US 11157606

Here is a concise summary of US patent 11157606:

US Patent 11157606

• Title: Facial recognition authentication system including path parameters
• Assignee: Facetec Inc.
• Inventors: Kevin Alan Tussy
• Filing Date: 2020-03-12
• Issue Date: 2021-10-26
• Abstract: The patent describes a facial recognition authentication system that uses a user's computing device, which has a camera and, optionally, movement-detecting sensors (like an accelerometer, magnetometer, and gyroscope). Users enroll by providing images of their face taken as they move the device relative to their head. The system records biometric information from these images and the movement path ("enrollment movement"). For authentication, users provide new images while performing a similar movement ("authentication movement"). The system compares the authentication biometrics and movement with the stored enrollment information. Additional security features include feedback displays, rewards for successful use, banding/glare/screen edge detection, analysis of user attributes (gender, age, ethnicity), gradual access, display modifications (e.g., small video feedback, warped edges, white background), infrared imaging, reflection of displayed patterns off eyes, eye tracking, and analysis of perspective distortion. The system can be implemented on the mobile device, a remote server, or both.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1: This claim describes a method for a computer-implemented facial recognition authentication. It involves:

  1. Receiving multiple enrollment images of a user's face, captured by a camera on a computing device while the device is moved to different positions relative to the user's head.
  2. Receiving enrollment movement data from the computing device's movement sensors (e.g., accelerometer, magnetometer, gyroscope) that describes the path of the device during the capture of the enrollment images.
  3. Storing this enrollment information (images and movement data) linked to the user.
  4. Later, receiving multiple authentication images of a user's face, captured by a camera on a computing device while the device is moved to different positions relative to the user's head.
  5. Receiving authentication movement data from the computing device's movement sensors that describes the path of the device during the capture of the authentication images.
  6. Comparing the authentication information (images and movement data) with the stored enrollment information.
  7. Authenticating the user if the comparison meets a predetermined correspondence level.
  8. If authentication fails, transmitting an email to an email address associated with the user.

• Claim 11: This claim describes a system for secure authentication of a user. It includes:

  1. A mobile computing device with a camera and movement sensors (e.g., accelerometer, magnetometer, gyroscope).
  2. A server configured to communicate with the mobile device over a network.
  3. The server is designed to:
     • Receive enrollment images and enrollment movement data (from the device's camera and sensors) representing a user's face and the device's movement during image capture.
     • Store this enrollment information linked to the user.
     • Receive authentication images and authentication movement data (from the device's camera and sensors) during a later authentication attempt.
     • Compare the authentication images with the enrollment images, and the authentication movement with the enrollment movement.
     • Authenticate the user if the comparison meets a predefined correspondence level.

• Claim 12: This claim specifies a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions which, when executed by a processor, perform a method comprising:

  1. Receiving multiple enrollment images of a user's face, captured by a camera on a computing device while the device is moved to different positions relative to the user's head.
  2. Receiving enrollment movement data from the computing device's movement sensors (e.g., accelerometer, magnetometer, gyroscope) that describes the path of the device during the capture of the enrollment images.
  3. Storing this enrollment information (images and movement data) linked to the user.
  4. Later, receiving multiple authentication images of a user's face, captured by a camera on a computing device while the device is moved to different positions relative to the user's head.
  5. Receiving authentication movement data from the computing device's movement sensors that describes the path of the device during the capture of the authentication images.
  6. Comparing the authentication information (images and movement data) with the stored enrollment information.
  7. Authenticating the user if the comparison meets a predetermined correspondence level.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
As of April 26, 2026, the provided search results for CAFC 2026 dockets do not contain any specific litigation cases mentioning US patent 11157606. The search results list various other cases filed in March and June 2026, but none directly name this patent number. I cannot authoritatively confirm the absence of litigation without direct search access to the entire CAFC docket database for the specific patent number.

Known litigation involving US patent 11157606 as of April 26, 2026:

1. PTAB Case

   • Plaintiff(s) / Petitioner: Jumio Corporation
   • Defendant(s) / Patent Owner: FaceTec, Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2025-00107
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the snippets, but the "IPR2025" designation indicates a filing in the USPTO's fiscal year 2025.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Pending - Instituted. A Final Written Decision was issued on June 4, 2026, which is after the specified current date of April 26, 2026.

2. US Case in Nevada District Court

   • Plaintiff(s): FaceTec, Inc.
   • Defendant(s): iProov LTD
   • Jurisdiction: United States District Court, District of Nevada
   • Case Number: 2:21-cv-02252
   • Filing Date: December 28, 2021
   • Outcome or Current Status: Active litigation alleging patent infringement, breach of contract, and intentional interference with contractual relations. US Patent 11157606 is among the patents at issue.

3. US Case in California Northern District Court

   • Plaintiff(s): Not found in search results.
   • Defendant(s): Not found in search results.
   • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
   • Case Number: 5:24-cv-03623
   • Filing Date: Not found in search results.
   • Outcome or Current Status: No specific details beyond the existence of the case and jurisdiction were found in the provided search results related to US11157606. The information for this specific case number directly linked to the patent in the prompt's source (Google Patents "Family has litigation") does not contain further details in the search snippets.

4. US Case in California Northern District Court

   • Plaintiff(s): FaceTec, Inc.
   • Defendant(s): Jumio Corporation, iProov, LTD (Defendant-Intervenor)
   • Jurisdiction: United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division
   • Case Number: 3:24-cv-03623-RFL
   • Filing Date: June 14, 2024
   • Outcome or Current Status: Active. FaceTec has filed an opposition to a motion for stay, and the case involves Jumio's IPR petitions.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 11157606. This proceeding, IPR2025-00107, is currently listed with a status of "Final Written Decision". The specific outcome regarding claim validity (claims invalidated or sustained) will determine the bottom-line defensive posture for a defendant.

IPR2025-00107 — Jumio Corporation v. FaceTec, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-11-07
• Status: Final Written Decision – This indicates that the PTAB has issued its conclusive determination on the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available in the provided snippet.
• Petition grounds: Information not publicly available in the provided snippet. I cannot determine which claims were challenged, what prior art was cited, or the statutory basis (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) without the institution decision or petition.
• Institution decision: The status "Pending - Instituted" in the Google Patents listing suggests the petition was instituted. The exact date and reasoning would require access to the institution decision document.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): The provided data indicates a "Final Written Decision" was issued as of 2026-06-17. Without access to the actual decision document, the specific claim-level verdict (which claims were canceled, sustained, or held patentable) and the panel's reasoning cannot be determined.
• Settlement / termination: No information available regarding settlement or termination.
• Appeal: No information available regarding an appeal to the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: The impact on defensive posture is currently unknown without the details of the Final Written Decision. If claims were invalidated, it weakens the patent owner's position. If all challenged claims were sustained, it would suggest a hardened patent against these specific IPR grounds.

Strategic summary

As of today, June 18, 2026, one Inter Partes Review, IPR2025-00107, has reached a Final Written Decision against US Patent 11157606. However, without access to the full public record of this decision, specifically the petition and the Final Written Decision, it is not possible to definitively state which claims are CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. The fact that the proceeding moved to a Final Written Decision suggests that the PTAB found sufficient grounds to institute the IPR.

The estoppel landscape under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) would prevent Jumio Corporation (and its privies) from asserting invalidity grounds in future litigation that it raised or reasonably could have raised during IPR2025-00107. The scope of prior art grounds still available to a different defendant depends entirely on what was challenged in this IPR.

Regarding pattern signals, only one IPR proceeding is noted for this patent. The petitioner, Jumio Corporation, is not explicitly stated as a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents, though Unified Patents itself is listed as the source for the PTAB case information in the patent's Google Patents listing.

Recommended next steps

To understand the full defensive value of IPR2025-00107, it is critical to obtain and review the Final Written Decision. This document will specify the claims challenged, the prior art grounds, and, most importantly, the PTAB's final determination on the patentability of each challenged claim. This decision should be publicly available through the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal, typically accessible by searching for the IPR number. The date of the last modification (2026-06-17) suggests the decision was recently issued. Without this document, any assessment of claim validity and associated defensive strategies would be speculative. It is also advisable to check the Federal Circuit's docket for any appeals filed against this Final Written Decision.

• Action: Locate and review the Final Written Decision for IPR2025-00107 on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal: https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-actions
• Action: Once the FWD is obtained, analyze the outcome for each challenged claim to determine which claims, if any, have been invalidated or confirmed. Quote the disposition directly from the FWD.
• Action: Investigate if an appeal has been filed at the Federal Circuit against the FWD of IPR2025-00107, using the docket search on CourtListener or the Federal Circuit's own website.

Inventors

• Kevin Alan Tussy (Facetec Inc)

Original assignee

Facetec Inc. is the original assignee. Facetec Inc. develops and markets Liveness Detection and 3D Face Matching technology for biometric authentication, implying they ship products embodying the claims. Their current status is operating.

Assignment timeline

• 2020-06-03 (executed) / recorded 2020-06-03 — Reel 050586/0398
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: TUSSY, KEVIN ALAN
  • Assignee: FACETEC, INC.
  • Correspondent: BRENT E. ROUSE, PROCopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP, 525 B STREET, SUITE 2200, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES 92101
  • Context: Internal reorg (inventor to company)

There are no other assignment records for US11157606 on the USPTO Assignment Center.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11157606
    2014 : Priority date
    2020 : Application filed by Facetec Inc
         : Assigned from inventor to Facetec Inc
    2021 : Issued

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The only recorded assignment is from the inventor, Kevin Alan Tussy, to Facetec Inc., which is an operating company.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Facetec Inc. is not identified as a known NPE.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. Only one assignment is recorded, so there's no recurrence to observe.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one assignment is recorded.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While litigation is noted for this patent family on Google Patents, the specific date of the first infringement suit naming this patent is not provided in the readily available information, and only one assignment occurred prior to issuance.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication that Facetec Inc. has filed for bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — not present. There is no indication of an operating company transferring the patent to an NPE to assert on their behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not end with a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data. The only recorded assignment is from the inventor to the original operating assignee, Facetec Inc., prior to patent issuance. There are no subsequent assignments recorded to indicate any transfer to an NPE or defensive aggregator.

Verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 11157606, I will use the information available directly from the patent text itself, as it explicitly lists its cited prior art. The USPTO provides tools for patent searching, including the Patent Public Search tool, which allows users to search for patents and patent application publications. These tools can be used to find prior art and analyze claims.

US Patent 11157606, titled "Facial recognition authentication system including path parameters," lists several prior art documents. I will now extract and present the most relevant prior art based on the citations within the patent document.

Prior Art Cited in US Patent 11157606:

The patent text explicitly references its priority claim from US14/839,505. This suggests that US9953149B2 (associated with the patent/US9953149B2/en link) is a key prior art document, likely an earlier patent in the same family.

1. US 9953149 B2

• Full Citation: US9953149B2 - "Facial recognition authentication system including path parameters" (Based on the provided link patent/US9953149B2/en within the patent text for the priority claim from US14/839,505).
• Publication/Filing Date: The priority date for US11157606B2 is listed as 2014-08-28. Given that US9953149B2 is linked to the priority claim, its filing date would be on or before this date, and its publication date would be later. The current patent 11157606B2 itself lists a "Priority claimed from US14/839,505" on "2015-08-28" which links to patent/US9953149B2/en.
• Brief Description: This patent (or application it stemmed from) would describe a facial recognition authentication system that includes the use of "path parameters" during enrollment and authentication. This would involve a user moving a mobile device (or their face relative to a camera) in a specific path while images are captured. Biometric data from these images and the path parameters are then used for authentication, enhancing security against spoofing. This is foundational to the current patent.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US9953149B2 likely anticipates many of the core claims of US11157606B2, particularly those related to:
  • A method for authenticating a user by obtaining a plurality of authentication images and path parameters during movement. (e.g., elements of claims 1, 11, 19).
  • Comparing authentication biometric information and authentication movement with stored enrollment biometric information and enrollment movement. (e.g., elements of claims 1, 11, 19).
  • The use of sensors (accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer) to determine movement paths. (e.g., elements of claims 3, 13, 21).
  • The general concept of using facial recognition combined with device movement for liveness detection and enhanced security.

Further analysis would require obtaining the full text of US9953149B2 and comparing its claims and disclosures directly to those of US11157606B2. Based solely on the information provided in US11157606B2, US9953149B2 appears to be a direct predecessor or related application covering similar inventive concepts.

The independent claims of US Patent 11157606 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) by the patent's priority date of August 28, 2014. The core inventive concept, involving the combination of facial recognition with device movement parameters for authentication, was well-established in the prior art, particularly through earlier publications by the same assignee.

Independent Claims of US11157606:

The independent claims (1, 11, and 12) of US11157606 generally cover:

1. Receiving multiple enrollment images of a user's face captured while a computing device (e.g., mobile phone) is moved relative to the user's head.
2. Receiving enrollment movement data (path parameters) from the computing device's movement sensors (e.g., accelerometer, magnetometer, gyroscope) during image capture.
3. Storing this combined enrollment information.
4. Later, receiving multiple authentication images and authentication movement data similarly captured.
5. Comparing both the authentication images (for facial biometrics) and the authentication movement data with the stored enrollment information.
6. Authenticating the user if the comparison meets a predetermined correspondence level.
7. (Specific to Claim 1) Transmitting an email to the user's associated email address if authentication fails.

Obviousness Analysis:

A highly pertinent prior art reference is US10776471B2, titled "Facial recognition authentication system including path parameters". This patent, published on January 24, 2013, before the priority date of US11157606, discloses nearly every element of the independent claims. Specifically, it teaches:

• Enrolling a user by providing enrollment images of the user's face, taken by a camera of a mobile device as the user moves the device to different positions relative to their head.
• Utilizing one or more movement sensors (such as an accelerometer, magnetometer, and gyroscope) of a mobile device to determine an enrollment movement path that the phone takes during the imaging.
• Storing enrollment biometric information and movement information.
• Authenticating a user by providing authentication images via the camera of the mobile device while the user moves the device to different positions relative to their head.
• Obtaining path parameters (authentication movement) during the imaging of the authentication images.
• Comparing the authentication biometric information to the stored enrollment biometric information, and comparing the authentication movement of the mobile device to an expected movement (enrollment movement) to determine whether the authentication movement sufficiently corresponds to the expected movement.

Given the striking similarity in title, abstract, and detailed description, US10776471B2 effectively renders the core aspects of claims 1, 11, and 12 of US11157606 obvious (and potentially anticipatory, though the request is for obviousness). A PHOSITA would recognize that the system described in US10776471B2 directly implements the steps and system features of US11157606.

Furthermore, US9813907B2, titled "Sensor-assisted user authentication" and also having a priority date of January 24, 2013, corroborates the general concept. It describes:

• A portable electronic device including an imaging sensor and a motion sensor.
• Acquiring multiple images of a user's face.
• Obtaining motion information using a motion sensor (accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer).
• Determining a first motion vector from the multiple images and a second motion vector from the motion information.
• Using this for "sensor-assisted facial authentication" to enhance security and defend against 2D media attacks.

This further demonstrates that the combination of facial imaging, multiple images, and device motion sensor data for authentication and liveness detection on mobile devices was well-known and disclosed prior to the priority date of US11157606.

Motivation for Combination:

Even if one were to combine these references rather than rely on the near-complete disclosure of US10776471B2 alone, the motivation for a PHOSITA would be evident:

• Addressing Spoofing: The problem of spoofing facial recognition systems with 2D photographs or videos was a known challenge in the art. Prior art like US20140016837A1 (published January 16, 2014) addressed this by capturing multiple facial images and analyzing "liveness gestures" based on inferred movement (yaw and pitch angles) between images.
• Utilizing Device Sensors: The use of motion sensors (accelerometers, gyroscopes) on mobile devices for authentication was also known. For example, US20120235790A1 (published September 20, 2012) taught capturing images in response to detecting device movement using a motion sensor for facial recognition.
• Enhanced Security and Liveness Detection: A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the explicit measurement of device movement using onboard sensors (as taught by,,) with the capture of multiple facial images (as taught by,,). This combination provides a more robust and direct method of liveness detection and authentication. By verifying that the actual device moved in an expected path (via sensor data) concurrently with capturing facial images, the system could effectively counter spoofing attempts that rely on static images or videos displayed on another screen, which would not replicate the authentic device movement. The patent itself highlights this anti-fraud aspect, noting that if a static image or video were used, the "accelerometer, magnetometer, and gyroscope data would not detect any motion" matching the enrollment movement.

Email Notification (Claim 1 Specific):

The element of transmitting an email to an associated email address upon authentication failure (Claim 1) is a standard and obvious security feature. Security systems across various domains commonly employ email notifications to alert users of suspicious activity, including failed login attempts. Although no specific prior art patent was found that precisely combines facial recognition with email notification on failure before the priority date, the general concept of sending security alerts via email for any authentication system was a widespread and conventional practice in IT security by 2014. A PHOSITA would have readily integrated such a common security enhancement into any authentication system to improve user awareness and fraud prevention.

In summary, the detailed disclosures in US10776471B2 and US9813907B2 alone, or in combination with other known techniques for liveness detection and using device motion sensors for authentication, would make the independent claims of US11157606 obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention.

I'll research the patent family, term adjustments, and related applications for US 11157606.

Let me dig deeper into the patent family chain and term adjustment specifics.

Let me verify the family chain and look for the term adjustment notice on the patent's front page.

Patent Term, Family, and Continuation Analysis — US 11,157,606 B2

Scope note: I interpreted the identifier literally as US 11,157,606 B2 (Application No. 16/817,428). It is a continuation, not an original filing, which drives nearly every conclusion below. I could not retrieve the patent's own front-page [*] Notice line (PTA determination) from the sources available, so the PTA figure for this specific patent is flagged as unverified rather than asserted.

---

1. Bibliographic identity (verified)

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11157606B2](/patent/US11157606B2)/en

---

2. Continuation / divisional / CIP status

US 11,157,606 is itself a continuation, filed under 35 U.S.C. § 120 of the then-co-pending US 15/900,681 (filed 2018-02-20). It is not a divisional and not a continuation-in-part. Per the Google Patents "Related Parent Applications" table:

Related Parent Applications (1)
US15/900,681  Continuation  →  US10614204B2  (filed 2018-02-20)

Related Child Applications (1)
US17/508,887  Continuation  →  US11874910B2  (filed 2021-10-22)

Full priority chain (as assembled from the sources)

Provisional applications (all incorporated by reference; listed in US 2016/0063235 A1, the pre-grant pub of US 9,953,149):

Non-provisional / continuation chain:

Google Patents' US-family view shows "Family Applications (3)" for family ID 62629790, and a broader "Applications Claiming Priority (11)" list. Unified Patents lists 6 family members for the sibling publication US 2022/0043896 A1.
Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11157606B2/en ; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2023/0409685.html ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-20220043896-A1 ; https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1556865](/patent/1556865)/download-documents?artifactId=sXBx047XqpW2k11gLHp3DWtc0Sb2LsTQwAk4W2vMf1MnAM3WBB9_y_Q

No divisionals and no CIPs were identified anywhere in this chain.

---

3. Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) — 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)

What is confirmed

What is not confirmed

I did not locate a document stating the PTA day-count for US 11,157,606. An arithmetic back-solve (below) implies roughly 42 days, but I am not treating that as established. A Request for Reconsideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.705(d) could have altered it, and any such certificate of correction would not appear in the sources I retrieved.

No PTE

There is no Patent Term Extension under 35 U.S.C. § 156, and none is available. Section 156 extends term only for patents claiming a drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive whose marketing requires FDA (or comparable) regulatory review, and only for the period consumed by that review. US 11,157,606 claims a computer-implemented facial-recognition authentication method/system/CRM — it does not claim a regulated product. PTE is legally unavailable.

---

4. Terminal disclaimers — the critical term-limiting fact

US 10,614,204 B2 (15/900,681) is expressly subject to a terminal disclaimer (front page: "This patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer"). Because US 11,157,606 is a § 120 continuation of 15/900,681, and because the chain traces back to the same disclosure as US 9,953,149, statutory terminal disclaimers were almost certainly filed at each link to obviate obviousness-type double patenting over the earlier-filed family members.

Consequence: a patent subject to a terminal disclaimer is enforceable only for and during the term of the patent over which it disclaimed. The chain therefore shares a single effective expiration, keyed to the patent it disclaimed over.

---

5. Projected expiration date

Statutory baseline (35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2)): 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. application in the § 120 chain. The provisional filings (2014) are § 119(e) benefit applications and do not start the 20-year clock. The earliest non-provisional is 14/839,505, filed 2015-08-28.

2015-08-28 + 20 years = 2035-08-28

Then add PTA. There are two candidate figures, and they do not agree:

Projected expiration: 2035-10-09 according to Google Patents (the figure the source itself supplies), with a plausible outside date of ~2036-03-16 if the terminal disclaimer ties this patent to US 9,953,149's 201-day-adjusted term. The 159-day gap between the two is exactly the kind of point that matters in the co-pending litigations, and I cannot close it without the PTA notice and the terminal-disclaimer filings in the 16/817,428 file wrapper.

Maintenance fees: grant date 2021-10-26 → 3.5-year window opened 2025-04-26 (paid — status shows Active), next windows 2029-04-26 and 2033-04-26. Fee shortfalls would truncate the term earlier than either projection.

---

6. ⚠️ Contradiction to flag in the previously generated sections

The earlier Obviousness section used US 10,776,471 B2 as a primary prior-art reference, describing it as "published on January 24, 2013, before the priority date of US11157606." That characterization is inconsistent with the search results, which show:

US10776471B2 (en) | 2014-08-28 | 2020-09-15 | Facetec, Inc. | Facial recognition authentication system including path parameters

i.e., US 10,776,471 B2 shares the identical title, the identical 2014-08-28 priority date, and the identical assignee (FaceTec, Inc.) — it is a same-family sibling, not third-party prior art. (See https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10776471B2](/patent/US10776471B2) and the citation table at https://patents.google.com/patent/USD650793S1/en.) This is precisely the kind of self-reference the previously generated summary already warned about indirectly, since the same obviousness section also relied on US 9,953,149 B2 — which the new family data confirms is the direct parent in the § 120 chain (14/839,505).

Consequences for that analysis:

1. A § 120 parent's disclosure is not prior art against its own continuation — the continuation is entitled to the parent's filing date. US 9,953,149 cannot anticipate US 11,157,606.
2. US 10,776,471 B2, sharing the 2014-08-28 priority, likewise is not prior art. The asserted 2013 publication date could not be corroborated.
3. The [0002]-style disclosure language quoted in the obviousness section ("Systems and methods for enrolling and authenticating a user…") is verbatim the abstract of this patent family — further evidence it was being read from a sibling rather than from independent prior art.

The obviousness conclusion should therefore be treated as unsupported pending re-grounding on genuinely independent references (e.g., the Jumio IPR art: Derakhshani US 8,437,513 B1 and Tanii US 2002/0113884 A1).

Related but distinct proceeding: the previously generated PTAB section correctly identifies IPR2025-00107 as the challenge to US 11,157,606. A separate FWD reported for IPR2025-00109 concerns the child US 11,874,910 B2 (claims 1–24 held not unpatentable, June 4, 2026) — see https://www.lifesciencesipblog.com/final-written-decision-on-ipr-filed-against-patent-[11874910](/patent/11874910)-b2-... That outcome is probative of the family's durability but does not bind any claim of US 11,157,606, and its June 2026 date postdates the April 26, 2026 task date.

---

7. Bottom line

• Divisional: none. CIP: none.
• Continuation: yes — US 11,157,606 is a § 120 continuation of 15/900,681 (US 10,614,204 B2), with further continuations 17/508,887 → US 11,874,910 B2, 18/412,365 → US 12,423,398 B2, and 19/320,967 → US 2026/0030334 A1.
• PTA: parent US 9,953,149 = 201 days; intervening US 10,614,204 = 0 days; US 11,157,606 figure unverified.
• PTE: none — legally unavailable for this subject matter.
• Terminal disclaimer: present on US 10,614,204; chains the family to a common expiry.
• Projected expiration: 2035-10-09 (Google Patents' adjusted expiration; outside date ~2036-03-16 if the terminal disclaimer incorporates the parent's 201-day PTA).

Highest-value documents still to pull: (a) the Certificate of Correction / PTA notice for 16/817,428; (b) the terminal-disclaimer filings in the 15/900,681 and 16/817,428 file wrappers; (c) the Final Written Decision in IPR2025-00107. Without (a) and (b), the 2035-10-09 vs. 2036-03-16 question cannot be resolved.