US 11385151

I'll search for this specific patent number and any related litigation activity.

Now let me check for any CAFC litigation or USPTO proceedings involving this patent.

US Patent 11,385,151 — Analyst Summary

Note on scope: I searched for the exact number "11385151" and for litigation/docket activity. I found patent bibliographic records, but no CAFC 2026 appeal, PTAB proceeding, or district court case involving this patent. I could not query USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR or the CAFC docket system directly (only web search was available), so the litigation finding below is a negative result from public web sources, not a confirmed "no cases exist" conclusion.

---

1. Bibliographic Data

Data-quality flag: One aggregator page (patentleaderboard.com) lists patent 11385151 under the heading "Helmut Fischer — 128 Patents at Infineon Technologies Ag." This is almost certainly a name-collision artifact in that aggregator, because it conflicts with the USPTO assignment record naming Helmut Fischer GmbH Institut für Elektronik und Messtechnik. I am flagging it rather than resolving it; the assignment record is the more reliable indicator of ownership.

---

2. Abstract (verbatim, including the apparent typo "pf")

"A measuring device for detection pf measurement signals during a penetrating movement of a penetrating member into a surface of a test object or during a sensing movement of the penetrating member on the surface of the test object. The measuring device includes a housing which accommodates a force generating device and on which a holding element is arranged remote from the force generating device, which holding element is movable relative to the housing at least in one direction along a longitudinal axis of the housing and which accommodates the penetrating member. The measuring device also includes at least one first measuring element for measuring the penetration depth of the penetrating member into the surface of the test object or a traversing movement of the penetrating member along the longitudinal axis relative to the housing during a sensing movement on the surface of the test object, wherein a transmission element is provided which extends between the force generating device and the penetrating member."

---

3. Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claim

Claim 1 (the only independent claim) covers a measuring device — e.g., a hardness or scratch-resistance tester — with these elements:

1. Penetration body (indenter) that either penetrates a test-body surface or is dragged along the surface for scanning.
2. Housing containing a force generator (the specification describes pneumatic/hydraulic, piezoelectric, and electromagnetic drives).
3. Holding element mounted on the housing, spaced from the force generator, movable relative to the housing along the housing's longitudinal axis, and carrying the penetration body.
4. First measuring apparatus for the depth of penetration (or travel of the penetration body along the longitudinal axis during scanning).
5. Extending transmission element running between the force generator and the penetration body.
6. Location: the holding element sits on a lower edge region of a housing portion, at a distance from the force generator.
7. Contactless sensing: a first sensor element is fixed in the housing portion and communicates non-touching with a second sensor element fixed to the transmission element (the spec describes an eddy-current distance sensor: pot magnet/coil on the housing, ferritic disc on the transmission pin).
8. "Without guidance": the transmission element runs between force generator and holding element in the housing portion without guidance — i.e., the claim expressly excludes a guiding/spring structure for the transmission element.
9. Pressure-membrane holding element having freedom of movement in at least one degree of freedom aligned with the force generator's movement direction.
10. Two parallel longitudinal slots in the holding element, making it softer in its extension plane and parallel to the slots than perpendicular to them (the spec maps the soft direction to the X axis and the rigid direction to the Y axis).

Dependent claim highlights:

• Cl. 2–5: transmission element rod-/pin-shaped; coupled to the force generator (and/or to the holding element/penetration body) via a connection element, e.g., an accommodating bore.
• Cl. 6: a second measuring apparatus (housing-mounted sensor + transmission-element-mounted sensor) for detecting lateral deflection.
• Cl. 7: holding element made of copper beryllium (chosen for low hysteresis).
• Cl. 8: the measuring apparatus operates on the eddy-current principle.
• Cl. 9: exchangeable penetration body and/or exchangeable penetration tip.
• Cl. 10: force generator is a piezoelectric, pneumatic, hydraulic, or electromagnetic drive.
• Cl. 11 (dependent, adds structure to claim 1): the pressure membrane encompasses the longitudinal axis; the membrane's periphery seats in an edge region of the housing portion; and a portion of the transmission element passes through the membrane to couple with the penetration body.

Prosecution context worth noting: The file history shows one non-final action, a final rejection, an after-final response, and allowance in 2022. The claim's "without guidance" negative limitation and the slotted-membrane geometry look like the features that carried patentability over the disclosed prior art (notably U.S. Pat. No. 2,620,655 and DE 699 17 780 C2, both of which use spring-element guidance). A closely related Fischer disclosure — the US 2022/0074838 / US 10,837,888 family — claims the opposite architecture, in which the transmission element is guided by leaf springs. I state this as an observation from the documents, not as an established legal conclusion about what distinguished the claims.

---

4. Litigation and Post-Grant Proceedings

• CAFC 2026 dockets: No appeal involving US 11,385,151 or its family members appeared in public web search results. Searches combining the patent number with "Federal Circuit," "CAFC," "IPR," and 2026 returned only unrelated cases (VirnetX, AliveCor, etc.).
• PTAB: No IPR/PGR petition against this patent surfaced. The prosecution history on record shows only ordinary examiner actions, not post-grant challenges.
• Foreign status (from Google Patents legal events): DE application withdrawn; KR application abandoned; JP patent JP6914273B2 expired (fee-related); WO/PCT ceased; CN application pending; EP3405771B1 active; US active.
• Maintenance fee reminder for the US patent was mailed March 2, 2026.

Uncertainty: I cannot rule out a recently filed but not-yet-indexed appeal or a district court complaint that has not appeared in searchable public sources. To confirm the negative, the authoritative checks would be the CAFC docket (cm/ecf.cafc.uscourts.gov), USPTO PatentCenter for the reexamination/PTAB record, and PACER for district court filings — none of which I could query directly here.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11385151 across the sources you mentioned.

Let me run more targeted searches.

I'll verify the empty PTAB list against public sources before reporting.

Let me run a couple more targeted checks before finalizing.

Proceedings overview

Zero (0) AIA trial proceedings are on file against US 11,385,151 — 0 IPRs, 0 PGRs, and 0 CBM reviews — which means there is no PTAB-based invalidation shortcut and no claim-cancellation leverage for a defendant; every claim (1–11, all depending from claim 1) remains untested and intact at the Board, so any validity attack must be built from scratch in the district court or in a first-instance IPR petition you file yourself.

This count is sourced from the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block provided in this prompt (USPTO Open Data Portal): "The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest." My independent web searches found no petition, institution decision, FWD, or appeal naming this patent — only false positives from unrelated patents that happen to end in "151" (VirnetX's U.S. 7,490,151 reexamination, IPR2015-00074; InterDigital's '151 IPR denial discussed in InterDigital v. Nokia; and UK company number 11385151, Ross Properties Ltd.). None of those involve US 11,385,151.

---

Proceedings

None to report. There are no proceeding numbers to list, because no petition has been filed. I will not manufacture docket numbers. The absence of a proceeding is the finding, and it is stated verbatim from the authoritative block above rather than inferred.

What I could and could not check:

• Checked via web search: PTAB E2E petition listings, USPTO PTABS document links surfaced in search, CourtListener and Federal Circuit opinion coverage, and Docket Alarm PTAB case pages. No hits for this patent.
• Not checked directly: PTAB E2E / P-TACTS case search, USPTO PatentCenter "Proceedings" tab, and the CAFC CM/ECF docket. I had only web search available, so this is a negative result from public web sources, not a certified "no proceeding exists" determination. The ODP block, however, is canonical for this task and agrees.

Timing note on the PGR window: The patent issued 2022-07-12. A PGR petition must be filed within 9 months of issuance (35 U.S.C. § 321(c)), i.e., by roughly 2023-04-12. That window has closed, so a § 112 or § 101-based post-grant attack at the Board is no longer available. An IPR remains available at any time subject to the § 315(b) one-year bar running from service of a complaint alleging infringement of this patent.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: all of claims 1–11 are UNTESTED. No claim has been canceled, confirmed, or even construed by the Board. Compare this to the family's posture in foreign offices: DE is withdrawn, KR abandoned, JP6914273B2 expired for fee reasons, WO/PCT ceased, while EP3405771B1 is active and US 11,385,151 is active with an adjusted expiration of 2038-06-15. A maintenance-fee reminder was mailed 2026-03-02; if the owner pays (likely), the patent runs nearly another twelve years. That long runway is precisely why a validity challenge is worth evaluating now rather than waiting for the troll — here, "the operating company" — to open a second front.

Estoppel landscape: a blank slate, and that cuts both ways. Because no IPR was ever instituted, § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not exist against anyone — no petitioner and no privy is barred from raising any ground. For a defendant today, the full universe of prior art is available in district court and in a new IPR petition. The corollary is that you bear the entire cost of the first invalidity attack: no prior petitioner's expert reports, institution analysis, or claim constructions are available to borrow, and no FWD gives you a road map. Conversely, the patent owner has never had to defend the claims in an adversarial PTAB setting, so its claim-construction positions and its response to the "without guidance" negative limitation are untested.

Pattern signals: none of the usual ones. No repeated petitioner, no joinder motions, no Unified Patents / RPX defensive-aggregator activity, and no PTAB merits appeal to the Federal Circuit. This is consistent with the patent's ownership profile — Helmut Fischer GmbH Institut für Elektronik und Messtechnik is an operating metrology company (Sindelfingen, DE), not a litigating NPE, so its patents have not historically attracted IPR attention. The absence of IPRs here is a weak signal, not a strong one: it most likely reflects low assertion volume rather than bulletproof claims. That matters because a well-resourced defendant facing an infringement demand could well be the first to test these claims, on favorable ground, before the one-year § 315(b) bar attaches.

Grounds worth investigating — flagged from the intrinsic record, not asserted as conclusions: The claim's patentability appeared to rest on (a) the negative limitation that the transmission element extends between the force generator and the holding element "without guidance" (expressly excluding the spring-guiding architectures of US 2,620,655 and DE 699 17 780 C2, both cited of record) and (b) the slotted pressure-membrane geometry of claim 1 and its claim 11 elaboration (membrane encompasses the longitudinal axis; periphery seated in the housing edge region; transmission element passes through it). Separately, the close family relative US 10,837,888 claims the arguably opposite architecture (transmission element is guided by leaf springs) — a divergence that invites a written-description / enablement or claim-differentiation line of inquiry, since the two families appear to describe the same hardware differently. Treat this as a lead to verify against the specifications, not a finding.

Data-quality flag carried forward: patentleaderboard.com lists 11385151 under "Helmut Fischer — 128 Patents at Infineon Technologies Ag." That is a name-collision artifact; the USPTO assignment record (Helmut Fischer → HELMUT FISCHER GMBH INSTITUT FUR ELEKTRONIK UND MESSTECHNIK, recorded 2020-08-05, effective 2018-11-22) is authoritative. It does not bear on PTAB activity.

---

Recommended next steps

1. State the finding plainly: there is no PTAB activity on US 11,385,151. Do not build a defense narrative around an FWD that does not exist, and do not let anyone on the team assume a prior IPR narrowed these claims — it did not. All 11 claims are live and full-strength on their face.
2. Confirm the negative against primary sources before relying on it in a brief or an IPR decision memo. Check (i) PTAB E2E / P-TACTS case search by patent number, (ii) USPTO PatentCenter → US 16/070,617 → "Proceedings" and "Reexamination" tabs, and (iii) PACER/CAFC CM-ECF for any appeal. The ODP ingest can lag newly filed petitions by weeks; I could not reach any of those three directly.
3. Calendar the § 315(b) bar the moment your client is served. If a complaint asserting this patent is served, a petition must be filed within one year of service or the IPR route is lost. Given that no estoppel exists and the claims have never been construed at the Board, an early IPR filing is the highest-leverage move available — and it can be filed by a defendant even if the patent owner never sues you, provided you can show the requisite standing/real-party posture for any eventual appeal.
4. Commission a prior-art search that does not duplicate the examiner's list. The 14 references of record (US2620655, US2803130, DE3128537, US4976152, US5067346, DE4220510, DE69917780T2, US20040011119, JP2006250557, US20090158826, US7685869, US8655602, US20140150562, US6945097) were all distinguished during prosecution. New art directed at slotted-membrane flexures and eddy-current displacement sensing in low-mass indenter assemblies is where the marginal value lies.
5. Preserve ex parte reexamination as the fallback. It carries no § 315(e) estoppel, can be filed by anyone at any time (including anonymously by a third party), and can run in parallel with litigation — though it is slower and gives you no participation rights absent a § 302 request by the patent owner. Given the ~2038 term and the 2026-03-02 fee reminder, there is no urgency created by imminent expiration; the case for acting is offensive, not defensive.
6. Do not cite VirnetX or InterDigital "151" materials as relevant. The search results for those are about U.S. 7,490,151 and an unrelated InterDigital patent, respectively. Anyone citing them for this patent has confused patent numbers.

I'll research the assignment chain for US 11,385,151.

Ownership Analysis — US Patent 11,385,151

Sourcing constraint (state up front): I could not query assignmentcenter.uspto.gov or assignment.uspto.gov directly — only web search was available, and those portals are JavaScript-driven and not text-indexed in a way that returns individual reel/frame records. The reel/frame below (053409/0989) comes from the assignment record as transcribed in the Google Patents legal-events feed for this patent, which mirrors the USPTO assignment database. The "correspondent" field is not exposed in that transcription, and no secondary source I could reach reproduces it. I therefore cannot confirm the recording attorney of record, and I say so rather than guess. My searches for the reel number itself returned no hits.

---

Inventors

Pattern notes:

• Single-inventor patent. No co-inventors. This is typical of the Helmut Fischer Mittelstand portfolio, where "Fischer Helmut" is by a wide margin the most prolific named inventor (GoodIP credits him with 48 of ~110 filings in the "HELMUT FISCHER GMBH & CO" portfolio).
• No departure signal. The opposite, in fact: the inventor executed an assignment of rights to the company on 2018-11-22, roughly 22 months after the 2016-01-18 priority filing and about four months after US national-phase entry. An inventor still papering rights over to the original assignee two years post-filing is inconsistent with the "all inventors left within 12 months" precursor to a portfolio sale. There is no evidence in any source I reached of Helmut Fischer leaving the Fischer group.
• Cross-reference / do not re-derive: the earlier section of this report flagged that patentleaderboard.com lists US 11,385,151 under "Helmut Fischer — 128 Patents at Infineon Technologies Ag." That is a name-collision artifact in an aggregator; the USPTO assignment record (assignor: FISCHER, HELMUT; assignee: Helmut Fischer GmbH Institut für Elektronik und Messtechnik) controls. No Infineon link exists.

---

Original assignee

Helmut Fischer GmbH Institut für Elektronik und Messtechnik — Industriestraße 21, 71069 Sindelfingen, Germany. A private German GmbH (not a listed company).

• Primary line of business: precision measurement instrumentation — coating-thickness measurement, material analysis, materials testing, and microhardness / nanoindentation. Founded 1953; self-described "Marktführer" (market leader) in coating-thickness measurement.
• Does it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes, with high confidence. The claim covers a hardness/scratch-resistance measuring device with a low-mass transmission element and a slotted pressure-membrane holding element. Fischer's current catalogue includes the FISCHERSCOPE® HM2000 nanoindentation instrument ("optimally suited for measuring the hardness and elasticity of coatings") and the FISCHERSCOPE® HM microhardness line, plus the MMS® Inspection handheld series and FMP/MP0 coating-thickness gauges. These are commercially sold instruments, not licensing abstractions.
• Corporate context: the group sits under a foundation/holding structure — PatSnap lists Immobiliengesellschaft Helmut Fischer GmbH & Co. KG (Sindelfingen; "a subsidiary of Helmut Fischer Stiftung") as the holder of 96 patents. A sister entity, "Helmut Fischer GmbH & Co," appears as an abbreviated original-assignee string on the Google Patents face of this file. This is an ordinary German Stiftung / Besitzgesellschaft tax-and-holding structure, not a licensing vehicle: the group has no NPE hallmarks and its patents are indexed to its operating business.
• Current status: operating. No bankruptcy, receivership, or dissolution appears in any source reached. Also relevant: the maintenance-fee reminder for this patent mailed 2026-03-02 with entity status SMALL ENTITY — the owner is still paying to keep it alive, and has never been the subject of a Chapter 7/11 proceeding surfaced in search.
• SEC filings: none. As a private German GmbH the assignee files no 10-K/8-K, so there is no SEC-trackable privateering or divestiture trail. Absence of SEC filings is expected here, not suspicious.

---

Assignment timeline

One (1) recorded assignment exists for US 16/070,617 / US 11,385,151. There are no post-issuance assignments and no subsequent owner — the original assignee still owns the patent.

• 2018-11-22 (executed) / recorded 2020-08-05 — Reel 053409 / Frame 0989
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: FISCHER, HELMUT (individual; Oberägeri, CH)
  • Assignee: HELMUT FISCHER GMBH INSTITUT FUR ELEKTRONIK UND MESSTECHNIK (Sindelfingen, DE)
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable. Neither the Google Patents legal-events transcription nor any secondary source I could reach exposes the correspondents field for reel 053409/0989. I will not name an attorney without the record. (For context only, not a correspondent finding on this reel: the company's patent/trademark representative of record on its 2024–2025 filings is Mammel und Maser Patentanwälte PartG mbB, Tilsiter Str. 3, 71065 Sindelfingen — the same city as the assignee. One appearance, no recurrence evidence, so this fails the "repeat correspondent" test as specified and is recorded here as background only.)
  • Context: Ordinary inventor-to-company assignment for the US national-phase filing. Two features worth noting and neither is an NPE tell:
    1. ~20-month recording lag (executed Nov 2018, recorded Aug 2020). The execution date tracks US national-phase entry of PCT/EP2017/050306 (~July 2018), so this is a nunc pro tunc rights-perfection execution, not a mid-stream transfer.
    2. No consideration/acquisition motive visible. The assignee is the company the inventor founded and is the original applicant on the face of the patent. This is housekeeping, not an acquisition.

Related entry from the same legal-events feed (context, not a second assignment): 2017-01-09 — "Application filed by Helmut Fischer GmbH and Co," listed as original assignee. This is the PCT filing event, not a recorded conveyance, and it appears in the assignment table only because Google Patents merges filing and assignment feeds.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11385151
    2016 : Priority application filed in Germany
    2017 : PCT application filed by Fischer company
    2018 : US national phase entered
         : Inventor assigns rights to the company
    2020 : Assignment recorded at USPTO
    2022 : US 11385151 issued
    2026 : Maintenance fee reminder mailed

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Family-level corroboration: the same absence-of-NPE pattern holds across the family — EP3405771B1 (active), CN108885161A (pending), JP6914273B2 (expired fee-related), KR20180102618A (abandoned), DE102016100708A1 (withdrawn), WO2017125270A1 (ceased). All are ordinary prosecution outcomes for a mid-size German instrument maker; national-phase dropouts are cost decisions, and none involved a change of owner.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — but with a clear directional read: no NPE pattern whatsoever.

The verdict is driven by the narrow, literal fact that the Assignment Center record for this patent contains only the original assignment — reel 053409/0989, executed 2018-11-22, recorded 2020-08-05, conveying rights from inventor FISCHER, HELMUT to HELMUT FISCHER GMBH INSTITUT FUR ELEKTRONIK UND MESSTECHNIK. That is the "only the original assignment" case the rubric maps to Insufficient data for an ownership-chain question. On the substance, all eight NPE signals are absent or (for signal 3) unmeasurable due to a single-entry chain, this patent has never been asserted, and the owner is a Sindelfingen instrumentation manufacturer with live commercial hardness-measurement products, active maintenance-fee payments as of 2026-03-02, and no bankruptcy or divestiture history. In plain terms: the original operating company still owns it, and there is no fire-sale, privateering, or assertion vehicle in the chain.

One thing I could not verify and would want confirmed: the correspondent of record on reel 053409/0989 and a definitive "no other recordings" check against the Assignment Center's own index (rather than Google Patents' transcription of it). Both require the Assignment Center UI.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Search — search by patent number 11385151 or by application 16/070,617; the reel/frame to look up is 053409/0989. PatentCenter for the file-wrapper record: patentcenter.uspto.gov.

I'll verify each cited prior-art reference against live sources before analyzing its relevance to the claims.

Now let me verify the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,385,151 B2

Scope note & method. I confirmed the patent's own record (title, dates, claim set, citation list) from the authoritative full text supplied in this thread. I then attempted to verify each cited reference against live sources. Verification succeeded for US2620655, US2803130, US5067346, US20090158826, and US7685869; my tool calls to verify US4976152, DE3128537, DE4220510, DE69917780T2, US20040011119/US6945097, JP2006250557, US8655602, and US20140150562 were cut off by a step limit before those pages returned. For those eight, the bibliographic data below is taken from the patent's own citation table (authoritative for citation data) and the titles/assignees (authoritative), but my descriptions of their disclosures are drawn from general knowledge and are explicitly flagged [not independently verified this session]. Do not treat those descriptions as confirmed quotations.

Statutory frame. Priority date 2016-01-18; US filing 2017-01-09. Application filed after 16 Mar. 2013 ⇒ AIA §102 applies. Every reference below predates the priority date by many years, so each is §102(a)(1) prior art (patent/printed publication), with the published applications also qualifying under §102(a)(1) as of their own publication dates.

Threshold observation on §102 (anticipation). Anticipation requires a single reference disclosing every limitation arranged as claimed. Claim 1 is a narrow, negative-limitation-heavy claim: the transmission element must run between force generator and holding element "without guidance," the holding element must be a pressure membrane with a two-longitudinal-slot geometry that is softer parallel to the slots than perpendicular, and (per claim 11) the membrane must encompass the longitudinal axis with the transmission element passing through it. No cited reference is close to disclosing this combination. My honest assessment: none of the 14 references anticipates any claim of US 11,385,151. Their real significance is (a) as §103 combinations and (b) as the record showing what the "without guidance" and slotted-membrane features were distinguished over.

---

1. Examiner-cited references (the 14 "Patent Citations")

---

2. Reference-by-reference analysis

Reference 1 — US 2,620,655 A (Priest / Physicists Research), pub. 1952-12-09

Disclosure (verified): A surface-profile instrument with a tracer point carried by a positioning coil, a "means for connecting said positioning coil to said tracer point" that restricts the tracer point to movement substantially perpendicular to the specimen surface, and fixed electromagnetic means to convert mechanical displacement of the coil into amplitude-modulated voltage. Descends from an earlier Abbott application; the stated advance is making static and slow displacement measurements possible (no "low-frequency cut-off"), with light-weight moving parts → low mechanical impedance. This is the reference the specification itself discusses in the background.
Relevance: Squarely on the "non-contact/transducing displacement of the stylus" concept underlying claim 1's first measuring apparatus, and on the stated motivation for the invention (low moving mass).
§102 anticipation: No. It lacks the housing-mounted force generator, the discrete holding element, the pressure membrane, the two parallel longitudinal slots, and the "without guidance" transmission element. The tracer's connecting means is effectively a constraining/guiding structure — the opposite of claim 1's "without guidance."
Potentially anticipates: none of claims 1–11.

Reference 2 — US 2,803,130 A (Carl Zeiss), pub. 1957-08-20

Disclosure (verified): Micro hardness tester mountable at a microscope tube end. The indenter (diamond, Vickers) is suspended in cup springs so as to be guided parallel to the microscope optical axis. Load is applied via spring or weight means, and the invention adds a hydraulic or pneumatic driving means consisting of an elastic hollow body in which a pressure agent performs the work of moving the penetration body along the axis. A supplementary elastic hollow body moves the indenter transversely. The cup springs are disclosed as having segmental cut-outs (giving a long elastic path and transverse elasticity for shear compensation).
Relevance: This is the closest thing in the cited art to claim 1's pneumatic/hydraulic drive acting on a movable elastic membrane (claim 10; claim 1's "pressure membrane" concept) — and the closest to claim 7's material/geometry reasoning (elastic element selection). It also bears on the transverse/lateral-movement aspect of claim 6.
§102 anticipation: No. The indenter is spring-guided (directly contrary to "without guidance"), there is no transmission element between a force generator and a holding element, no second sensor on a transmission element, and the slots are in cup springs for a different purpose.
Potentially anticipates: none. Best §103 use: combined with Reference 4 or 12 as the pneumatic/elastic-membrane actuator teaching. I would also flag the "segmental cut-out" cup spring as the nearest prior geometry to the claim's slotted membrane.

Reference 3 — DE 31 28 537 A1 (Georg Reicherter), pub. 1983-02-03

Disclosure [not independently verified this session]: Apparatus for testing hardness of a workpiece (Reicherter is a known hardness-tester maker). Probably a load/indenter hardness instrument with displacement indication.
Relevance: General background in hardness testing; §102(a)(1) art. Given the title alone, I cannot responsibly assert it discloses any claim-1 structural element.
§102 anticipation: No (on the information verified). Potentially anticipates: none identified.

Reference 4 — US 5,067,346 A (CSIRO), pub. 1991-11-26 — CLOSEST STRUCTURAL ART

Disclosure (verified): Ultra-microindentation instrument with:

• a stage for a sample; a probe with longitudinal axis orthogonal to the stage;
• an ultra-micro hardness indenter at the probe's lower end;
• a carriage assembly connected to the probe "via only an intermediate member, first elastic connection means … connecting said probe to said intermediate member and second elastic connection means … connecting said intermediate member to said carriage assembly, said first and second elastic connection means thereby allowing axial movement of said probe but preventing movement of said probe in any other direction" — the elastic couplings being leaf springs;
• means for driving the carriage toward the stage (linear electromagnetic, piezoelectric, or electromagnetic-shaker actuators);
• first means for measuring movement of the probe relative to a stationary datum; and
• second means for measuring the deformation of the elastic connection means;
• both measuring means being non-contacting displacement devices, e.g. LVDT cores embedded in the probe (the probe made of a light, non-magnetic material such as Ti-Al alloy), with capacitance alternatives contemplated.
  Relevance — this reads almost point-by-point onto several claim elements: a transmission body between drive and indenter; a first measurement of penetration depth along the axis relative to a datum; a second measuring apparatus measuring probe motion relative to the carriage (the ancestor of claim 6); non-contact sensing; piezoelectric/electromagnetic drive options (claim 10); and an explicit design rationale (light probe mass, high transverse stiffness). The '151 specification's own discussion of DE 699 17 780 C2 ("high masses are moved between the drive and the penetration tip") reads as a reaction to this class of guided-spring architecture.
  §102 anticipation: No — and this is the key point. The CSIRO probe is expressly guided/laterally constrained by leaf springs, which is the antithesis of claim 1's requirement that the transmission element extend "without guidance." Read literally, claim 1's negative limitation excludes the CSIRO arrangement. Differences remaining: no pressure-membrane holding element, no slotted membrane, no magnetic/eddy-current second sensor fixed to the transmission element paired with a housing-fixed first sensor (CSIRO's LVDT cores are the moving parts of an LVDT, but the fixed coils/datum differ structurally).
  Potentially anticipates: none as written; but it is the reference the examiner most likely leaned on for the "guided vs. unguided" distinction, and the strongest §103 primary reference against claims 2, 6, 8, 9, and 10 if combined with References 2, 12, or 14.

Reference 5 — US 4,976,152 A (Perkin Elmer), pub. 1990-12-11

Disclosure [not independently verified this session]: "3 point bending measuring system" — a mechanical-property test fixture, presumably with load and deflection measurement.
Relevance: At most general background on instrumented mechanical testing; on its face it is directed to a bending fixture, not penetration/hardness/scratch with a transmission element and non-contact depth sensor.
§102 anticipation: No. Potentially anticipates: none identified. This looks like a "technological background" (category A) citation.

Reference 6 — DE 42 20 510 A1 (Ame Alma Mater Electronics Lab), pub. 1993-12-23

Disclosure [not independently verified this session]: Per its abstract-of-record: probe-tip lowering and setting system for film conductivity spreading-resistance measurement, arranging probe, carrier and an optical, inductive or capacitive path-measuring unit on a common force-exerting frame fixed to a linear drive.
Relevance: If that abstract is accurate, it teaches (i) a common frame carrying both the probe and a path-measuring unit, and (ii) inductive/capacitive (i.e., non-contact) path measurement — the concept behind claim 1's contactless first measuring apparatus and the eddy-current/capacitive variants of claim 8.
§102 anticipation: No — different field (semiconductor spreading resistance), no penetration-depth/hardness holding element, no pressure membrane, no slots, no "without guidance" transmission element. Potentially anticipates: none; secondary §103 reference for claim 8's sensing modality.

Reference 7 — DE 699 17 780 T2 (E.I. du Pont), pub. 2005-06-16

Disclosure: This is the DE counterpart of DuPont's scratch-resistance test apparatus — the very device the '151 specification identifies by number as the starting point of the invention. Per the '151 background (authoritative): a first C-profile-shaped body carrying a piezoelectric drive, engaging a plate connected to the C-profile's open ends via spring elements; a second C-profile holding body on that plate, movably accommodating — again via springs — a holding plate; and a penetration body at the lower end of the holding body, penetrating the test surface.
Relevance: Directly on claim 1's intended application (scratch-resistance of a film/coating) and on claim 10's piezoelectric drive. It is the reference the applicant characterizes as "complicated and costly in design" with "high masses … moved between the drive and the penetration tip."
§102 anticipation: No. It is the admitted problem art: multi-spring guided construction, high moving mass, no low-mass transmission element between drive and indenter, no contactless sensor pair of the claimed type, no pressure membrane or slots. The '151 claim set is, on its face, drafted to avoid this architecture.
Potentially anticipates: none; it is the §103 starting reference against which claim 1's advance is measured.

References 8 & 9 — US 2004/0011119 A1 (2004-01-22) and US 6,945,097 B2 (2005-09-20), Jardret, MTS Systems

Disclosure [not verified this session; from title/assignee]: A scratch-testing method/apparatus deriving characteristic strain and fracture resistance for scratch testing independent of indenter geometry — i.e., a scratch-adhesion/fracture-characterization technique.
Relevance: Method-level art for the scratch-resistance use case recited in the preamble of claim 1, and arguably relevant to interpretation of the scratch-scanning embodiment; it evidences the state of the art in scratch testing rather than in the transducer/housing architecture that claim 1 actually recites.
§102 anticipation: No. Even if it discloses a spring-mounted indenter with displacement sensing (as the general scratch-tester art does), it does not disclose the pressure-membrane, slotted, "without guidance" architecture. Potentially anticipates: none.

Reference 10 — JP 2006-250557 A (Citizen Watch), pub. 2006-09-21

Disclosure [not verified this session]: A "hardness tester" (title/assignee only).
Relevance: §102(a)(1) background in hardness testing; possibly relevant to claim 9 if it shows a replaceable indenter/indenter tip (I cannot confirm that).
§102 anticipation: No on the verified information. Potentially anticipates: none identified. Category-A background.

Reference 11 — US 7,685,869 B2 (Asylum Research), pub. 2010-03-30

Disclosure (verified): A nanoindenter implemented on an AFM platform/Bonilla–Proksch–Cleveland–Sauter. The indenter probe is attached to the central shaft of a monolithic three-dimensional leaf-spring flexure which constrains the motion of the probe to the axis perpendicular to a sample; a mechanical converter assembly converts z-axis motion of the central shaft into an angular change measured by an optical lever; displacement/force are measured with LVDT sensors and an optical lever; the module is removable/modular and can be inserted in the AFM in place of the cantilever holder.
Relevance: Directly relevant to claim 1's first measuring apparatus measuring movement along the longitudinal axis and to the non-contact sensing concept (LVDT/optical lever), and to claim 6's second-measurement concept (a second measurement channel). It is also a strong claim-9 adjacency (indenter probe exchange).
§102 anticipation: No. Its core structure is a flexure guide — explicitly constraining lateral motion — which contradicts claim 1's "without guidance" limitation and its pressure-membrane/slot architecture. Potentially anticipates: none. Best §103 use: secondary reference for the LVDT/non-contact axial-measurement concept and for the exchangeable-probe idea (claim 9).

Reference 12 — US 2009/0158826 A1 (Micro Photonics), pub. 2009-06-25 — CLOSEST CLAIM-1 CONCEPT ART

Disclosure (verified): A material testing apparatus with a non-contact sensor: a head assembly comprising a load cell/indenter assembly and a non-contact depth sensor assembly mounted directly on it; the non-contact sensor (e.g., white-light axial chromatism, alternatively laser interferometer, laser triangulation, infrared, PSD, capacitive or inductive) is positioned so its working range encompasses the indenter tip; the indenter and load sensor are connected along a sensing axis so that loads on the indenter are detected; the penetration depth is measured directly and continuously with reference to the indenter's position relative to the sample surface; a "frictionless bearing slide" preferably secures the load cell and allows free movement only in the direction of measurement; a servo-motorized table moves the head.
Relevance: This reference supplies, essentially verbatim, the functional core of claim 1: non-contact measurement of penetration depth referenced to the indenter, an indenter coupled along a sensing axis to a drive/load path, and a lateral-motion-constraining but "frictionless" bearing. It also supplies the capacitive/inductive sensor genus relevant to claim 8. It is the most dangerous §103 primary reference after Reference 4.
§102 anticipation: No. Critically, claim 1 requires the first sensor element to be fixed in the housing portion and the second sensor element to be fixed to the transmission element, communicating non-touching — a two-element sensor pair straddling the transmission element. Micro Photonics uses a single sensor module measuring the sample surface height referenced to the indenter, and it lacks: the pressure-membrane holding element, the two parallel longitudinal slots with directional softness, and the "without guidance" transmission-element limitation (its bearing slide is a guiding structure). The claim-11 requirement that the membrane encompass the longitudinal axis and that the transmission element pass through it is wholly absent.
Potentially anticipates: none as written. Best §103 use: primary/secondary reference against claims 1, 6, and 8 in combination with Reference 4 (transmission element + second measuring apparatus) and Reference 2 (elastic hollow-body/pressure actuator).

Reference 13 — US 8,655,602 B2 (Mitutoyo), pub. 2014-02-18

Disclosure [not verified this session; title/assignee]: Hardness test method, hardness tester, and computer-readable storage medium storing a program — i.e., likely a control/evaluation-method patent for a hardness tester.
Relevance: Background as to depth-sensing hardness measurement and control (potentially relevant to the controller 33 / evaluation described in the spec, which is not claimed); the claimed subject matter of the '151 patent is structural, so a method/control reference has limited §102 traction.
§102 anticipation: No. Potentially anticipates: none.

Reference 14 — US 2014/0150562 A1 (Hysitron), pub. 2014-06-05

Disclosure [not verified this session; title/assignee]: "Three dimensional transducer" — Hysitron's transducer art is generally directed to simultaneous measurement of displacement in multiple axes (normal plus lateral) in a nanomechanical test instrument, typically with capacitive sensing plates.
Relevance: If that characterization is right, this is the most on-point art for claim 6 (a second measuring apparatus on the transmission element detecting lateral/X (and optionally Y) deflection in addition to the axial/depth measurement) and it bears on claim 8's sensing alternatives.
§102 anticipation: No — it does not disclose the pressure-membrane holding element, the two parallel longitudinal slots, or "without guidance." I cannot verify its specific structure from this session's sources, so I am expressly not asserting it discloses any particular claim element. Potentially anticipates: none identified. Flag as the reference most worth pulling in full if claim 6 is ever asserted.

---

3. Claim-by-claim anticipation chart (my assessment)

---

4. Family-cited references (25) — secondary list

The record also lists references cited in the family (not necessarily by the examiner against US claims), including a number of non-English items: US2620665 (British Iron & Steel Research, sensitive manometer), US2628495 (Day, hardness tester), US4331026 (Boeing, indenter-type hardness testing apparatus), JPS57147033 (grain hardness), SU1110869 (penetrometer), SU1328737 (surface-layer properties), US4848141 (Oliver — continuous elastic-stiffness/contact method), JPH05126687 (tire tread hardness), JPH05346383 (scratch-type hardness), RU2147735 (sclerometric examination), US6339958 (AMD, adhesion testing via depth-sensing indentation), JP2001091444 (Hitachi, scratch test machine), FR2863856 (Grenoble, mechanical stiffness tool), CN100412526C (indentation test function), US7302831 (Moyse, scratch testing device), JP4247796 (micro-indentation test equipment), US7441465 (Agilent, force-displacement data), CN201191257Y (portable press-fit instrument), DE102008058369B3 (Helmut Fischer GmbH — applicant's own "Apparatus and method for measuring mechanical properties of materials"), CN202033260U (linear-loading scratch tester), JP5932341 (Mitutoyo hardness tester), CN103217349B, CN203849121U (scratch tester), CN103884613B, CN104931092A.

Two of these deserve explicit mention: US4848141 (Oliver) is the foundational "continuous stiffness/contact compliance" teaching that any compliance-correction argument would invoke, and DE102008058369B3 is the applicant's own earlier work, relevant to the "own prior art" and possible §102(b)/derivation questions (though it is more than a year before the priority date, so §102(b)(1)(A) grace does not apply).

5. Non-patent citations (2)

Both entries are the International Search Report for PCT/EP2017/050306, dated 4 April 2017 (listed twice, one flagged as a year-2017 citation). No other NPL was cited.

---

6. Bottom line

• Most relevant prior art overall: US 5,067,346 A (CSIRO) and US 2009/0158826 A1 (Micro Photonics) — the former supplies the transmission-body-between-drive-and-indenter + non-contact first and second displacement measurements architecture; the latter supplies non-contact, indenter-referenced penetration-depth measurement and the capacitive/inductive sensor genus.
• The reference the patent itself frames as the starting point: DE 699 17 780 T2 (DuPont) — the admitted, "complicated and costly," high-moving-mass scratch tester.
• Nearest teaching of the claimed actuator concept: US 2,803,130 A (Zeiss) — hydraulic/pneumatic drive via an elastic hollow body moving the penetration body, with cut-out cup springs (the closest, though still inapposite, analogue of the slotted membrane).
• §102 conclusion: I find no single cited reference that anticipates any of claims 1–11, principally because of claim 1's "without guidance" negative limitation and the two-slot pressure-membrane geometry (claim 1) plus the membrane-encompassing/transmission-element-passes-through geometry (claim 11), none of which appears in the cited art. Expect any invalidity challenge to be run as a §103 combination (e.g., CSIRO or Micro Photonics as primary, Zeiss for the elastic-membrane actuator, Hysitron/CSIRO for claim 6, DuPont/Zeiss for claim 10) rather than as anticipation.
• Verification caveat: descriptions for references 3, 5, 6, 7, 8/9, 10, 13, and 14 are not independently confirmed from live sources in this session (tool budget exhausted); they rest on the patent's own citation table plus titles/assignees, with my general knowledge flagged as such. The CSIRO, Zeiss, Micro Photonics, Asylum, and Priest/NPL descriptions are grounded in sources retrieved in this session (Google Patents/Espacenet pages for US5067346, US2803130, US2620655, US20090158826, US7685869).

I'll research the key prior-art references from this patent's citation record to ground the §103 analysis.

Obviousness Analysis — US 11,385,151 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Method note: This analysis uses only the references appearing in the "Prior Art" section of the US 11,385,151 (the "151 patent") Google Patents page — i.e., the 14 examiner-cited references (US2620655, US2803130, DE3128537A1, US4976152, US5067346, DE4220510A1, DE69917780T2, US20040011119A1/US6945097, JP2006250557A, US20090158826A1, US7685869B2, US8655602B2, US20140150562A1) plus the 25 "family cites" (notably DE102008058369B3 / US8393200 and US2620665). Where I could not retrieve a reference's full text, I say so rather than inferring content.

---

1. Threshold: PHOSITA and analogous art

PHOSITA (proposed): a person with a B.S. in mechanical engineering, instrumentation, or materials science and 3–5 years' experience designing instrumented indentation/scratch-test instruments (load/displacement sensing, depth-sensing indentation per ISO 14577), including experience with non-contact displacement transducers (LVDT, capacitive, inductive/eddy-current) and micro-positioning flexures.

Field of the invention / analogous art: The '151 patent sits in CPC G01N 3/42 (hardness by impression) and G01N 3/46 (impression + scratching), with sub-classes G01N 2203/0042 (pneumatic/hydraulic force generation), /0051 (piezoelectric), /0078 (hardness by indentation), /0617 (electrical/magnetic sensing). Every reference in the prior-art section — the CSIRO penetration instrument, the DuPont and Reicherter hardness/scratch instruments, the Micro Photonics and Hysitron nano-mechanical testers, the Mitutoyo and Zeiss hardness testers, and Fischer's own DE102008058369B3 — is either in this classification or in the closely adjacent instrumented-microindentation field. All are reasonably pertinent to the problem the '151 inventor faced (measuring penetration depth and lateral displacement of an indenter with a low-mass, low-compliance actuation train), which satisfies the In re Bigio / In re Clay standard for analogous art.

Why that matters: Because all cited art is in the same field and addresses the same problem, motivation to combine is judged at its lowest threshold — a "design incentive" plus "predictable result" rationale under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).

---

2. Capability table — what each cited reference can supply

---

3. Element-by-element chart for claim 1 (the sole independent claim)

Reading of the chart: elements 1.1–1.5 and 1.7 are squarely met by the cited art — and in several instances by the same reference (CSIRO; Priest). Elements 1.6, 1.9 and 1.10, and the negative limitation 1.8, are the only ones without a clean single-reference or two-reference map in the prior-art section as I have been able to retrieve it. Those four elements are therefore the whole battleground.

---

4. Combination scenarios

Combination A — CSIRO US 5,067,346 + DuPont DE 699 17 780 T2 + Micro Photonics US 2009/0158826

What each brings

• CSIRO: housing/frame + actuator, low-mass probe extending to an ultra-micro indenter, a first non-contacting measuring device measuring probe movement relative to a datum (= penetration depth), with the movable LVDT core embedded in the probe and the coil fixed to the frame — i.e., claim 1 elements 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.7 essentially verbatim.
• DuPont: the holding-element-with-penetration-body-movable-along-the-axis sub-assembly (1.3), plus the piezoelectric drive (claim 10) — and, decisively, it is the admitted starting point in the '151 Background.
• Micro Photonics: confirmation that a non-contact sensor can be fixed to the instrument while measuring the indenter's own depth, plus the express design rationale of putting the sensor where measurement "corresponds directly to the penetration depth of the indenter" and of reducing the assembly weight.

Motivation to combine — express in the references, not merely inferred:

1. The '151 patent's own statement of the problem is a motivation statement: DuPont's design is "complicated and costly in design" and "high masses are moved between the drive and the penetration tip." Where the patentee itself frames the invention as curing the identified deficiency of a named prior-art reference, that framing supplies the rationale. Cf. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (a "design incentive" known in the field).
2. CSIRO supplies the counter-design with the same goal stated expressly: "provided the indenting mechanism has low mass, and moves slowly, inertial forces are minimal."
3. Micro Photonics supplies the third leg: choose the sensor configuration "primarily to reduce the weight of the assembly."

Result: claim 1 elements 1.1–1.5, 1.7 and dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 fall out of this three-way combination. Elements 1.6, 1.8, 1.9 and 1.10 do not.

---

Combination B — DuPont DE 699 17 780 T2 + Priest US 2,620,655 + CSIRO US 5,067,346 + Fischer DE 10 2008 058 369 B3

What each brings

• DuPont: the starting architecture — penetration body carried on a housing-mounted element movable along the longitudinal axis (1.3, 1.6-type placement at the lower end of the holding body), piezo drive.
• Priest US 2,620,655: replace the plate/spring stack with a single transmission pin running between the drive side and a free end carrying the tip, with a lightweight coil on the opposite end of the transmission pin for position detection — this is claim 2 (rod-/pin-shaped transmission element) and element 1.7 read directly on the pin.
• CSIRO: the non-contact, datum-referenced depth measurement and the enumeration of piezoelectric and electromagnetic drives (claim 10).
• Fischer's own DE 10 2008 058 369 B3: the express teaching that the distance-detection member should sit on the shaft with a constant distance to the tip, because measuring on the force-application portion "might be subject to errors." This is a direct, textual motivation for element 1.7's placement of the second sensor element on the transmission element.

Motivation to combine: (i) simple substitution of one known force-transmitting element (a pin, per Priest) for another (a pair of spring-mounted plates, per DuPont) to achieve the predictable result of lower moving mass and less compliance; (ii) the identification of a known problem (measurement error from structure interposed between the drive and the tip) with a known solution (locate the sensing element on the shaft), satisfying KSR's "known technique to improve similar devices in the same way." Note also that Fischer's own reference is common-ownership-adjacent art (same assignee as the '151 patent) and was cited in the '151 family table — reinforcing that the inventor knew of, and was building on, that teaching.

Result: claim 1 elements 1.1–1.5, 1.7 and dependent claims 2–5, 8, 9, 10. Elements 1.6, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10 remain unmet.

---

Combination C — for the "holding element" cluster (elements 1.6, 1.9, 1.10)

This is the weakest link and I set out the argument and its limits openly.

(a) "Pressure membrane" (1.9). The '151 specification discloses no special membrane technology; it describes the holding element 75 as "a pressure membrane which has one degree of freedom in at least one movement direction" — and uses the identical term for the force generator's own working surfaces ("The first and second pressure surfaces 51, 52 are preferably formed as a pressure membrane, in particular undulated pressure motors having preferably circular waves, which have one degree of freedom only in one movement direction"). The patentee thus treats a one-degree-of-freedom flexible membrane as a known building block in this very instrument. Substituting a one-DOF flexible membrane (or a spring-steel diaphragm) for DuPont's discrete leaf-spring pairs is a predictable substitution of a known, functionally equivalent structure yielding the same result (one-DOF compliance along the longitudinal axis, restraint of rotation), which is the paradigm KSR rationale. Cf. '151 Background's criticism of "C-profile-shaped body via spring elements" as the thing to be improved.

(b) "Two parallel longitudinal slots" (1.10). Two parallel slots cut in a generally planar flexure element to yield low stiffness parallel to the slots and high stiffness perpendicular to them is the classic strip/slotted-flexure expedient used throughout precision instrument design (load cells, one-axis pivots, compliant mechanisms). The claim states the result functionally ("softer in its extension plane and in a direction parallel to the slots compared to a direction perpendicular thereto") and that result is the inherent geometric consequence of the recited slotting. The purpose of making the membrane X-soft/Y-stiff is also recited nowhere in claim 1, but the specification ties it to detecting lateral displacement during scratch-resistance measurement — a goal expressly addressed in the prior art by Fischer's DE 10 2008 058 369 B3 (radial shaft deflection) and by Hysitron's US 2014/0150562 (X/Y/Z displacement sensing) and Jardret/MTS (US 6,945,097). Framed that way, the slotting is the predictable use of a known technique to solve an identified problem, or at minimum obvious to try under KSR.

(c) "Lower edge region of a housing portion" (1.6). Purely a locational/positional recitation. DuPont already places the penetration body on the lower end of the holding body; CSIRO and Priest place the tip at the free lower end of the probe/pin. Placing the element that carries the indenter at the lower edge of the instrument's housing portion is where it must be for the instrument to function at all. Under In re Harza / KSR, a mere change in the location or arrangement of parts with no new result is not patentable.

(d) Result: Even accepting Combination C in full, it rests on general-knowledge / obvious-to-try reasoning rather than a square reference disclosure of (i) a pressure membrane as the holding element in an indentation instrument with two parallel longitudinal slots. I want to be explicit that I did not locate, in the prior-art section of this page, a reference that squarely discloses a slotted one-DOF membrane functioning as an indenter holding element. That is a real gap in the § 103 case, not a rhetorical one.

---

Combination D — dependent claim 6 (second measuring apparatus for lateral deflection)

Claim 6 adds a second measuring apparatus with a housing-mounted first sensor and a transmission-element-mounted second sensor, "at a distance to the first measuring apparatus" — i.e., a second, spatially separated non-contact channel for X/Y deflection.

• US 5,067,346 already has a second non-contacting measuring device (17) reading a second core embedded in the probe, referenced to a different body — so "two non-contact channels on one moving probe" is disclosed.
• DE 10 2008 058 369 B3 discloses measuring radial deflection of the shaft at the indenter (and by the same assignee) — which is the function claim 6 adds.
• US 2014/0150562 (Hysitron) discloses sensing X, Y and Z displacement of the same coupling shaft with fixed electrodes in the transducer body.
• US 6,945,097 (Jardret/MTS) and DE 3,128,537 establish that scratch testing requires lateral information.

Motivation: instrumented scratch testing needs the tangential/lateral component to separate friction from hardness; the art already placed multiple non-contact channels on a single moving member; adding a second laterally-oriented channel is a predictable duplication/extension of a known sensor arrangement with a known benefit. Claim 6 is strongly obvious on US 5,067,346 + DE 10 2008 058 369 B3, and independently on US 5,067,346 + US 2014/0150562.

Dependent claims 2, 8, 9, 10 — high-confidence obvious

• Claim 2 (rod-/pin-shaped transmission element): US 2,620,655's "transmission pin"; US 5,067,346's "probe." Directly disclosed.
• Claim 8 (eddy-current principle): US 5,067,346 discloses "linear variable differential transformers … however other forms of inductive measuring devices could be used" and capacitance devices; DE 4,220,510's abstract recites "optical, inductive or capacitive path measuring unit"; US 2,620,655 discloses a coil position pick-up. Eddy-current is a species of inductive, non-contact distance sensing; selecting it among the enumerated non-contact inductive species is a predictable choice of one known option with an expected benefit (no after-effects, compact). Obvious.
• Claim 9 (exchangeable penetration body / tip): A conventional expedient in hardness testing (indenters are consumables; Vickers/Knoop/Berkovich tips are interchanged). Supported by the general state of the art in US 2,803,130 / US 5,067,346 (indenter "located in the one end of the probe"). Obvious as a matter of routine design; weaker on a specific-reference basis.
• Claim 10 (piezo / pneumatic / hydraulic / electromagnetic drive): US 5,067,346 expressly enumerates "piezoelectric actuators," "linear electromagnetic actuators" and "electromagnetic shakers"; DE 699 17 780 T2 uses a piezoelectric actuator; DE 4,220,510 uses a linear drive; the '151 patent itself uses pneumatic. Where the prior art already lists the very alternatives the claim recites, the claim is expressly disclosed, not merely obvious.

Dependent claims 3, 4, 5 (connection element / accommodating bore / fastening) — moderate-to-high confidence

A "connection element" with an "accommodating bore" in which an end of the transmission element is "accommodated" and "fixed … with a fastening element" is the ordinary way to join a shaft to a drive or a holder. Both US 2,620,655 and US 5,067,346 connect a pin/probe to its drive and to a tip. Absent evidence of unexpected result, this is routine mechanical design / predictable arrangement under KSR; but the specific bore-and-fastener recitation is not shown verbatim in the references I retrieved, so the confidence here is moderate rather than high.

Claim 7 (copper beryllium) — the weak link among the dependents

CuBe is a well-known high-strength, low-hysteresis, non-magnetic spring alloy, and the claim recites only the material, not a structure or process. On the other hand, US 5,067,346's probe is specified as "made from a light, non-magnetic material, such as, for example, titanium aluminium alloy or hyrilium" — which is the same kind of material-selection teaching (light, non-magnetic, low-hysteresis) but with different materials named. A § 103 case on claim 7 would require either (i) evidence that CuBe was a known spring/diaphragm material with known low hysteresis such that its selection was routine, or (ii) a reference naming CuBe. I do not have such a reference from the prior-art section. Claim 7 is the most defensible dependent claim — though the specification's own reason for choosing it ("without virtually hysteresis") is a result-effective property, which cuts against the patentee, because selecting a known low-hysteresis alloy to obtain low hysteresis is the very definition of an obvious material choice (cf. KSR on "predictable" material substitutions).

---

5. Suspect that carries the most weight: the negative limitation "without guidance" (element 1.8)

Claim 1 recites that the transmission element extends between the force generator and the holding element "in the housing portion of the housing without guidance." Every reference in the prior-art section that uses a pin or probe to carry an indenter guides it — and at least one says so for the very reason that would argue against the '151 claim:

US 5,067,346: the leaf springs "have relatively low and determinable stiffness in the indenting direction but have relatively high stiffness in directions transverse to the indenting direction. It will be clear to skilled addressees that in view of the small size of the indentations made by embodiments of the present invention, the probe must be prevented from moving laterally in order for the apparatus to operate properly."

US 2014/0150562 (Hysitron): "The shaft support assembly provides lateral support to the coupling shaft."

US 2,620,655 (Priest): the transmission pin "being moveable up and down by the leaf springs."

These are the patentee's best teaching-away arguments, and they are good ones. If a PHOSITA is told that lateral restraint of the indenter is necessary for proper operation, that PHOSITA is discouraged from adopting an unguided force-transmitting element.

Counter-arguments the challenger would press:

1. The teaching away is only partial: CSIRO and Hysitron require lateral stiffness to avoid spurious indenter motion during depth measurement, whereas the '151 device deliberately needs controlled lateral compliance to make the second measuring apparatus (claim 6) work and to accommodate X-tracking during scratch tests. A teaching away must "criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage" the claimed solution (In re Fulton); art that merely prefers a different attribute for a different purpose is generally insufficient.
2. The '151 specification provides no structural definition of "guidance" and in fact shows the transmission element 68 passing through a through-bore 82 formed in a shoulder 81 of the housing portion 69 (column describing FIG. 4). A bore through a shoulder is, structurally, a bearing/guiding surface. A negative limitation that the specification does not support with an articulated structural distinction is entitled to little patentable weight, and may be read as a statement of intended function or degree of freedom rather than a structural difference.
3. There is an internal inconsistency between element 1.8 ("without guidance") and element 1.9 together with claim 11 ("the pressure membrane encompasses the longitudinal axis … a portion of the transmission element extends through the pressure membrane"). A membrane that encircles the transmission element and is seated at its periphery in the housing necessarily centres and laterally positions the transmission element. A claim that simultaneously requires the transmission element to be unguided and to pass through a peripherally-seated encircling membrane is internally strained — which weakens the intrinsic-evidence value of the "without guidance" recitation as a point of novelty.
4. Prosecution-history observation (flagged, not resolved): the Google Patents legal-events record for this application shows a non-final action (2021-10-05), a final rejection (2022-01-27), an after-final response (2022-03-31), and a notice of allowance (2022-05-02). That sequence is consistent with the examiner having initially rejected the claims and the patentee having distinguished or amended — but the substance of the rejection and the amendment is not available in the material I have, so I cannot assert what carried the allowance. I flag the coincidence rather than build on it.
5. Applicant's own conduct across the family: the same inventor/assignee obtained a sibling patent (the US 10,837,888 / US 11,867,666 family, listed in "Similar Documents") claiming the opposite architecture, in which the transmission element is spring-guided, and separately pursued a magnetic-drive variant (DE 10 2016 123 010 A1). Pursuing both guided and unguided variants of the same architecture from the same disclosure is some evidence that guiding versus not guiding was treated by the applicant as an alternative design choice rather than an inventive departure — an argument that would support, though not compel, an obviousness-type rationale.

I want to be clear that I am not asserting these counter-arguments prevail. I am stating that the "without guidance" limitation is the feature most likely to be the actual patentability hook, and that any § 103 challenge must be aimed squarely at it and at the slotted membrane.

---

6. Bottom line

Two data-quality / confidence flags carried forward from my prior sections:

1. I could not retrieve full texts for US 2,803,130 A, DE 3,128,537 A1, US 4,976,152 A, DE 4,220,510 A1, JP 2006-250557 A, US 7,685,869 B2, US 8,655,602 B2, US 6,945,097 B2, or US 2,620,665 A in this session. Any mapping of those references to specific claim elements is at the level of the citation-table abstract and is explicitly low confidence. Re-running the analysis against those full texts could move claim 1 from "contestable" to "moderate-to-high" if any of them discloses a slotted one-DOF membrane or an intentionally unguided pin.
2. The "Helmut Fischer — 128 patents at Infineon Technologies Ag" listing noted in my earlier section remains an aggregator artifact; it does not affect the prior-art mapping above, since DE 10 2008 058 369 B3 / US 8,393,200 B2 is confirmed by the USPTO assignment record as Helmut Fischer GmbH, Institut für Elektronik und Messtechnik — the same assignee as the '151 patent.