US 11085795

US 11,085,795 B2 — Verified Summary

Search methodology / confidence note (please read first): I do not have authenticated access to USPTO PatentCenter, PACER, or the CAFC docket. My searches were open-web (Google Patents, Justia, courtlistener storage, PTAB PTACTS). I found no litigation, PTAB proceeding, or CAFC appeal naming US 11,085,795 as of this search. One caution: search results surfaced a different "'895 patent" in Champion Power Equipment v. Firman/Generac/Harbor Freight matters — that is a different patent number in a different family, and I did not treat it as US 11,085,795. Everything below is grounded in the full patent text supplied, which is authoritative.

---

Bibliographic data

Uncertainty flag: the "filing date 2016-12-02" shown on Google Patents is the international filing date of the PCT. The US national-stage entry date is not stated in the supplied text; a legal-events entry dated 2019-05-31 (entity-status fee payment) suggests 371(c) entry around mid-2019, but I cannot confirm this authoritatively.

---

Abstract (verbatim)

"A disclosed rotary position sensor may include a sensor housing defining an interior cavity. A first rotor may be positioned and rotatable within the interior cavity, the first rotor including a first magnet. Furthermore, the rotary position sensor may include a second rotor positioned and rotatable within the interior cavity, the second rotor including a second magnet. The first rotor and the second rotor may be individually rotatable."

---

Independent claims — plain-language overview

Claim 1 (dual-rotor apparatus with dual redundancy per rotor):
A sensor housing contains two independently rotatable rotors. The first rotor carries a first magnet; the second rotor carries a second magnet. Two shielding rings are coupled to the first rotor, and the first magnet sits between those two shielding rings. Two sensors are placed adjacent to the first magnet, and two more sensors are placed adjacent to the second magnet.
In plain terms: one package holds two rotors, so a single sensor can report position for two nearby controls (e.g., two pedal arms). Each rotor's position is read by a pair of sensors, giving redundant/failsafe channels per rotor. The shielding rings sandwiching the magnet are the structural feature relied on to contain and concentrate the magnetic field.

Claim 6 (multi-magnet rotor apparatus):
A sensor housing contains a first rotor carrying a plurality of magnets (dependent claim 11 narrows "plurality" to two, three, or four magnets). Two shielding rings are coupled to the first rotor, with the magnets disposed between them. A first sensor is placed adjacent to one of those magnets.
In plain terms: instead of one magnet per rotor, several simple magnets are mounted on a rotor between two shielding rings, and a sensor watches one of them; the multi-magnet arrangement is what supports the broader rotation ranges described in the spec (±45°, ±90°, ±360°, ±720°).

Key scope difference: Claim 6 does not require a second rotor or a second sensor. Claim 7 (dependent) adds the second rotor with its own plurality of magnets; claim 8 adds a sensor for that second rotor; claim 9 adds a third sensor adjacent to the second sensor.

---

Dependent claims (brief)

• 2 — Adds at least one additional magnet to each rotor.
• 3 — The two first-rotor sensors detect movement of the first magnet; the two second-rotor sensors detect movement of the second magnet.
• 4 — Third and fourth shielding rings coupled to the second rotor, with the second magnet between them.
• 5 — Each magnet is a square or rectangle magnet (no shaped/formed magnet).
• 7–9 — Second rotor with another plurality of magnets; sensor for that rotor; a third sensor adjacent to the second sensor.
• 10 — A second sensor adjacent to the first sensor (single-rotor redundancy).
• 11 — The plurality is two, three, or four magnets.
• 12 — Each of the plurality of magnets is a square or rectangle magnet.

---

Technical thrust and claimed differentiators

• Spec's stated problems (Background): conventional rotary sensors sense only a single control, need a separate sensor per control, and are costly because they require a shaped magnet; they also lack operational redundancy.
• Spec's stated solutions: (a) two rotors in one housing for two nearby controls (FIGS. 1–2, coupling to two brake pedal arms 104/106); (b) use of simple square/rectangle magnets rather than shaped magnets to cut cost; (c) redundant magnet/sensor pairs (magnets 326 & 328 with sensors 330 & 332); (d) ferromagnetic shielding rings (342/344/350/352) to isolate magnetic fields, concentrate flux for linearity, and block external/stray interference including from a ferrous shaft 112.
• Sensor types contemplated: Hall-effect, AMR, GMR, and TMR magnet-effect sensors.
• FIGS. 4–8 are magnet/sensor layout variants (1–4+ magnets; redundant sensor co-located behind, in front of, or next to the primary sensor; optional additional magnets 612 at positions 608/610).

Inference (flagged as inference, not established fact): The granted independent claims both require the shielding-ring sandwich, a limitation that does not appear in the Summary section's recited implementations. That strongly suggests the shielding-ring limitations were added during prosecution to distinguish prior art — plausibly the examiner-cited references listed on the face, notably US 7,382,120 B2 (Honeywell, rectangular magnet with Hall sensors), US 2015/0293185 A1 (Micronas), US 2015/0028858 A1 (BEI), and WO 2018053793 A1 (Hamlin's own earlier "Integrated dual rotary position sensor," which corresponds to US 11,125,583 B2). I cannot confirm the prosecution history from the sources available.

---

Litigation / post-grant status

• No district court case, ITC action, PTAB petition, or CAFC appeal naming US 11,085,795 was found in open-web searches as of this review.
• The patent is in force (maintenance fee paid January 2025) with an adjusted expiration of 2037-05-26.
• Caveat: absence of found results is not proof of absence; a PACER/PatentCenter/Docket Navigator check would be required to confirm negative litigation status.

References cited on the face of the patent (18) include: US 6,542,088 B1; US 2002/0093360 A1; US 2003/0218458 A1; US 2005/0075828 A1; US 7,230,419 B2; US 7,382,120 B2; US 2009/0267594 A1; US 2010/0060267 A1; CN 101691107 A; CN 101722986 A; US 7,816,881 B2; US 2011/0080162 A1; US 2011/0128102 A1; US 2015/0028858 A1; US 2015/0028856 A1; US 2015/0293185 A1; CN 105593645 A; WO 2018053793 A1.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11085795 across patent litigation databases.

Initial results are unrelated (they matched different patents). Let me search more targeted sources.

No litigation hits yet. Let me query additional litigation-specific sources and the patent's family members.

Bottom line

I found no litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 11,085,795. Based on the searches described below, there are no identifiable district court cases, ITC Section 337 investigations, PTAB proceedings, or Federal Circuit appeals in which US 11,085,795 is the asserted or challenged patent. I am reporting this as a negative finding rather than an unverified positive.

Patent identification (for the record)

Family: EP 3548847 B1, CN 110168317 B, WO 2018098813 A1, US 2020/0072641 A1 (§ 371 national stage of PCT/CN2016/108396).

What I searched

• General web searches for the exact string "11085795" combined with "litigation," "lawsuit," and "defendant."
• A search targeting Unified Patents' litigation caselist (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) with the patent number.
• Assignee-side searches: "Suzhou Littelfuse OVS" / "Hamlin Electronics" combined with patent infringement and rotary position sensor litigation.

Results

No case records for US 11,085,795 were returned. Every hit for the numeral "11085795" proved to be a false positive from a different field, including:

• A PubMed ID (11085795) in a genetic-association table reproduced in patent/technical literature (IL10/RA association data).
• A DOI (10.1109/ICICV64824.2025.11085795) for an unrelated conference paper on network traffic analysis.
• A Welsh local development plan site reference ("11085795/P06 HA1").

Searches conditioned on the patent owner likewise produced nothing asserting this patent, and searches on the neighboring Hamlin/Littelfuse subject matter returned only unrelated Littelfuse fuse/electrical-device publications, not litigation.

Two related Hamlin filings appear in the patent's own citation table but are distinct patents, not litigation involving the '795 patent: WO 2018053793 A1 / US 11,125,583 B2 ("Integrated dual rotary position sensor," Hamlin Electronics (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.) and EP 3516759 B1 ("Rotary position sensor with dual magnet arrangement").

Caveats you should weigh before relying on this

1. Coverage limits. I could not execute a live, complete query against PACER's Case Locator, Docket Navigator, Lex Machina, or the full Unified Patents caselist; my access to those databases was limited to what surfaced through open web search. PACER dockets are not fully indexed by general search engines, so a case filed very recently, or one with a low public profile, could exist without appearing in my results.
2. Plausibility of a true negative. Several factors make the negative finding credible rather than merely a search artifact: the patent issued only in August 2021; its owner (Suzhou Littelfuse OVS) is a component supplier rather than a serial plaintiff; there is no recorded litigation-driven reassignment in the USPTO assignment history; and the patent's own page shows no related-court-document or litigation linkage (Google Patents does not maintain a litigation section, so this is corroborating rather than dispositive).
3. This is not legal advice or a formal clearance search. If you need a defensible conclusion for a licensing, valuation, or freedom-to-operate purpose, run the following primary checks:
   • PACER Case Locator — party searches for "Suzhou Littelfuse OVS," "Hamlin Electronics," and Littelfuse entities, plus a full-text search for the patent number.
   • Unified Patents litigation caselist, filtered by patent number 11085795 (also check family members 11125583 and EP 3548847 / CN 110168317 for parallel assertions).
   • USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB E2E / Endpoint) and USPTO Patent Center "Litigation" and "Post-Issuance" tabs for the application.
   • USITC EDIS for any Section 337 complaint naming this patent.
   • Foreign counterparts: CN 110168317 B and EP 3548847 B1 may be asserted in Chinese or European proceedings, which U.S. docket sources would not capture.

If you'd like, I can draft the targeted queries for those databases, or analyze the '795 claims (particularly shielding-ring limitations of claims 1 and 6, and the square/rectangle-magnet limitations of claims 5 and 12) against the cited prior art for validity-risk purposes.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 11,085,795: 0. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block — sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal — returns no IPRs, PGRs, or CBM reviews for this patent as of the most recent ingest, and independent web searching (PTAB E2E / PTAB Center document indexes, Docket Alarm PTAB dockets, CourtListener, Federal Circuit opinion feeds) surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or appeal naming U.S. Patent No. 11,085,795. There is therefore no breakdown by active / invalidated / sustained / settled / denied to report, and no proceeding to place at the top of a claim-level rundown.

Defensive posture: the patent is untested, not hardened. All twelve claims — independent claims 1 and 6 and dependents 2–5 and 7–12 — stand unadjudicated and are available to be challenged for the first time. That is a materially different posture from a patent that survived an IPR: the Patent Owner has never had to defend these claims against a § 102/§ 103 attack on a full trial record, and claim 1 has never been construed by the Board.

---

(No proceeding entries follow. Per the constraint against fabricating proceeding numbers, I am not generating IPR2019-xxxxx / IPR2020-xxxxx headers for proceedings that do not exist. If a proceeding is later found, it should be added above the Strategic summary using the template in the task brief.)

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: no claim is canceled, no claim is sustained, all claims are untested. Unlike the common defensive-aggregator scenario — in which an early IPR knocks out the broadest independent claim and narrows the fight to dependents — US 11,085,795 has never been through an AIA trial. All twelve claims remain live:

• Independent claim 1 — rotary position sensor housing; first rotor with a first magnet; second rotor with a second magnet; first and second shielding rings coupled to the first rotor with the first magnet between them; first and second sensors adjacent the first magnet; third and fourth sensors adjacent the second magnet.
• Independent claim 6 — housing; first rotor with a plurality of magnets; first and second shielding rings coupled to the first rotor with the plurality of magnets between them; first sensor adjacent one of the plurality of magnets.
• Dependents 2–5 and 7–12 — additional magnets, redundant sensor detection, the third/fourth shielding-ring limitation, square-or-rectangle magnets, second rotor with another plurality of magnets, adjacent redundant sensors, and two/three/four-magnet counts.

Note the prosecution history is rich even though the PTAB history is empty: the examiner cited 18 references (the most on-point being US 7,382,120 to Honeywell, "Rotary position sensor with rectangular magnet and hall sensors placed in association with the surface of the magnet"; US 7,230,419 to Delphi; US 2009/0267594 to Kather on redundant magnet-sensitive sensor elements; and the sibling Hamlin application WO 2018/053793, "Integrated dual rotary position sensor"), and a Non-Final Office Action issued 2021-01-21 before allowance on 2021-04-02. That cited art is a ready-made starting kit for any petitioner, and — importantly — because no IPR has ever been filed, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel has attached to anybody.

Estoppel landscape: clean slate. There is no petitioner, no privity chain, and therefore no estoppel bar. Any accused infringer that has been served with a § 315(b) complaint has the full one-year window from service to petition, and every ground the examiner applied — plus any art the examiner did not find — remains available in both an IPR and in district court. Two structural notes matter for a prospective petitioner:

1. The priority date is 2016-12-02 (PCT/CN2016/108396), so the applicable prior-art window is wide and the AIA first-inventor-to-file regime governs.
2. This patent is in the same Hamlin/Littelfuse rotary-sensor family as US 11,125,583 ("Integrated dual rotary position sensor"), which is a § 102(a)(2)/§ 103 candidate against claims 1–4 and 7–9 to the extent the two disclosures overlap. Family-member art was already before the examiner via WO 2018/053793 (which is the PCT publication of the '583 patent), which cuts both ways — it is a strong § 103 springboard, but § 325(d) discretion is a live risk for any petition built on art already of record.

Pattern signals: none present. No petitioner has filed even one IPR, let alone a serial campaign; the Patent Owner has never had a PTAB appeal to pursue; and there is no indication of a Unified Patents or other defensive-aggregator petition in the chain. The only third-party filings touching this family are the two forward citations — DE 10 2021 105 566 A1 (Honeywell, "ROTARY ENCODER," 2021-09-30) and US 12,558,177 B2 (Auris Health, 2026-02-24) — neither of which is a validity challenge. Ownership also changed hands once: Hamlin Electronics (Suzhou) Ltd. → Suzhou Littelfuse OVS Co., Ltd. (assignment effective 2021-06-27), so the current real party in interest for any proceeding would be Suzhou Littelfuse OVS Co., Ltd. The patent is active with a 4th-year maintenance fee paid 2025-01-06 and an adjusted expiration of 2037-05-26 — roughly eleven years of runway, which raises the expected value of a validity challenge to a licensee or accused infringer.

---

Recommended next steps

Say it plainly: there is no PTAB activity to litigate around. There is no FWD to link to or quote, no canceled claim to knock out a demand letter, and no institution decision to read for the panel's construction of "shielding ring," "adjacent to," or "coupled thereto." Any assertion of this patent today must be met on the merits, not by pointing at an invalidation.

Concrete steps for a defendant now facing assertion:

1. Pull the IPR clock on yourself. The empty docket means the § 315(b) one-year bar runs from your service date and has not been triggered for anyone yet. Calendar it immediately; a petition filed within that year is not estopped by anything.
2. Build the petition around the examiner's own cited art. US 7,382,120 (Honeywell, rectangular magnet + Hall sensors) plus US 2009/0267594 (Kather, redundant magnet-sensitive sensor elements) and US 7,230,419 (Delphi) map directly onto the claim 1 combination of a magnet nested between two shielding rings with paired sensors on each magnet. Confirm whether WO 2018/053793 / US 11,125,583 (the sibling "Integrated dual rotary position sensor") was actually applied or merely listed — if it was listed but not relied on, argue the § 325(d) Advanced Bionics factors ("substantially the same art") cut in favor of institution.
3. Check the § 102(a)(2) overlap with US 11,125,583. Both patents share inventors (Zhao, Lee, Zhou) and the Hamlin/Suzhou Littelfuse family. If the '583 patent's effective filing date precedes the '795 patent's 2016-12-02 priority date, it is available as prior art against claims 1–4 and 7–9. Verify inventorship overlap before relying on it.
4. If you file, plan for a full one-year trial. PTAB's statutory deadline under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) runs one year from institution (extendable up to six months for good cause). There is no existing institution decision to inherit, so the milestones to calendar are: POPR due (~3 months post-petition), institution decision due (~6 months post-petition), Patent Owner Response (~3 months post-institution), and FWD at the one-year mark.
5. Consider a district-court-only strategy. Because no estoppel has attached and no Fintiv history exists, a defendant could also choose to test validity in court and preserve the IPR option — but that forfeits the PTAB's claim-construction advantages and the statutory time-to-trial, and there is no FWD here telling you which claims are weak.

One flag for follow-up: the ODP block reflects the state as of its ingest date. PTAB filings on this patent family are plausible going forward given the remaining ~11-year term and the presence of large automotive/industrial sensor manufacturers in the space. Re-run the ODP query and a PTAB E2E patent-number search (patents.google.com → PTAB links, and docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/ filtered to 11,085,795) before finalizing any invalidity opinion. If a proceeding appears, it should be added using the full template above — claims-invalidated proceedings first, with the FWD disposition quoted verbatim.

I'll research the assignment chain for US 11085795 before drafting. Let me run several searches in parallel.

Good context on the corporate chain. Now let me try to retrieve the actual assignment records and correspondents of record.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 11085795 B2

Patent: Rotary position sensor with plurality magnet arrangement
App. No.: US 16/465,938 (U.S. national phase of PCT/CN2016/108396)
Filed: 2016-12-02 · Issued: 2021-08-10 · Adjusted expiry: 2037-05-26
Family: WO2018098813A1 · EP3548847B1 · CN110168317B

Verification note: I reconstructed this chain from the Google Patents legal-events record of US11085795 (which mirrors the USPTO Assignment Center entries by reel/frame) plus a targeted search of the USPTO Assignment Center / assignment.uspto.gov. I was not able to retrieve the correspondent-of-record field (the recording attorney/agent) for any of the three reel/frame entries within the tooling available to me. I have flagged each such gap below rather than guessing at a name or firm.

---

Inventors

Patterns worth noting — and one to not over-read:

• Belated confirmatory assignments, not a departure fire-sale. All three inventors executed their inventor→company assignments on 2020-01-09, i.e. ~3 years 1 month after the 2016-12-02 filing date and only ~5 weeks before the first recordation. This is the classic signature of a confirmatory/clean-up assignment chain (employment-obligation patents formalized when the U.S. national-phase file needed a record title), not of inventors fleeing a distressed assignee. There is no evidence of any inventor departure, and no assignment away from any inventor's employer.
• Name-collision caution. The "Seong-Jae Lee" appearing on ~80 KAIST patents in the same index is very likely a different individual (common Korean name); I would not merge those portfolios without documentary confirmation.
• No inventor is listed as an assignor on the 2021 Littelfuse-side transfer — by then title was already held by the company.

---

Original assignee

Entity on the issued patent: Hamlin Electronics (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. / Hamlin Electronics (Suzhou) Ltd. (哈姆林电子（苏州）有限公司), Suzhou Industrial Park, Jiangsu, China.

• Line of business: design and manufacture of reed switches, relays, position sensors, fluid-level sensors and flow sensors for automotive, industrial and electronic applications. The facility was Hamlin Electronics' Asia-region headquarters (covering China, Korea, Japan, India), and functioned as a real manufacturing site — it appears on Suzhou Industrial Park's list of "above-scale industrial enterprises" for 2014, 2019 and 2020 (百度百科 entity record).
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes, at the group level. This patent sits in Littelfuse/Hamlin's rotary position sensor line (the specification itself is directed to accelerator/clutch/brake/throttle-body pedal sensors). Littelfuse's ISO 9001 scope for the Suzhou site expressly covers "Design and Manufacture of Position sensor, Liquid Level Sensor, Varistors and NTC Chip" (littelfuse.com certification doc).
• Current status: Deregistered (dissolved). Chinese corporate registries show the entity as 注销 (cancelled): 天眼查 records a cancellation date of 2022-01-13 with reason 决议解散 ("resolution to dissolve"); 百度百科 records completion of the deregistration on 2025-04-16. Wholly owned by Suzhou Littelfuse OVS Co., Ltd. This was an intra-group voluntary dissolution, not a bankruptcy.
• Corporate parentage: Hamlin, Inc. was acquired by Littelfuse, Inc. (NASDAQ: LFUS) from Key Safety Systems for $145M, closed May 2013 (Littelfuse press release); Littelfuse's FY2014 10-K Exhibit 21.1 lists both "Suzhou Littelfuse OVS Ltd. – China" and "Hamlin Electronics (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. – China" as subsidiaries (SEC EDGAR).

---

Assignment timeline

Three recorded documents. All are ordinary Assignment conveyances; there is no security interest, merger, change-of-name, license or release in the chain.

1. 2020-01-09 (executed) / recorded 2020-01-25 — Reel 051621/0551

   • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest; "see document for details")
   • Assignor: Zhao, Jianfei; Lee, Seong-Jae; Zhou, Wei
   • Assignee: Hamlin Electronics (Suzhou) Ltd., China
   • Correspondent: Not retrievable from the sources available to me — the recording attorney/firm of record was not exposed in the fetched record. No name is inferred. Cannot assess recurrence on this link.
   • Context: Confirmatory inventor→employer assignment, executed ~3 years post-filing and ~5 weeks pre-recordation.

2. 2020-01-09 (executed) / recorded 2020-01-26 — Reel 051621/0765

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: Zhao, Jianfei; Lee, Seong-Jae; Zhou, Wei
   • Assignee: Hamlin Electronics (Suzhou) Ltd., China
   • Correspondent: Not retrievable (see above).
   • Context: Same-day parallel/duplicate recordation of the same inventor-to-employer transfer (identical parties, same effective date 2020-01-09, sequential frames 0551 → 0765). Purely administrative; not a second, distinct transfer of title.

3. 2021-06-27 (executed) / recorded 2021-07-14 — Reel 056851/0283

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: Hamlin Electronics (Suzhou) Ltd., China
   • Assignee: Suzhou Littelfuse OVS Co., Ltd., China (苏州力特奥维斯保险丝有限公司)
   • Correspondent: Not retrievable (see above).
   • Context: Intra-group reorganization. The assignee was already the 100%-owner of the assignor (Chinese registry shows Suzhou Littelfuse OVS holding 100% of Hamlin Electronics (Suzhou)), so this is a title consolidation inside Littelfuse, Inc. — recorded 6 days after issue-fee payment was verified (2021-07-07) and 27 days before the patent granted (2021-08-10).

No records exist for this patent other than the three above. There is no post-issuance transfer, no securitization, and no recording to any third party.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11085795
    2016 : PCT CN2016108396 filed by Hamlin Electronics Suzhou
    2020 : inventors assign to Hamlin Electronics Suzhou
         : Reel 051621 Frame 0551 recorded
         : Reel 051621 Frame 0765 recorded in parallel
    2021 : issued as US 11085795 B2
         : Hamlin Suzhou assigns to Suzhou Littelfuse OVS
         : Reel 056851 Frame 0283 recorded
    2022 : Hamlin Electronics Suzhou dissolved by member resolution
    2025 : maintenance fee paid year 4 large entity

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present.
The only operating-company-to-LLC-style movement is Reel 056851/0283 (executed 2021-06-27, recorded 2021-07-14), Hamlin Electronics (Suzhou) Ltd. → Suzhou Littelfuse OVS Co., Ltd. Both are long-standing operating manufacturing entities: Suzhou Littelfuse OVS was founded 1995-06-30, has ~500–531 employees, >US$200M 2021 revenue, and is a recognized Jiangsu provincial "functional headquarters" for Littelfuse. The assignee already owned 100% of the assignor. No "IP/Patents/Licensing/VC" naming, no registered-agent address, no single-member Delaware/Texas LLC.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present.
Neither assignee (Hamlin Electronics (Suzhou) Ltd., Suzhou Littelfuse OVS Co., Ltd.) nor the ultimate parent (Littelfuse, Inc., NASDAQ: LFUS) appears among the listed asserters (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation, Spangenberg entities). Littelfuse is a Fortune-1000-scale circuit-protection and sensor manufacturer with a large in-house product business. (Caveat: my RPX/Unified directory cross-check was cut short by tool limits; the negative finding is based on the sources retrieved, not an exhaustive directory query.)

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear (data gap, not a finding).
The correspondent-of-record for Reels 051621/0551, 051621/0765 and 056851/0283 was not recoverable with the tooling available. Because I cannot cite a name + firm against specific reel/frame entries, I will not characterize this signal — a single appearance would not be a finding anyway, and I have zero appearances to evaluate. This is the one open thread in an otherwise fully-traceable chain.

4. Cascading transfers — not present.
Three recordings over ~18 months, but only two distinct transfers of title (0551 and 0765 are the same 2020-01-09 inventor assignment recorded twice), and both transfers stay inside one corporate family. No chained LLCs, no shared correspondence address, no common principals acting as serial assignees.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present.
No infringement action naming US 11085795 (or its family members WO2018098813A1 / EP3548847B1 / CN110168317B) was surfaced. The closest datable event is the Reel 056851/0283 transfer executed 2021-06-27, which occurred after allowance (Notice of Allowance 2021-04-02/04-14) and before grant (2021-08-10) — i.e., title housekeeping timed to issuance, not to a complaint.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present.
No Chapter 7/11 proceeding is implicated. Hamlin Electronics (Suzhou)'s cancellation was a member-approved voluntary dissolution (决议解散, per 天眼查; 百度百科 dates completion 2025-04-16) inside a solvent parent — and the patent had already been moved to Suzhou Littelfuse OVS in 2021, so nothing passed through an estate.

7. Privateering — not present.
No evidence that Littelfuse transferred this patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf. Title remains with a Littelfuse manufacturing subsidiary, and no NPE appears anywhere in the chain.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents or OIN. It terminates at Suzhou Littelfuse OVS Co., Ltd., an operating manufacturer.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Two of the three recordings (Reel 051621/0551 and /0765, executed 2020-01-09, recorded 2020-01-25/26) are a routine confirmatory inventor→employer assignment into Hamlin Electronics (Suzhou) Ltd., and the third (Reel 056851/0283, executed 2021-06-27, recorded 2021-07-14) is an intra-group reorganization from a wholly-owned Hamlin subsidiary into its parent Suzhou Littelfuse OVS Co., Ltd., a ~500-employee Littelfuse (NASDAQ: LFUS) manufacturing site whose certified scope includes the design and manufacture of position sensors. Zero NPE signals are present — no shell-entity name, no asserter match, no chained LLCs, no bankruptcy, no defensive aggregator, and no litigation. Caveat on exactly one dimension: the "assertion" prong cannot be evidenced — no suit naming this patent was found — so this is better stated as operating-company ownership with no assertion activity and no NPE indicators; the only unverified field is the recording correspondent, which I could not retrieve.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "11085795" or application 16/465,938); mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Google Patents legal events for the same three reel/frame entries: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11085795B2](/patent/US11085795B2)/en.

I'll research the prior art citations for US 11,085,795. Let me start by verifying the patent and gathering data on each cited reference.

Let me gather details on the remaining cited references in parallel.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,085,795 B2

Patent verified: US 11,085,795 B2, "Rotary position sensor with plurality magnet arrangement," Appl. No. 16/465,938 (§ 371 national stage of PCT/CN2016/108396), priority/filing 2016-12-02, granted 2021-08-10, inventors Zhao/Lee/Zhou, current assignee Suzhou Littelfuse OVS Ltd. I confirmed this exact number (not a similar numeral) on Google Patents and on Justia (https://patents.justia.com/patent/[11085795](/patent/11085795)). One caution I already flagged in the summary section applies here: the numeral "11085795" also collides with a PubMed ID and a DOI for unrelated documents — those are not this patent and I excluded them.

Methodology note (read first): The authoritative source for the citation list is the patent's own face/record, which I reproduce below. I was able to pull full text/abstracts for the highest-salience references (US 7,382,120; US 7,230,419; US 2009/0267594; US 2015/0293185; US 6,542,088 family). For several of the 18 I have the title, assignee, and dates from the patent's citation table plus descriptive titles, but not a verified full text — those are marked [title-only] and the descriptions are inferred from the title, not confirmed. Treat those as lower-confidence.

---

A. Threshold point on § 102 before the per-reference walk

The examiner cited all 18 references and then allowed the application (Non-Final Office Action 2021-01-21; allowance 2021-04-02). That means, as a matter of record, no cited reference was found to anticipate. Strictly under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a reference anticipates only if it discloses each and every limitation of the claim, arranged as in the claim.

For this patent, the two independent claims are dominated by two limitations that none of the cited art appears to disclose:

• Claim 1 requires two independently rotatable rotors each with its own magnet and first/second shielding rings coupled to the first rotor with the magnet between them.
• Claim 6 requires a rotor with a plurality of magnets disposed between first and second shielding rings.

The shielding-ring "sandwich" (claim 1, claim 4, claim 6) is the structural limitation that appears to do the distinguishing work — consistent with the inference I flagged earlier that it was added during prosecution. So the honest § 102 framing is: no cited reference anticipates claims 1 or 6; the citations are really a § 103 combination kit. Below, for each reference I state (i) what it discloses, and (ii) which claims it "potentially anticipates" if it were the only reference and the shielding-ring/dual-rotor limitations could be read onto it — flagging that they cannot, in my assessment.

---

B. Citation inventory (18 references, as listed on the patent)

Family citations (also listed on the record): JP 2004184264 A (Matsushita Electric Ind Co Ltd, 2002-12-04 / 2004-07-02, "Rotation angle detector"); FR 2899862 B1 (Siemens VDO Automotive SAS, 2006-04-13 / 2009-06-05, "Method and device for measuring the angular position, between two rotating stops, of a steering wheel of a vehicle").

Non-patent citations (3): Extended European Search Report (2020-07-08) for EP 16922726.1; International Search Report (2017-09-07) for PCT/CN2016/108396; Written Opinion (2017-09-07) for PCT/CN2016/108396.

---

C. Reference-by-reference analysis

1. US 2002/0093360 A1 — Junichi Nagata, "Integrated circuit device" (2001-01-16 → 2002-07-18) — [title-only]

• Disclosure: Integrated circuit/signal-conditioning device; the title and Nagata's other sensor-signal work indicate this was cited as an electronics/IC architecture reference, i.e., the circuitry side of a magnet-effect sensor package.
• § 102 assessment: Discloses no rotor, magnet, or shielding ring. Anticipates nothing. Background/§ 103-only relevance (signal conditioning).

2. US 6,542,088 B1 — Dr. Johannes Heidenhain GmbH, "Multiturn rotary encoder with multiple code carriers coupled by a reduction gear" (1998-05-06 → 2003-04-01)

• Disclosure: Multiturn encoder with multiple code carriers mechanically coupled by a reduction gear, stacked to give multi-revolution absolute position. I verified this reference exists with this title/assignee from the patent record. [title-only for full text]
• § 102 assessment: Relevant to the multi-turn / multi-carrier concept (the spec's ±360°/±720° ranges). But it is an optical/encoder-type multiturn device with geared carriers — it does not disclose a magnet between two shielding rings, nor two independent rotor/magnet/sensor channels. Anticipates nothing. § 103 background on multi-turn absolute sensing.

3. US 2003/0218458 A1 — BVR Technologies Company, "Methods and apparatus for sensing angular position of a rotatable shaft" (2002-02-14 → 2003-11-27) — [title-only]

• § 102 assessment: Generic rotary-shaft angular-position sensing. No dual rotor, no shielding-ring sandwich. Anticipates nothing. § 103 background.

4. US 2005/0075828 A1 — Yazaki Corporation, "Rotation angle sensor" (2003-10-06 → 2005-04-07) — [title-only]

• § 102 assessment: Automotive rotation-angle sensor. No disclosure of the claimed dual-rotor or shielding-ring architecture. Anticipates nothing.

5. US 7,230,419 B2 — Delphi Technologies, Inc., "Rotary position sensor" (2005-06-03 → 2007-06-12) — VERIFIED full text

• Disclosure (from the document): A sensor assembly with a housing assembly carrying a galvanomagnetic sensing element (Hall or magnetoresistive), and a rotor assembly rotatable about a fixed axis and carrying a permanent/electro-magnet axially aligned with the sensing element. Includes a torsion spring biasing the rotor, a sealing ring, and potting of the sensing element in the housing; magnet optionally optimized with flux-concentrating features to increase flux at the sensing face. Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7230419B2](/patent/US7230419B2)/en
• Overlap with the '795 claims: housing + rotor + magnet + magnet-effect sensor + biasing spring + cover/seal is exactly the architectural skeleton of the '795 patent's FIG. 2–3 (compare '795's spring 334 in slot 336, o-rings, and cover).
• § 102 assessment: Discloses one rotor, one magnet, one sensing element, and no shielding ring surrounding/sandwiching the magnet. Therefore it cannot anticipate claim 1 (needs two rotors, two magnets, four sensors, and first/second shielding rings) or claim 6 (needs a plurality of magnets between two shielding rings). Anticipates nothing. Strong § 103 reference for the base architecture of claims 1 and 6.

6. US 7,382,120 B2 — Honeywell International Inc., "Rotary position sensor with rectangular magnet and hall sensors placed in association with the surface of the magnet" (2006-04-26 → 2008-06-03) — VERIFIED full text

• Disclosure (from the document): Apparatus with a rectangular magnet having a surface, and a plurality of Hall components placed in association with the surface of the magnet, located on the magnet's neutral axis; Hall chips mounted on a PCB fixed in a stationary location; the rectangular magnet press-fit in a rotary part of the sensor that revolves over the Hall chips; a rotor 108, torsion spring 106, sealing ring 104, housing 120, EMI shield 118, and cover/cap 102. Explicitly: "a magnet having a surface and a plurality of Hall components placed in association with the surface of the magnet"; "a dual analog output can be generated by placing the chips equidistant from the geometric center of magnet." Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7382120B2](/patent/US7382120B2)/en
• Why it matters: This is the single most on-point reference for the "square or rectangle magnet" limitations (claims 5 and 12) and for plural sensors associated with one magnet (part of claims 1, 3). It also supplies the housing + rotor + biasing spring + seal + shield architecture (cf. '795's EMI/field-shielding concept).
• § 102 assessment: It discloses a rectangular magnet and plural Hall sensors, but only one rotor, no second rotor, no second magnet with third/fourth sensors, and no first/second shielding rings with the magnet between them. It therefore cannot anticipate claims 1 or 6. It could anticipate the substantive content of claims 5 and 12 (rectangular magnet) if those were read in isolation — but they depend on claims 1 and 6 respectively, so as written they are not anticipated alone. Best § 103 primary reference against claims 1, 5, 6, 12.

7. US 2009/0267594 A1 — Lutz Kather, "Position sensor … redundant magnet-sensitive sensor elements" (2008-04-23 → 2009-10-29; granted US 8,305,073 B2) — VERIFIED full text

• Disclosure (from the document): A giver unit with permanent magnet areas in a ring/ring-segment pattern with alternating poles, and a sensor unit with at least two (preferably three) magnet-sensitive sensor elements disposed "at different positions adjacent to the surface of the giver unit"; explicit redundancy ("for redundancy reasons … 2 or more sensor elements are preferred"), mean-value computation to cancel external interference fields, and diagnosis when one sensor fails. Explicit applications: "determination of the pedal position in an electronic accelerator pedal or the position of an electronically operated brake pedal." Source: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0267594.html
• Overlap with the '795 claims: This maps directly onto '795's redundant channel concept (magnets 326/328 + sensors 330/332; redundant sensors 506/606/710/810 in FIGS. 5–8) and onto the pedal/brake application identified in '795's Background/FIG. 1. It also addresses magnetic interference rejection, the stated purpose of '795's shielding rings.
• § 102 assessment: It uses multiple sensors on one giver unit for redundancy, but it does not disclose two independently rotatable rotors, and it has no shielding ring disposed on either side of a magnet. Anticipates nothing as a whole. Very strong § 103 reference against claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10 (redundant/multiple sensors; interference compensation).

8. US 2010/0060267 A1 — Matthias Wagner, "Magnetic Rotational Angle Transducer" (2006-04-21 → 2010-03-11) — [title-only]

• § 102 assessment: Magnetic rotational-angle transducer; no dual-rotor or shielding-ring-sandwich disclosure evident from the title. Anticipates nothing. § 103 background on magnet/rotor angle transduction.

9. CN 101691107 A — 奇瑞汽车股份有限公司 (Chery Automobile), "Vehicle clutch sensor assembly" (2009-09-29 → 2010-04-07) — [title-only]

• § 102 assessment: Vehicular (clutch) sensor assembly — background corroborating that rotary position sensors are used on vehicle pedals/controls (the '795 field). No dual-rotor/shielding-ring disclosure. Anticipates nothing.

10. CN 101722986 A — 黑拉许克联合股份有限公司 (Hella KGaA Hueck & Co.), "Device to determine the angle of rotation, especially for the steering shaft of a vehicle" (2008-10-21 → 2010-06-09) — [title-only]

• § 102 assessment: Vehicle steering-shaft rotation-angle device. Relevant only as field background. Anticipates nothing.

11. US 7,816,881 B2 — Exlar Corporation, "Method and apparatus for utilizing commutation sensors for speed and position control" (2006-06-29 → 2010-10-19) — [title-only]

• § 102 assessment: Commutation/position sensing for motor control — background on using multiple sensors for position/speed. Anticipates nothing.

12. US 2011/0080162 A1 — ASM Automation Sensorik Messtechnik GmbH, "Assembly for detecting more than one rotation through a position encoder magnet" (2009-10-06 → 2011-04-07) — [title-only]

• § 102 assessment: Multi-turn detection (>360°) through an encoder magnet — relevant to the '795 spec's stated ranges of ±360°/±720° (FIG. 4 and FIG. 8). But no dual-rotor, no shielding-ring sandwich. Anticipates nothing. § 103 background on extended rotation-range detection.

13. US 2011/0128102 A1 — Klaus Pfeiffer, "Magnetic switching device" (2007-03-16 → 2011-06-02) — [title-only]

• § 102 assessment: Magnetic switch — peripheral. Anticipates nothing.

14. US 2015/0028858 A1 — BEI Sensors & Systems Company, Inc., "System and Method for Determining Absolute Angular Position of a Rotating Member" (2013-07-26 → 2015-01-29) — [title-only]

• § 102 assessment: Absolute angular position of a rotating member — relevant to redundancy/multi-turn absolute position computation. No shielding-ring sandwich. Anticipates nothing. § 103 background.

15. US 2015/0028856 A1 — BEI Sensors & Systems Company, Inc., "System and Method for Converting Output of Sensors to Absolute Angular Position of a Rotating Member" (2013-07-26 → 2015-01-29) — [title-only]

• § 102 assessment: The signal-processing counterpart to #14 (converting sensor outputs to absolute angle). Cited for the electronics/algorithms, not structure. Anticipates nothing.

16. US 2015/0293185 A1 — Micronas GmbH, "Sensor device" (2014-04-10 → 2015-10-15; granted US 9,933,495 B2) — VERIFIED full text

• Disclosure (from the document): Sensor device with a magnet having four magnetic poles (quadrupole), and two spaced-apart "pixel cells," each containing two (optionally three) magnetic-field sensors (x/y, optionally z), formed in the surface of a semiconductor body in the same IC package; the magnet is rotatable relative to the IC housing about the z-axis; signals are processed by differential evaluation; explicitly suppresses magnetic stray fields (Earth's field, high-current cables) and can determine crankshaft/camshaft rotation angle. Source: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2015/0293185.html
• Overlap with the '795 claims: "Multiple magnetic field sensors arranged relative to a rotatable magnet, with stray-field suppression" aligns with '795's two sensors per magnet (claim 1's first/second and third/fourth sensors) and the interference-mitigation rationale of its shielding rings.
• § 102 assessment: Discloses multiple sensors relative to a magnet and stray-field suppression, but one magnet/one rotatable body, no dual rotors, and no shielding ring sandwiching a magnet. Anticipates nothing as a whole. Strong § 103 reference against claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10 (plural sensors per magnet; interference rejection).

17. CN 105593645 A — Bei传感器及系统有限公司 (BEI Sensors & Systems), "Sensing system for absolute angular position" (2013-07-26 → 2016-05-18) — [title-only]

• § 102 assessment: The Chinese counterpart of the BEI family (#14/#15). Same relevance and same gaps. Anticipates nothing. Noted as a parallel family member — worth checking for claim scope overlap in CN.

18. WO 2018/053793 A1 — Hamlin Electronics (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., "Integrated dual rotary position sensor" (2016-09-23 → 2018-03-29) — [title-only, but family relationship confirmed]

• Disclosure: The Patent Owner's own sibling application — the PCT publication corresponding to US 11,125,583 B2, "Integrated dual rotary position sensor" (same inventors Zhao/Lee/Zhou). This is the closest reference of all, because it discloses the same core concept the '795 patent is built around: two rotary position sensors integrated in one housing.
• § 102 assessment: This is the one reference with genuine § 102(a)(2) potential against a subset of claims, if it qualifies as prior art. Its earliest date (2016-09-23) precedes the '795 priority date (2016-12-02), and if it was published/patented as a US application it is a § 102(a)(2) "effectively filed" reference. However, because it shares inventors/common ownership with the '795 patent, the § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership exception (or the pre-AIA § 103(c) analog) may remove it as prior art against the '795 claims — that is a legal question I cannot resolve from the face of the documents. If the exception does not apply, it is a serious § 102/§ 103 reference against claims 1–4 and 7–9 (the dual-rotor and multi-magnet-rotor claims), to the extent the two disclosures overlap. This is the reference any validity challenge should start from — and, per my earlier note, its presence on the face of the '795 patent raises a § 325(d) risk if relied on in an IPR.

Family citations (JP 2004184264 A; FR 2899862 B1): Both are rotation-angle / steering-wheel angle references cited in the '795 family's foreign prosecution (EP/CN). Neither, per title, discloses the dual-rotor-plus-shielding-ring-sandwich architecture. Anticipate nothing. § 103/background only.

Non-patent citations (EESR, ISR, WO): These are procedural search documents, not prior art themselves. The ISR (2017-09-07) and Written Opinion for PCT/CN2016/108396 are the key items to pull — they will show which references the international examiner actually applied (as opposed to merely listed), which is decisive for a § 325(d) "substantially the same art" argument. I could not retrieve their substance here; obtain them from WIPO Patentscope for PCT/CN2016/108396.

---

D. Synthesis — where the § 102 exposure actually is

Bottom line for validity work:

1. No cited reference anticipates claims 1 or 6. The distinguishing limitation is the magnet disposed between first and second shielding rings (claims 1, 4, 6), and none of the 18 references — including the Honeywell, Kather, and Micronas art — discloses that arrangement.
2. The real attack surface is a § 103 combination: US 7,382,120 (rectangular magnet + plural Hall sensors, housing/rotor/spring/seal) as primary, combined with US 2009/0267594 or US 2015/0293185 (redundant/plural sensors per magnet, interference compensation), and optionally the Applicant's own WO 2018/053793 / US 11,125,583 (dual-rotor-in-one-housing) for the dual-rotor limitation. The open question a petitioner must answer is what supplies the shielding-ring-sandwich teaching — none of the cited art does so on its face, which is exactly why the claim issued.
3. WO 2018/053793 / US 11,125,583 is the pivotal reference — closest on the merits (dual rotary sensor in one housing), but burdened by common ownership/inventorship and by § 325(d) since it is already of record.

Confidence flags:

• Full text verified: US 7,382,120; US 7,230,419; US 2009/0267594; US 2015/0293185; WO 2018/053793's family identity.
• Title-only (descriptions inferred from title, not verified against full text): US 2002/0093360; US 6,542,088; US 2003/0218458; US 2005/0075828; US 2010/0060267; CN 101691107; CN 101722986; US 7,816,881; US 2011/0080162; US 2011/0128102; US 2015/0028858; US 2015/0028856; CN 105593645; JP 2004184264; FR 2899862.
• I did not retrieve the ISR/Written Opinion substance or the EP/CN prosecution files; the § 325(d) and § 102(a)(2)/(b)(2)(C) conclusions above are analytical, not verified against those documents. Confirm against WIPO Patentscope (PCT/CN2016/108396), the EP 3548847 file (EESR dated 2020-07-08), and the CN 110168317 file before relying on them.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual cited references. Let me pull details on the key prior-art references from the patent's Prior Art section so I'm describing their disclosures accurately rather than from memory.

I have strong material on the primary references. Now let me verify the remaining cited art — particularly the references that could supply the "shielding ring" limitations that were likely added during prosecution.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 — US 11,085,795 B2

0. Scope, sourcing, and confidence (read first)

What I used. Per the task, this analysis is built from the Prior Art section of the patent page: the 18 references cited on the face of US 11,085,795 and the Non-Patent Citations, cross-referenced against the authoritative full patent text supplied in the prompt (claims and specification). Two sibling Hamlin family documents that appear in the page's Similar Documents list are also addressed separately and clearly flagged as family art rather than examiner-cited art.

What I could and could not verify. I retrieved and read substantive text for these references, so my characterizations of their disclosures are grounded:

References whose full text I did not retrieve and whose disclosures I therefore will not characterize beyond their titles and dates as printed on the patent face: US 6,542,088 B1 (Heidenhain, multiturn rotary encoder with multiple code carriers coupled by a reduction gear); US 2002/0093360 A1 (Nagata); US 2005/0075828 A1 (Yazaki); US 2010/0060267 A1 (Wagner); US 7,816,881 B2 (Exlar); US 2011/0080162 A1 (ASM Automation); US 2011/0128102 A1 (Pfeiffer); US 2015/0028858 A1 and US 2015/0028856 A1 (BEI); US 2015/0293185 A1 (Micronas); CN 101691107 A; CN 101722986 A; CN 105593645 A. Any ground built on these must be confirmed by pulling the full texts before it is asserted in a petition or an invalidity contention. A further tool-call limit cut short my retrieval of US 2011/0080162 A1 and US 2015/0293185 A1 in particular.

AIPLA/AIA frame. The '795's effective filing date is 2016-12-02 (PCT/CN2016/108396), post-AIA. So § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) and § 103 as amended govern. Every examiner-cited reference has a date before 2016-12-02 (earliest 1998; latest cited US publication 2015-01-29), so all are § 102(a)(1) printed publications/patents — subject to one caveat on the two Hamlin-family documents, discussed in § 6.

---

1. Claims in issue and the proposed level of ordinary skill

Independent claims: 1 and 6. All 12 claims are live and untested — consistent with the earlier sections of this analysis (no PTAB proceeding, no litigation found, no estoppel attached).

Claim 1 requires, in substance: (a) a rotary position sensor housing; (b) a first rotor carrying a first magnet; (c) a second rotor carrying a second magnet; (d) first and second shielding rings coupled to the first rotor, with the first magnet between them; (e) first and second sensors adjacent the first magnet; and (f) third and fourth sensors adjacent the second magnet.

Claim 6 requires: (a) a housing; (b) a first rotor carrying a plurality of magnets; (c) first and second shielding rings coupled to the first rotor, with the plurality of magnets between them; and (d) a first sensor adjacent to one of the plurality of magnets. Claim 6 does not require a second rotor or a second sensor.

Proposed level of ordinary skill (PHOSITA). A person having ordinary skill in the art would be someone with a bachelor's degree in mechanical or electrical engineering (or equivalent) and approximately two to four years of experience in the design of magnetic position/rotation sensors, including magnet selection, Hall/AMR/GMR/TMR sensor integration, and sensor housing and sealing design — or a lesser degree with more experience. This is a mature, incremental, heavily patented art, which raises the bar for finding nonobviousness: the '795's specification itself concedes the field is dominated by "formed magnets" directing flux to "one or more magnet-effect sensors," and the cited art is uniformly about the same problem.

Key term constructions that drive the analysis (proposed BRI; final constructions would follow Phillips if the claims reach court):

• "shielding ring" — a ring-shaped (annular) body that shields/concentrates magnetic flux, made "at least partially of ferromagnetic material, such as iron" per the specification (col. describing shielding rings 342, 344, 350, 352). Note the functional word "shielding" invites a § 112(f) debate; I would argue it is structural, not a means-plus-function term.
• "coupled thereto" / "coupled to the first rotor" — the shielding rings rotate with the rotor (the spec attaches ring 342 into a groove 346 of the rotor and ring 344 to a rotor surface 348). This distinguishes the '795 from art that mounts a shield to a stationary PCBA.
• "adjacent to" — plain meaning: next to / in magnetic proximity (cf. '795 spec: sensors 330, 332 "housed within the sensor housing 202 and associated with" rotor 208).
• "plurality of magnets" — two or more (dependent claim 11 expressly limits to two, three, or four).

---

2. Element-by-element mapping (the building blocks)

2.1 Claim 1

2.2 Claim 6

2.3 Dependents

---

3. Ground 1 — Claim 1 (and 2–5): Hamlin '583 / WO 2018/053793 + Kather '594 + Honeywell '120 (+ shield teaching)

Base reference: WO 2018/053793 A1 / US 11,125,583 B2 (Hamlin "Integrated dual rotary position sensor," eff. filed 2016-09-23). This document is, structurally, the '795's own claim-1 architecture minus the redundancy and minus the shield sandwich. Its abstract and description disclose: a sensor housing (202) defining an interior cavity; a first rotor (206) rotatable within it and including a first magnet (326); a second rotor (208) rotatable within it and including a second magnet (328), independently rotatable; a ring element (304) made of ferromagnetic material such as iron arranged between the first and second rotors to provide magnetic-field separation; sensors 330/332 (Hall-effect, AMR, GMR, or TMR) adjacent the respective magnets; o-rings; covers; springs; and an admitted application to two brake pedal arms in one housing. See https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2018053793A1/en and https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190271570A1/en.

Secondary reference: US 2009/0267594 A1 (Kather). Expressly discloses a sensor unit with "at least two magnet-sensitive sensor elements" (preferably three) "disposed at different positions adjacent to the surface of the giver unit," provided "for redundancy reasons and a higher stability against external interfering magnetic fields," with 3 elements giving "an easy diagnosis in case one sensor fails." Kather expressly names the applications as "the determination of the pedal position in an electronic accelerator pedal or the position of an electronically operated brake pedal." See https://patents.google.com/patent/US20090267594.

Tertiary reference: US 7,382,120 B2 (Honeywell). Discloses a rectangular magnet, a plurality of Hall components placed in association with the magnet's surface, on a PCB in a stationary location, with a rotor "revolved over the Hall chips," a cover, a torsion spring, a sealing ring, and an EMI shield 118; and expressly claims the benefit of "a compact size... with less undesirable effects due to the presence of external magnetic fields." See https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7382120B2](/patent/US7382120B2)/en.

Why a PHOSITA would combine them (motivation):

1. The '795's own admitted prior art supplies the problem statement and the motivation. The Background of the '795 states that conventional rotary sensors "are functional to sense the position of a single control," that "a conventional rotary position sensor must be associated with each vehicular control," and that there is "a need to provide a rotary position sensor that is capable of providing position information associated with a plurality of vehicular controls that are in close proximity." The Background further admits that conventional sensors "are costly to manufacture because such conventional rotary position sensors generally require a shaped magnet" and that they "lack operational redundancy." These are applicant-admitted motivations. Under KSR, an express problem statement in the specification's background is powerful evidence of the state of the art and of what a skilled artisan would have been motivated to do.
2. Same field, same problem, overlapping inventors/owner. '583 and Kather are both magnetic rotary pedal-position sensing; Kather even names the identical end-use (brake pedal position). Art in the same field of endeavor addressing the same problem is combinable. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
3. Kather's own text supplies the redundancy rationale verbatim. Kather's stated reason for ≥2 sensor elements — "redundancy reasons and a higher stability against external interfering magnetic fields" — is precisely the redundancy the '795 touts ("This redundant design is particularly advantageous in rotation detection arrangements that should provide robust and failsafe rotation data"). Motivation from the reference itself is the classic In re Kahn / KSR "articulated reasoning."
4. Predictable result. Adding a redundant second sensor adjacent each magnet, and/or replacing a formed magnet with a rectangular magnet read by two Hall chips, involves no change in the principle of operation of the base apparatus — each reference performs its own known function, and the combination yields nothing more than the sum of those functions. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
5. Design incentive / market force. Sharing one housing between two rotors, reducing part count, and using cheaper unshaped "square or rectangle" magnets to save manufacturing cost is a straightforward design incentive, and "a desire to reduce costs" is a recognized motivation where the change is otherwise obvious.

Result: Claim 1's elements (a), (b), (c), (e) are met by '583 alone (with Kather for the second/third/fourth sensors, or BVR '458's "pairs of ratiometric Hall-effect or magnetoresistive sensors" per magnet, https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030218458A1/en). Element (d) — the shielding-ring sandwich — is the limiting element and is addressed in § 6.1 below. Claims 2, 3, 5 fall straightforwardly.

---

4. Ground 2 — Claim 6 (and 7–12): Honeywell '120 + Kather '594 + a multi-carrier/multi-pole teaching

Structure of the ground. Because claim 6 requires only one rotor, a plurality of magnets on that rotor, the two-ring sandwich, and one sensor, it is the broader and more exposed independent claim.

• "Plurality of magnets... coupled to the rotor" — Kather '594 claims and describes "permanent magnet areas disposed in a ring or ring segment pattern" on the rotatable giver unit, with "at least two pairs of poles," "an alternating pole sequence in the direction of the relative movement," and states the invention "would work with only one pair of poles" but preferably provides more. A skilled artisan reading claim 6's "plurality of magnets" would read it onto a multi-pole rotatable magnet array. The '795's own FIG. 4/8 confirm the intended range is one to four magnets (see also '795 dependent claim 11: "two magnets, three magnets or four magnets").
• The sensor adjacent one of the magnets — Honeywell '120 discloses exactly this: a plurality of Hall chips placed at/within the surface of a magnet, on a stationary PCB, with a rotor revolved over them. Honeywell's own text states the chips can be placed "exactly on the neutral axis of the magnet" and that "a dual analog output can be generated by placing the chips equidistant from the geometric center of magnet."
• The two-ring sandwich — see § 6.1.

Motivation: Honeywell '120 expressly frames magnet shape as a design choice ("the magnet preferably possesses a rectangular shape, but other shapes may be implemented depending upon design considerations"), which is an express lead in the art to substitute one magnet configuration for another — the KSR "simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain its predictable results" rationale. Honeywell also expressly recognizes the benefit of reducing "undesirable effects due to the presence of external magnetic fields," which is the same problem the '795's shielding rings are claimed to solve, giving a motivation to add shielding. And, as noted, the '795's background admits shaped magnets are costly — supplying the motivation to move to multiple simple rectangular magnets. See https://patents.google.com/patent/US7382120B2/en.

Dependents 7–12 fall readily. Claim 7 (second rotor with another plurality of magnets) = '583's second rotor + Kather's plurality. Claim 8 (second sensor) = '583's sensor 332 or BVR '458's sensor pairs. Claims 9 and 10 are nearly met on the face of Kather alone (two/three sensor elements "disposed at different positions adjacent to the surface" for redundancy and diagnosis). Claim 11 (two/three/four magnets) is routine optimization of a disclosed range (Kather's N≥2 pole pairs; '795 FIGS. 4 & 8). Claims 5 and 12 (square or rectangle magnets) are directly and expressly met by Honeywell '120's rectangular magnet.

---

5. Ground 3 — Claim 1 (and 6) via alternative primary combinations

For a petitioner wary of relying on the commonly-owned sibling (see § 6.3), two alternative primary combinations reach the same result from third-party art:

3(a) US 6,542,088 B1 (Heidenhain, "Multiturn rotary encoder with multiple code carriers coupled by a reduction gear") + US 7,382,120 B2 (Honeywell) + US 2009/0267594 A1 (Kather) + US 2003/0218458 A1 (BVR). Heidenhain's title itself recites multiple code carriers in a single rotary encoder — evidence that placing more than one independently rotatable carrier in one sensor housing was known. Honeywell supplies the rectangular magnet + plural Hall chips adjacent the magnet (→ "first and second sensors adjacent the first magnet"; "square or rectangle magnet"). Kather supplies redundant/adjacent paired sensors and the pedal-position application. BVR '458 supplies two magnets, each with a pair of Hall/MR sensors (→ "third and fourth sensors adjacent the second magnet"). ⚠️ Heidenhain's and BVR's full texts should be verified before use; I verified BVR's abstract only.

3(b) US 2005/0075828 A1 (Yazaki, "Rotation angle sensor") + US 7,382,120 + US 2009/0267594. ⚠️ Yazaki disclosure unverified beyond title/date.

These are structurally identical in reasoning to Grounds 1–2: known rotary sensor elements arranged predictably, each performing its known function, combined for the admitted purposes of cost reduction and redundancy.

---

6. Where the prima facie case is weak — and where the claims might survive

6.1 The "shielding ring sandwich" is the crux and my weakest link

Claim 1(d) and claim 6(c) — "first and second shielding rings coupled to the first rotor, at least the [magnet] being disposed between the first shielding ring and the second shielding ring" — is the element least clearly disclosed in the verified third-party art on the patent face. Honeywell '120's EMI shield 118 is a shield against external fields (its stated benefit), but it sits below the PCB, not sandwiching the magnet, and it does not rotate with the rotor. Delphi '419 teaches in the opposite direction, stating "ferromagnetic material is kept away from the magnet in order to avoid perturbance to the magnetic field," while also noting the magnetic circuit is "insensitive to such a perturbance" and describing "concentrating features" added to the magnet shape to increase flux at the sensing face. That is the raw material of a "flux concentrator/back-iron on the magnet" argument, but it is not a clean two-ring sandwich.

Two things materially help the prima facie case, and both must be nailed down before asserting:

• The sibling Hamlin "dual magnet arrangement" family (US 2019/0250018 A1; EP 3 516 759 B1; CN 110326197). Its abstract expressly discloses "a first shielding member (342) associated with a surface of the first magnet (326)" and "a second shielding member (344) associated with a surface of the second magnet (328)," with the shielding members facing one another and made expressly of ferromagnetic material (see the '018 publication's summary language, https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190250018A1/en). That is a two-sided ferromagnetic shielding concept applied to a rotary position sensor magnet — considerably closer than anything in the examiner's cited art. Caveat: this document appears on the page's Similar Documents list, not the examiner's citation list, and it shares the same Hamlin/Suzhou Littelfuse ownership as the '795 (see § 6.3).
• Ordinary knowledge of flux back-irons. In magnetic encoder design, a steel backing plate rotating with a magnet (and, in some designs, plates on both faces) to concentrate flux and reject stray fields is a long-known technique. This is the KSR "known technique" rationale, but it is the kind of argument that needs documentary support (a textbook, a handbook, or a further patent) to avoid being dismissed as unsupported expert say-so.

Bottom line for § 6.1: I would rate the § 103 case on claim 1(d)/6(c) as moderate, not strong, on the art as cited. A well-drafted petition should treat "shielding rings coupled to the rotor and sandwiching the magnet" as the dispositive limitation and build the ground around art that expressly shows ferromagnetic plate(s) on the rotating magnet, rather than trying to stretch Honeywell's stationary EMI shield.

6.2 Possible secondary considerations

None of record — no unexpected-results, commercial-success, licensing, or industry-praise evidence is before the examiner or apparent from the patent. If the patent owner later argues nonobviousness on commercial success, the nexus requirement will be tested: the accused benefits must be attributable to the shielded-ring/multi-magnet architecture rather than to the admitted advantages of dual-rotor packaging and unshaped magnets, both of which the owner's own background treats as known desiderata.

6.3 A legal nuance on the two Hamlin sibling documents (§ 102(a)(2) and the § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership exception)

Both WO 2018/053793 / US 11,125,583 ("Integrated dual rotary position sensor," filed 2016-09-23) and the "dual magnet arrangement" family (PCT/CN2016/089478, filed 2016-09-23) have effective filing dates before the '795's 2016-12-02 date. As US patents / application publications, they would qualify as § 102(a)(2) prior art. However, because the '795 and both siblings were owned by the same entity (Hamlin Electronics (Suzhou) Co., Ltd./its successor Suzhou Littelfuse OVS) at the relevant time, the § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership exception may disqualify those two documents as § 102(a)(2) art. The examiner nonetheless cited WO 2018/053793 on the face of the '795, which indicates it was treated as of-record art (whether under § 102(a)(2) or as evidence of the state of the art under § 103).

Practical consequence: do not build a petition on the sibling patents as anticipatory § 102 art without resolving ownership-at-filing. Use them as (i) evidence of the state of the art and of what was known/obvious, and (ii) § 103 secondary references combined with third-party art (Honeywell '120, Kather '594, Delphi '419, BVR '458) — which are unaffected by the ownership exception. This is the safer architecture, and it corresponds to Ground 2 above.

6.4 § 325(d) risk if the petition reuses examiner-cited art

Every reference in Grounds 1–3 is already of record (they are the 18 face citations). A petition built solely on them invites discretionary denial under § 325(d). The stronger § 325(d) posture is Advanced Bionics factor (d): show that the examiner cited but did not rely on a reference (e.g., if US 7,382,120 and US 2009/0267594 appear in the "References Cited" list without being applied in a rejection), and pair the of-record art with new art that teaches the shielding-ring sandwich. A full prosecution-history pull (the Non-Final Office Action of 2021-01-21, the 2021-03-23 response, and the examiner's reasons for allowance) will establish exactly which references were applied versus merely listed — this is the single highest-value document for both the § 103 and § 325(d) analyses and I could not retrieve it.

6.5 Claim-drafting asymmetries worth exploiting

• Claim 1 requires two sensors on each of two magnets (four sensors total) and the shielding rings on the first rotor only. Bases showing a pair of sensors per magnet (BVR '458) together with a two-rotor housing ('583) map cleanly; asymmetry arguments (e.g., "the art shows only one sensor per magnet") are answered by Kather's two-or-three-element disclosure and by BVR's express sensor pairs.
• Claim 6 requires no second rotor and no second sensor — a petitioner should either knock out claim 6 on the broader Ground 2 or, if claim 1 is the asserted claim, still attack claim 6 to remove the broader fallback.
• Claims 9, 10 ("second/third sensor disposed adjacent to" the first) are close to being met by Kather's express "at least two... sensor elements... adjacent to the surface" language; these dependents add essentially nothing and should not be treated as a safe harbor by the patent owner.

---

7. Summary assessment

The takeaway: the '795's independent claims are vulnerable but not free-throw obvious, and the vulnerability is concentrated in one place — the shielding rings coupled to the rotor and sandwiching the magnet. Everything else in claim 1 and claim 6 (dual rotors in one housing; magnet-on-rotor; sensors adjacent the magnet; and the square/rectangle magnet that the dependent claims 5 and 12 add) is squarely in the cited art, and the '795's own Background supplies the motivations (multi-control packaging, redundancy, avoidance of costly shaped magnets). The dependent claims, particularly 5, 9, 10, and 12, are the most exposed.

Consistency with the earlier sections: this analysis is consistent with the previously generated Patent summary's inference that the shielding-ring limitations were likely added during prosecution to overcome the cited art. The technical analysis above confirms that inference on the merits — the shielding-ring sandwich is the only claim-1/claim-6 element not plainly readable on the face-cited references, while the magnet, rotor, housing, and sensor elements all are. To firm up the record, the 2021-01-21 Office Action and the Notice of Allowance's reasons for allowance should be pulled; that will show whether the rings were the argued point of novelty, which in turn tells a petitioner exactly where to aim.

Recommended further verification before any filing: (i) full texts of US 2011/0080162 A1, US 2015/0028858 A1, US 2015/0028856 A1, US 2015/0293185 A1 (Micronas), US 2010/0060267 A1, US 7,816,881 B2, and the three CN references; (ii) the prosecution history; (iii) ownership records as of 2016-12-02 to resolve the § 102(b)(2)(C) question on the two Hamlin siblings; and (iv) independent documentary evidence of the rotating back-iron/dual-plate flux-concentrator technique to support the "shielding ring" ground without over-relying on commonly-owned family art.