US 12739553

I'll search for this specific patent number now.

Initial searches didn't surface the patent. Let me run more targeted queries against patent databases and court dockets.

Bottom line

I could not verify that US patent 12,739,553 exists, and I have no authoritative data for its title, assignee, inventors, dates, abstract, or claims. Every search for the literal string 12739553 / 12,739,553 returned unrelated material, and no patent document bearing that grant number surfaced. I am not going to construct the bibliographic data or claim summaries from inference, because that would be fabrication.

What the searches actually returned for 12739553 / 12,739,553

The only hits using this exact digit string were non-patent or differently-formatted identifiers:

• A GM automotive part number. "Replaced by: 12739553" / "Part Number: 12739553" for a Chevrolet water pump kit (e.g. chevypartsdeal.com, autopartsprime.com). Unrelated to patents.
• A PubMed ID. PMID 12739553 — Marikovsky & Marikovsky, "Clearance of senescent erythrocytes: wheat germ agglutinin distribution on young and old human erythrocytes," Glycoconjugate Journal 19(1):1–4 (2002).
• A Portuguese government gazette entry (files.dre.pt, 2000) and an SEC EDGAR accession for Vinco Ventures, Inc. (2021) — both a bare "12739553" used as an internal record ID.
• A US application serial number. Unified Patents and Google Patents both show Application Number 12739553, i.e. US 12/739,553, in the family of WO 2009/055397 A2, published as US 2011/0028822 A1, granted as US 9,265,435 B2 — "Multi-electrode sensing patch for long-term physiological monitoring with swappable electronics, radio and battery, and methods of use" (inventor Beck, James C.; Hmicro Inc.; priority 2007‑10‑23; application date 2008‑10‑20).

That last item is the most likely source of any apparent match — but note it is a serial number (12/739,553), not a grant number (12,739,553). Per the strict rule, I am treating these as two different identifiers and not auto-correcting one into the other.

Searches that produced nothing relevant

• US patent 12739553 — no US patent document.
• patents.google.com/patent/US12739553 — no Google Patents landing page; results were citation/IDS lists from unrelated JP/EP documents.
• USPTO Patent Public Search 12739553 — no USPTO record.
• CAFC 2026 docket patent 12739553 appeal — no CAFC docket hit. I found no Federal Circuit case, and no 2026 litigation or PTAB activity, tied to this number.

Feasibility note (and an important caveat on dates)

Your prompt states today is April 26, 2026; my system context states September 22, 2026. This matters for a number this high. I have only moderate confidence that US 12,000,000 issued in early June 2024, and if so, a grant number in the 12,739,5xx range would land roughly two years later — i.e., plausibly in mid‑2026, which would be consistent with the later date and inconsistent with the earlier one. I flag this as a low-to-moderate-confidence inference about USPTO numbering pace, not a fact I verified in this session. A very recently issued patent can also be slow to propagate into third-party databases and search indexes.

What I cannot give you, and what would resolve it

I do not have — and will not invent — a title, assignee, inventor list, filing date, issue date, abstract, or any independent-claim text for 12,739,553. Providing "plain-language overviews" of claims I have not read would be pure speculation.

To close this out authoritatively, check, in this order:

1. USPTO Patent Public Search (ppubs.uspto.gov) → Patent Number field, 12739553. Also try Patent Center for the corresponding application.
2. USPTO Official Gazette for the relevant 2026 issue week — it lists grants by number with title and assignee.
3. Google Patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12739553B2/en and the .../US12739553B1/en variant.
4. CAFC: search cafc.uscourts.gov docket/opinion search and PACER for the patent number; also PTAB (ptab.uspto.gov) for any IPR/PGR.

If you can supply the patent's application serial number, publication number (e.g., US 2026/xxxxxxx A1), or its title/assignee, I can re-run the search against those and give you the claim-by-claim analysis you asked for.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 12739553.

Let me run additional targeted searches to confirm whether this is a granted patent number and whether any litigation exists.

Bottom line

I found no litigation — and no granted US patent — corresponding to the number 12739553. Based on the searches I was able to run, I cannot identify a plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, or outcome for US Patent 12,739,553, because no source I located treats 12,739,553 as an issued US patent number at all. I am reporting this as a negative finding, not as a confirmed absence, since I could not query the litigation databases directly (see "Limits of this search" below).

What the searches actually returned for the literal ID "12739553"

Per your instruction, I did not treat results for similar numbers as matches. The literal string 12739553 produced only these non-litigation hits:

Nothing in these results is a patent number, and nothing is a case caption.

Why the number itself is suspicious

Two independent points, which I flag rather than "correct":

1. Series mismatch. 12/739,553 is a 2008‑era application serial number (the 12/xxx,xxx series ran roughly 2008–2011). If someone is reading "12,739,553" off a document, the most likely source is that application serial, which issued as a publication (US 2011/0028822 A1), not as a patent numbered 12,739,553. Note that pre‑AIAA applications routinely issued as patents numbered in the 7,xxx,xxx–8,xxx,xxx range — so no 2008 application can have produced patent 12,739,553.
2. Issuance timing. The 12,000,000th utility patent issued in June 2024. Reaching 12,739,553 would require roughly 700,000+ further grants. Even with USPTO's ~6,000–7,000 grants/week, that places an authentic 12,739,553 in the 2026–2028 window — i.e., it would be a very recent grant, and importantly it would be far too new to have accumulated most litigation. So if the number is authentic, the absence of litigation is unsurprising for a different reason.

I raise this only because the instruction was to interpret IDs literally; if you give me a different/confirming number or a patent title/assignee, I can re‑run.

What my searches did and did not cover

Covered:

• General web queries for "12739553 litigation," "12739553 patent lawsuit," "patent 12739553," "12,739,553 patent," "12739553 district court complaint."
• Unified Patents portal results surfaced in the index (including its patent pages and PTAB analytics references).
• PTAB/PGR petition documents, UPC decisions/orders, and CAFC briefs that the index returned for these queries — none of which involved 12,739,553.

Not covered (I could not reach these directly):

• PACER / CourtListener‑RECAP dockets and complaint full‑text search
• Unified Patents Litigation Portal case list (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) — queryable only via keyword results here
• Docket Navigator, Lex Machina, RPX Insight, Compumark
• USPTO Patent Center / Patent Public Search (direct fetch failed — hence the web‑search fallback)
• CAFC docket (searchable by appeal number, not by patent number)

Recommended verification steps before you rely on this

1. Confirm the number in USPTO Patent Public Search or Patent Center (patent number vs. application number field). If it returns nothing as a patent number, that resolves the question.
2. If it is a real grant, run the patent number in Unified Patents Litigation Portal → search, Docket Navigator, and Lex Machina; then docket‑search the patent number in CourtListener/RECAP and PACER (civil cases, all districts), plus PTAB for IPR/PGR/CBM, and the CAFC docket for any appeal.
3. Cross‑check the Unified Patents "Patents" page for the granted number to see the current assignee — that entity is the only one with standing to sue, which narrows PACER by party name.

Confidence: High that no litigation is publicly indexed under 12739553 in the sources my searches reached. Moderate‑to‑low confidence about the patent's existence as a grant, precisely because I could not query the authoritative registers directly.

If you can supply a title, assignee, or the publication number (e.g., US 20xx/xxxxxxx A1), I will run a focused follow‑up and, if a case exists, populate the full plaintiff / defendant / jurisdiction / case number / filing date / status table.

I'll research this patent and its PTAB proceedings before drafting.

Direct patent lookup needed — the searches returned mostly noise. Let me target the patent number and petitioner.

Let me search for the proceeding number and the inventor directly.

AIA Trial Proceedings — US Patent 12,739,553

Data-integrity note up front. I ran targeted searches against the patent number, the proceeding number (PGR2026-00076), the petitioner (Sonova USA Inc.), and the named inventor (Erik Carlson). Direct retrieval of the patent document failed, and no search result returned the claims or specification of US 12,739,553, the PGR2026-00076 petition papers, a Notice of Filing Date Accorded, a docketing notice, or any panel assignment. I therefore cannot state what claims exist, what claims were challenged, what art was asserted, or what statutory grounds were pleaded. Those fields are marked "not verified" below rather than filled with plausible-sounding content. Everything in this memo that is not sourced to the structured proceedings block is expressly flagged as inference.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trials on file: 1. Breakdown by outcome: 1 pending/active (0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials). There is no final written decision on this patent, no settlement, and no Federal Circuit appeal — the sole petition was filed one day ago (2026-09-21), so the Board has not yet set a filing date, received a patent owner preliminary response, or decided institution. The defensive posture this gives a defendant is not "hardened patent" and not "troll with dead claims" — it is "unaltered and untested: the claims are fully in force and no PTAB decision has narrowed anything, so the patent's vulnerability is unknown, and any estoppel you might want to inherit does not yet exist."

A second important correction to the framing in the task: because this is a PGR, the governing estoppel and discretionary provisions are 35 U.S.C. § 325(e) and § 325(d), not § 315(e)(2). § 315(e)(2) is the IPR provision and does not control here. Any estoppel analysis you build off § 315(e)(2) for this patent is citing the wrong statute.

PGR2026-00076 — Sonova USA Inc. et al. v. (Patent Owner not identified in structured data)

• Type: Post-Grant Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 321–329). Grounds available in PGR include § 102 and § 103 and also § 112 and § 101 — this is the single most consequential fact on this page and distinguishes the proceeding from any IPR you might otherwise expect on this patent.
• Filed: 2026-09-21
• Status: Pending (verbatim from structured data). Plain English: petition filed, essentially nothing else has happened. As of today (2026-09-22) the Board has almost certainly not yet issued the Notice of Filing Date Accorded (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a)), and no patent owner preliminary response is due yet.
• Judge panel: Not public / not verified. No institution decision exists, so no panel has been assigned. PTAB panels are typically assigned only upon, or shortly before, an institution decision.
• Petition grounds: Not verified. The petition documents were not retrievable through my search tooling. I will not guess at claims or references.
• Institution decision: None — no decision, no date, no reasoning. Do not treat the mere existence of this docket entry as a merits signal.
• Final Written Decision: None. No claim of US 12,739,553 has been canceled, confirmed, or even adjudicated by the Board.
• Settlement / termination: None. No termination, no settlement, no adverse judgment.
• Appeal: None. No FWD, therefore no appeal to the Federal Circuit, no CAFC docket number, no CourtListener entry.
• Defensive value: Near zero today, non-zero later. Nothing about this proceeding currently helps a current defendant — the patent stands exactly as issued. Its value is informational and timing-based: an entity (or group) large enough to retain Sonova-adjacent petitioners has already moved against this patent eight days into... [corrected: within days of the filing] — and specifically chose the PGR track. If that PGR is later instituted, 35 U.S.C. § 311(c) conditions IPR availability on the termination of the instituted PGR, so a parallel IPR on the same patent is not a workaround for anyone. If the PGR is denied institution, the patent walks away fully intact with no § 325(e) estoppel created at all.

Strategic summary

Claim status: 100% UNTESTED. No claim of US 12,739,553 is canceled; none is sustained; none has been construed by the Board. I could not retrieve the claim set, so I cannot even give you the claim count or identify the independent claims. Any statement that "claims 1–5 have been canceled" or that "the patent has survived two IPRs" would be fabricated, and I am not making it. The only proceeding on file is PGR2026-00076, filed 2026-09-21 and still pending.

Estoppel landscape: empty, for now, and the wrong statute is in play in most boilerplate. Because the only proceeding is a PGR, the petitioner estoppel that will attach (if a final written decision issues) is § 325(e)(1) (bar on requesting or maintaining an Office proceeding on any ground raised or reasonably could have been raised) and § 325(e)(2) (bar on asserting invalidity on such grounds in a civil action or ITC investigation). Crucially, estoppel runs against the petitioner and its real parties in interest and privies — not against you. No estoppel has attached to anyone yet, so a defendant today retains the complete universe of prior-art grounds, in the district court and in any IPR it files itself. Note also that a PGR petition must identify all real parties in interest (§ 322(a)(2)); the structured data lists the petitioner as "Sonova USA Inc. et al.," which signals multiple named petitioners or co-defendants. That "et al." matters twice over: it defines the scope of who will be estopped, and RPI identity has been a live and litigated issue in 2026 PGR practice (see the RPI fight referenced in Sun Pharm., PGR2026-00021, Paper 12).

Pattern signals — thin, and I will not over-read them. I found no evidence of multiple IPRs by this petitioner on this patent, no evidence of PTAB appellate activity by the patent owner, and no evidence of a defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) anywhere in the chain for this patent. I also found no verified litigation, ITC, or district court tie for US 12,739,553. Two leads surfaced that I could not confirm and that you should not act on without independent checking: (1) Sonova is a hearing-instrument manufacturer (Sonova AG / Sonova USA), which makes it an unusual petitioner against a patent whose named inventor is Erik Carlson, and suggests either a competitor dispute or a real-party arrangement; (2) ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1470 (Bose Corp., open-ear earpiece devices) asserts a cluster of recently issued patents — 11,140,469; 11,659,313; 11,997,442; 12,356,132; 12,155,984; D1,051,103 — but 12,739,553 is not among them, so do not assume a Bose connection on this record.

Two identifier traps worth knowing. First, a search hit returned "US 2011/0028822 A1 … Application Number: 12739553 … Beck James C … Hmicro Inc." That is application serial 12/739,553, a 2008/2010-era application — a different document entirely from patent 12,739,553, and with different inventors than "Erik Carlson et al." Do not conflate them. Second, because PGR is available only for claims with an effective filing date on or after 2013-03-16 (AIA first-inventor-to-file), the fact that a PGR was filed is itself an inference that the petitioner believes the challenged claims carry an FITF effective filing date. And because a PGR must be filed within 9 months of grant under § 321(c), a filing on 2026-09-21 implies a grant date no earlier than 2025-12-21 — i.e., this is a very recent patent. Both points are inferences from the statute, not verified facts about this patent.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not settle or abandon invalidity positions on the theory that a PTAB outcome is imminent. The trial clock has not started. Assuming a normal PGR timeline: Notice of Filing Date Accorded ≈ 2026-10/11; patent owner preliminary response due 3 months after that notice (§ 323(a)); institution decision due 3 months after the POPR due date (§ 324(c)) — realistically ~2027-03/04. If instituted, FWD is due within 1 year of institution (§ 326(a)(11)), extendable up to 6 months for good cause — realistically ~2028-03/04. Track these dates on PTAB E2E: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/#/basePage/advancedSearch
2. Pull the actual petition papers yourself before relying on anything. The claims, grounds, and asserted art for PGR2026-00076 are the missing core of this analysis. Get Exhibit 1001 (the patent) and the petition from PTAB E2E, and confirm (a) whether § 112 and/or § 101 grounds were pleaded — if so, the challenge is materially broader than any IPR and correspondingly more dangerous to the patent owner; and (b) which claims are challenged, which I could not determine.
3. Decide your § 311(c) sequencing deliberately. Once a PGR is instituted, IPR availability on this patent is conditioned on PGR termination. If you are considering your own IPR, filing before institution is materially different from filing after. Calendar the institution deadline rather than the filing date.
4. Watch the § 325(d)/§ 315(e) interplay for your own filing. If you file your own IPR or PGR on this patent, expect the Board to weigh whether your art is the same or substantially the same as what was previously presented in PGR2026-00076 (§ 325(d). That cuts in your favor only if you bring genuinely different art — which, given that no FWD has issued and no estoppel has attached, is still fully available to you today.
5. Check RPIs and privies on the petitioner side. "Sonova USA Inc. et al." needs to be resolved to a complete RPI list. If you are a co-defendant or in a joint-defense group with any named petitioner, you may be a privy — which means you could be bound by a § 325(e) estoppel you did not bargain for, or conversely could be barred from running your own challenge.
6. Add a discretionary-denial overlay. This petition was filed after the USPTO's 2026-03-11 change to institution practice, which added Director-discretionary factors including domestic manufacturing of the accused product, domestic manufacturing by the patent owner's competing products, and whether the petitioner is a small business being sued. See JETRO's summary of that change: https://www.jetro.go.jp/world/ipnews/us/2026/8bf6275af3560150.html. Expect the patent owner to press these factors in its preliminary response.

Bottom line for a defendant today: the patent is fully alive, no claim has been canceled or even construed, no estoppel exists, and the entire prior-art universe remains available to you. The correct posture is to preserve and develop your own invalidity case, monitor PGR2026-00076's institution decision (due roughly early 2027), and treat the mere pendency of that petition as a timing datum — not as a defense.

What I could not verify and did not invent: the claims and specification of US 12,739,553; the identity of the patent owner; the petition's challenged claims, art, and statutory grounds; any panel assignment; any institution decision; any FWD; any settlement; any CAFC appeal. If you can supply the patent's claim text or the PGR2026-00076 petition PDF, I can complete the claim-level outcome and estoppel analysis properly.

I'll start by researching US patent 12739553 across multiple sources.

The first searches surfaced an application number 12/739,553 (HMicro Inc.) — that is a different identifier from patent number 12,739,553. I need to resolve the actual patent. Let me search directly.

Ownership Analysis — US Patent 12,739,553

⚠️ Critical finding first: identifier collision, and no retrievable record

Direct retrieval of this patent failed, and I was unable to confirm the existence, claims, specification, or ownership of US Patent 12,739,553 from any accessible source. I must state that plainly rather than construct a chain.

The searches surfaced a serious identifier trap that anyone reconstructing this record needs to know about before they touch the Assignment Center:

That last result is application number 12/739,553, not patent number 12,739,553. It resolves to:

• Publication: US 2011/0028822 A1 — "Multi-electrode Sensing Patch for Long-term Physiological Monitoring with Swappable Electronics, Radio and Battery, and Methods of Use"
• Application No.: 12/739,553 · Filed: 2008-10-20 · Priority: 2007-10-23 · Granted: 2011-02-02
• Inventor: Beck, James C. · Parent company: Hmicro Inc. (Unified Patents portal lists "Original Assignee: Individual")
• Source: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-20110028822-A1

This is a slash-vs-comma collision. The 12/xxx,xxx application series ran roughly 2005–2008 (consistent with the 2008-10-20 filing date above), whereas the 12,xxx,xxx patent series only opened when US 12,000,000 issued in June 2024. USPTO search interfaces and third-party aggregators frequently normalize one to the other. Every 12/739,553 datum above belongs to HMicro's sensing patch and must not be attributed to patent 12,739,553.

I am explicitly not carrying forward any investigator, assignee, or assignment data from that record into the sections below.

Inventors

Insufficient data. I could not retrieve the front page of US 12,739,553, so I cannot name any inventor, and I therefore cannot determine their employers at filing or test the "all inventors departed within 12 months" pattern. No inventor list is asserted here.

Original assignee

Insufficient data. The assignee named on the face of the issued patent is unknown to me. Because I cannot confirm the assignee, I cannot assess product embodiment, line of business, or current status (operating / acquired / dissolved / bankruptcy). Note only that if this patent issued in the 12-million series it is very recent — the numbering implies an issue date in roughly the 2024–2026 window — so a sparse post-issuance record would be the expected baseline, not an anomaly.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Patent Assignment Search returned no records that I could retrieve or verify for this patent. Stated plainly: I have no reel/frame entries, conveyance types, assignors, assignees, execution dates, recording dates, or correspondents of record for US 12,739,553.

Per the constraint you set, I am not inventing entries to fill the template. Notably, I could not even capture a correspondent — which is the one field you correctly identify as the highest-value tell for anonymous assignee LLCs. Without at least one reel/frame, there is no correspondent string to run against a repeat-player list, so signal 3 below cannot be evaluated at all.

Two distinct possibilities must be separated before proceeding:

1. The patent exists and simply has no post-issuance assignments (original assignee still owns it) — a genuine, reportable finding, and common for recent issues.
2. The identifier is being normalized to application 12/739,553 (HMicro) by whichever system is queried — in which case any "assignment record" returned would be wrong, and pulling it would corrupt the chain.

I could not distinguish these two cases with the tools available.

Timeline diagram

No chain can be rendered — there are no verified events to place on it.

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12739553
    Undetermined : No assignment records retrieved

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Every signal is unclear — not because the evidence is ambiguous, but because there is no evidence in hand to weigh. Marking any of these "present" from a naming hunch would violate your own constraint.

Verdict

Insufficient data.

There are no recorded assignments retrievable for US 12,739,553, and I could not even confirm the patent's bibliographic data, so no chain can be reconstructed and no signal scored. The only substantive, evidenced finding in this exercise is a negative one worth carrying forward: the identifier 12,739,553 collides with application 12/739,553 (HMicro Inc., US 2011/0028822 A1), which is indexed under the same digit string by the Unified Patents portal and is likely to be returned by normalized USPTO searches. Any assignment record that appears to match this identifier should be checked against the slash-form application number before it is entered into the chain.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center (search by patent number): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• USPTO Patent Assignment Search (legacy index): https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents (URL unconfirmed to resolve — direct retrieval failed): https://patents.google.com/patent/[US12739553B2](/patent/US12739553B2)/en
• The collision source: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-20110028822-A1

To close this out, I would need: (a) a direct, successful fetch of the US 12,739,553 front page to confirm the patent number, title, inventors, and assignee; (b) an Assignment Center query keyed on the exact patent number to capture reel/frame, conveyance, and correspondent fields; and (c) a Google Patents legal-events pull to cross-check against (b). Until (a) confirms the patent exists as numbered, (b) risks returning the HMicro application instead, and I would treat any such result as unverified.

I'll search for US patent 12,739,553 and its cited prior art references.

Let me search more specifically for this patent number.

Neither search returned the granted patent. Let me try several more targeted approaches, including checking where the number falls in the grant sequence and trying USPTO/Google Patents directly.

Bottom line first

I could not retrieve US Patent 12,739,553. A direct fetch of the patent failed, and four rounds of web searching (USPTO-oriented, Google Patents-oriented, and quoted-number queries) returned no granted patent bearing that number in any indexed source I could reach. Because of that, I cannot give you a verified front-page citation list for it, and I will not invent one. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 analysis requires the actual claim language plus the actual cited references; I have neither for this number.

Below is (a) what the searches did return for the literal string 12739553, (b) why that may or may not be what you want, and (c) how to resolve it.

1. The only literal database match for the identifier 12739553

The one document that actually carries the identifier 12739553 is not a granted patent number — it is a U.S. application serial number.

Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0028822 A1

• Title: "Multi-electrode Sensing Patch for Long-term Physiological Monitoring with Swappable Electronics, Radio and Battery, and Methods of Use"
• Application No.: 12/739,553
• Publication date: 2011-02-02
• Application (U.S. filing) date: 2008-10-20
• Earliest priority date: 2007-10-23
• Inventors: Beck, James C., et al.
• Original assignee: Individual; current assignee: Hmicro Inc.
• Representative claim/abstract: an electrode device having an interface with at least one magnetic contact that aligns and positions an electronic member relative to the interface, the interface remaining affixed to a patient while the electronic member is removed/inserted; plus methods and kits.
• Source: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-20110028822-A1

Note the arithmetic: the serial number 12/739,553 falls in the 12/xxx,xxx series that the USPTO used for applications filed in the 2008–2010 window — consistent with the dates above. It is an eight-digit serial number (formatted 12/739,553), not a granted-patent number.

2. Why the identifier you gave may still be a real grant

The string 12739553 is ambiguous between at least three literal identifiers, and I am deliberately not auto-correcting it:

On the grant-number reading: the highest confirmed U.S. grant numbers in my search results were in the 12,24x,xxx–12,60x,xxx range (e.g., US 12,245,859 B2, US 12,605,516 B2, US 12,295,091 B2 — all seen in citation tables), and US 12,000,000 issued roughly mid-2025 (I flag this as moderate-confidence recollection, not verified here). The USPTO issues on the order of 6,000–7,000 utility grants per week, so a grant numbered 12,739,553 would most plausibly have issued in the late-2025 / early-2026 window. That is consistent with a patent that exists but is not yet fully indexed in the sources my search tools reached. It is also possible the number simply does not correspond to an issued patent. I cannot distinguish these two cases with the evidence available.

3. Prior art / § 102 analysis — what I can and cannot provide

For US 12,739,553 (grant-number reading): cannot be provided. I have no access to its claims, its specification, or its front-page "References Cited" (the (56) field). Producing a list of references, dates, and anticipated claims would require fabricating citations, which I will not do. Any such list from me would be worthless as a § 102 opinion.

For US 2011/0028822 A1 (serial-number reading): also not verifiable to the standard you asked for. I located the bibliographic data and abstract, but my searches did not surface that publication's (56) "References Cited" list. So I cannot give you verified full citations, dates, and descriptions of its cited references either. What I can say, at the level of technical field rather than citation: the subject matter is swappable/reusable magnetic-snap physiological electrode patches (ECG/EEG/EMG long-term monitoring), and the relevant prior-art field for a § 102 analysis would be (a) conductive snap-electrode and magnetic-electrode connector art, and (b) reusable-electrode-with-disposable-adhesive-patch art, plus the inventor's own earlier filings (the 2007-10-23 priority provisional). I do not have high confidence in any specific reference numbers, and I will not guess them.

4. Recommended steps to close this out

1. Disambiguate the number. Pull the document's front page and read the field labels literally:
   • (12) United States Patent + (10) Patent No.: US 12,739,553 B2 → it is a grant; then read (21) Appl. No., (22) Filed, (45) Date of Patent, and (56) References Cited.
   • (21) Appl. No.: 12/739,553 → it is the Hmicro/Beck application above.
2. Query authoritative sources directly:
   • USPTO Patent Public Search: https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/
   • USPTO Patent Center (for application 12/739,553 / grant 12,739,553): https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
   • Google Patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12739553B2/en
   • Espacenet: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/ (search US12739553)
3. If it is the grant, note that a U.S. examiner's cited references in field (56) are, by themselves, only evidence that the examiner considered them — they support § 102 anticipation only where a single reference discloses every element of a claim as arranged in the claim. So each candidate must be mapped element-by-element against the issued claims, not merely listed.
4. If it is the Hmicro application, note it is a pre-AIA filing (filed 2008-10-20, before 2013-03-16), so § 102(a)/(b)/(e) and § 103(a) govern, and the inventor's own 2007-10-23 priority document is relevant art only under the limited circumstances of pre-AIA § 102(a)/(e).

5. Explicit statement of uncertainty

• I do not know whether US Patent 12,739,553 exists, what it claims, or what it cites. High confidence: not retrievable with my tools today.
• I do know that 12739553 literally resolves to U.S. Application Serial No. 12/739,553 → US 2011/0028822 A1 (Hmicro Inc. / James C. Beck, et al.), as sourced at the Unified Patents URL above.
• I do not know that publication's verified prior-art citation list, so I have not produced one.

If you can paste the patent's front page, the (56) references, or the issued claims (or confirm which of the two identifiers you mean), I will produce the requested per-reference table with full citations, dates, descriptions, and the specific claims each reference potentially anticipates under § 102.

I'll start by retrieving the actual patent text and claims before analyzing.

Let me search more specifically for the granted patent number and for the prior-art context.

Bottom line up front

I could not retrieve a patent numbered US 12,739,553. Direct fetch of the patent failed, and all web searches I ran for that literal number returned either (a) unrelated documents, or (b) a hit for the application number 12/739,553. Because I will not fabricate claim language or prior-art mappings, the request as posed cannot be completed as a verified, claim-by-claim § 103 analysis. Below I set out exactly what I found, the identifier ambiguity you should resolve first, and then the § 103 framework and conditional combination analysis that would apply once the correct document is identified and the "Prior Art section" is actually supplied.

1. What the retrieval attempt actually produced

a) No confirmed grant document for "12,739,553"

Searches for "US 12,739,553", patent 12,739,553, and "12739553" patent google patents produced no hit to a granted US patent bearing that number. Note that US Patent 12,000,000 issued in mid-2024; at recent issuance rates, grant number 12,739,553 would land in roughly the mid-to-late 2026 window. That is consistent with a very recent grant that may simply not be indexed in the sources I can reach — so absence of evidence here is not evidence the number is wrong.

b) The number does exist as an application number

The strongest literal match is an application, not a patent:

• US Application No. 12/739,553 — "Multi-electrode Sensing Patch for Long-term Physiological Monitoring with Swappable Electronics, Radio and Battery, and Methods of Use," inventor Beck, James C., priority date 2007-10-23, application date 2008-10-20, assignee Hmicro Inc. (source: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-20110028822-A1)
• That application is the US national-phase entry of PCT/US2008/080659 (WO 2009055397 A2) and, per the family listing at https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2009055397A2/en, issued as US 9,265,435 B2 ("US 12/739,553 patent/US9265435B2").

Per your strict rule, I am not auto-correcting 12,739,553 into 9,265,435; I am reporting the discrepancy so you can adjudicate it. These are two different documents, and the § 103 analysis differs completely between them.

c) There was no "Prior Art section" in my input

Your instruction says "Use the results from the Prior Art section of this page." No page content, no reference list, and no claim set was included in the material provided to me. I therefore have no prior-art citations to work from. The only prior-art lists that surfaced in retrieval were incidental:

• EP 2 668 926 A1 ([PRIOR ART DOCUMENTS] at https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2668926A1/en), which lists US 6,352,561; US 6,613,072; JP S60-77764; JP S63-31668; JP 2005-124959; JP 2000-279530; JP 2005-307408; JP 2008-75228; WO 2003/106518; WO 2004/108146; and JP 2007-222477. (Examiner/agency citations; their inclusion is not an admission that they teach any particular claim element.)
• The citation and "cited by" lists on the WO 2009055397 A2 page.

Nothing in my retrieval establishes which of these, if any, is on the face of the target patent or in its prosecution history.

2. The identifier problem you must resolve before any § 103 opinion is meaningful

There are three mutually exclusive readings, and they point at different technical fields:

The third row is worth flagging because it is the only result set that came back repeatedly for the literal query, and its claim language surfaced verbatim in results:

"A stent graft comprising a stent graft fabric that has microfiber bundles consisting essentially of microfilaments having a filament linear density of 0.5 dtex or less, and said microfiber bundles having a total linear density of 10 to 60 dtex/120 to 3000 filaments, for the warp and/or weft, and in which the porosity of the microfiber bundles is 30% to 95%, wherein said stent graft has said stent graft fabric being located in at least 1 cm range from the central end."

That is EP 2668926 A1 claim language, not necessarily the target patent's, and I am not treating it as the claim set of US 12,739,553.

To proceed I need: (i) the correct patent number or a Google Patents / USPTO URL that resolves, (ii) the full issued claim set including independent and dependent claims, and (iii) the actual prior-art list from the page you referenced (or the "References Cited" / IDS / office-action citations).

3. The § 103 framework I will apply (ready to execute on the real claims)

Once the claim set is in hand, the analysis proceeds in the standard order and I will populate each step with citations to the actual references.

Step 1 — Level of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). For a textile-bearing medical-device patent, typically a person with an advanced degree in textile engineering, polymer fiber science, or biomedical engineering (or a bachelor's plus several years of endovascular-device development experience), familiar with melt-spinning, denier/dtex control, weaving/knitting porosity, and stent-graft deployment mechanics.

Step 2 — Claim construction of the disputed terms. The numeric limitations are where § 103 lives or dies: "filament linear density of 0.5 dtex or less," "10 to 60 dtex/120 to 3000 filaments," "porosity of 30% to 95%," "at least 1 cm range from the central end." Each needs a construction (measurement method, whether "consisting essentially of" excludes additional filament types, whether porosity is of the bundle or the fabric).

Step 3 — Graham v. John Deere factors, including differences between each claim and the prior art, and secondary considerations.

Step 4 — Motivation to combine under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), drawing on the recognized rationales (MPEP § 2143): (A) combining prior-art elements by known methods to yield predictable results; (B) simple substitution of one known element for another; (C) use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way; (D) applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement; (E) "obvious to try" — choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) known work in one field prompting variations for use in another field based on design incentives or market forces; (G) teachings, suggestions, or motivations in the prior art itself.

Step 5 — Rebuttal evidence. Teaching away, criticality of the numerical ranges, unexpected results, long-felt but unresolved need, failure of others, commercial success with nexus. For range limitations, expect In re Aller / In re Boesch reasoning: a disclosed range overlapping or near the claimed range is prima facie obvious absent a showing of criticality (e.g., a sharp change in properties at the boundary). For "consisting essentially of" limitations, expect an argument over whether the reference's additional components materially affect the basic and novel characteristics.

4. Conditional combination analysis depending on which document is correct

Scenario A — the target is the stent-graft / microfiber family (EP 2 668 926 A1 and its US counterpart)

If the claims do read on microfiber-bundle stent-graft fabric, the likely grounds, using only the reference list that actually surfaced, are:

1. Primary reference disclosing microfiber bundles of ≤0.5 dtex filaments at warp and/or weft, optionally with a bundle porosity in the 30–95% band, in a woven tubular graft — combined with a secondary reference disclosing the placement limitation (fabric located within at least the 1 cm end region / landing zone).
   • Motivation: the two references address the same two failure modes the specification itself identifies — endoleakage from loose, sail-like fabric at the landing zone and migration from inadequate fixation — and the art already characterizes the landing zone as the critical region ([0003]–[0007] of EP 2668926A1). Combining a fiber morphology that increases surface area/cytophilicity with placement at the landing zone is (C)+(D) reasoning: known technique applied to the known region requiring improvement, predictable result.
2. Material-selection claims (polyester / polyamide / polyolefin / PTFE) — these are, standing alone, a classic known-element substitution ground (rationale B). The real battle will be over whether the recited material achieves an unexpected result, and that requires data.
3. Numeric-range claims — obvious over a reference disclosing a range overlapping or adjacent to the claimed 0.5 dtex / 10–60 dtex / 120–3000 filaments / 30–95% porosity windows, In re Aller.
4. The sail/endoleak references (US 6,352,561; US 6,613,072) — cited in the EP specification precisely for the problem the invention solves. They supply the problem-recognition half of the motivation; a microfiber/textile reference supplies the solution half.
5. Counter-argument to expect: if any reference teaches away from very fine filaments (e.g., warning that low denier reduces burst strength or increases permeability), that is the best non-obviousness position and must be addressed head-on.

Scenario B — the target is US 12,739,553 (whatever its subject matter)

The same five-step framework applies, but I cannot name a single reference or map a single limitation without the claim text. Any combination I named now would be invented.

Scenario C — the number is being used for application 12/739,553 / US 9,265,435 B2 (Hmicro multi-electrode patch)

If, contrary to the literal reading, the subject is the magnetic-contact electrode patch, the obviousness analysis turns on the cited art on the WO 2009055397 A2 page — US 4,067,342; US 4,653,503; US 5,372,125; and WO 2005094674 A1 — i.e., whether magnetic biomedical-electrode connectors with positive locking and active multiplexed digital electrodes, combined with swappable-electronics teaching, render the alignment/positioning and "remain affixed while the electronic member is removed" limitations obvious. Again, this presupposes a document the number does not literally identify.

5. What I will not do

I will not attribute specific claim limitations, reference passages, or motivations to US 12,739,553, because I could not verify the document exists as a grant or obtain its text. Presenting a confident obviousness chart without the claims would violate the grounding requirement, and any mapping I produced would be fabricated rather than grounded in the record.

6. Requested inputs to complete the analysis

1. The correct patent number or URL for the target document (or confirmation that you intend US 12,739,553 literally, plus a link that resolves).
2. The full issued claim set (all independent and dependent claims).
3. The actual Prior Art section from the page you referenced — the reference list and, ideally, the examiner's identifying citations per claim.
4. The earliest effective filing/priority date, which sets the prior-art cutoff for § 102/§ 103 and determines whether any of the surfaced references even qualify.
5. Any prosecution-history statements or secondary-considerations evidence (declarations, sales/nexus data) so the rebuttal side can be assessed.

With items 1–4 I can produce a claim-by-claim obviousness chart with explicit claim-element→reference mappings, the specific KSR/MPEP rationale invoked per combination, and the strongest anticipated rebuttals.