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) or a federal court.
• Failure to issue a patent within four months after payment of an issue fee.
• Failure to issue a patent within 36 months from the filing date of the application.

The USPTO automatically calculates the PTA and provides this information in the Issue Notification Letter.

While the Google Patents record for US11031677 indicates an "Anticipated expiration" date, it does not explicitly state the amount of Patent Term Adjustment granted. To determine the precise PTA, one would typically need to consult the patent's Issue Notification Letter or the full prosecution history in USPTO PatentCenter.

Patent Term Extension (PTE) for US11031677

Patent Term Extension (PTE) is available under the Hatch-Waxman Act (35 U.S.C. § 156) for patents on certain human drugs, food or color additives, medical devices, animal drugs, and veterinary biological products. This extension aims to restore patent term lost due to the time required for premarket government approval from regulatory agencies like the FDA.

There is no information in the provided patent text or search results to suggest that US11031677, which pertains to "Multiple-body-configuration multimedia and smartphone multifunction wireless devices," is eligible for or has received any Patent Term Extension. This type of patent typically does not fall under the categories for which PTE is granted (e.g., pharmaceuticals, medical devices requiring FDA approval).

Continuation and Divisional Applications, and Related Family Members

US11031677B2 is part of a patent family and claims benefit from several earlier applications. The patent text explicitly states:
"This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/856,626 filed Dec. 28, 2017, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/738,090 filed Jun. 12, 2015, which is now U.S. Pat. No. 9,899,727, issued on Feb. 20, 2018, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/246,491 filed Apr. 7, 2014, which is now U.S. Pat. No. 9,099,773, issued on Aug. 4, 2015, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/614,429 filed Dec. 21, 2006, which is now U.S. Pat. No. 8,738,103, issued on May 27, 2014, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/831,544 filed Jul. 18, 2006 and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/856,410 filed Nov. 3, 2006."

Based on this, the related family members and their relationships are:

• US11031677B2 (Current Patent)
  • Continuation of: U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/856,626 (filed Dec. 28, 2017)
    • Continuation of: U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/738,090 (filed Jun. 12, 2015, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,899,727, issued Feb. 20, 2018)
      • Continuation of: U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/246,491 (filed Apr. 7, 2014, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,099,773, issued Aug. 4, 2015)
        • Continuation of: U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/614,429 (filed Dec. 21, 2006, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,738,103, issued May 27, 2014)
          • Claims benefit of: U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/831,544 (filed Jul. 18, 2006)
          • Claims benefit of: U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/856,410 (filed Nov. 3, 2006)

Additionally, the Google Patents record lists other related applications:

• US17/246,192 (priority to 2021-04-30, leading to US11349200B2)
• US17/704,942 (priority to 2022-03-25, leading to US11735810B2)
• US18/339,523 (priority to 2023-06-22, leading to US12095149B2)
• US18/782,669 (priority to 2024-07-24, leading to US20240380098A1)

These latter applications suggest a continuing family of patents and applications related to US11031677, likely through further continuation or divisional filings, extending the protection for related subject matter.

Projected Expiration Date

For utility patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, the patent term is generally 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. non-provisional or PCT application to which priority is claimed. This term can be extended by Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) due to USPTO delays.

The earliest priority date for US11031677B2 is July 18, 2006, from U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/831,544. However, for term calculation, the 20-year period typically starts from the earliest non-provisional application. In this chain, the earliest non-provisional application is U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/614,429, filed on December 21, 2006.

Calculating 20 years from December 21, 2006, would lead to an unadjusted expiration date of December 21, 2026.

Google Patents lists the "Anticipated expiration" date as 2026-12-21. This date aligns with the 20-year term from the earliest non-provisional application in the priority chain, suggesting that either no significant PTA was granted, or any granted PTA was offset by applicant delays or terminal disclaimers, resulting in the original 20-year term from the earliest non-provisional filing date. Without the specific PTA calculation from the USPTO, we rely on the "Anticipated expiration" date provided by Google Patents.