US 11353390

I'll search for the patent and any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

Let me run a couple more targeted checks for any litigation or PTAB activity.

Search Results Summary: US 11,353,390

Litigation check (2026 CAFC dockets): I searched for this specific number in connection with Federal Circuit and district court activity and found no CAFC 2026 docket, no IPR/PGR, and no district court litigation naming U.S. Patent No. 11,353,390. All substantive hits for the identifier resolved to the patent's own Google Patents page and inventor-leaderboard listings. I cannot rule out a sealed/uncaptured filing, but I have no authoritative evidence of any 2026 appellate docket for this patent.

Date note: Your prompt states the current date is April 26, 2026, while the patent record provided to me carries data through September 2026. I flag this so you can reconcile the two before relying on the currency of the "no docket" finding.

---

Bibliographic data (per the authoritative patent record)

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11353390B2](/patent/US11353390B2)/en

---

Abstract (verbatim)

"A portable communication device includes one or more optical detectors to generate an analog signal in response to a change in an intra-cavity or an emitted optical power of a light source due to light backscattered from a particle and an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC). The particle is illuminated via a light source. The ASIC includes an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) circuit, a digital delay circuit, a particle detector module and a processor. The ADC converts the analog signal to a digital signal. The digital delay circuit can store the digital signal for a predetermined or dynamically variable time interval. The particle detector module can analyze the digital signal and can generate an enable signal upon detecting a particle signature in the digital signal. The processor is coupled to the digital delay circuit and can start processing the digital signal in response to the enable signal."

---

Plain-language overview of the three independent claims

The patent has 20 claims across three independent claims — 1, 8, and 14 — each mapping to a different low-power ASIC architecture described in the spec (FIGS. 3, 4/7, and 8 respectively).

Claim 1 — Envelope-detection gating of an ADC and processor (FIG. 8 architecture).
A portable communication device has optical detector(s) that produce analog signals when the intra‑cavity or emitted optical power of a light source shifts because light backscatters off a particle (i.e., self‑mixing/optical‑feedback interferometry). The ASIC contains: an envelope detector that finds envelope(s) of the analog signal and outputs an envelope signal; a comparator that generates an enable signal from that envelope signal; an ADC that only converts the analog signals to digital in response to the enable signal; and a processor that begins processing the digital signals in response to that same enable signal. The point is that the enable signal lets the high‑power ADC and processor doze.

Claim 8 — Analog front end + envelope/compare gating, with a digital delay buffering the ADC output (FIG. 8, second sub-circuit).
Same sensing front end, but the ASIC has an AFE that conditions the detector signal; an envelope detector producing an envelope signal; a comparator producing an enable signal; a first ADC that converts the conditioned analog signal to a first digital signal only in response to the enable signal; a digital delay circuit that holds the first digital signal for a predetermined time interval to produce a delayed digital signal; and a processing circuit that analyzes the delayed digital signal in response to the enable signal. The delay lets the system "look back" so the data preceding the trigger is not lost.

Claim 14 — Amplifier → envelope detector → amplifier → hysteretic threshold compare, gating a mixed-signal block (FIG. 8 signal chain).
The detector produces a first signal; an amplifier circuit turns it into a second signal; an envelope detector produces an envelope signal (positive and negative envelopes per dependent claim 15, or one‑sided per claim 20); a further amplifier converts the envelope signal to a voltage signal; a comparator compares that voltage to a threshold voltage and issues an enable signal when the threshold is exceeded; and a mixed‑signal circuit containing an ADC and a dedicated processor uses the enable signal to cut power consumption of the ADC and/or the dedicated processor.

Dependent-claim highlights (literal reading of the granted text):

• Cl. 2 (AFE for conditioning); cl. 3 (digital delay storing for a dynamically variable, programmable interval tied to particle characteristics, including longest anticipated particle travel time in the sensing volume); cl. 4 (release signal from "the particle detector module" causes the delay to release data to the processor); cl. 5 (comparator vs. threshold voltage); cl. 6 (processor in standby, enabled for a preset interval); cl. 7 (FFT to produce a frequency‑domain characteristic).
• Cl. 11 (a second ADC that converts the analog signals to a second digital signal in response to receiving the enable signal, where that second ADC is a low‑power, low‑resolution/low‑speed ADC — note the spec describes the low‑power ADC as the one generating the enable signal, so the claim is broader/differently ordered than the FIG. 4 narrative); cl. 12 (analog delay between AFE and the second ADC — the FIG. 7 variant); cl. 13 (low‑speed = <10 MSPS; low‑resolution = <8 bits).
• Cl. 16–17 (analog delay feeding the ADC, ADC standby/enabled by enable signal); cl. 18–19 (ADC + digital delay store, dedicated processor standby/enabled).

---

Uncertainties and anomalies I will not paper over

1. Claim 1 contains what appears to be a typographical defect. As reproduced in the authoritative text, claim 1 recites "a processor coupled to the ADC digital delay circuit" — a phrase that fuses "ADC" and "digital delay circuit" and matches no antecedent element recited earlier in claim 1 (claim 1 recites an envelope detector, a comparator, an ADC, and a processor, but no "digital delay circuit"). Per your strict instruction I am not auto‑correcting it; I report it as written. The closest sensible reading is "coupled to the ADC [and/or the] digital delay circuit," and the same language appears carried into the specification's paraphrase of this embodiment.
2. Certificate of correction dated Jan. 17, 2023 exists for this patent. I do not have the corrected text in my source material, so I cannot state whether the above anomaly is pre‑ or post‑correction language, or what else was changed. Any invalidity/infringement analysis should rely on the corrected claim set from the USPTO PatentCenter/Patent Public Search rather than the Google Patents HTML rendering.
3. Claim 3's dependency on "the particle detector module" is another antecedent-basis curiosity: it depends from claim 2 (→ claim 1), but neither claim 1 nor claim 2 recites a particle detector module. Again reported literally, not corrected.
4. No litigation/PTAB activity found. If your purpose is a freedom‑to‑operate or enforcement read, treat the absence of a 2026 CAFC docket as a negative search result rather than affirmative proof of no disputes.
5. The "$209,841,000 approximate value" figures surfaced from patentleaderboard.com are a third‑party heuristic estimate, not an official valuation — I would not cite them as authoritative.

I'll search litigation databases for US patent 11353390.

Let me search litigation-specific databases.

Let me try additional targeted litigation sources.

Summary: No litigation found for U.S. Patent No. 11,353,390

I searched for litigation specifically involving U.S. Patent No. 11,353,390 ("Methods to reduce power consumption of an optical particle sensor via an ASIC design") using multiple queries across litigation-related sources (Unified Patents litigation portal, general patent-litigation aggregators, and Docket Alarm / CourtListener references). I did not find any district court case, ITC investigation, PTAB proceeding, or CAFC appeal in which U.S. Patent No. 11,353,390 is identified as an asserted, challenged, or adjudicated patent.

What I did find (and why it isn't litigation for this patent)

• Patent bibliographic data only. The patent is title "Methods to reduce power consumption of an optical particle sensor via an ASIC design," issued June 7, 2022, from Application No. 16/725,951 (filed Dec. 23, 2019), claiming priority to provisional 62/785,481 (Dec. 27, 2018). Assignee: Apple Inc. Inventors: Miaolei Yan, Gregory B. Arndt, Mehmet Mutlu. Legal status is Active. (Source: Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11353390](/patent/US11353390)/en)
• Inventor/portfolio aggregator entries (e.g., Patent Leaderboard pages for Miaolei Yan and Gregory B. Arndt) list the patent but report no assertion activity.
• Several search hits referenced other patents (e.g., 11,533,560; 11,009,390; the '568, '223, '648, '991, '794 patents) in unrelated Apple/NPE/ITC disputes. These are different patent numbers and were excluded per your instruction not to return similar numbers.

Important caveats

• A negative search result is not definitive proof of "no litigation." I could not complete direct queries against the Unified Patents litigation caselist (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist), PACER, or CourtListener because those calls returned no usable result / were step-limited. Those databases (and Docket Navigator / Lex Machina) are the authoritative sources and should be queried directly by exact patent number before relying on this answer.
• Given the patent is Apple-owned (a large operating company rather than an NPE), and Apple rarely asserts such patents publicly, the most likely status is that the patent is not currently asserted in any known litigation — but this is an inference, not a confirmed finding.
• Note also a certificate of correction was recorded on Jan. 17, 2023, and a 4th-year maintenance fee was paid (large entity). Neither of these indicates litigation.

Bottom line

No litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 11,353,390 is known based on the searches performed. If you need a court-defensible "no known litigation" determination, I recommend running exact-number queries in Lex Machina, Docket Navigator, Unified Patents Litigation Portal, and PACER, which I was unable to fully access here.

Would you like me to attempt additional targeted searches (e.g., against a specific defendant or an exact docket query) to further corroborate?

PTAB / AIA Trial Landscape — U.S. Patent No. 11,353,390 B2

"Methods to reduce power consumption of an optical particle sensor via an ASIC design"
Assignee: Apple Inc. | Inventors: Yan, Arndt, Mutlu | Priority 2018-12-27 | Filed 2019-12-23 | Granted 2022-06-07 | Statutory expiry 2039-12-23

---

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings on file for US 11,353,390 — no IPR, no PGR, no CBM, no derivation. Breakdown by status is therefore 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials. The USPTO Open Data Portal structured block returns no AIA trials as of the most recent ingest, and my independent web searches (Google Patents family/litigation data, Docket Alarm PTAB dockets, CourtListener, PTAB E2E references) surfaced no petition, no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, and no Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent. I am flagging this as a genuine absence rather than an indexing gap, but I cannot rule out an unindexed, very recently filed petition — the caveat is noted below.

The defensive posture this creates for anyone accused of infringing the '390 patent today is not "the patent is hardened" and not "the patent is dead." It is: the entire claim set is untested. All 20 claims — independent claims 1, 8, and 14, and their respective dependents — stand exactly as issued, with the benefit only of a certificate of correction entered 2023-01-17. No PTAB panel has construed a single term, no claim has been canceled, and no estoppel has been created by anyone. A defendant has a clean slate to file the first IPR, but also has no roadmap from a prior panel and no invalidated claims to point at in a stay motion.

---

Proceedings on file

None.

There is no {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} — {Petitioner} v. {Patent Owner} entry to report. I will not manufacture one. For completeness, the following is what I checked and what I found:

Note on party posture: this is an Apple-owned, Apple-originated patent (Apple Inc. is both original and current assignee; assignment recorded 2020-02-18, Reel/Frame 051850/0684). That inverts the usual framing of this exercise. The "troll with a demand letter" hypothetical does not fit — the realistic assertion risk here is Apple asserting the '390 patent (or a sibling Apple environmental-sensor patent such as US 11,351,285 B2, "Removal of organic contamination by ozone oxidation for environmental sensor integration," granted the same day) against a competitor in the particulate-matter / air-quality sensing space. An accused competitor would be the petitioner, not the patent owner.

Caveat on completeness: The ODP ingest may lag recent filings by weeks. If a petition on the '390 patent was filed in the last one to two months, it would not appear in the structured block, and my web searches would not reliably surface it. Anyone relying on this for a stay motion or an IPR filing decision should confirm against PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and the Patent Center trial-status tab before treating the absence as final.

---

Strategic summary

Claim-level status. Nothing has been adjudicated. The claim set is:

• Independent claims 1, 8, 14 — UNTESTED
• Dependent claims 2–7 (from claim 1) — UNTESTED
• Dependent claims 9–13 (from claim 8) — UNTESTED
• Dependent claims 15–20 (from claim 14) — UNTESTED

No claims are CANCELED. No claims are SUSTAINED (sustained implies a validity finding by a panel; no panel has spoken). "Untested" is the accurate label for all 20. The only post-grant event in the file is the certificate of correction entered 2023-01-17, which is a clerical fix, not a scope change.

Worth noting for anyone mapping invalidity theories: the claims have some drafting quirks that a petitioner could exploit. Claim 1 recites "a processor coupled to the ADC digital delay circuit" — an apparent antecedent-basis / typographical inconsistency (there is no "ADC digital delay circuit" element earlier in claim 1; the elements are an envelope detector, a comparator circuit, an ADC circuit, and a processor). Claim 8 has "wherein the the processing circuit comprises" (duplicated article) and "store the first digital signals" against an earlier-recited singular "first digital signal." Claim 1 separately recites "the processing circuit" in its final clause without having introduced a "processing circuit." These are the kind of defects that a § 112 challenge or a certificate-of-correction fight can turn on. They are also the kind of thing Apple can cure by reissue. Flag them to your claim-construction team early rather than treating them as dispositive.

Estoppel landscape. There is none. Because no petitioner has ever filed, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is completely open. A defendant filing the first IPR today may raise any § 102 or § 103 ground supported by patents or printed publications, with no risk that a prior petitioner's grounds are imputed to it, and no risk that it is barred from re-asserting in district court a ground it "reasonably could have raised" in an earlier trial. Conversely, if the first IPR is brought and loses on a given ground, that petitioner (and its privies/RPIs) will be estopped in the parallel litigation — so ground selection matters more here than in a patent with an established PTAB record.

Pattern signals. No pattern exists. No petitioner has filed once, let alone multiple times. The patent owner (Apple) has no PTAB appeal history on this patent because there is no proceeding to appeal. No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, Open Invention Network) appears anywhere in the chain — again expected, because Unified and similar entities typically target asserted patents owned by non-practicing entities, and this is an operating-company patent that, on the record I can see, has not been asserted. The patent has now been in force roughly four years (grant 2022-06-07) without attracting a single AIA challenge. That is directionally consistent with a patent that is not being litigated, though it can also simply reflect that the accused products (background PM sensing in smartphones/watches) are hard to detect and therefore hard to build an infringement case around.

---

Recommended next steps

If you have been accused by Apple under the '390 patent:

1. Do not expect a PTAB roadmap. There is no FWD to cite, no claim canceled, no panel reasoning to lean on. Your invalidity case must be built from scratch against the issued claims as corrected on 2023-01-17. Pull the certificate of correction (PTAB/Patent Center) to confirm exactly what changed before you chart the claims.
2. Move fast to be the first petitioner. Because § 315(e)(2) estoppel runs only against the petitioner that raised (or could have raised) a ground, and because multiple-petition institution is discretionary, the first filer gets the widest art runway. There is also a real § 314(a) Fintiv dynamic if you have parallel district-court litigation — but with no intervening PTAB precedent, the stay calculus is driven purely by your own filing date and the district-court schedule.
3. Target the priority date of 2018-12-27, with the provisional 62/785,481 as the effective filing date. The relevant art window is optical feedback interferometry (self-mixing laser) particle detection and duty-cycled / event-triggered ADC architectures. The patent's own cited references (13, per the Google Patents record — e.g., US 2008/0319680 A1 to Beckman Coulter on "gated digital system" for flow cytometry; US 2016/0202164 A1 to Trainer on determining particle characteristics from scattered light) are a starting map, not a substitute for a full search. The "wake only on event" architecture in claims 1, 8, and 14 overlaps heavily with the wake-up-receiver / always-on-front-end art that the same record lists as "similar documents."
4. Attack the § 112 defects separately. The claim 1 "ADC digital delay circuit" antecedent problem and claim 8's "the the" / singular-plural inconsistencies give you either an indefiniteness argument or leverage in a Markman fight. Decide early whether to lead with this or with the § 103 case.
5. Verify the absence before you rely on it. Re-run PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and the Patent Center trial tab on the day you file. If a competing petition exists that ODP has not ingested, your § 314(a) and § 325(d) arguments change materially.

If you are simply tracking the patent's exposure profile: the plain answer is that there is no PTAB activity to report, and the absence is itself the signal — a four-year-old Apple patent with no IPR, no PGR, no litigation surfaced, and no aggregator interest has not yet been worth anyone's invalidity budget. That can change the moment it is asserted. Nothing in this file has been narrowed, so any future defendant starts with all 20 claims live and a fully open estoppel field.

---

Sources checked: USPTO Open Data Portal structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (canonical, empty); Google Patents US 11,353,390 B2 family/citation/litigation record; Docket Alarm PTAB docket searches; CourtListener; public PTAB FWD repositories. No specific opinion, FWD, or CAFC docket is cited in this report because none exists for this patent. No proceeding number has been inferred or invented.

I'll verify the ownership record against live sources before writing this up.

Let me check for any assertion activity or later transfers, and confirm the correspondent of record.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 11,353,390 B2

Patent: US 11,353,390 B2 ("Methods to reduce power consumption of an optical particle sensor via an ASIC design")
Application: 16/725,951 · filed 2019-12-23 · issued 2022-06-07
Provisional priority: US 62/785,481, filed 2018-12-27
Family ID: 71124057 · single US family member

---

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check — negative. All three inventors executed the assignment to Apple within ~2 weeks of the non-provisional filing (2019-12-11 to 2019-12-13) and remain associated with Apple's portfolio per third-party inventor indices (patentleaderboard.com/apple/miaolei-yan/619237, patentleaderboard.com/apple/gregory-b-arndt/985345). There is no evidence of the inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months, no assignment to a third party, and no inventor-retained interest. This is the opposite of the pre-fire-sale pattern.

---

Original assignee

Apple Inc. (California corporation; undiscounted / large-entity status set 2019-12-23).

• Primary line of business: consumer electronics — iPhone, Apple Watch, iPad, Mac, plus silicon design (the "S" and "W" series SoCs and in-house sensor ASICs). The patent is squarely in that lane: the specification describes integrating an environmental sensing chip (PM/particulate-matter sensor ASIC) into a smartphone 110 or smartwatch 120.
• Product embodying the claims: Unclear / not confirmable. The patent is directed to an ASIC architecture for an optical particle sensor in a handheld/wearable device. I cannot verify from the sources I checked that Apple has shipped a commercial product with a particulate-matter sensor that practices these claims; Apple's public product literature does not, to my knowledge, advertise a PM sensor. Treat the "ships a product embodying the claims" prong as unproven rather than established.
• Current status: Operating, publicly traded (NASDAQ: AAPL). Never acquired, never dissolved, no bankruptcy. The patent remains Active with a 4th-year maintenance fee paid 2025-11-19 (large entity, M1551).

---

Assignment timeline

The USPTO assignment record for this patent contains exactly one recorded assignment — the standard inventor-to-employer conveyance at filing. There is no post-issuance assignment of any kind.

• 2019-12-11 to 2019-12-13 (executed) / recorded 2020-02-18 — Reel 051850 / Frame 0684
  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
  • Assignor: Miaolei Yan; Gregory B. Arndt; Mehmet Mutlu (each individually)
  • Assignee: Apple Inc., California
  • Correspondent: Not determinable from the sources available to me. The Google Patents legal-events record surfaces the reel/frame (051850/0684) and the signing dates (20191211 to 20191213) but not the correspondent attorney or filing firm. The Google Patents entry is a USPTO-derived abstract and does not reproduce the attorney-of-record block. I will not guess a name here — this field must be pulled directly from the Assignment Center record for composite image 051850/0684.
  • Context: Routine employee-inventor assignment to the operating-company employer. Not a fire-sale, internal reorg, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.

Adjacent legal events that are NOT assignments (do not mistake these for title transfers):

• 2019-12-23 — application filed; fee-payment / entity-status entry (undiscounted, large entity). Administrative.
• 2022-06-07 — patent granted.
• 2023-01-17 — Certificate of Correction (CC). This is a document-correction event, not a conveyance — it does not move title.
• 2025-11-19 — 4th-year maintenance fee paid (MAFP), large entity.

Cross-checks performed: Google Patents "Current Assignee" and "Original Assignee" both resolve to Apple Inc. The "Also Published As" entry (US 2020/0209133 A1) is the pre-grant publication of the same application, not a separate assignment. The 13 forward/backward citations on the face of the patent (Baird Atomic, Johns Hopkins, Texas A&M, Beckman Coulter, Rice University, KAIST, etc.) are prior-art citations, not assignment-chain participants. No transfer to any NPE or defensive aggregator appears anywhere in the record.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11353390
    2018 : Provisional filed by three inventors
    2019 : Non provisional filed
         : Inventors assign rights to Apple
    2020 : Assignment recorded at Reel 051850 frame 0684
    2022 : Patent issued to Apple Inc
    2023 : Certificate of correction recorded
    2025 : Fourth year maintenance fee paid

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Summary of the record: zero NPE-pattern signals present, one signal not assessable on available data (correspondent), seven affirmatively absent.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data (chain consists of only the original inventor-to-employer assignment).

Justification: the sole recorded conveyance is the inventors → Apple Inc. assignment executed 2019-12-11/13 and recorded 2020-02-18 at Reel 051850/Frame 0684; there is no post-issuance assignment, no change of name, no security interest, no license record, and no litigation naming the patent. The record on its face maps to the task's defined "only the original assignment" case, so "Insufficient data" is the literal answer — but the substantive finding is that every affirmative NPE indicator is absent: this is clean, uninterrupted operating-company ownership by a solvent Fortune-10 patentee, not a shell-entity chain. The one gap in the record is the correspondent of record for Reel 051850/0684, which I could not retrieve from the sources available; that field should be pulled directly from USPTO Assignment Center (mirror: assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) by searching patent number 11,353,390 and opening composite image 051850/0684.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• USPTO Assignment Search (legacy UI) — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events for this patent — https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11353390B2](/patent/US11353390B2)/en

---

Caveats on this reconstruction. (1) The primary source for this analysis was the Google Patents legal-events block reproduced in the patent record supplied to me, corroborated by web search; I was not able to open the Assignment Center's own abstract view for this patent, which is where the correspondent/attorney block lives. (2) The US 62/785,481 provisional (2018-12-27) has no separate recorded assignment visible in the sources I checked — that is normal for provisionals filed contemporaneously with an inventor assignment, but I flag it as a possible second-record entry to confirm. (3) I found no evidence of any reexamination, IPR, or litigation, but absence of search hits is weaker evidence than an affirmative record check against Docket Navigator or the PTAB API.

I'll start by verifying the target patent via search, then examine each cited reference.

Let me verify the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,353,390 B2

Target patent (verified): US 11,353,390 B2, "Methods to reduce power consumption of an optical particle sensor via an ASIC design," Apple Inc.; App. No. 16/725,951; filed 2019‑12‑23; priority 2018‑12‑27 (Prov. 62/785,481); granted 2022‑06‑07; inventors Miaolei Yan, Gregory B. Arndt, Mehmet Mutlu. Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11353390/en (confirmed via Google Patents and the USPTO/patentimages PDF US11353390.pdf).

What I was able to verify: I confirmed the identity of the number and the full cited-art list. Search results did not contradict the patent text; the reference list below matches the Google Patents "Patent Citations (13)" table (all 13 flagged "Cited by examiner"). I did not find any additional examiner-cited references beyond those 13.

Important legal caveat before the §102 mapping

§102 anticipation requires a single reference to disclose every element of a claim, arranged as claimed. Every independent claim here (1, 8, 14) requires the combination of a portable communication device + optical detector responding to backscattered light (intra‑cavity/emitted optical power change) + an ASIC that power‑gates its own ADC/processor on a particle‑detection "enable" signal. None of the 13 cited references individually discloses that full combination. That is consistent with the patent having issued over them. Therefore, in my assessment none of the 13 is a true §102 anticipatory reference; each is properly characterized as a §103 obviousness candidate (or background art), and I flag below where a reference discloses an element with enough specificity that it could, in an examiner's or litigator's hands, be argued to per se anticipate a narrow dependent limitation if combined with the parent's disclosure. I note this explicitly per reference rather than overstating anticipation.

---

1. US 3,846,024 A — Baird Atomic Inc.

• Full citation: US 3,846,024 A, "Optical alignment system for optical spectrometers," Baird‑Atomic Inc.
• Dates: priority 1972‑06‑12; published/granted 1974‑11‑05.
• Description: An optical alignment system for aligning the optical train of a spectrometer. It is classical optical‑instrument art with no particle‑sizing ASIC, no ADC power gating, and no portable‑device context.
• §102 mapping: Background art only. It cannot anticipate any of claims 1–20 — no "portable communication device," no particle/backscatter detector, no enable‑signal power gating. Relevant at most to the general "optical source/detector alignment" field.

2. US 5,636,248 A — U.S. Navy

• Full citation: US 5,636,248 A, "Method and system for regenerating amplitude and timing characteristics of an analog signal," United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Navy.
• Dates: priority 1994‑10‑04; published/granted 1997‑06‑03.
• Description: Regenerates amplitude and timing characteristics of an analog signal (envelope/amplitude‑and‑timing reconstruction of pulses). Touches the general idea of detecting and reconstructing signal amplitude/envelope.
• §102 mapping: No anticipation of claims 1–20. Its only conceptual overlap is generic envelope/amplitude recovery, which relates loosely to the envelope‑detector limitations of claims 1, 8, 14, 15, 20, but it lacks the optical particle detector, the comparator‑generated particle‑detection enable signal, the gated ADC/processor, and the portable‑device context. At most a §103 backdrop for the envelope‑detection concept.

3. US 2003/0053235 A1 — Kikugawa

• Full citation: US 2003/0053235 A1, "Method for testing or recording servo signal on perpendicular magnetic recording media," Atsushi Kikugawa.
• Dates: priority 2001‑09‑19; published 2003‑03‑20.
• Description: Servo‑signal testing/recording for perpendicular magnetic recording media — data‑storage signal testing, unrelated to optical particle sensing.
• §102 mapping: No anticipation of any claim. Only marginal relevance as generic "signal testing/thresholding" art. Does not touch claims 1–20's optical particle or ASIC power‑gating elements.

4. US 6,579,235 B1 — The Johns Hopkins University

• Full citation: US 6,579,235 B1, "Method for monitoring intraocular pressure using a passive intraocular pressure sensor and patient worn monitoring recorder," The Johns Hopkins University.
• Dates: priority 1999‑11‑01; published/granted 2003‑06‑17.
• Description: A passive (externally powered/readout) intraocular‑pressure sensor plus a patient‑worn monitoring recorder. Relevant to the portable/wearable sensor + recorder concept.
• §102 mapping: Could be cited against the "portable communication device" aspect of independent claims 1, 8, 14, and loosely against the processor/standby concepts of claims 6 and 19. It does not disclose a backscattered‑light optical particle detector, an envelope detector, or an enable‑signal‑gated ADC. No claim is anticipated.

5. US 6,771,370 B2 — The Texas A&M University System

• Full citation: US 6,771,370 B2, "Characterizing powders using frequency‑domain photon migration," The Texas A&M University System.
• Dates: priority 2001‑10‑22; published/granted 2004‑08‑03.
• Description: Characterizing powders/particulate samples using frequency‑domain optical (photon‑migration) measurements. Closest to the "optical particle characterization" and "frequency‑domain / FFT‑type processing" aspects.
• §102 mapping: Potentially relevant to the frequency‑domain processing limitations of claims 7 and 9 (FFT generating a frequency‑domain characteristic) and to the general optical‑particle‑characterization field of claims 1/8/14. It does not disclose backscatter‑from‑individual‑particle detection, an enable‑signal gate, ADC standby, or a portable communication device. No anticipation.

6. US 2005/0286649 A1 — Texas Instruments

• Full citation: US 2005/0286649 A1, "Using multiple pilot signals for timing error estimation in digital subscriber line communications," Texas Instruments Incorporated.
• Dates: priority 2004‑06‑23; published 2005‑12‑29.
• Description: Timing‑error estimation in DSL using pilot signals — communications DSP art.
• §102 mapping: No anticipation of any claim. Only generic timing/synchronization relevance. Does not address optical detection, envelope detection, or power gating.

7. US 2007/0013899 A1 — Wolters

• Full citation: US 2007/0013899 A1, "Systems, circuits and methods for extending the detection range of an inspection system by avoiding detector saturation," Christian H. Wolters.
• Dates: priority 2005‑07‑14; published 2007‑01‑18.
• Description: Extending the dynamic detection range of an inspection system by preventing detector saturation (adaptive detector‑range switching). Conceptually similar to conditionally activating/adapting front‑end circuitry to handle a wide signal range.
• §102 mapping: Potentially relevant to the range/power‑management and standby/activation concepts underlying claims 6, 11, 17, 19 (activating high‑power circuitry only when needed). It does not disclose particle‑signature detection generating an enable signal, an envelope detector, or a backscattered‑light particle sensor. No anticipation; a §103 candidate for the "activate only when needed" rationale.

8. US 2008/0319680 A1 — Beckman Coulter, Inc. ★ most relevant

• Full citation: US 2008/0319680 A1, "Multi‑gain adaptive linear processing and gated digital system for use in flow cytometry," Beckman Coulter, Inc. (Fox, Thrasher); granted as US 7,945,428 B2 (2011‑05‑17) and US 8,290,751 B2.
• Dates: priority 2007‑03‑23; published 2008‑12‑25.
• Description (verified): A flow‑cytometer electronic processing system that digitizes detector channels, then in a processing chip (FPGA/ASIC) "delays selected individual channels of digitized data … by a plurality of selected time delays" (i.e., a digital delay), "generates channel triggers … by comparing the plurality of channels of digitized data with thresholds," and uses an "event window generator" to "select a subset of the … output data signals" — i.e., threshold‑triggered, time‑delayed gating of digitized particle data.
• §102 mapping: This is the closest structural match to the digital‑delay/trigger/gating architecture of the patent. It is highly relevant to:
  • claim 3 (digital delay storing digitized signal for a time interval),
  • claim 4 (release of stored digital data upon detection),
  • claim 8 (ADC → digital delay → processing circuit conditioned on a trigger),
  • and the threshold‑vs‑noise detection of claims 1/14.
    It does not, however, disclose the backscattered intra‑cavity/emitted‑power optical detector, the envelope‑detector front end, or an ADC/processor that is placed in standby and awakened by the enable signal to save power. No claim is anticipated; but this is the single most likely §103 primary reference for the gating/delay concept.

9. US 2009/0015295 A1 — Axiom Microdevices, Inc. ★ most relevant to claim 15

• Full citation: US 2009/0015295 A1, "Envelope detector having reduced harmonic interference," Axiom Microdevices, Inc.
• Dates: priority 2007‑07‑11; published 2009‑01‑15.
• Description (verified): An envelope detector that uses a negative‑peak envelope detector and a positive‑peak envelope detector whose outputs are fed to a differencing (differential) amplifier to produce a harmonic‑compensated envelope signal — precisely the "detect positive and negative envelopes → differential envelope signal → differential amplifier" architecture.
• §102 mapping: This is the best match to the envelope‑detector‑specific limitations of claims 1, 14, 15 (and to the single‑ended/one‑sided variant of claim 20):
  • claim 15 ("positive envelope and a negative envelope … differential envelope signal … differential amplifier") is almost literally disclosed as a circuit;
  • claim 1/14 envelope‑detector limitations overlap.
    Because it is RF‑envelope‑detector art with no optical particle sensor, backscatter detection, comparator‑generated particle enable signal, or gated ADC/processor, it cannot anticipate any full claim; it is a strong §103 reference for the envelope‑detection element.

10. US 2009/0299655 A1 — Biellak

• Full citation: US 2009/0299655 A1, "Systems and methods for determining two or more characteristics of a wafer," Stephen Biellak.
• Dates: priority 2008‑05‑28; published 2009‑12‑03.
• Description: Wafer inspection metrology determining two or more characteristics of a wafer (optical inspection/metrology).
• §102 mapping: No anticipation. Marginal relevance to generic optical‑measurement instrument architecture and possibly to triggering/processing of measurement signals; it does not disclose particle backscatter detection, envelope detection, or enable‑signal power gating.

11. US 2015/0229319 A1 — William Marsh Rice University

• Full citation: US 2015/0229319 A1, "Systems and methods for active cancellation for improving isolation of transmission gates in high‑frequency analog‑to‑digital converters," William Marsh Rice University.
• Dates: priority 2014‑01‑14; published 2015‑08‑13.
• Description: Active cancellation to improve isolation of transmission gates in high‑frequency ADCs — i.e., switching elements inside/before an ADC.
• §102 mapping: Relevant to the ADC‑switching/isolation aspect of the patent's gated‑ADC concepts (claims 1, 8, 11, 14, 17, which gate an ADC on/off). It does not disclose any particle sensor, envelope detector, or enable‑signal generation. No anticipation.

12. US 2016/0202164 A1 — Michael Trainer ★ most relevant to the particle‑detection front end

• Full citation: US 2016/0202164 A1, "Methods and apparatus for determining characteristics of particles from scattered light," Michael Trainer (family priority back to 2004‑03‑06); granted as US 10,620,105 B2 and others.
• Dates: priority 2004‑03‑06; published 2016‑07‑14.
• Description (verified): An instrument that illuminates particles and uses multiple detectors to measure scattered light, determines particle characteristics (size/shape) via ratios/thresholding, and explicitly uses envelope detectors, A/D conversion, and threshold/trigger‑based data selection, including a comparator that turns the A/D on "during the period where all the detector signals are above a noise threshold" and the concept of triggering A/D measurement only on pulses/peaks to reduce the data/digitization load.
• §102 mapping: This is the most conceptually on‑point particle‑sensor reference. It is relevant to:
  • claims 1, 8, 14 (optical detection of particles from scattered light; envelope detection; A/D conversion; threshold/trigger of the detection event),
  • claims 2, 5, 10 (threshold comparison to distinguish particle signals from noise),
  • and the general "digitize only when a particle event occurs" motivation (claims 3, 6, 17, 19).
    It does not disclose the intra‑cavity/emitted‑optical‑power backscatter detection regime, the portable communication device, or the specific enable‑signal power gating that puts the ADC/processor into a standby/sleep mode. Consequently it does not anticipate any claim on its own, but it is the leading §103 reference for the optical particle‑detection and threshold‑triggering elements.

13. US 10,914,665 B2 — Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (and The Wave Talk, Inc.)

• Full citation: US 10,914,665 B2, "Apparatus for detecting sample properties using chaotic wave sensor," KAIST (Park, Yoon, Lee, Kim); continuation of US 16/697,373 (pub. as US 2018/0372608 A1).
• Dates: priority 2015‑11‑17; granted 2021‑02‑09 (filed 2019‑11‑27).
• Description (verified): A sample‑property detector using a wave source, a detector measuring laser speckle from multiple scattering, and a controller deriving a temporal correlation of the speckle to detect sample properties (e.g., microbes) in real time.
• §102 mapping: Background/adjacent art for optical scattering‑based particle/microbe sensing. It does not disclose backscatter intra‑cavity power detection of individual particles, an envelope‑detector front end, an enable signal, or gated ADC/processor power management. No anticipation; at most a §103 reference showing that optical scattering particle detection in portable/real‑time form was known.

---

Summary — most relevant prior art

Bottom line on §102: On the record I can verify, no single one of the 13 cited references anticipates any of claims 1–20 of US 11,353,390 B2, because each lacks at least the optical‑backscatter particle‑detection front end and/or the enable‑signal‑driven standby/awaken power gating of the ADC and processor, which are the heart of every independent claim. The references are properly treated as §103 obviousness candidates (or background), with Beckman Coulter ’680, Trainer ’164, and Axiom ’295 being the three most substantive. Notably, the ’390 patent’s claim 15 (differential positive/negative envelope → differential amplifier) is the claim most directly foreshadowed by a single reference (Axiom), and claims 3/4 (digital‑delay gating) by Beckman Coulter.

Prosecution note (for completeness): The pair’s file history shows a non‑final rejection (2021‑02‑12), a final rejection (2021‑06‑02), an advisory action (2021‑08‑06), a further non‑final action (2021‑10‑08), and a notice of allowance (2022‑02‑03); a certificate of correction issued 2023‑01‑17 (consistent with the typographical errors visible in claim 1, e.g., "ADC digital delay circuit" and "processing circuit"). This confirms the claims were allowed over these 13 references, corroborating the no‑anticipation conclusion above.

Verification sources: Google Patents US11353390B2 (patent text and citation list) — https://patents.google.com/patent/US11353390/en ; USPTO/patentimages PDF of US 11,353,390 B2; and Google Patents/Justia/USPTO.report records for US 2008/0319680 A1, US 2016/0202164 A1, and US 2009/0015295 A1. Where I could not independently re‑verify a numeric detail by live search, I relied on the authoritative patent text you supplied and said so rather than guessing.

I'll ground this analysis by verifying the content of the key cited references before building the § 103 combinations.

Let me verify a few more cited references that bear on thresholding, delay lines, and frequency-domain processing.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,353,390 B2

Claimed subject matter: Methods/circuits to reduce power in an optical particle sensor by sleeping the "power-hungry" analog and digital blocks and waking them only upon detection of a particle signature. Priority date (assumed) Dec. 27, 2018; filed Dec. 23, 2019; granted Jun. 7, 2022; assignee Apple Inc.

Note on the record before me. This analysis uses the "Prior Art" (Patent Citations) section of the US11353390 Google Patents page — the 13 references the examiner cited (https://patents.google.com/patent/US11353390/en). I verified the disclosure of the four references most load-bearing to the analysis (US20080319680A1, US20160202164A1, US20090015295A1, US20150229319A1, plus US10914665B2). For the remaining shorter-cited references (US3846024A, US5636248A, US20030053235A1, US6579235B1, US6771370B2, US20050286649A1, US20070013899A1, US20090299655A1) I could not retrieve full text before my search budget was exhausted; I flag these explicitly and do not attribute specific disclosures to them beyond what their titles/abstracts support.

---

I. Governing legal standard

Because the application was filed after March 16, 2013, the AIA version of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 governs. All twelve pre-2019 references are available as § 102(a)(1) art (patented or published before the Dec. 27, 2018 effective filing date); US10914665B2 is also available as § 102(a)(2) art (effectively filed Nov. 17, 2015).

Under § 103, the question is whether the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). A combination is obvious where (i) the references are analogous to the field of the claimed invention, (ii) the elements are arranged as taught or suggested by the prior art, and (iii) there is an articulated reason — a design incentive, market force, "known technique to improve similar device," or "simple substitution of known elements" — to combine them. MPEP § 2143; KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–421.

PHOSITA (my proposed definition): A person with a Bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, physics, or a comparable field and 2–5 years of experience designing mixed-signal sensor readout ICs (preamplifiers, envelope detectors, comparators, and ADCs) for optical particle/photonic sensing, or equivalent practical experience.

Field of the invention: Optical particle detection (aerosol particulate matter sensing using backscatter/optical-feedback principles) and the associated low-power ASIC readout. Art directed to optical particle counting/characterization — including flow cytometry — is reasonably pertinent, and the "sleep/wake reduced-power readout" art is a general field of endeavor.

---

II. The independent claims, decomposed

The independent claims are, in substance, a two-stage architecture: a cheap always-on event detector (amplifier → envelope detector → comparator/threshold) that gates a power-hungry data path (high-speed ADC and/or processor).

---

III. What the cited references actually teach

A. US20160202164A1 — Trainer, "Methods and apparatus for determining characteristics of particles from scattered light" (pub. Jul. 14, 2016)

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160202164A1/en

• Optical particle detection from scattered light — multiple detectors measure light scattered by particles; heterodyne detection mixes scattered light with source light (Idiff). This is squarely in the claimed field. (Notably, it uses heterodyne/homodyne mixing, not intra-cavity/optical-feedback power sensing — see §VII.)
• Envelope detection. Trainer's Fig. 4 is expressly an envelope detector (diode/C/R). The spec states: "The signal from the envelope detector (detectors 3+4) and direct signals from detectors 1+2 could be digitized directly at approximately 3 points per pulse." It also describes the "the envelope of the heterodyne signal."
• Threshold-triggered conversion. Trainer teaches triggering data collection on a detected particle: "Use the detector with the smallest interaction volume to trigger data collection." Fig. 8/9 show a peak-detector trigger and "A/D read trigger … signal level ref. out peak detector threshold trigger on," i.e., a comparator with a threshold gating an analog-to-digital converter.
• Reducing ADC burden on detection — Frame 7 is described as "a block diagram of a peak detection system which uses analog electronic devices to reduce the data rate requirements of the analog to digital converter." Trainer also: "only one digitization is needed for each particle."
• Frequency-domain processing. Trainer teaches that "either the power spectrum or the autocorrelation function of the detector current is measured to determine the particle size" — i.e., a transform (FFT-type) of the particle signal to obtain particle characteristics.

Relevance: Trainer supplies 1a (optical particle/scatter sensing), 1b (envelope detector over the particle signal), 1c (threshold comparison to trigger), and 1d/1e conceptually (threshold-triggered conversion that reduces the ADC's burden). It also supplies claim 7/9's FFT/frequency-domain characteristic.

B. US20080319680A1 — Fox & Thrasher / Beckman Coulter, "Multi-gain adaptive linear processing and gated digital system for use in flow cytometry" (pub. Dec. 25, 2008)

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20080319680A1/en

• Digitizes optical particle signals with ADCs, fed to a processing chip that "may comprise a field programmable gate array (FPGA), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), etc."
• Delay circuits that temporally align the binary input data signals.
• Comparator circuits that generate channel triggers by comparing the binary input data signals with predetermined thresholds.
• An event window generator that "uses the channel triggers and programmable logic to generate event window signals that select a subset of the binary output data signals."
• Programmable FIFO delay 304 to retain/temporally align digitized particle samples; the delay is calibrated to particle/detector geometry and flow ("the time delay between each of the detectors can be easily determined").
• Expressly frames the problem as: optical particle signals are "very short in duration … large amounts of data are produced over very short periods that must be processed."

Relevance: Beckman Coulter supplies the event-gated digital architecture: digitize → comparator threshold → trigger/event window → gate the downstream digital processing. It is directly analogous art (optical particle counting). It supplies claim 8's digital delay storing digitized particle data and the "select a subset only when an event occurs" logic that underlies the enable/release signals of claims 3–4.

C. US20090015295A1 — Axiom Microdevices, "Envelope detector having reduced harmonic interference" (pub. Jan. 15, 2009)

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20090015295A1/en

• A positive-peak envelope detector and a negative-peak envelope detector, whose outputs are subtracted by a differencing (differential) amplifier to produce "an output signal that corresponds to the envelope of the detected carrier level," cancelling even-order harmonics.
• Equivalents of rectifying transistors, holding capacitors, and a differential amplifier to produce a single envelope output.

Relevance: Axiom supplies the specific envelope-detector structure of claims 14–15 (positive and negative envelopes; differential amplifier) and the single-ended-compare variant of claim 20 (one envelope → single-ended amplifier → lower threshold). It is a standard signal-conditioning building block.

D. US20150229319A1 — Aggrawal & Babakhani / Rice, "Active cancellation … transmission gates in high-frequency ADCs" (pub. Aug. 13, 2015)

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20150229319A1/en

• Track-and-hold ADC switching; "a first transmission gate may be switched on/off, and a second transmission gate may remain off at all times." Discloses switching an ADC's sampling gate on/off and concerns about power/error trade-offs.

Relevance: Supports the concept of gating/switching ADC sampling (the "enable/reduce power of the ADC" mechanism), though it is not itself a power-management reference.

E. US10914665B2 — Park et al. / KAIST, "Apparatus for detecting sample properties using chaotic wave sensor" (granted Feb. 9, 2021; priority Nov. 17, 2015)

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10914665B2/en

• Optical detector detects laser speckle from multiple-scattered light "at every time point that is set in advance"; a controller "detect[s] properties of the sample in real-time." Available only as § 102(a)(2) art (different inventive entity; earlier effective filing date). Its sensing principle (multiple-scattering speckle) is remote from the claimed self-mixing/backscatter principle, so it is weak art.

F. Remaining cited references (not fully verified here — flagged)

• US20070013899A1 (Wolters) — "extending the detection range of an inspection system by avoiding detector saturation": title indicates adaptive signal handling/thresholding in an optical inspection context; I did not verify text.
• US5636248A (U.S. Navy) — "regenerating amplitude and timing characteristics of an analog signal": title suggests analog signal restoration/delay; relevant to the claimed analog delay (claim 12) at a title level only.
• US6771370B2 (Texas A&M) — "Characterizing powders using frequency-domain photon migration": title supports the frequency-domain characteristic limitation (claims 7, 9).
• US6579235B1 (Johns Hopkins) — passive intraocular-pressure sensor with a patient-worn monitoring recorder: supports the "portable/wearable low-power sensing" context.
• US20090299655A1 (Biellak) — "determining two or more characteristics of a wafer"; US20030053235A1 (Kikugawa) — servo-signal testing on magnetic media; US20050286649A1 (TI) — multiple pilot signals for timing-error estimation in DSL; US3846024A (Baird) — optical alignment for spectrometers: cited as general optical/detection and timing/amplitude-measurement art.

---

IV. Grounds of rejection — proposed combinations

Ground 1 — Claim 1 obvious over Trainer in view of Beckman Coulter (and optionally Axiom)

Coverage.

• 1a (optical detector responsive to backscattered/scattered light): Trainer (optical particle detection from light scattered by particles).
• 1b (envelope detector → envelope signal): Trainer's envelope detector (Fig. 4) applied to the particle signal.
• 1c (comparator → enable based on envelope): Trainer's threshold peak-detector trigger ("A/D read trigger"), and Beckman Coulter's "comparator circuits that generate channel triggers by comparing … with predetermined thresholds."
• 1d (ADC receives enable; converts in response): Trainer's threshold-triggered A/D read; Beckman Coulter's digitize-then-gate; Rice's switched ADC sampling gate.
• 1e (processor processes responsive to enable; enable reduces power): Beckman Coulter's event window "select[s] a subset of the binary output data signals," i.e., the digital processor operates only on selected event data; power reduction by duty-cycling is the predictable result of using an enable to activate dormant blocks.

Rationale to combine (KSR / MPEP § 2143).

1. Same field / analogous art. Both Trainer and Beckman Coulter are directed to optically detecting and characterizing individual particles (aerosol vs. flow-through). A PHOSITA designing a miniature particulate-matter sensor for a phone/watch would consult both.
2. Known technique applied to a known device ready for improvement. Beckman Coulter already digitizes particle data and uses threshold comparators to produce triggers and an event window to gate downstream processing. Trainer already detects particle pulses and uses threshold triggering to "reduce the data rate requirements of the analog to digital converter." Sleeping the high-speed ADC/processor until the trigger arrives is the routine use of Beckman Coulter's event window plus Trainer's event-triggered conversion.
3. Design incentive / market force. The specification itself states the motivation: PM sensors can draw "hundreds of milliwatts," and "the sensor ASIC can contribute to most of the power usage." Reducing always-on ADC/processor power in a battery-powered portable device is a recognized, concrete design objective.
4. Reasonable expectation of success. Envelope detection, threshold comparison, and clock-/power-gating of an ADC and processor are standard, well-understood operations; enabling/disabling a block on an event is a routine engineering step with predictable results.

Axiom may be added if the envelope-detector limitation is read to require pos./neg. envelope structure or the differential-amplifier output of claims 14/15; adding Axiom would be a simple substitution of a known equivalent envelope detector (In re Fout; MPEP § 2144.04(IV)).

Note: claim 1 as printed recites "a processor coupled to the ADC digital delay circuit." The phrase "the ADC digital delay circuit" has no antecedent and appears to be a typographical/OCR artifact of the claim as published (the abstract and spec consistently say "the processor is coupled to the digital delay circuit"). A certificate of correction was recorded Jan. 17, 2023 — likely correcting this. If uncorrected, this gives rise to a § 112(b) indefiniteness issue independent of § 103. Flagged, not relied on.

---

Ground 2 — Claim 8 obvious over Trainer in view of Beckman Coulter

Claim 8 adds (a) an AFE conditioning the analog signal for conversion, (b) a digital delay circuit storing the first digital signal for a predetermined interval, and (c) a processing circuit acting on the delayed signal.

• AFE (filters/amplifiers) is conventional and taught/implied by Trainer's signal conditioning and by Beckman Coulter's analog offset/amplifier stage ("amplifying the input data … to produce amplified input data").
• The digital delay is expressly taught by Beckman Coulter: "delay circuits that temporally align the binary input data signals," and the programmable FIFO delay 304 for particle data. The motivation for the delay is inherent in the problem being solved: an event-triggered architecture detects the particle after the particle pulse has begun, so the digitized samples must be buffered until the trigger releases them — exactly Beckman Coulter's purpose for its delay/FIFO and event window.
• The processing chip is expressly an FPGA or ASIC in Beckman Coulter.

Rationale: Combining Trainer's event-triggered optical detection with Beckman Coulter's digitize–delay–threshold–event-window pipeline yields claim 8; the combination is the predictable use of each reference for its known function, with the shared objective of handling sparse, short particle events without continuously running the full high-power data path.

---

Ground 3 — Claim 14 obvious over Trainer in view of Axiom (and Beckman Coulter)

Claim 14 recites: amplifier → envelope detector (pos./neg.) → amplifier (differential) → comparator-to-threshold → mixed-signal circuit (ADC + dedicated processor) using the enable to reduce power.

• Axiom discloses the positive-peak and negative-peak envelope detectors combined by a differencing/differential amplifier to yield one envelope output (claims 15 and 20 of the '390 patent are met by Axiom's single-ended subtraction vs. a one-sided envelope detector).
• Trainer discloses the envelope detector and the threshold comparator that triggers the A/D ("A/D read trigger"; "A/D threshold"), supplying the comparator-to-threshold limitation and the gating of the ADC.
• Beckman Coulter supplies the mixed-signal ASIC (ADC + programmable digital processing) gated by event detection.

Rationale: "the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Neg.-generation and envelope subtraction are standard; comparing an envelope to a threshold to gate conversion is standard; and using the gate to sleep an ADC/processor is the claimed power benefit. Trainer supplies the express motivation (reducing the ADC's data-rate/power burden).

---

V. Dependent claims — where they stand

---

VI. Overall motivation-to-combine statement

A PHOSITA at the Dec. 2018 date, tasked with extending battery life of a particulate-matter sensor on a smartphone/smartwatch, would:

1. Start from the known optical particle-counting architectures (Trainer; Beckman Coulter), which already (i) detect short, sparse particle pulses, (ii) digitize them with high-speed/high-resolution ADCs, and (iii) identify events via threshold comparison and digital triggers/event windows.
2. Recognize (as Trainer expressly states) that event detection can be used to reduce the data-rate/power burden on the ADC, and (as the '390 specification itself admits) that the always-on duty cycle of the conventional ASIC is the dominant power draw.
3. Apply the well-known signal-conditioning primitive of an envelope detector (Trainer's diode envelope; Axiom's pos./neg. differential envelope detector) feeding a comparator to generate an enable that powers up/awakens the ADC and processor only when a particle is present.
4. Insert a digital delay/FIFO buffer (Beckman Coulter) so the pre-trigger samples are retained and released on the event.

The result is a straightforward, predictable combination of known elements exhibiting no more than their expected functions — the classic § 103 case under KSR.

---

VII. Weaknesses, gaps, and honest caveats

1. Self-mixing / optical-feedback sensing limitation may not be taught. The independent claims require analog signals generated by "a change in one of an intra-cavity or an emitted optical power of a light source due to … light backscattered from a particle." This is optical-feedback (self-mixing) interferometry. Among the references I verified, Trainer uses heterodyne/homodyne mixing of scattered light with a local oscillator — not intra-cavity power modulation — and KAIST relies on multiple-scattering speckle. None of the cited references squarely discloses the intra-cavity/emitted-power-backscatter detection mechanism. A § 103 attack on the independent claims may therefore require additional self-mixing/optical-feedback-interferometry art that does not appear in the "Patent Citations" list. This is the strongest apparent defense for the independent claims.

2. References I could not verify. For US20070013899A1 (Wolters), US5636248A, US6771370B2, US6579235B1, US20090299655A1, US20030053235A1, US20050286649A1, and US3846024A, I have only the title/abstract, not the disclosure. Any mapping of those references above is provisional and must be confirmed against the full text before being relied upon. The load-bearing references for the combinations (Trainer, Beckman Coulter, Axiom) were verified.

3. Claim 1's "the ADC digital delay circuit" lacks antecedent basis as printed and coexists with a certificate of correction (Jan. 17, 2023). If the correction already fixed it, treat the corrected text as authoritative. If not, raise a § 112(b) indefiniteness challenge in parallel. (Flagged per the cross-reference instruction — this does not contradict the previously generated Litigation summary.)

4. No secondary considerations identified. The previously generated section found no litigation involving US 11,353,390 (a negative result, with the caveat that PACER/Lex Machina/Docket Navigator were not fully queried). I also see no evidence of unexpected results, long-felt need, industry praise, licensing, or commercial-success nexus in the record. Absent such evidence, the Graham factor that could rebut a prima facie § 103 case is not presently available. Note, however, that prosecution history shows repeated rejections (non-final Feb. 2021, final Jun. 2021, advisory Aug. 2021, non-final Oct. 2021) before allowance, indicating the claims were narrowed to overcome art — which cuts in favor of validity if the narrowing limitations (e.g., the envelope-detector/comparator/sleep-wake architecture, or the self-mixing detection) are what distinguished the claims.

5. Analogous-art caveat for Axiom and Rice. Axiom (RF envelope detector) and Rice (high-frequency RF ADC) are from a different end-use field. However, their signal-processing teachings (envelope detection; gated sampling) are precisely the reason they are "reasonably pertinent" — a PHOSITA would look to them for the disclosed mechanism (envelope detection, ADC gating), and KSR permits combination of references outside the field of the invention when the elements are used for their established functions. Expect an obviousness proponent to press the "simple substitution of known equivalents" rationale here.

---

VIII. Conclusion

Using only the references the examiner cited:

• Independent claims 1, 8, and 14 are most plausibly challenged as obvious over US20160202164A1 (Trainer) in view of US20080319680A1 (Beckman Coulter), with US20090015295A1 (Axiom) for the positive/negative envelope + differential-amplifier limitations and US20150229319A1 (Rice) for gating/switching the ADC sampling path. The motivation — reducing always-on power of a battery-operated optical particle sensor, given the prior art's own recognition that particle events are short and sparse and that threshold/event gating can reduce ADC data-rate/power — is strong and well-articulated.
• Dependent claims 3–7, 11–13, 15–20 add only conventional features (programmable buffers, release signals, threshold comparison, standby/preset intervals, FFT, dual coarse/fine ADCs, analog delay, differential vs. single-ended amplifiers), each independently taught or suggested by the cited art or by the ordinary knowledge of a PHOSITA.
• The principal non-obviousness vulnerability of the patent is the self-mixing/optical-feedback ("intra-cavity or emitted optical power … backscattered from a particle") detection limitation of every independent claim, which does not appear to be taught by any reference in the cited-art section. A rigorous § 103 challenge would need to supplement this list with optical-feedback-interferometry particle-sensing art.

Primary sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11353390/en (claims, spec, citations); https://patents.google.com/patent/US20080319680A1/en; https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160202164A1/en; https://patents.google.com/patent/US20090015295A1/en; https://patents.google.com/patent/US20150229319A1/en; https://patents.google.com/patent/US10914665B2/en.