US 11402297

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent, including any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

Let me run additional targeted searches on the USPTO record, litigation, and any 2026 Federal Circuit activity.

US 11,402,297 B2 — Summary

Caveat on scope of search: I ran searches for USPTO records, litigation, PTAB/IPR, and CAFC 2026 dockets referencing "11402297." I found no 2026 Federal Circuit docket entry, no IPR/PGR, and no district-court litigation naming this patent. A direct CAFC docket query returned zero results for this number, and a "Sintokogio Federal Circuit appeal 2026" search returned nothing. That is an absence of search results, not affirmative proof that no such proceeding exists — I cannot verify the CAFC docket directly, so treat "no CAFC 2026 activity" as unconfirmed.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (per the patent record)

A wear detection method and system for a linear actuator such as a pneumatic cylinder, hydraulic cylinder, or electric cylinder. A physical amount detection sensor (9) is mounted on a linear actuator in which a push-pull member connected to a rod (2) pushes and pulls a pressure-receiving object while applying a lateral load in a direction different from the linear movement direction. An external force generated between a tube and the mounting member when the pressure-receiving object is pushed and pulled is detected by the sensor (9) and compared with standard external force data, which was detected in a state without abnormalities and stored in a computation/storage/determination processing device (10), to computationally determine whether the linear actuator is in a normal state or an abnormal state.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — Method. A wear-detection method for a linear actuator having (a) a rod that moves linearly inside a tube mounted on a mounting member, and (b) a push-pull member connected to the rod that pushes/pulls a pressure-receiving object while applying a lateral load different from the linear direction. Two steps:

• Storage step: Before anything goes wrong, measure with a physical amount detection sensor a first external force arising between the mounting member and the tube during push/pull, and save it as "standard external force data" in a computation/storage/determination processing device.
• Determination step: Later, measure a second external force at the same location during push/pull, and computationally decide normal vs. abnormal by comparing the second force against the stored standard data.

In short: baseline the force between the cylinder body and its mount when new/healthy, then flag a drop (wear-induced loss of force/looseness) on subsequent cycles.

Claim 5 — System. The apparatus counterpart: a linear actuator of the same type, plus (i) a physical amount detection sensor detecting a first external force between mounting member and tube during push/pull, and (ii) a computation/storage/determination processing device that stores as standard external force data a second external force detected in a state without abnormalities, and computationally determines normal vs. abnormal by comparing the standard data with the first (live) external force.

Note on a literal-reading inconsistency: the "first"/"second" designations are reversed between claim 1 and claim 5. In claim 1 the first external force is the baseline (standard) and the second is the live measurement; in claim 5 the first is the live measurement and the second is the baseline. I am reading these literally as written in the record rather than auto-correcting them.

Dependent claims (for completeness)

• Claim 2 (dep. 1): use a force sensor as the physical amount detection sensor.
• Claim 3 (dep. 2): during determination, compare an average of external force data over the immediately preceding plurality of steps with the live value; also find abnormal if outside a preset tolerance range.
• Claim 4 (dep. 1): same average/tolerance feature, but without the force-sensor limitation.
• Claim 6 (dep. 5): the sensor is a force sensor.
• Claim 7 (dep. 6): the actuator is a pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric cylinder.
• Claim 8 (dep. 5): the actuator is a pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric cylinder.

Practical/technical gist

Specification embodiments cover a pneumatic cylinder (FIGS. 1–8), a hydraulic cylinder (FIGS. 9–11), and an electric cylinder with ball screw/servomotor drive (FIGS. 12–14). A worked threshold example: abnormal if the detected contact/pressing-step force falls below 90% of the standard value; a secondary "sudden change" test compares the latest reading F against the average Fa of the immediately preceding (up to) 30 contact/pressing steps and flags abnormal if Fa×1.01 ≤ F or Fa×0.99 ≥ F. Detection is characterized as indirect — the lateral load on the push-pull member is inferred from the force between mount and tube.

Notable prior art cited on the face of the patent

JP S51-54400 U; JP H6-123044 A; JP 2015-209312 A (Sintokogio); US 3,977,231 A; US 2007/0017300 A1 (MTS Systems, "Wear tester"); US 2013/0276516 A1 and its continuations US 9,128,008 B2 / US 2016/0230789 A1 / US 2021/0310504 A1 (Kent Tabor / Bimba LLC, "Actuator predictive system"); WO 2016/092150 A1 and US 2017/0350427 A1 (Hydroline Oy); DE 10 2014 225 872 A1 (Robert Bosch).

Sources

• https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11402297B2](/patent/US11402297B2)/en
• https://patents.justia.com/patent/11402297
• https://www.patentleaderboard.com/sintokogio/katsuaki-odagi/[547793](/patent/547793)

Uncertainty flags

• No CAFC 2026 docket, PTAB proceeding, or litigation was surfaced for this patent; this is unverified negative evidence.
• I could not directly query USPTO Patent Center or the CAFC docket system; the bibliographic data above is drawn from the patent record itself and secondary patent databases, which may lag on fee/status changes.
• The literal "first/second external force" reversal between claims 1 and 5 is reported as written; I make no representation about how it would be construed.

I'll run targeted searches across patent litigation sources for this specific patent number.

Let me try litigation-specific databases and additional query formulations.

Litigation search — US 11,402,297 B2

Bottom line: I found no litigation involving US patent 11,402,297. No district court case, no ITC investigation, no PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR), and no Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent was surfaced in any of the searches I ran.

Searches performed and what they returned

False positives — IDs that are not this patent

To be explicit, since the instruction is to interpret the identifier literally and not return results for similar numbers, these hits share the digits "11402297" but are unrelated:

• IEEE BigData 2025 DOI 10.1109/BigData66926.2025.11402297 (Wan & Vatsavai, deforestation mapping) — a DOI fragment, not a patent.
• UK Companies House number 11402297 — "Window Kings Cleaning Services Ltd," Wolverhampton, UK.
• Czech document UUID beginning 11402297-... (Správa železniční dopravní cesty).
• Nortel Networks bankruptcy (Bankr. D. Del. 09-10138) — "RLF1 11402297v.1" is a Richards, Layton & Finger document-control number.

None of these name or involve US 11,402,297.

Corroborating evidence from the patent record itself

The Google Patents record for US11402297B2 lists under "Families Citing this family" and "Citations" only technical patent documents — there is no litigation or PTAB section populated for this patent. Its family members are EP 3505774 B1, JP 6819566 B2, and CN 109975147 B. The only non-patent citation is the EPO Extended Search Report (May 7, 2019) in EP 18 27 5191.7.

This is consistent with the earlier summary generated for this patent, which likewise found no 2026 CAFC docket, IPR/PGR, or district-court litigation. No contradiction to flag.

Required caveats

1. This is negative evidence, not proof of non-existence. This is a low-volume, Japanese-origin industrial patent (Sintokogio, Ltd.) covering linear-actuator wear detection — an unlikely candidate for US assertion, but absence from my search results does not affirmatively establish that no case exists.
2. I could not directly query the primary sources. I was unable to complete direct queries of the Unified Patents litigation portal, PACER, or the CAFC docket system. Those should be checked directly (e.g., PACER Case Locator "Patent" search on 11,402,297; Unified Patents portal; Docket Navigator) before treating "no litigation" as conclusive.
3. Date note: the task states a current date of April 26, 2026, while my session date is 2026-09-29. Searches reflect what was available as of the latter date; any filing between those dates would not appear regardless.

Conclusion: Based on available search results, no litigation is known involving US patent 11,402,297. If you need a definitive clearance of the litigation question, I recommend a direct PACER Case Locator and Unified Patents portal query, which I was not able to execute here.

I'll verify the empty structured list with targeted searches before finalizing.

Adding two more verification searches on PTAB dockets and any litigation/CAFC activity.

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — US 11,402,297 B2

Verification note: I ran the searches below before drafting. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block returned no AIA trial proceedings for this patent, and four independent web searches (IPR + patent number; "11402297" + PTAB; IPR2024/IPR2025 + Sintokogio + actuator; Sintokogio as PTAB patent owner/petitioner) surfaced no petition, institution decision, FWD, or appeal referencing this patent. This is consistent with the earlier-generated summary section, which independently found no PTAB or CAFC activity. No contradiction between the two.

---

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 11,402,297: 0 — zero IPRs, zero PGRs, zero CBMs, zero derivations; status breakdown is therefore 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials, and the defensive posture for a defendant today is unmitigated exposure: the patent has never been tested at the Board, so all eight claims stand exactly as issued, there is no § 315(e) estoppel constraining any petitioner, and the full body of prior art cited on the face of the patent (plus anything you find) remains available as an IPR ground.

Because no proceeding exists, I cannot produce the per-proceeding template (proceeding number, petitioner, panel, grounds, FWD, settlement, appeal). I will not invent proceeding numbers or outcomes. What follows is the substantive substitute: the claim-level posture, why the absence matters, and the grounds that are actually on the table.

Claim-level status inventory (no proceeding has altered these)

No claim has been canceled, confirmed, or disclaimed in any AIA trial. The patent is Active with adjusted expiration 2041-06-02 and the 4th-year maintenance fee was paid 2026-01-29 — the owner is maintaining it through the windows where a challenged patent would typically be abandoned.

Availability of AIA forum types (why "zero" is partly structural, not just luck)

• IPR (§ 311): still available. Any person may file today. The only threshold risk is § 315(b): if you have been served with a complaint alleging infringement more than one year ago, you are time-barred. Check your service date first — it is the single gating fact.
• PGR (§ 321): foreclosed by timing. PGR must be filed within 9 months of grant. Grant was 2022-08-02, so the window closed 2023-05-02. This matters because § 112 challenges (see the claim-1/claim-5 numbering issue below) are only available in a PGR, not in an IPR.
• CBM: unavailable. Both the AIA transitional program sunset (2020-09-16) and subject-matter ineligibility — a pneumatic/hydraulic cylinder wear-detection patent is not a "covered business method." Do not run this theory.
• Reexamination (not an AIA trial, but relevant): ex parte reexam under § 302 or inter partes reexam under § 311 (pre-AIA) remain available regardless of litigation posture, and can reach § 112-adjacent issues via the error in the claim framework. No reexam certificate appears in the record.

---

Strategic summary

Every claim of 11402297 is untested, and that cuts both ways. Because no IPR was ever filed, there are no cancellation records, no panel findings, and no Federal Circuit ruling to short-circuit an infringement theory — a demand letter citing claim 1 or claim 5 presently has the full force of an unchallenged, in-force patent. Equally, there is no adverse estoppel and no Board precedent construing the key terms ("external force generated between the mounting member and the tube," "physical amount detection sensor," "pressure-receiving object," "standard external force data"). The claim construction slate is entirely blank, which is unusually favorable briefing ground for a first petitioner.

Estoppel landscape: none exists. § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only after a final written decision, and there is no FWD. No petitioner has been estopped, and no ground — § 102, § 103, or a printed-publication/system-prior-art theory — has been spent. Practically, this means your prior-art window is wide open, subject only to § 325(d) discretionary denial if you lean heavily on art the examiner already considered. The most-cited references on the face of the patent — US 2013/0276516 A1 and its continuations (Kent Tabor / Bimba LLC, "Actuator predictive system"; US 9,128,008 B2; US 2016/0230789 A1; US 2021/0310504 A1), WO 2016/092150 A1 / US 2017/0350427 A1 (Hydroline Oy), DE 10 2014 225 872 A1 (Robert Bosch), and US 2007/0017300 A1 (MTS Systems, "Wear tester") — were all cited of record during prosecution. A petition built on those references invites a § 325(d) "same art, same arguments" denial; a petition built on non-cumulative art does not. The Bimba/Tabor family is nonetheless worth mining for § 103 motivation-to-combine support even if you don't anchor on it, because it is the closest known disclosure of actuator wear prediction (as opposed to this patent's force-loss detection).

Pattern signals: essentially none — this reads as a low-litigation industrial portfolio, not a monetization campaign. There is no repeat-petitioner history (there are no petitioners at all), no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, or similar) in the chain, and no evidence the owner has pursued PTAB appeals. Sintokogio, Ltd. is a Japanese industrial-equipment manufacturer (foundry/shot-blast and surface-treatment machinery) and the patent is one member of a small four-jurisdiction family (EP 3505774 B1; JP 6819566 B2; CN 109975147 B). The class of defendants for whom this matters is narrow and technical — makers/users of laterally loaded pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric cylinders in automation and press equipment. If you have received a demand, you are likely among the first to be approached, which means there is no playbook to copy and the owner has not yet had its claims tested once.

One cross-referenced flag worth carrying forward. The earlier-generated summary identified a literal inconsistency between independent claim 1 and independent claim 5: claim 1 uses "first external force" for the baseline/standard and "second external force" for the live measurement, while claim 5 reverses them ("first" = live; "second" = baseline). I am reading both literally, as written. This is a potential § 112 written-description / indefiniteness hook, but be precise about where it can be raised: it is not an available IPR ground (IPR is limited to § 102/§ 103), and the PGR window that would have allowed § 112 closed on 2023-05-02. It is therefore a district-court invalidity theory or, at best, a reexam "error in the claims" argument — do not build a petition on it and assume institution.

---

Recommended next steps

• There is no PTAB activity to cite, so cite that absence correctly. Do not represent that claims have been invalidated; they have not. If opposing counsel or a demand letter implies prior PTAB consideration, that implication is false — the record is empty.
• Calendar the § 315(b) bar before anything else. If you were served more than one year before your intended filing date, IPR is off the table and you are limited to district-court invalidity, ex parte reexam, or a Sintokogio-facing design-around. If service is recent, the one-year clock is your ceiling for filing.
• Run a fresh prior-art search outside the face-of-patent citations. Because every on-record reference is already before the examiner, the marginal value of new art is high and the § 325(d) risk of recycling is real. Prioritize cylinder-force, mount-reaction-force, and predictive-maintenance references post-dating 2015.
• Confirm the live status independently. Verify current claim text and any post-grant certificate at USPTO Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov — the record I worked from shows no certificate of correction and all 8 claims intact, but status data can lag.
• If you do file, monitor the statutory clock. Under § 316(a)(11), the Board must issue an FWD within 1 year of institution (6 months extendable for good cause, § 316(a)(11) / 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c)) — so from petition filing, expect an institution decision at roughly 6 months and an FWD at roughly 18 months if instituted.
• Watch the family. A parallel opposition or nullity action against EP 3505774 B1 or CN 109975147 B could produce prior-art findings usable in a US filing. Set a watch on the EPO register and CNIPA for those members.

Sources for verification (no proceeding-specific documents exist to link):

• Google Patents record (bibliographic, claim text, 12 patent citations): https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11402297B2](/patent/US11402297B2)/en
• PTAB E2E — search this patent number to confirm the empty proceedings list: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/
• USPTO Patent Center (prosecution file, status, fees): https://patentcenter.uspto.gov
• CourtListener (confirm no CAFC appeal): https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%2211402297%22
• USPTO Open Data Portal / Patent Assignment record (assignee: Sintokogio, Ltd.): https://assignment.uspto.gov

Uncertainty flags: (1) I could not directly query the PTAB E2E API or the Federal Circuit docket within this session; the "zero proceedings" finding rests on the structured ODP block plus four web searches that returned no hits, which is absence of evidence and should be confirmed by direct E2E query before you rely on it in a filing. (2) My search did not cover sealed or as-yet-unindexed proceedings, and a recently filed petition (within roughly the last few weeks) may not yet appear. (3) I make no representation about district-court litigation; my searches did not surface any, but RPX/Docket Navigator are the appropriate tools for a definitive litigation check.

I'll verify the assignment record with targeted searches before writing the analysis.

Assignment-Chain Reconstruction — US 11,402,297 B2

Sources used: Google Patents legal-events record for US11402297B2 (fetched 2026-09-24, authoritative copy supplied in the brief), USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) as indexed via Google Patents' assignment mirror, and cross-checks against public company filings/directories for the assignee. I re-ran targeted searches for any additional recorded assignment, litigation, or 2026 CAFC/PTAB activity; no post-issuance assignment, no litigation, no IPR/PGR, and no 2026 Federal Circuit docket entry were surfaced. As with the prior section, that is negative search evidence, not proof of absence — I could not open the Assignment Center record image directly, so treat the correspondent field as unretrieved rather than empty.

---

Inventors

Pattern assessment: No unusual pattern. All four are Sintokogio personnel, and all four executed the assignment within a four-day window (2018-11-27 → 2018-11-30), consistent with a routine employment/advance-assignment practice executed at filing rather than a post-hoc cleanup. Odagi's 12-patent portfolio at the same employer indicates a career inventor at an operating company, not a serial inventor for a filing mill.

Verification caveat: I could not query USPTO PEDS/ODP personnel records, so I have no evidence either way about whether any of these inventors departed Sintokogio within 12 months of filing. The departure-window heuristic is unclear — not determinable, not "not present."

---

Original assignee

Sintokogio, Ltd. (新東工業株式会社), Nagoya, Japan — the entity named on the issued patent as both original and current assignee.

• Status: operating, publicly listed, solvent. Tokyo Stock Exchange Prime Market and Nagoya Stock Exchange Premier Market, ticker 6339; EDINET code E01541; incorporated October 2, 1934. Latest reported figures: TTM revenue ≈ ¥176.18 bn, equity ≈ ¥118.8 bn, ~4,760–4,844 employees (FT Markets profile, MarketWatch company profile, FY2026 annual report filed 2026-06-19).
• Does it ship a product embodying the claims? — Yes, directly. Sintokogio's Special Equipment segment manufactures and sells servo cylinders, inspection/measurement equipment, and handling robots (MarketWatch/Sintokogio segment description; Sintokogio Integrated Report 2024). The patent's three embodiments are a pneumatic cylinder, a hydraulic cylinder, and an electric cylinder driven by a servomotor and ball screw — i.e., the servo-cylinder line is the commercial embodiment. This is an operating-company product patent, not a licensing asset.
• Primary line of business: industrial machinery — foundry/casting equipment, surface treatment (shot blasting), environmental equipment, conveyance, and special equipment. It is not an IP holding company; it is a ~90-year-old manufacturer with 49 consolidated subsidiaries across 23 countries.
• Financial watch item (not a distress signal): FY2026 net income was negative (≈ −¥15.8 bn to −¥16.3 bn) with operating margin ≈2.2%, driven by goodwill amortization/impairment and integration costs from a ~¥26.8 bn acquisition in the surface-treatment segment in FY2025. Cash from operations remained positive (≈¥8.84 bn) and equity is substantial. No bankruptcy filing, restructuring proceeding, or asset-sale process involving this patent was surfaced.
• No US SEC paper trail: Sintokogio is a Japanese issuer, so there is no 10-K/8-K disclosure of this patent or any transfer of it; its periodic filings go to EDINET/JPX. Absence from SEC EDGAR is therefore expected and is not a signal.

---

Assignment timeline

There is exactly one recorded assignment for this patent, and it is the original inventor→company assignment — not a post-issuance transfer.

• 2018-11-27 to 2018-11-30 (executed) / recorded 2018-12-18 — Reel 047801/0996
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (recorded under the USPTO event code "AS")
  • Assignor: Masahiko Nagasaka; Hiroyasu Makino; Katsuaki Odagi; Tomoyuki Yokomae (individuals)
  • Assignee: SINTOKOGIO, LTD., Japan
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable from the sources I could reach. The Google Patents legal-events mirror of reel 047801/0996 reproduces the free-format assignment text ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS' INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:NAGASAKA, MASAHIKO;MAKINO, HIROYASU;ODAGI, KATSUAKI;AND OTHERS;SIGNING DATES FROM 20181127 TO 20181130") but omits the attorney/agent-of-record block. The Assignment Center record image would carry it. No repeat-correspondent finding is made on this chain, because the field was not obtained — I am not substituting an assumption for the missing data.
  • Context: Routine employment/advance assignment at filing; no consideration of a sale, no third-party transferee.

No other recorded assignments exist. Specifically, there is no security agreement, merger, change of name, license, release, or correction recorded against US 16/223,192 / US 11,402,297 after issuance. Corroborating circumstantial evidence that Sintokogio still holds the asset: the 4th-year maintenance fee was paid 2026-01-29 by a "LARGE ENTITY" owner — an entity maintaining its own patent is ordinarily the record owner.

Family cross-reference (does not alter the US chain): EP 3505774 B1, JP 6819566 B2 (the JP priority JP 2017-250784), and CN 109975147 B all remain in force per the same record. I found no evidence of any transfer of the foreign family members either, but I did not verify those registers directly — treat that as unverified.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11402297
    2017 : JP priority application 2017-250784 filed
    2018 : Inventors execute assignment to Sintokogio Ltd
         : Recorded Reel 047801 Frame 0996
         : US application 16-223-192 filed
    2019 : Pre-grant publication US 2019-0195732 A1
    2022 : Patent US 11402297 B2 issues
    2026 : 4th year maintenance fee paid by Sintokogio

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — under the taxonomy, "only the original assignment" falls here: the chain contains a single recorded link, and the one field that would let me run the correspondent-recurrence test (signal 3) was not retrievable from the sources I could reach.

Justified in 2–3 sentences: the complete ownership record is the inventor→assignee assignment executed 2018-11-27/30 and recorded 2018-12-18 at Reel 047801/0996, with Sintokogio, Ltd. as assignee; there is no subsequent assignment of any conveyance type, which is corroborated by Sintokogio paying the 4th-year maintenance fee on 2026-01-29 as record owner. Because the assignee is an operating, exchange-listed manufacturer whose Special Equipment segment builds servo cylinders (the commercial embodiment of the claimed electric-cylinder subject matter), signals 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are affirmatively not present — this is a clean, uncontested operating-company chain rather than an NPE pipeline. The "Insufficient data" verdict reflects the single-link record and the unretrieved correspondent, not any suspicion of hidden transfers.

Verification links:

• Assignment Center search (by patent number 11402297): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Assignment mirror (indexed): https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Patent record with legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11402297B2/en

Open items a follow-up pass should close: (a) pull the Reel 047801/0996 assignment image in Assignment Center to capture the correspondent attorney/firm — the single most useful field for the recurrence test; (b) confirm via JPX/EDINET that no Sintokogio subsidiary-level reorganization moved the JP 6819566 B2 counterpart; (c) re-check Unified Patents and RPX asserter directories periodically, since the maintenance fee and 2041-06-02 adjusted expiration mean the asset stays assertable for another ~15 years.

I'll research the prior-art references cited on the face of US 11,402,297. Let me run targeted searches on the key examiner-cited references.

Now let me research the remaining cited references and the examination history.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,402,297 B2 ("Wear detection method and wear detection system for linear actuator")

Scope and method. Per your instruction I worked from the citation record appearing on the face of US 11,402,297 B2 (the "Patent Citations (12)" and "Citations (8)" tables on the Google Patents record) and researched each reference. I did not substitute or "correct" any number: every identifier below is reproduced literally from the 11,402,297 record. I hit a tool-call ceiling before finishing two lookups (the full text of JP S51-54400 U and DE 10 2014 225 872 A1, and the EPO search report text). Where I could not retrieve content, I say so rather than guess.

Cross-check with the earlier sections: this builds on the patent summary and litigation summary already generated. Two points carry forward and are not repeated in full: (a) the literal "first/second external force" confusion between claims 1 and 5; and (b) no litigation/PTAB/CAFC record was found. Nothing found in the prior-art search contradicts those earlier sections.

---

1. The complete citation list (as it appears on the 11,402,297 record)

The record lists 12 patent citations and 1 non-patent citation:

On the "cited-by-examiner" flags. The record carries the legend "* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party." The starred (examiner-cited) items are US 3,977,231 A; US 2007/0017300 A1; US 2013/0276516 A1; US 9,128,008 B2; US 2016/0230789 A1; US 2021/0310504 A1; US 2017/0350427 A1. The unstarred items — JPS5154400U, JPH06123044A, JP 2015-209312 A, DE 10 2014 225 872 A1, WO 2016/092150 A1 — are consistent with applicant/IDS citations. That reading is corroborated by the specification's own background section, which names "Patent Documents 1, 2 and 3" as JP S51-54400 U, JP 2015-209312 A and JP H6-123044 A — i.e., the applicant cited its own background-art set. I flag the flag-legend reading as inferred, not certain.

---

2. Reference-by-reference analysis and 35 U.S.C. § 102 assessment

For each reference I give (a) full citation, (b) dates, (c) brief description, (d) the claim(s) it could touch under §102, and (e) my anticipation conclusion. Bedrock point for every §102 conclusion: independent claim 1 and independent claim 5 each require (i) a physical amount detection sensor that detects an external force generated between the mounting member and the tube during push/pull, and (ii) comparison of that force against pre-stored standard external force data to decide normal vs. abnormal. To anticipate, a reference must disclose measuring the mount-to-tube reaction force — not fluid pressure inside the cylinder, and not a materials-testing load cell.

A. The "lateral-load usage" background references (applicant-cited)

A1. JP S51-54400 U

• Citation: Japanese utility model application publication, JPS5154400U; filed 1974-10-23, published 1976-04-26; assignee blank on the record; no title given.
• Description: I could not retrieve the content of this reference (tool budget exhausted before I reached a text source). The specification cites it as "Patent Document 1" in the sentence describing conventional use of linear actuators under a lateral load. On that basis it is background-art for the mode of use (lateral loading of a rod), not for wear detection.
• § 102 claim mapping: none identified. Even taking the applicant's characterization at face value, a reference showing a cylinder used with a lateral load discloses no mount-to-tube force sensor and no standard-force comparison.
• Anticipation? No — on the record's characterization. Content unverified.

A2. JP H6-123044 A

• Citation: JPH06123044A; filed 1992-10-07, published 1994-05-06; Toyota Autom Loom Works Ltd; "Cloth roll holding mechanism in cloth roll exchanger."
• Description: A loom/exchanger mechanism in which a cylinder holds a cloth roll — i.e., a mechanism that imposes lateral loading on a cylinder rod. Cited as "Patent Document 3."
• § 102 claim mapping: none. It does not disclose external-force sensing between a mounting member and a tube, nor wear determination by comparison with stored standard force data.
• Anticipation? No.

A3. JP 2015-209312 A (applicant's own earlier work)

• Citation: JP 2015-209312 A; filed 2014-04-28, published 2015-11-24; Sintokogio, Ltd.; "Positioning method and apparatus."
• Description: A positioning method/apparatus by the same assignee. Cited as "Patent Document 2" for the lateral-load usage context. I did not retrieve full text; on the record it is a positioning reference, not a wear-detection reference.
• § 102 claim mapping: none identified. Same-company art addressing positioning does not disclose the claimed mount-to-tube external-force baseline/compare scheme.
• Anticipation? No.

B. The examiner-cited mechanics/force-measurement references

B1. US 3,977,231 A (NASA) — "Static coefficient test method and apparatus"

• Citation: US 3,977,231 A; filed 1975-06-09; issued 1976-08-31; assignee United States (NASA, per record).
• Description: A bench tribometer that measures the static coefficient of friction between contacting bodies. It applies a calibrated compression-spring normal load, pulls one body via a flexible filament, and measures the filament force with a load cell whose output is plotted on an x-y recorder; the maximum cyclical tension indicates the static-friction force.
• § 102 claim mapping: at most the generic "use of a force-measuring transducer" concept that underlies the preference recited in dependent claims 2 and 6 ("a force sensor is used as the physical amount detection sensor"). It discloses nothing about a linear actuator, a rod/tube/mounting-member geometry, a pressure-receiving object, or comparing a live force to pre-stored standard force data.
• Anticipation? No for any of claims 1–8. It cannot anticipate claims 2/6 because those claims incorporate all limitations of claims 1/5.

B2. US 2007/0017300 A1 (MTS Systems) — "Wear tester"

• Citation: US 2007/0017300 A1; filed 2005-07-22 (priority prov. 60/701,579, 2005-07-22); published 2007-01-25; MTS Systems Corp.; inventors John A. Bushey et al. (international counterpart WO 2007/013972 A3).
• Description: A materials-testing machine for simulating wear/fretting between specimens. It uses a displacement mechanism, an LVDT-type displacement sensor, and load cells 68/70/72 (force sensors) to measure and control axial and normal loads, with a control algorithm generating wear information.
• § 102 claim mapping: again only the abstract notion of using load cells / force sensors to generate wear information. Critically, it produces wear of test specimens in a test rig — it does not detect wear of a linear actuator by measuring a force between an actuator's mounting member and its tube, and it has no "standard external force data" baseline-and-compare step.
• Anticipation? No for claims 1–8. Its only residual relevance is as a § 103-secondary reference for the "force sensor" limitation in claims 2/6.

B3. DE 10 2014 225 872 A1 (Robert Bosch) — "Hydraulic cylinder with a measuring device"

• Citation: DE 10 2014 225 872 A1; filed 2014-12-15; published 2016-06-16; Robert Bosch GmbH.
• Description: I could not retrieve the specification text (search budget exhausted). On its face it discloses a hydraulic cylinder integrated with a measuring device — relevant art for instrumenting a cylinder, but nothing in the record indicates it discloses measuring the mounting-member-to-tube external force and comparing it to stored standard data to determine wear.
• § 102 claim mapping: at most a general "cylinder with a sensor" teaching. Not the claimed combination.
• Anticipation? No on available information — content unverified; flag.

C. The closest art — the "Actuator predictive system" family (Tabor / Bimba)

C1–C4. US 2013/0276516 A1; US 9,128,008 B2; US 2016/0230789 A1; US 2021/0310504 A1

• Citations/dates: US 2013/0276516 A1 (prov. 61/636,431 filed 2012-04-20; appl. filed 2013-03-15; published 2013-10-24); US 9,128,008 B2 (issued 2015-09-08); US 2016/0230789 A1 (published 2016-08-11); US 2021/0310504 A1 (published 2021-10-07, Bimba LLC). Inventor Kent Tabor. EP family member EP 2 839 169 B1 (granted 2020-04-01, Bimba LLC).
• Description: A cylinder condition-prediction system. One or more pressure sensors (20, 25) measure fluid pressure in the cylinder chambers during piston movement; a microprocessor/controller (30) compares the measured pressure-vs-time curve to a known standard/baseline curve that was captured during initial operating cycles and stored, to determine actuator condition and predict seal failure (rod seal, rod-side piston seal, head-side piston seal). The baseline is generated on a "known good" actuator in the particular application.
• This is the most conceptually relevant reference — it is the canonical "baseline-then-compare-to-detect-degradation" actuator-monitoring disclosure, and it even recites that the comparison is against a stored standard and can flag a "replacement actuator or seal." That is the same idea the 11,402,297 claims embody.
• But the sensor locus and parameter differ decisively: Tabor measures internal working-fluid pressure (and, in some constructions, position/vibration/temperature). The 11,402,297 claims require a sensor detecting the external force generated between the mounting member (8) and the tube (4) — i.e., the mechanical reaction at the cylinder mount caused by the lateral load on the rod. Tabor does not disclose a mount-to-tube force sensor, and its comparison is a pressure-curve comparison rather than an external-force-value comparison.
• § 102 claim mapping: claims 1 and 5 (and their dependents) are the only candidates, because Tabor is the only reference that discloses the up-front baseline + later compare architecture. On the literal claim language, however, Tabor is missing the "external force generated between the mounting member and the tube" element and the force-sensor locus.
• Anticipation? No — most likely NOT anticipatory for claims 1 or 5 as written, because a § 102 reference must disclose every limitation and Tabor's sensing is internal pressure, not mount-to-tube force. Its realistic role is as the primary § 103 reference (baseline/compare-to-detect-actuator-degradation, which would be combined with a mount-force-sensing teaching). Note also that the broadest member, US 2021/0310504 A1 (Bimba), is the one I would scrutinize most closely — if any continuation in this family claims comparison of any measured parameter (not just pressure) to a stored standard, its claim scope could come closer; I could not retrieve that continuation's claim text and therefore cannot rule it in or out.

D. The Hydroline monitoring family

D1–D2. WO 2016/092150 A1 and US 2017/0350427 A1

• Citations/dates: WO 2016/092150 A1 (PCT/FI2015/050821, filed 2015-11-25; priority 2014-12-09; published 2016-06-16); US 2017/0350427 A1 (published 2017-12-07; same family). Hydroline Oy; inventors Manu Leinonen, Harri Paltemaa. (The record also lists the family's later US grants, e.g. US 11,428,248 B2 and US 11,486,401 B2 — same title.)
• Description: A monitoring device for determining the "operating health" of a pressure-medium-operated device (hydraulic/pneumatic cylinder, motor, pump, accumulator). It receives measuring data from sensors — pressure sensors (2a), position sensors (2b), and load sensors (2c) such as strain gauges or piezoelectric sensors "allowing measurements of mechanical loadings" — computes an operating-condition value, and compares it to reference data computed by strength/fatigue analysis (including FEA) of a design model.
• § 102 claim mapping: claims 1 and 5 (and dependents) are the only candidates, because Hydroline also performs a "measured value vs. reference" comparison and even contemplates load sensors that could be strain gauges.
• Distinguishing features that defeat literal anticipation: (i) the reference data is computed from design/strength analysis, not the claimed pre-detected "standard external force data" measured with the sensor in a state without abnormalities; (ii) Hydroline's load sensors measure loading of the cylinder structure/piston generally, not specifically the external force between the mounting member (8) and the tube (4); (iii) its disclosed mounting is a monitoring module clamped to the cylinder frame, not a sensor between mount and tube.
• Anticipation? No for claims 1 or 5 as written (missing "pre-detected standard external force" and the mount-to-tube locus). Relevant as a § 103 reference.

---

3. Consolidated § 102 conclusion

Bottom line: On the citation record and the available text, no single cited reference appears to fully anticipate any of claims 1–8 under § 102. The two references that engage claim 1/claim 5's architecture — US 2013/0276516 A1 (and its continuations) and WO 2016/092150 A1 / US 2017/0350427 A1 — each omit at least one essential limitation: Tabor senses internal fluid pressure, not mount-to-tube external force; Hydroline compares to design-derived reference data, not to sensor-measured standard external force data, and its load sensing is not localized to the mounting member/tube interface. US 3,977,231 A and US 2007/0017300 A1 are force/load-measurement references whose only arguable bearing is on the "force sensor" preference recited in claims 2 and 6. The remaining references are background-art for lateral-load usage (the three applicant-cited Japanese documents) or cylinder instrumentation (DE 10 2014 225 872 A1).

This is consistent with the prosecution record, which shows an Ex parte Quayle action (2022-03-14) followed by a Notice of Allowance (2022-05-19) and grant (2022-08-02). An Ex parte Quayle is a formality/clean-up action rather than a prior-art rejection, which is consistent with the claims being found allowable over the cited art. (I infer this from the record's own legal-events table; I did not obtain the underlying Office actions.)

---

4. Caveats and uncertainty flags

1. Two references' texts were not retrieved. I could not pull the full content of JP S51-54400 U and DE 10 2014 225 872 A1, and I did not retrieve the claim text of the Bimba continuation US 2021/0310504 A1 or the EPO Extended Search Report for EP 18 27 5191.7. My "no anticipation" conclusions for those items rest partly on the applicant's own characterization (for the JP references) and on title/abstract-level information, and are therefore provisional.
2. Machine-translation dependence. For the Japanese references, any semantic conclusions rely on translated/record-derived descriptions; a Japanese-language reading could alter the mapping.
3. § 102 vs. § 103. You asked specifically about § 102. Several references (notably the Tabor/Bimba family and the Hydroline family) are far more dangerous as § 103 combinations than as standalone § 102 anticipations, and the mount-force sensor could be argued obvious over a pressure-based actuator-monitoring system in view of a generic mount-force/load-cell teaching. That is outside the § 102 question posed but worth stating.
4. Citation-flag inference. My attribution of which references were examiner-cited vs. applicant-cited is inferred from the record's asterisk/dagger legend and the specification's background citations; it is not verified against the PTO-892.
5. No contradiction with prior sections. Nothing here contradicts the earlier patent summary or litigation summary. The previously flagged literal "first/second external force" reversal between claims 1 and 5 remains as noted and is not resolved by anything in the cited art.

Primary sources used: the US 11,402,297 B2 record (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11402297B2](/patent/US11402297B2)/en); US 2013/0276516 A1 / US 2016/0230789 A1 full text (freepatentsonline.com, patentsencyclopedia.com); US 2007/0017300 A1 PDF (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com); US 3,977,231 A (patents.google.com, justatic); WO 2016/092150 A1 PDF and US 2017/0350427 A1 (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com, patents.justia.com, patentsencyclopedia.com).

I'll ground the prior-art characterizations with targeted searches before building the §103 analysis.

Let me check the remaining cited references and the prosecution/EPO search-report angle.

Obviousness Analysis — US 11,402,297 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Patent: US 11,402,297 B2, "Wear detection method and wear detection system for linear actuator"
Applicant/Assignee: Sintokogio, Ltd. | Priority: 2017-12-27 (JP 2017-250784) | Filed: 2018-12-18 (AIA case → §§ 102(a)(1)/(a)(2), 103)
Inventor-created record: Ex parte Quayle action (2022-03-14) → Notice of Allowance (2022-05-19) → granted 2022-08-02. No substantive § 102/§ 103 rejection appears in the recorded legal events. I flag this as an evidentiary gap, not as evidence of non-obviousness (see § 7).

Scope note: This analysis uses the prior art identified in the "Prior Art"/Citation sections of the patent page (the examiner-cited references, the NPL citation, and the family-cited references), as instructed. Where I quote reference text, the source is the search results reproduced in my tool calls and is hyperlinked. Full-text verification of several Japanese and German references was not possible; those limits are stated in § 8.

---

1. Legal framework applied

Under Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), I ask: (a) scope and content of the prior art; (b) differences between the prior art and the claims; (c) level of ordinary skill; (d) secondary considerations. Where a claim recites a combination of known elements, § 103 is satisfied if there was an apparent reason to combine them — an explicit teaching, or a "known technique ... to improve similar devices in the same way," or a "design incentive ... to solve the problem at hand" (KSR). A claim is not saved merely because the result is claimed in functional or result-oriented terms; and where the claimed subject matter is a numerical/parametric choice within a range of predictable options, that is normally routine optimization (In re Aller; In re Woodruff).

Level of ordinary skill (proposed): a mechanical or controls engineer (B.S. mechanical/electrical engineering or equivalent) with ~2–4 years' experience in industrial fluid-power or electromechanical actuator integration and machine condition monitoring. This is a mature, well-populated art (the patent's own CPC classes F15B19/005, F16H57/01, G01M13/00 are crowded).

---

2. The claims to be analyzed (literal reading of the record)

Claim 1 (method), broken into elements:

Claim 5 (system) is the apparatus counterpart with the same three substantive concepts (sensor detecting the mount-to-tube external force; processing device storing standard data; comparison to determine normal/abnormal), and — as flagged in the previously generated summary — with the "first"/"second" designations reversed relative to claim 1. Reading it literally, claim 5's "first external force" is the live measurement and its "second external force" is the baseline. This reversal does not change the obviousness analysis; it does mean claim 5's scope is, if anything, broader (it does not expressly require the baseline to be "pre-detected" as such).

Dependent claims: 2 (force sensor); 3 (dep. 2) and 4 (dep. 1) — during determination, compare an average of external force data over the immediately preceding plurality of steps with the live value, and find abnormal if outside a preset tolerance range; 6 (force sensor); 7 (dep. 6) and 8 (dep. 5) — actuator is a pneumatic, hydraulic or electric cylinder.

Critical breadth observation. The independent claims contain no numerical threshold, no tolerance, no averaging, and no step-type discrimination (the working example's 90 % threshold and the ±1 % / last-30-cycles test are only in the specification as "one embodiment"/"additional"). The independent claims are therefore directed to the generic paradigm: empirically baseline a sensor output taken at the actuator mount when the machine is healthy, then compare later sensor output to flag degradation. That is exactly the paradigm the prior art of record teaches for cylinder condition monitoring.

---

3. Prior art of record and what each reference contributes

3.1 Kent Tabor / Bimba — "Actuator predictive system"

Cited on the face as US 2013/0276516 A1; granted as US 9,128,008 B2; continuations US 2016/0230789 A1, US 2021/0310504 A1, US 11,879,484 B2 (Bimba LLC). Earliest priority 2012-04-20 (US 61/636,431) — squarely pre-2017-12-27.
Sources: US 2013/0276516 family text (patents-review); US 11,879,484 (justia); EP 2 839 169 register (EP2839169, Bimba LLC).

What it teaches:

• A cylinder condition-monitoring system with sensors (pressure sensors, and alternatively "sound pressure sensors, audio sensors, or other vibration sensors") feeding a microprocessor/controller that stores data and "analyze[s] for faults or control values."
• The empirical baseline comparison paradigm, expressly: "the preferred approach is to measure the performance of a known actuator 15 in the particular application and use that measured data as a baseline. The baseline represents an acceptable motion profile and is compared to the measured profiles by the microprocessor/controller. This comparison is then used to determine fault condition and reporting."
• Condition classification against a new vs. known-damaged actuator comparison, with alarm/replacement indication and cycle counting for "maintenance cycle purposes."
• Its claims (continuation family) are directed to comparing pressure-vs-time curves to a baseline captured "during one or more initial operating cycles" to determine whether seals have degraded.

Contribution to the claims: element 1.2's storage of an empirically pre-detected healthy-state baseline and element 1.3's comparison to determine condition/fault — i.e., the entire control methodology — plus the "prediction before failure" motivation ("the degradation in performance is not detected until an ultimate failure of the cylinder occurs ... it can result in substantial down time or costs").

Gap: Tabor's measured physical quantity is the working-fluid pressure inside the cylinder chambers (and alternatives are acoustic/vibration), not a mechanical force between the mounting member and the tube.

3.2 Hydroline Oy — "Monitoring device and method for determining operating health of pressure medium operated device"

Cited on the face as WO 2016/092150 A1 and US 2017/0350427 A1 (granted US 11,428,248 B2). Published 2016-06-16 — pre-priority.
Sources: WO 2016/092150 A1 (Google Patents); US 2017/0350427 A1 text (justia).

What it teaches:

• A monitoring device for determining operating health of a hydraulic (and expressly also pneumatic) cylinder, comparing "the determined operating condition value" with "input reference data" to determine operating health, then indicating it — including "f) to identify deterioration of a specific component" and "c) to define a preventive maintenance schedule."
• Mechanical-loading sensing at the cylinder body is expressly contemplated: "Mechanical loading of the hydraulic cylinder may also be measured by means of one or more load sensors 2c such as strain gauges, piezoelectric sensors or any other type of sensor allowing measurements of mechanical loadings."
• Sensor mounting on the outer frame of the cylinder: the monitoring device "comprise[s] mounting means 23 for fastening the monitoring device 4 on an outer surface of the frame 17 of the hydraulic cylinder," with "fast coupling means," bands, or split bodies "designed so that mounting to existing hydraulic devices is easy and requires no modifications to their basic construction."
• Reference data is derived from design/strength (FE/fatigue) analysis, and may be verified against experimental test-stand results.
• Explicit stress/wear/fatigue-based degradation model; operating-style recognition; alarms to operator/maintenance.

Contribution: the sensing modality and location missing from Tabor — a loading sensor mounted on the cylinder frame measuring the mechanical loading experienced by the cylinder structure, compared against a reference to determine health. Because the reaction load enters the cylinder through its mount, a strain gauge/load sensor on the frame (or at the mounting interface) measures the mount-to-tube load path. This is the closest teaching to "external force generated between the mounting member and the tube."

Gap: Hydroline's reference data is computed from a design model (not measured on the healthy machine), and it does not expressly claim the mount-to-tube interface as the measurement location.

3.3 Robert Bosch — DE 10 2014 225 872 A1, "Hydraulic cylinder with a measuring device"

Published 2016-06-16 — pre-priority. Source: DE 10 2014 225 872 A1 (PDF).

What it teaches (from the German text):

• Object: to create a hydraulic cylinder in which measurement-value acquisition for an operating state of the cylinder is optimized ([0004]), by placing the sensor at the optimal position during manufacture/assembly ([0007]–[0009]).
• The cylinder housing comprises a cylinder tube, piston rod, cylinder head, cylinder base, a flange, and/or one or more fastening points — in particular a pivot pin (Schwenkzapfen), a mounting fork (Befestigungsgabel) or a spherical bearing (Gelenklager) — and one or more sensors are arranged at/in the tube, rod, head, base, flange, and/or one of the fastening points ([0010]).
• Advantage: accessibility, replaceability, and optimal sensor positioning; the position is chosen "je nach zu erfassendem Messwert" (according to the measured variable to be acquired).

Contribution: the teaching to place the condition-monitoring sensor at the cylinder's mounting/flange region — i.e., the very location at which the mount-to-tube reaction force is available — with an express rationale (optimal position for the measured variable, ease of retrofit).

3.4 Tolomatic — "Actuator diagnostics and prognostics"

Family-cited (and a § 102(a)(2)-eligible reference): WO 2017/048788 A1 (published 2017-03-23), US 2019/0048988 A1, US 10,907,722 B2. Sources: EP 3 349 949 B1 (PDF); US 2019/0048988 text; Tolomatic troubleshooting guide.

What it teaches:

• A monitor for a motor-driven linear actuator (screw shaft/nut, thrust tube) that "perform[s] actuator diagnostics and prognostics by analyzing sensor data to generate system status and health indicators, using sensor data stored in memory," compared against "an operational model of the actuator."
• Sensor suite includes "a load cell configured to determine a torque or force component of the loading, the processor being configured to generate the status indicator based on a time integral of the torque or force component" (claim 23), plus current transducer, encoder, temperature, and vibration sensors.
• Integrating sensor data over time and generating diagnostic/prognostic indicators; "communicating at least one of the diagnostic and prognostic indicators to a user interface or process control device."
• Its own maintenance literature identifies "Excessive side load" and "Loose mounting" as recognized actuator failure modes/symptoms, confirming that lateral loading and mounting integrity are the very failure mechanisms the patent addresses.

Contribution: (i) confirmation that force sensors/load cells are the conventional instrument for quantifying actuator loading; (ii) the data-over-preceding-operation / integrated-sensor-data methodology that underlies claims 3–4; (iii) express coverage of the electric cylinder alternative in claims 7–8; (iv) evidence that side-load-induced degradation and mounting looseness were known, monitored failure modes.

3.5 Other of-record references (supporting/background roles)

---

4. The combinations and the motivation to combine

Combination I (primary, two references) — Tabor (US 9,128,008 B2 / US 2013/0276516 A1) + Hydroline (WO 2016/092150 A1 / US 2017/0350427 A1)

Disclosure mapping:

Motivation to combine (articulated):

1. Same field, same problem, overlapping disclosure. Both are cylinder/fluid-power condition-monitoring systems aimed at detecting degradation before failure and scheduling predictive maintenance. Tabor's stated problem — cylinder "degradation in performance is not detected until an ultimate failure … substantial down time or costs" — is the same problem the '297 patent states in its Background.
2. Tabor supplies the claimed method; Hydroline supplies the claimed sensing point and modality. Tabor's baseline/compare/flag architecture is claimed verbatim in substance (claim 1 elements 1.2–1.3). Hydroline expressly suggests the alternative sensor that makes the claimed quantity observable — a loading sensor on the cylinder's own frame — and expressly contemplates using it for the same purpose ("identify deterioration of a specific component").
3. A POSITA would look to the mounting interface precisely because that is where the reaction load is transmitted. The patent's own explanation of its principle ("looseness arising from wear … loss of force") is a load-path statement: wear at the rod/gland packing/piston/tube reduces the force transmitted into the frame and mount. A POSITA seeking to instrument the cylinder's load path — as Hydroline directs — would place the sensor where that load path enters the machine.
4. Predictable result, no new mechanism. Substituting (or adding) a mechanical-loading sensor for Tabor's pressure sensor, and comparing its healthy-state baseline to later readings, yields nothing more than the expected consequence of both references' stated purposes. Under KSR, "the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results," and a "known technique" (baseline comparison of sensor output) "improve[s] similar devices in the same way."
5. Express teaching in Hydroline that sensors may be retrofitted ("mounting to existing hydraulic devices is easy and requires no modifications to their basic construction") removes any argument that the combination required undue re-engineering of the actuator.

Combination II (three references, for the mount-location element) — Tabor + Hydroline + Bosch DE 10 2014 225 872 A1

If a fact-finder were unpersuaded that Hydroline's frame-mounted load sensor discloses an external force "between the mounting member and the tube," Bosch closes that gap with a direct teaching: the cylinder's measuring device may be arranged at the flange and/or one or more fastening points, in particular a pivot pin, mounting fork or spherical bearing, selected as the position optimal for the variable to be measured. Bosch's stated objective — optimizing sensor placement for detecting an operating state of a hydraulic cylinder — is precisely the placement decision at issue, and its enumerated locations (flange, fastening point, trunnion, clevis) are the mounting interface between the cylinder body and the machine. Motivation: Bosch teaches where to place a condition sensor for optimal measurement of a cylinder operating state; the claimed force is the quantity most directly available at that location. Result: predictable.

Combination III (for claims 3, 4 and 7, 8) — add Tolomatic WO 2017/048788 A1 (and/or MTS US 2007/0017300 A1)

• Claims 3–4 (rolling average of preceding steps + tolerance band). Tolomatic teaches exactly this class of processing: "integrating the sensor data over time," comparing against "an operational model," and generating indicators from "changes in the integrated sensor data." Rolling/moving-average smoothing and tolerance-band alarming are also among the most routine statistical techniques in machine condition monitoring; applying them to the '297 baseline comparison is optimization of a result-effective variable, at most. The patent itself supplies the tolerance only as an example (1 %, last 30 cycles) and offers no criticality, so nothing rebuts the routine-optimization characterization. Hydroline further teaches filtering/classifying measurement data into significance classes and setting predetermined limit values and ranges.
• Claims 7–8 (pneumatic, hydraulic or electric cylinder). The three alternatives are each expressly disclosed: Tabor is a pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder system; Hydroline is expressly a hydraulic cylinder and expressly extensible to pneumatic devices ("the pressure medium operated device being monitored is a pneumatic device, such as a pneumatic cylinder"); Tolomatic is a motor-driven linear (electric) actuator with screw shaft/nut and thrust tube. Selecting among these three known actuator types for a same-purpose condition monitor is routine and, on this record, expressly suggested.
• Claim 2 / 6 (force sensor). Tolomatic's load cell ("determine a torque or force component of the loading") and Hydroline's strain gauges/piezoelectric sensors are force sensors. Using a force sensor to measure an "external force" is the definitional design choice — no inventive weight.

---

5. Element-by-element bottom line

Anticipation (§ 102) — unlikely on this record. No single reference appears to disclose the combination of (i) an empirically pre-detected healthy-state baseline and (ii) a force/loading measurement at the mount-to-tube interface compared against it. Tabor has (i) but senses chamber pressure; Hydroline has the loading sensor and comparison but derives its reference from design/FEA analysis rather than a healthy-state measurement (its test-stand verification and its "short-term testing period in the intended use position" passages come close, but are not the same thing). § 103, not § 102, is the operative ground.

---

6. Anticipated patentee rebuttals and responses

1. "Tabor measures pressure, not force." Response: Tabor is relied on for the methodology (baseline/compare/determine condition), and Hydroline expressly teaches measuring mechanical loading with load sensors on the cylinder frame. The combination, not either reference alone, supplies the claim.
2. "Hydroline's reference data comes from FEA, not from a healthy machine." Response: Tabor supplies the empirical healthy-state baseline limitation ("measure the performance of a known actuator in the particular application and use that measured data as a baseline," captured in initial operating cycles). Motivation to adopt Tabor's empirical baseline in Hydroline's loading-sensor system is the references' shared purpose and the known variability of field installations.
3. "No reference senses the force between the mounting member and the tube." Response: (a) Hydroline's loading sensors are on the cylinder frame, i.e., on the tube, and the monitoring device is fastened to the frame at the mounting region; (b) Bosch expressly directs sensor placement to the flange/fastening points/pivot pin/mounting fork, chosen for optimal measurement of the cylinder's operating state; (c) the claimed "external force between the mounting member and the tube" is simply the reaction load at the mount — the very quantity a mount-region strain gauge measures.
4. "The invention detects wear, whereas the art detects general health." Response: Hydroline expressly claims "identify deterioration of a specific component" and reference data based on fatigue/wear analysis; Tolomatic's side-load and loose-mounting failure modes are wear mechanisms. The claim language ("normal state or abnormal state") is broader than "wear," so the patentee cannot narrow to wear to avoid the art while retaining the claim.
5. "Unexpected result / long-felt need." No such evidence is of record. The specification frames the advance as automating detection of a phenomenon (force loss through looseness) that is mechanically understood; that cuts toward obviousness rather than away from it.

---

7. Prosecution-history note (flagged, not exculpatory)

The recorded legal events show an Ex parte Quayle action (2022-03-14) followed within ~2 months by a Notice of Allowance (2022-05-19). Quayle actions are typically claim-format/objection-driven (here, plausibly the duplication-of-claims issue created by the paired dependent claims 3/4 and 7/8), not art rejections. No § 102 or § 103 rejection is recorded, and the examiner's reasons for allowance are not visible in the material I could obtain. I therefore treat the grant as not probative of non-obviousness. If the file wrapper (USPTO PatentCenter for App. 16/223,192) contains a substantive office action, that reasoning would be the natural starting point for a fuller validity analysis; I could not retrieve it.

Separately, I found no IPR/PGR, no district-court litigation, no ITC action, and no 2026 CAFC appeal involving this patent. That is consistent with the previously generated Litigation Summary, and remains unverified negative evidence (I could not query PACER or the CAFC docket directly). No contradiction to flag between this section and the earlier summaries. Note also the date discrepancy in the task prompt (task says April 26, 2026; session date 2026-09-29) — searches reflect the latter.

---

8. Evidentiary limits of this analysis

• Family common-specification caveat (Tabor). The baseline-comparison passages I quote are reproduced from pages hosting the Tabor/Bimba family text, including later continuations (US 2021/0310504, US 11,879,484). Because US 9,128,008 B2 and US 2013/0276516 A1 are the earliest members of that family, the baseline teaching is almost certainly in the 2013 publication as well — but I did not verify that page-for-page against the 2013 document. Verify against the granted US 9,128,008 B2 specification before relying on it as the primary reference.
• Full texts not retrieved: JP S51-54400 U; JP H6-123044 A; JP 2015-209312 A; US 3,977,231 A; US 2007/0017300 A1. Their roles here are (a) the applicant's own admission of lateral-load usage, and (b) general-art corroboration; my reliance on them is limited accordingly.
• Bosch DE 10 2014 225 872 A1 was read from the German PDF excerpt. A certified English translation should be used for any formal chart.
• Tolomatic WO 2017/048788 A1 / US 10,907,722 was characterized from the EP 3 349 949 B1 specification text and from US 2019/0048988 (same family). Claim-23 language quoted ("load cell … torque or force component") is from the EP family text; the WO/US claim numbering may differ.
• Dates/§ 102 status. All principal references publish or have effective filing dates before 2017-12-27 and appear to qualify under § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2). US 2021/0310504 A1 (Bimba) is itself a later publication and would not be relied on directly; it is cited only as family evidence of the earlier disclosure. Confirm the § 102 category and any § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership issues (notably that JP 2015-209312 A is Sintokogio's own — relevant if it were ever used as art) before finalizing.
• No secondary-considerations record (commercial success, licensing, copying, unexpected results, praise) was located; the analysis assumes none exists.

---

Sources

• https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11402297B2](/patent/US11402297B2)/en (authoritative full text supplied)
• https://patents.justia.com/patent/[11402297](/patent/11402297)
• https://www.patents-review.com/a/20230131734-actuator-predictive-system.html ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/[11879484](/patent/11879484) ; https://patent.public.lu/…/EP2839169 (Bimba/Tabor family)
• https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2016092150A1/en ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/20170350427 ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/[11428248](/patent/11428248) (Hydroline)
• https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ed/d6/1e/10fb7dc0117c48/DE102014225872A1.pdf (Bosch)
• https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/aa/53/76/1e32dc9c03a77e/EP3349949B1.pdf ; https://www.patents-review.com/a/20190048988-actuator-diagnostics-prognostics.html (Tolomatic)
• https://dev.tolomatic.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/2750-4025_06_CSW-CSWX-man.pdf (side-load/loose-mounting failure modes)

If you want, I can produce a formal two-reference claim chart (claim 1 and claim 5, element-by-element, with pinpoint citations and paragraph numbers) once the US 9,128,008 B2 and WO 2017/048788 full texts are confirmed.