US 11236973

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent, including any litigation involving it.

Let me check for any litigation or docket references specifically tied to this patent number.

US Patent 11,236,973 — "Secure device for applying an electrical pulse"

Search note / uncertainty disclosure: I ran targeted searches against patent databases (Google Patents, Espacenet/EPO Global Patent Index, Justia, patent-owner aggregators). I did not find any CAFC 2026 docket, appeal, PTAB proceeding, or district-court litigation naming this patent. Results for numerically similar identifiers (e.g., RS process nos. 11236899 / 11237240; PGR2025-00010 re U.S. 11,967,369; SEC filing ID 11236973 for UFP Industries) are unrelated and are excluded per your instruction not to conflate similar numbers. I cannot directly execute a live USPTO Patent Center or CAFC CM/ECF query from this environment, so the "no docket activity" statement reflects the absence of searchable public docket records rather than a certified negative.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (as issued)

The device includes at least one glove having a glove body ending in glove fingers, at least three of which carry first application contacts connected to an electrical energy source via a control unit. The glove further includes second application contacts. The control unit includes a selector for applying a differential electrical pulse between the first and second application contacts.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — A pulse-delivery glove: a glove body (back face + front face) with a hand base and multiple fingers; at least three fingers each carry a first application contact on the front (palm-side) face; the hand base carries second application contacts; a power source connects to both contact sets via a control unit that applies differential electrical pulses, where the finger contacts deliver a first pulse and the hand-base contacts deliver a second, stronger pulse. (Note the claim text uses "means for applying differential electrical pulses" — functional/means-plus-function phrasing, and the relative strength of the second pulse is the core inventive distinction.)

Claim 9 — Substantively claim 1's device re-cast as an independent claim, expressly adding a polyurethane coating on the first and second application contacts to insulate the two contact sets from one another, and requiring the coating to have a thickness between 0.5 mm and 1 mm. The second pulse is again recited as greater than the first.

Dependent claims (brief)

• 2 — First pulse has lower intensity than the second pulse.
• 3 — First pulse: 5–40 mAh and 220–260 V (note: the spec elsewhere says "10–30 mAh … about 240 V"; "mAh" is a charge unit, likely a drafting/conversion artifact in the family).
• 4 — Second pulse voltage >1,000 V (spec: preferably >5,000 V, on the order of 20,000 V).
• 5 — Finger contacts sit at the fingertips (referenced as 3B, a spec reference numeral not separately defined in the claims).
• 6 — Second application contacts also on the front face.
• 7 — Conductive-fiber coating on the contacts to insulate the first set from the second set.
• 8 — Polyurethane coating on the contacts for the same insulating purpose.
• 10 — Case on the back of the glove housing the control unit and a rechargeable battery, with an operating indicator and charge-level indicator.
• 11 — Glove body fabric of carbon fibers (spec references PPD-T / KEVLAR™).

Context worth flagging

• Prosecution/claim-drafting observations: Claim 1's "means for applying" language appears to trigger §112(f) construction, and claim 9 largely duplicates claim 1 plus a coating limitation — both may present §112 definiteness/means-plus-function exposure. This is an analytical observation, not a legal conclusion.
• Prior art cited on the face: CN2125806U, US6646855B2 (Buening stun glove), US7012797B1 (Delida versatile stun glove), US20140022688A1, CN102778173A, CN204924055U, CN205037814U, CN106490731A, and others — i.e., the examiner relied on a crowded stun-glove art field.
• Family: EP3707686B8, CN111448594B, CA3118782C, RU2771142C2, FR3073313B1, plus later-filed family members including CN117120797A ("Glove device for deterrence and application of electrical pulses," assignee rendered as SAS Netforce) and JP7763871B2.
• Forward citation: US12332026B2 (Compliant Technologies LLC, "Device deterring movement of a detainee") cites this patent — but that is a citation, not litigation over '973.

If you need a docket-level confirmation (USPTO Patent Center transaction history, assignment reel, or CAFC CM/ECF), I'd recommend a direct query against those systems, as I cannot certify their current state from the searches available here.

I'll search for litigation involving US Patent 11236973 across patent litigation databases.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Litigation Search: US Patent No. 11,236,973

Summary: I found no evidence of any litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 11,236,973 ("Secure device for applying an electrical pulse").

What I searched and what I found

I ran targeted searches against patent-litigation-oriented sources (Unified Patents portal, CourtListener/RECAP, PTAB records, Docket Alarm) and general web sources using the exact number 11236973 and the '973 shorthand, plus assignee/inventor terms ("Netforce," "D'Oriano," "EstunGlove"). Key results:

Notable near-misses (misleading lookalikes — explicitly not the '973 patent)

• IPR2023-00167, The NOCO Company, Inc. v. Pilot, Inc. — concerns U.S. Patent No. 11,235,673, a different patent. The number similarity appears to be coincidental.
• US 12,332,026 B2 (Compliant Technologies LLC, "Device deterring movement of a detainee") — appears in the '973 patent's Google Patents "Cited By" list. This is a citation relationship, not litigation, and citing patents are not lawsuits. I found no court case tying it to the '973.
• CN117120797A ("Glove device for deterrence and application of electrical pulses," SAS Netforce) — a family member of the '973 patent, not an infringement action.
• Various "11236973" hits (Castro Arquitetura Ltda., Hohsiang Kitchen Unit Mfg., Urban Green Landscapes Ltd., a UFP Industries SEC filing ID) — these are unrelated company/tax/registration identifiers, not the patent.

Relevant enforcement context (but no litigation on record)

The only enforcement-adjacent signal is a press statement, not a lawsuit. In its March 26, 2025 release, Netforce's CEO Laurent Mollinari said a new patent "guarantees that any attempt to replicate an electric glove by a third party will be considered an infringement, holding manufacturers, distributors, and users accountable." This is an assertion of rights / threatened enforcement, not a filed case, and it refers to the second U.S. patent (US 12,222,193 B2). No matching complaint, ITC investigation, or PTAB petition against the '973 patent surfaced.

Caveats on confidence

• I was unable to directly retrieve and confirm the Unified Patents litigation caselist page for this patent (my result sets did not include a matching docket entry), so I cannot say with 100% certainty that zero suits exist. My conclusion is based on the absence of any hit across multiple independent query formulations and sources.
• Litigation databases can lag and some district court dockets (pre-2020 or sealed) are not fully indexed. However, given the patent only issued February 1, 2022, any suits would be recent and typically well-indexed.

Conclusion

No litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 11,236,973 is known. The patent is currently active (4th-year maintenance fee paid July 30, 2025) and held by SAS Netforce. Its owner has publicly signaled intent to enforce against electric-glove competitors, but as of this search no plaintiff/defendant, jurisdiction, case number, or filing date can be reported because no case appears on record.

If a specific case number is expected, I'd recommend a direct check of PACER/Docket Alarm for SAS Netforce as plaintiff and the Unified Patents caselist for the '973 patent — I can run those specific lookups on request.

I'll verify the structured data with targeted web searches before concluding.

Let me run a few more targeted searches to be thorough — including the patent owner's litigation and IPR history.

PTAB Proceedings on US 11,236,973 B2 — Analyst Report

Patent: US 11,236,973 B2 ("Secure device for applying an electrical pulse")
Patent Owner: SAS Netforce / NETFORCE (Mauguio/Balaruc, France)
Inventor: Gaelord D'Orlano — assigned to NETFORCE by assignment recorded 2021-12-22 (Reel/Frame 058457/0320, effective 2021-06-03)
Priority: 2017-11-06 (FR1760365) · PCT filed: 2018-11-06 (PCT/FR2018/052727) · US national stage: US16/761,941 · Granted: 2022-02-01
Claims: 11 (1 independent in the "first/second application contacts" species; claim 9 is a second independent claim of the same species with the polyurethane-coating limitation and a 0.5–1 mm thickness)
Anticipated expiration: 2038-11-06 · Status: Active (4th-year maintenance fee paid 2025-07-30, small entity)

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings on file against US 11,236,973 B2 — 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denied — which means the patent is a complete blank slate at the PTAB and no claim has ever been tested in an adversarial validity trial; every one of claims 1–11 is UNTESTED, and a defendant cannot rely on any Board-issued invalidity finding as a shortcut.

Per the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block supplied with this task, the USPTO Open Data Portal returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest. I ran web searches to catch anything the ODP has not yet indexed (Google Patents, PTAB dockets, CourtListener, and news/press coverage of NETFORCE's enforcement posture). No IPR, PGR, or CBM petition naming US 11,236,973 B2 surfaced. I flag this as a negative finding from search rather than a positive confirmation of the full docket — see the caveat below.

No proceedings on file

There is no IPR20XX-##### or PGR20XX-##### docket to report, and I will not invent one. The template fields (type, filed, judge panel, grounds, institution decision, FWD, settlement, appeal) have no content for this patent:

• Type: N/A
• Filed: N/A
• Status: N/A — no proceeding exists
• Judge panel: N/A — no APJ has ever been assigned
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: N/A — no claim of the '973 patent has been construed, much less canceled or sustained
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A — no Board decision exists to appeal, and no CAFC docket naming the '973 patent was located
• Defensive value: Neutral. Nothing is dead, nothing is hardened. A defendant gets no free kill and faces no estoppel.

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is UNTESTED. Claims 1–11 all stand as granted on 2022-02-01 and have never been before the Board. Nothing is canceled, so there is no "claim 1 is dead" argument available. Conversely, nothing has been sustained after an adversarial trial either — which matters because a patent that has never been through an IPR has never had its claims narrowed by the Board's construction or by a Patent Owner's contingent motion to amend. NETFORCE's claims are exactly as broad as the examiner left them in 2021 (notice of allowance mailed 2021-09-30).

Estoppel landscape: clean. Because no AIA trial has ever been instituted, § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not attach to anyone. Any defendant is free to run the full § 102/§ 103 prior-art playbook — including art that has been in the file wrapper since 2016–2017. The 15 references cited during prosecution (see below) are, by definition, the examiner's art and therefore the weakest ground; the stronger grounds are art the examiner never saw — in particular the system-level prior art of actual conductive-energy gloves and stun-gun circuitry, plus foreign glove patents that post-date the '973 filing but are evidence of the field's density.

What tools are actually available — and one is gone. The '973 patent has an effective filing date of 2017-11-06, i.e., post-AIA. Two consequences:

• PGR is unavailable. The § 321 post-grant review window closed 9 months after grant, on or about 2022-11-01. Any § 112(a)/(b) or § 101 theory you want to raise (and there are decent ones — see below) must be raised in district court or the ITC, not at the PTAB.
• CBM is unavailable. Covered Business Method review is limited to patents with claims having an effective filing date before 2013-03-16, and the program sunset on 2020-09-16 in any event.
• The only remaining AIA vehicle is IPR, which is limited to § 102/§ 103 grounds "based only on prior art consisting of patents or printed publications" (35 U.S.C. § 311(b)). System/prior-use art and public-use/marketing art (e.g., earlier commercial stun gloves) can only support an IPR ground if it was reduced to a printed publication before 2017-11-06.

Two § 112(b) soft spots worth preserving for district court. Claim 3 recites "said first intensity is between 5 and 40 mAh said first voltage being between 220 and 260 V" — "said first intensity" and "said first voltage" are not antecedently introduced in claim 1, which speaks only of a "first electrical pulse." And claim 1 says the second pulse "being stronger" while claim 2 separately defines "intensity" sub-elements. Also note the specification conflates mAh (a unit of charge/capacity) with pulse energy throughout, which is a § 112(a) written-description/enablement talking point. None of this is PTAB-available here.

Pattern signals: none on the PTAB side; a crowded-art signal on the merits side.

• No serial petitioner, no defensive aggregator. There is no Unified Patents, no RPX, no repeat petitioner — because there is no petitioner at all. No IPR has ever been filed by anyone.
• The patent owner is a small, actively-enforcing commercial entity, not a PAE. NETFORCE is a French operating company with 50+ country commercial commitments (prison administrations in Morocco and Senegal; Swiss authorization) and a stated intent to hold "manufacturers, distributors, and users accountable." Its public statements describe a portfolio across ~107 countries, a second US patent (US 12,222,193 B2, granted 2025-02-11, protection to 2041, inventor Sylvain Torroella, different specification), and an active family: a further CN filing (CN117120797A, filed 2021-03-12, "Glove device for deterrence and application of electrical pulses") and JP7763871B2 ("Restraint and electric pulse application glove device"). A two-patent US family with a live continuation practice means a defendant should expect both the '973 and the '193 patents to appear in any assertion, and should plan invalidity across the family rather than patent-by-patent.
• No PTAB appeal history to read: nothing has gone to the Federal Circuit.
• Dense, non-PAE prior art field. Third-party US patents continue to cite the '973 patent (e.g., US 12,332,026 B2, Compliant Technologies LLC, priority 2017-07-31, published 2025-06-17, "Device deterring movement of a detainee") and the related-art list includes dozens of electric-shock gloves from CN, KR, JP, EA, and the US. That is a good sign for an invalidity case and a bad sign for the patent's ability to survive one.

Why is such a visible patent unscathed? The most likely explanation is commercial timing, not validity. NETFORCE only began its US market push around 2026 (federal procurement interest, US partnership search, a €45M GEM commitment) and its second US patent issued in 2025. Well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs; a patent licensed/asserted in the US for only roughly a year naturally has none. That is the practical read: the absence is a timing signal, not a validity signal — and it is reversible.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not argue from the docket. If you are a defendant receiving a demand letter citing the '973 patent, you cannot point to any FWD, cancellation, or estoppel. Confirm the negative yourself before relying on it, because the ODP ingest lags: check PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions page for "Netforce," "US 11,236,973," and "E-StunGlove," and check the Patent Center file wrapper for the '973 patent (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/) for any ex parte reexamination or reissue request. My searches found none, but a very recently filed petition would not yet be in either the ODP or a search index.

2. Move fast on the § 315(b) clock. With no prior petition, the one-year bar runs from the date your client was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the '973 patent. If you have been served and more than a year has passed, you are statutorily barred and the only routes left are district court invalidity or a third party's IPR (which you cannot join without the Board's leave under § 315(c) if you are time-barred). If you have not yet been served but expect to be, pre-position the petition.

3. Build the IPR around patents and printed publications only — pre-2017-11-06. Your best grounds are prior printed publications on: (a) gloves with opposing-polarity contact sets across successive fingers; (b) dual-mode output stages (low-voltage/high-voltage selection) in stun devices; and (c) insulative polymer coatings over conductive-fabric electrodes. That third point maps directly onto claims 7–9, which rely on a polyurethane coating and a 0.5–1 mm thickness — a range that invites obviousness challenges framed around routine optimization of a known coating. Get a claim-construction position on "differential electrical pulses" and "stronger" early; the specification never defines "stronger" quantitatively.

4. Route § 112 to district court, deliberately. PGR is closed and IPR cannot reach § 112. The claim 3 antecedent-basis defect and the mAh/charge-unit conflation are indefiniteness and written-description arguments for a Markman/summary judgment track or an ITC invalidity defense — not for the Board. Budget for them where they can actually be decided.

5. If a proceeding does appear, note the statutory clock. From institution, the Board has one year to reach an FWD (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)), extendable only for good cause by up to six months; the institution decision itself is due within six months of the petition's filing (§ 314(b)). Watch for a joinder petition under § 315(c) — the cheapest way for a second defendant to get into a first defendant's IPR while dodging the § 315(b) bar.

6. Watch the sibling patent. US 12,222,193 B2 (granted 2025-02-11) is inside its PGR window until roughly 2025-11-11 — historically, that is where a § 112 or § 101 attack on this family would have been viable. If that date has passed without a PGR, the family becomes IPR-only across the board, and any coordinated challenge should be built now around §§ 102/103 printed publications for both patents simultaneously to avoid the General Plastic / parallel-petition discretion problems.

Sourcing note: the proceeding list is taken from the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP, no AIA trials indexed). Patent bibliographic and claim data are taken from the full text of US 11,236,973 B2. Negative findings on IPR/PGR/CBM petitions, litigation, and Federal Circuit appeals are based on web searches conducted 2026-09-29; no petition document, institution decision, FWD, settlement order, or CAFC opinion naming this patent was located. Nothing in this report should be read as an assertion that a specific claim was construed, canceled, or sustained — no such event has occurred.

I'll reconstruct the assignment record, starting with targeted searches on the assignment and ownership history.

The initial reel/frame search returned nothing relevant. Let me dig into the assignee and the assignment record.

Found key context: the PCT/national-phase applicant appears to be the individual D'Oriano, tied to a company "AKIS TECHNOLOGY." Let me verify the assignment chain, correspondent, and company status.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 11,236,973 B2

Retrieval caveat (read first): I was unable to execute a live session against the USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) from this environment. The chain below is reconstructed from (a) the Google Patents legal-events record embedded in the source text provided, (b) the derivative national-phase records (RU 2,771,142 C2; BR national-phase notice) that show the original applicant, and (c) press/registry corroboration. Where a field — notably the correspondent of record — could not be retrieved, I say so rather than fill it in. Only one post-filing assignment appears in the source record for this patent.

Inventors

Pattern notes:

• There is no multi-inventor departure pattern to assess because there is only one inventor. The "all inventors leave within 12 months" fire-sale tell cannot be evaluated against a single-inventor record.
• The Brazilian national-phase decision (INPI, re PCT/FR2018/052727) records the applicant as the natural person "GAÉLORD D'ORIANO", and expressly notes that the legal entity relied on for a pandemic-era deadline extension, AKIS TECHNOLOGY ("do qual é proprietário e administrador" — of which he is owner and manager), was shuttered 17 March–1 June 2020. This is an operating/administrative hardship narrative tied to the inventor's own small company, not evidence of portfolio liquidation.
• The Russian grant RU 2,771,142 C2 (registered 27.04.2022) still names (73) Патентообладатель: Д'ОРИАНО — i.e., the individual D'Oriano remains patentee in that jurisdiction — whereas the US right was assigned to Netforce. That jurisdictional split is worth noting for any chain-of-title diligence.

Original assignee

There are two defensible readings, and I flag the ambiguity rather than smooth it over:

• Google Patents states the original/current assignee as "SAS Netforce SAS."
• However, the USPTO assignment event in the same record shows D'Oriano as assignor to NETFORCE — which means D'Oriano was the owner of record before that assignment. Corroborated by the RU and BR national-phase records naming the individual as applicant/patentee. On the evidence available, the true original owner of record was the individual inventor, and "SAS Netforce SAS" as "original assignee" reflects the record after the 2021 assignment.

Netforce (the current owner):

• Entity: French société par actions simplifiée (SAS); "NETFORCE" as recorded on the US assignment; commercial identity NETFORCE, HQ Mauguio (Hérault), later references to Balaruc, France.
• Business: law-enforcement technology; develops and sells the EstunGlove / E-StunGlove®, an electric-impulse glove — i.e., it ships a product embodying the claims.
• Status: operating, privately held, actively raising capital (€45M share-subscription commitment from GEM Global Yield LLC SCS, announced March 2025), commercial commitments in 50+ countries, deployments in Morocco and Senegal prison administrations.
• Timing tell: VentureRadar lists Netforce as founded 2021 — the same year the assignment (effective 2021-06-03) was executed. This is the footprint of a founder bringing his invention into his own operating company, not a transfer to an unrelated acquirer.

Assignment timeline

• 2021-06-03 (executed) / recorded 2021-12-22 — Reel 058457/0320
  • Conveyance: Assignment (ownership)
  • Assignor: D'ORIANO, GAELORD
  • Assignee: NETFORCE (France) [SAS Netforce]
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved. The Google Patents legal-events record states the reel/frame, conveyance, parties, and effective date, but exposes no correspondent name or correspondence address. I could not confirm the filing attorney/firm from the Assignment Center in this session. (If a correspondent does recur across the later-filed family — e.g., the CN117120797A "Glove device for deterrence…" and JP7763871B2 filings — that would be the place to test the repeat-player signal; I could not verify it here.)
  • Context: Founder/operating-company acquisition — the sole inventor transferred the US right to the French SAS he fronts, contemporaneous with (and plausibly as a condition of) the company's formation/funding in 2021.

No other assignment is recorded for US 11,236,973. There is no security-interest record, no change-of-name record, no license record, and no transfer to a licensing entity. The chain terminates at Netforce.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11236973
    2017 : FR priority filed by D'Oriano
    2018 : PCT filed by D'Oriano
    2021 : Assignment to NETFORCE executed
         : Recorded at Reel 058457 Frame 0320
    2022 : US patent issues to Netforce
    2025 : Netforce adds second US patent

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The single recorded transfer runs from an individual inventor to NETFORCE, a société par actions simplifiée with a real product (EstunGlove/E-StunGlove®), announced institutional deployments, and a press office. No "IP/Holdings/Ventures" suffix, no registered-agent address, no single-purpose Delaware/Texas LLC. Reel 058457/0320.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Neither assignor (individual D'Oriano) nor assignee (Netforce) appears on any published NPE roster (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, MPHJ, etc.). No match surfaced in searches.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / not verifiable. The chain is a single link, so "recurrence" cannot be tested internally; and the correspondent of record for reel 058457/0320 was not retrievable in this session. Absent that, I make no finding. (A single appearance would not be a finding anyway.)

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. One assignment, executed and recorded ~6 months apart (2021-06-03 → 2021-12-22); no chained LLC hops, no <24-month cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present / inapplicable. No infringement suit naming this patent is on record (consistent with the earlier litigation section), so there is no suit date to measure a 6-month pre-suit window against. The assignment predates any public enforcement posture by years and coincides with company formation, not litigation.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No Chapter 7/11, no receivership, no court-supervised patent sale. The only financial-distress data point is the pandemic-era closure of the inventor's small company AKIS TECHNOLOGY (BR national-phase record), which affected a filing deadline — not a portfolio auction.

7. Privateering — Not present. The operating company (Netforce) did not transfer to a third-party asserter; it kept and is building the portfolio (its 2025 releases reference two US patents — US 11,236,973 B2 and US 12,222,193 B2 — held in-house, plus a 107-country portfolio). No evidence of a proxy asserting on its behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at an operating manufacturer.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The chain is a single, clean link — Gaélord D'Oriano → NETFORCE, executed 2021-06-03 and recorded 2021-12-22 at Reel 058457/0320 — moving the right from the sole inventor to the French société par actions simplifiée he fronts, formed the same year (2021), which manufactures and sells the patented EstunGlove/E-StunGlove® and publicly markets it into 50+ countries. No NPE hallmark (shell transfer, cascading LLCs, known asserter, bankruptcy sale, privateering, or defensive-aggregator termination) is present on the record. The one caveat to "assertion": Netforce has publicly signaled an intent to enforce ("any attempt to replicate an electric glove… will be considered an infringement"), but no suit naming the '973 patent is on record, so the "suing actual competitors" prong is aspirational rather than documented — which is why the honest label is operating-company ownership with a declared (not yet filed) enforcement posture.

Verification links:

• USPTO Patent Assignment Center (search patent 11236973): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Google Patents legal events for this patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11236973/en (Legal Events → the 2021-12-22 assignment entry, Reel 058457/0320)

Residual uncertainties I did not resolve: (i) the correspondent of record on reel 058457/0320; (ii) confirmation that no unrecorded or expunged assignment exists — only Assignment Center can certify that; (iii) the exact legal name registered to the assignee ("NETFORCE" on the record vs. "SAS Netforce SAS" elsewhere). If you need the correspondent pulled, I'd run the reel 058457/0320 query directly in Assignment Center, which indexes the entire reel/frame document including the correspondent block.

I'll research the cited prior art references for US 11,236,973, focusing on the examiner-cited references which are most relevant to § 102 anticipation.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,236,973 B2 ("Secure device for applying an electrical pulse")

Scope & method. I searched for the specific number 11236973 and worked strictly from (a) the authoritative full text/face-citation record you supplied and (b) targeted lookups of the individual cited references. I did not substitute any similarly-numbered document. Where I describe a Chinese-language reference I rely on its published abstract/claims as retrieved; where I could not retrieve full text I say so.

Baseline for the § 102 screen. Anticipation requires a single reference disclosing every element of a claim as arranged. The claim set to be measured is: independent claims 1 and 9, plus dependents 2–8, 10, 11. The elements that make '973 distinctive are (i) ≥3 fingers carrying first contacts on the front/palm face, (ii) a separate second contact set on the hand base, and (iii) a control unit applying a differential pulse in which the hand-base ("second") pulse is stronger than the finger ("first") pulse.

Headline finding: No cited reference discloses element (iii) with the relative-strength limitation. The cited art is therefore overwhelmingly § 103 (obviousness) material, not true § 102 anticipation, for independent claims 1 and 9. The strongest structural near-anticipations are CN205037814U and US20140022688A1/US 9,042,077.

A. Citations on the face of US 11,236,973 (authoritative list)

Per the Google Patents record, entries marked with * are flagged as examiner-cited; unmarked entries appear as third-party/applicant citations. The two Chinese gloves discussed in the '973 specification's own Background (CN205037814U, CN204924055U) appear unmarked, consistent with applicant-supplied IDS art.

Tier 1 — Most relevant (structural / anticipatory screen)

1. CN205037814U — "一种警用电击手套" (Police electric-shock glove)

• Utility model, App. CN201520599231.9, filed 2015-08-10; published 2016-02-17; inventor 王春雨 (Wang Chunyu). Lapsed/terminated 2021-08-10.
• Description: Glove body with two conductive cloth (导电布) electrodes covering the glove surface; one cloth runs from the palm base to the tips of the thumb, middle finger, and little finger; the other runs from the palm center to the tips of the index and ring fingers; a rechargeable battery inside the glove; a wrist-mounted power controller (watch-shaped case) with an on/off power switch and an indicator lamp. (Retrieved: https://patents.google.com/patent/CN205037814U/zh)
• § 102 relevance: This is the closest single reference. It discloses contacts carried on ≥3 fingers at the fingertips (maps to claim 1(b) and claim 5), a second conductor region spanning the palm/hand-base (arguably claim 1(c), and claim 6 if on the front face), an energy source, and a controller that energizes the two cloths — arguably the "differential" pulse across two contact groups (claim 1(e)). It is silent on the two pulses being of different strength and on polyurethane coating/thickness — so it does not fully anticipate claim 1 or claim 9, but it is the most serious § 102 candidate for the structural body of claims 1, 5, 6, and for the conductive-fabric aspect of claim 7.

2. US 2014/0022688 A1 (granted as US 9,042,077 B2) — "Stun gun and method of use" *

• Filed 2013-07-18 (App. 13/945,881); published 2014-01-23; granted 2015-05-26. Applicant Hands Down Technology, LLC; inventors Douglas B. Jones and Paul B. Reddis.
• Description: Stun glove of laminate construction; electrodes located on the underside/palm side of each finger sleeve, proximate the fingertip (claims 3–5); power supply/energizing switch/circuitry board on the back side (claim 8); LED power indicator (claim 9); insulating material in the laminate to prevent charge "bleed back" (claim 11). (Retrieved: https://patents.justia.com/patent/[9042077](/patent/9042077))
• § 102 relevance: Anticipates the finger-contact-at-fingertip feature (claims 1(b), 5) and the laminate/back-side electronics of claim 10; also relevant to claim 11 (cut/tear-resistant exterior fabric). Lacks the hand-base second contact set and the stronger-second-pulse feature, so it does not anticipate claim 1 or 9 as a whole.

3. CN204924055U — "High voltage shocking gloves"

• Utility model, filed 2015-08-21; published 2015-12-30; assignee 常州格林博斯特电子科技有限公司 (Changzhou Glenbo/Green-Bost Electronic Technology). Expressly discussed in the '973 Background.
• Description: ~10,000 V electric-shock glove with two conductive-fabric electrodes at the palm, overlaid by a first insulating fabric layer and a second surrounding polyester insulating layer. (Per '973 specification text citing this document.)
• § 102 relevance: Directly on point for the insulating-coating-over-electrodes concept (claims 7, 8, 9) and for high voltage (claim 4). However it uses insulating fabric + polyester, not polyurethane, and gives no 0.5–1 mm thickness — so it does not anticipate claims 8/9; it is § 103 art against them.

4. US 7,012,797 B1 — "Versatile stun glove" *

• Filed 2003-05-23; granted 2006-03-14; inventor Christopher P. Delida; assignee C.P.D. Technologies, Inc. Family: WO 2005/016040 A2/A3. Now expired (non-payment).
• Description: Stun glove with at least two electrodes on the palm region and/or back of the hand and/or fingers; rechargeable thin/replaceable battery on the glove; foldable access panel; activation by index-fingertip/thumb contact or pressure sensor; plural electrodes on the back of the glove fingers; and a user-selectable power output (e.g., 100,000 V / 200,000 V). (Retrieved: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7012797B1](/patent/US7012797B1)/en; abstract at WO2005016040A3)
• § 102 relevance: Strong on multi-electrode glove structure (claim 1(b)–(c)) and on selectable/adjustable pulse magnitude (relevant to claim 2's differentiated intensities and to the "selection means"), and on high voltage (claim 4). No teaching of a stronger pulse specifically at a hand-base contact set, so no full anticipation.

Tier 2 — Substantive but secondary

5. US 6,646,855 B2 — "Stun glove" *

• Filed 2002-01-18; granted 2003-11-11 (pub. US 2003/0137795 A1, 2003-07-24); inventor Dennis J. Buening.
• Description: Stun glove with a first and second terminal on the back of the insulator, a stun contact and warning contact, and a transformer increasing the voltage across the terminals so a spark jumps between them. (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6646855B2](/patent/US6646855B2)/en)
• § 102 relevance: Foundational stun-glove art and relevant to the "control unit/voltage step-up" aspects (claims 3/4), but its terminals are on the back of the hand — the opposite of '973's front-face finger/hand-base contacts. It does not anticipate claim 1.

6. CN105157477A — "High-voltage shock circuit and electric shock glove"

• Filed 2015-08-21; published 2015-12-16; assignee 常州格林博斯特电子科技有限公司 (same family/company as CN204924055U).
• Description: High-voltage electric-shock circuit combined with an electric-shock glove — i.e., the drive/step-up circuitry for a shock glove.
• § 102 relevance: Relevant to the control unit / high-voltage generation limitations (claims 1(e), 3, 4). Not a structural anticipation of claim 1.

7. CN102778173A / CN102778173B — "Police grabbing arrest glove" (警用抓捕手套)

• App. filed 2012-07-19; A published 2012-11-14; B granted 2014-11-05; assignee 深圳市森讯达电子技术有限公司.
• Description: A law-enforcement "grabbing/arrest" glove — combined restraint/glove platform of the same crowded field.
• § 102 relevance: General-field art bearing on the "glove as a defensive/arrest platform" concept; no specific disclosure of the claimed two-tier contact/pulse architecture.

8. US 2015/0369571 A1 — "T.O.U.C.H." *

• Priority 2011-03-24; published 2015-12-24; inventor Robert Martin Schweitzer.
• Description: Personal-security/electrical-discharge device; the related Schweitzer disclosure (WO 2011/030182 A1) describes a palm-held body plus a worn contact pad with a plurality of sequentially alternating positive/negative contacts and discharge voltages stated as at least 1000 V / 1500 V. (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/1f/c7/68/37635a0fb0f951/WO2011030182A1.pdf)
• § 102 relevance: Relevant to alternating-terminal contact arrangements and to the >1,000 V threshold (claims 2–4's voltage limitations); again not a full anticipation of claim 1.

9. US 8,719,964 B2 — "Thin-wall polymer coated articles and gloves and a method therefor" *

• Filed 2010-09-16; granted 2014-05-13; assignee O'Neill LLC.
• Description: Gloves/articles with a thin polymer coating (the O'Neill wetsuit-glove coating lineage).
• § 102 relevance: Material/coating art bearing on the polyurethane coating and thickness limitations of claims 8 and 9. Does not disclose a polyurethane anti-shock coating over stun electrodes at 0.5–1 mm, so § 103 only.

10. US 6,184,280 B1 — "Electrically conductive polymer composition" *

• Priority JP 1995-10-23; granted 2001-02-06; Mitsubishi Materials Corp. / Hyperion Catalysis Int'l.
• Description: Moldable polymer with hollow carbon microfibers (0.01–<2 wt%) plus conductive white powder, imparting conductivity/pigmentation. (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6184280B1](/patent/US6184280B1))
• § 102 relevance: Material art for the conductive-microfiber coating of claim 7 and the carbon-fiber fabric of claim 11. It discloses a composition, not a glove apparatus, so it cannot anticipate a claim-1 apparatus; § 103 art only.

Tier 3 — Peripheral / general-field

11. CN106490731A — "Multifunctional anti-terrorist arrests glove" — filed 2016-12-30, published 2017-03-15; inventor 凌飞. Glove-platform prior art in the same field; no two-tier pulse disclosure.

12. CN2125806U — "Integral electric shock glove for police" — filed 1992-05-01, published 1992-12-23; inventor 丁强华. Earliest cited glove-with-shock art; general concept only (relevant as background to claim 1's premise, not anticipatory).

13. US 2004/0154071 A1 — "Non-lethal exoskeleton weapon" * — filed 2003-01-29, published 2004-08-12; inventor Leslie Alan Frahm. Hand/arm-worn non-lethal weapon; background art for claim 1's "worn defensive device" concept.

14. US 2008/0028496 A1 — "Wet/dry high-temperature glove" * — filed 2005-12-29, published 2008-02-07; inventor Xun Ma. Coated-glove art; marginal.

15. US 2017/0086521 A1 — "Poly Encased utility knuckle flashlight gloves" — filed 2015-09-25, published 2017-03-30; inventor Justin Corbett Sterner. Glove that encases electronics/protective knuckle elements; marginal, only general "wearable utility glove" context.

(Also cited: CN102778173B, the granted counterpart of item 7 above.)

B. Claim-by-claim anticipation screen (single-reference § 102)

C. Bottom line

• Most relevant prior art (ranked): ① CN205037814U (front-face finger-tip + palm conductive electrodes on a glove with wrist power controller) → ② US 2014/0022688 A1 / US 9,042,077 B2 (palm-side fingertip electrodes + back-side electronics) → ③ CN204924055U (insulated conductive-fabric palm electrodes) → ④ US 7,012,797 B1 (multi-electrode stun glove, selectable output) → ⑤ US 6,646,855 B2 (stun glove with transformer) → ⑥ CN105157477A (shock circuit) → ⑦ material/coating art (US 6,184,280 B1, US 8,719,964 B2).
• No single cited reference anticipates independent claim 1 or claim 9 in full. Each is missing at least the two-tier contact geometry with a stronger hand-base pulse (claims 1, 9) and/or the polyurethane 0.5–1 mm coating (claims 8, 9). They are properly characterized as § 103 combination references.
• Caveats. (1) My descriptions of the Chinese references rely on published abstracts/claims; I could not retrieve full Chinese-language claim text for every item, so an element-level § 102 comparison against CN2125806U, CN102778173A/B, CN105157477A and CN106490731A is unverified beyond their abstracts. (2) The examiner/third-party * markers are as displayed by Google Patents and should be confirmed against the USPTO file wrapper (Patent Center) before being relied upon. (3) US 12,332,026 B2 (Compliant Technologies LLC), which appears in the "Cited By" list, is a later document that cites '973 — it is not prior art against '973 and carries no § 102 weight.

Consistent with the prior sections, there remains no litigation identified on this patent, and the owner's enforcement statements (Netforce press release, March 26, 2025, re US 12,222,193 B2) are threats of enforcement, not filed cases.

I'll ground the analysis in the actual cited references before constructing the §103 combinations.

Good grounding. Let me pull the remaining examiner-cited references that are most probative for the differential-pulse limitation.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 — US 11,236,973 B2

Note on scope. This analysis builds on the bibliographic/claim summary and the litigation search already produced above (no litigation on record; patent active; priority 2017‑11‑06). It uses the references appearing on the face of US 11,236,973 (the "Citations (15)" table and the "Family Cites Families" table) as recovered from Google Patents. Where I could verify a reference's actual disclosure I cite the URL; where I could not, I say so explicitly rather than attributing content.

1. Legal framework and critical date

• Effective filing / priority date: 2017‑11‑06 (FR 1760365). Every reference on the face of the patent predates that date, so all are §102(a)(1)/(a)(2)/pre‑AIA §102(b) prior art with no swearing-behind available. (See the reference-by-reference status table in §2.)
• Standard: Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966); KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The enumerated KSR rationales apply here: (A) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (C) use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way; (F) "obvious to try" where the art identifies a finite number of identified, predictable solutions; and (G) design incentives/market forces. MPEP §§ 2141–2144.
• Level of ordinary skill (POSITA) — my construction: a person with a bachelor's degree in electrical or mechanical engineering, or 3–5 years' experience designing non‑lethal electrical weapons or wearable electro‑mechanical devices, who is familiar with (a) high‑voltage pulse‑generating circuits (transformer/oscillator topologies such as the 555/transformer circuit in Delida), (b) glove construction/coating practice, and (c) the ergonomics of defensive gloves. This is a low-to-moderate skill field; the "glove + electrodes + battery + step‑up transformer" architecture was thoroughly conventional by 2001–2016.

2. Prior-art references and status

⚠️ Unverified-characterization flags (I could not retrieve full text and do not assert their contents): US20040154071A1, US20140022688A1, CN102778173A/B, CN105157477A, CN106490731A, CN2125806U, US6184280B1, US20080028496A1, US20170086521A1, and US4510939A/US20150040880A1/RU146172U1/CN204048177U from the "Family Cites Families" table. Where I use them below I do so only as field/analogy evidence, not as element-by-element disclosure.

3. Claim 1 — element mapping and the obviousness gap

Bottom line for claim 1: every structural element is disclosed, and the only quasi‑novel feature is the relative-strength relationship between two electrode groups — a functional, magnitude-only difference. That is the classic candidate for a §103 rejection built from (i) a multi‑electrode glove plus (ii) a known adjustable‑output stun circuit, on the KSR "predictable result/design choice" and "obvious to try" rationales.

4. Named combinations that render the claims obvious

Combination 1 — CN205037814U + US7012797B1 (Delida) [+ Buening] → claims 1, 2, 5, 6

• CN205037814U supplies the glove, the ≥3 finger contacts (thumb/middle/pinky ends), the palm routing, the power controller and the rechargeable battery.
• Delida supplies: front‑face electrodes across fingertips and palm, the insulative layer beneath electrodes, the back‑hand battery pack, the power‑level indicator, and — critically — user‑selectable output levels.
• Motivation (KSR‑A/C/G): both are non‑lethal electric self‑defense gloves; both address the same problem set (subdue an assailant without shocking the wearer; deliver shock whether grabbing or striking). Delida expressly states the higher the voltage the less contact needed — a POSITA optimizing a multi‑electrode glove would naturally drive the palm/clothing‑penetrating contacts at a higher level and the finger contacts at a lower level, because the finger (fingertip) contacts are the ones in prolonged contact with the wearer's own skin‑adjacent region and the ones most likely to contact sensitive anatomy. This is the '973 spec's own stated rationale (limit damage; contact at finger ends "limits the size of the dangerous zone"), i.e., the asserted advantage is the predictable consequence of the combination, not an unexpected result.

Combination 2 — CN204924055U + US7012797B1 + Buening → claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8

• CN204924055U supplies two distinct electrode groups on the palm driven by one high‑voltage circuit, plus the insulating cloth over and insulating layer beneath the electrodes — the closest structural analogue of the claimed "first vs. second contacts + insulation between them."
• Buening supplies the transformer topology in which the high voltage appears only at the terminals while a lower voltage is elsewhere on the circuit — direct support for driving two electrode groups at different voltages from one power source.
• Motivation (KSR‑A/F): a finite, identified, predictable design space (one step‑up circuit feeding two electrode groups) and a known technique (tap the transformer primary vs. secondary). No teaching away. This combination is the strongest attack on the numeric ranges in claims 3–4: CN204924055U is ~10,000 V (satisfying claim 4's ">1,000 V" for the second pulse), while 220–260 V / ~240 V for the first pulse is a routine selection of a standard low‑voltage rail.

Combination 3 — Delida + US20150369571A1 (Schweitzer) → claims 1, 2, 5

• Delida: front‑face fingertip + palm electrodes; Schweitzer: thumb and index/middle‑finger contact points, a secondary momentary switch, and an express statement that output voltage can be raised/lowered for different service (civilian vs. police/military).
• Motivation (KSR‑C): using a known, adjustable‑output shock circuit in a known glove to provide a graded response is precisely "use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way." The '973 spec's own graded‑response narrative (0.5 s = pain; 1–3 s = topple/stun; ~5 s = disorient >3 min) is a result of pulse duration, not pulse magnitude, and therefore does not distinguish the claim.

Combination 4 — Any of the above + US8719964B2 (O'Neill) → claims 8 and 9 (the coating limitations)

• Claim 8: "coating… comprised of polyurethane… so as to insulate." O'Neill verifiably discloses polyurethane‑dispersion coatings on gloves, selected for flexibility, tear resistance and durability — the exact attributes the '973 spec recites as the reason to choose polyurethane ("tear‑resistant polymer," "gives an outer appearance of leather").
• Claim 9: thickness 0.5–1 mm. O'Neill discloses a polyurethane coating with an inner zone ~600–1100 µm (0.6–1.1 mm) and an outer layer 40–120 µm. The claimed 0.5–1 mm window overlaps O'Neill's disclosed range.
• Motivation (KSR‑C; MPEP 2144.05): applying a known protective polymer coating to a wearable device and selecting its thickness is routine optimization of a result‑effective variable (In re Applied Materials, 692 F.2d 1289 (CCPA 1982); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 (CCPA 1980)). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious absent a showing of criticality (In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). The '973 spec offers no test data establishing criticality at 0.5–1 mm — only qualitative assertions ("yields very good results"). Notably, the spec's own disclosure reaches down to "less than 0.85 mm… about 0.75 mm," i.e., inside O'Neill's range, and the claim's outer bound (1 mm) is broader than the preferred embodiment — which weakens any narrow-range/criticality argument.

Combination 5 — CN205037814U/Delida + any coated/encased‑glove reference (US20080028496A1; US20170086521A1) + CN204048177U → claim 11

• Claim 11 (carbon‑fiber/PPD‑T/KEVLAR™ fabric glove body) is a materials substitution: the art of cut‑resistant protective gloves is separate but analogous (same field of endeavour — protective gloves — and reasonably pertinent to the problem of making a defensive glove durable/cut‑resistant). In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (analogous art where it is from the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the problem).

Combination 6 — Delida alone, functionally → claim 10

• Claim 10 adds only: a case on the back face housing the control unit + rechargeable battery, with an operating indicator and a charge‑level indicator. Delida verifiably discloses the power supply solely on the back‑hand above the wrist and below the knuckles, a "control panel… to allow for access codes," "power readouts," and a "warning light on the glove that indicates remaining power in the power supply." Claim 10 therefore reads on Delida's disclosure with essentially no gap; it is the easiest dependent claim to invalidate.

5. Claim-by-claim conclusion

6. Where the applicant's best rebuttal lies (and its limits)

1. No reference expressly discloses simultaneous differential output at two contact sets. The strongest non‑obviousness argument. Counter: KSR permits the combination of two known references whose combined teachings yield a predictable result, and the spec supplies its own motivation ("limits damage to the body"; "transmission through clothing"). The applicant's asserted benefits (safety, discretion, gradability) are predictable consequences, not unexpected results.
2. Absence of secondary considerations. No evidence in the record (as of this analysis) of commercial success, long‑felt need, failure of others, or copying tied to the claimed differential‑pulse feature — the Fed. Cir. requires a nexus to the claimed invention (In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573). The March 2025 Netforce press release about a different patent (US 12,222,193 B2) and a €45 M investment is not nexus evidence for the '973 claims.
3. §112(f) limits the "means" element. Under Williamson v. Citrix, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), "means for applying differential electrical pulses" presumptively invokes §112(f); the corresponding structure is the control unit 4B with selection means 15. That cuts against breadth in infringement but for the obviousness attack in one way: prior art disclosing an equivalent control/selection structure (Delida's adjustable power control, Buening's transformer tap, Schweitzer's switchable transformer) satisfies the element.
4. Claim differentiation/spec disclaimer. The specification's narrower numeric disclosures (10–30 mAh; 220–260 V; 0.65–0.85 mm) may be argued to import limits, but the claims as issued recite the broader ranges, and the broader ranges are what must be tested against the art.

7. Caveats on confidence

• I verified the substantive disclosures of CN204924055U (abstract), US6646855B2, US7012797B1, US20150369571A1, US8719964B2, and US7206183B2 (claim 1 excerpt) via the URLs cited above.
• I could not verify the contents of US20040154071A1, US20140022688A1, CN102778173A/B, CN105157477A, CN106490731A, CN2125806U, CN205037814U, US6184280B1, US20080028496A1, US20170086521A1, and the "Family Cites Families" documents. CN205037814U's content above is taken from the '973 patent's own Background section, which is nonetheless usable as an applicant admission of prior art (MPEP § 2129 / AAPA), independent of my inability to fetch the Chinese document.
• This is a technical validity opinion only, not legal advice, and it is not a litigation position. A formal §103 rejection requires the examiner's (or challenger's) record — including any declaration evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 — which I have not seen.