US 5339741

I'll run targeted searches for this specific patent number across patent databases and litigation dockets.

Let me search for litigation/docket records and the claims text, which was not included in the provided excerpt.

Let me check for the actual claim text and any litigation records specific to this patent.

US Patent 5,339,741 — Summary

Source note: The authoritative text you provided (fetched from Google Patents, 2026-09-24) covers the front matter, abstract, background, summary, and detailed description, but cuts off mid-description and does not include the numbered claims. I therefore cannot give you verbatim claim language. Below I separate verified bibliographic facts from inference, and flag where I lack authoritative information.

Bibliographic data (verified from the provided patent text)

Abstract (verbatim, as provided)

"A system and method for launching projectiles, such as fireworks projectiles, which explode in the air into a pyrotechnic display. The projectile includes a shell constructed from a binding agent and an explosive additive which explodes the shell into small particles. The explosive additive, which may be nitrocellulose, causes the exploded particles to be rapidly burned and consumed to form lightweight, inert flakes that fall harmlessly to the ground. The projectile is aimed and launched by a launcher using a compressed gas to rapidly expel the projectile from a launching tube. Once in the air at a predetermined location in the sky, an electronic fuse inside the projectile operates to detonate the projectile into its intended pyrotechnic display. The fuse is extremely accurate and enables detonation of the projectile at precise altitudes. An electronic control system controls launching and detonation of the projectiles in a precise and repeatable manner."

USPTO / CAFC 2026 docket search

• USPTO: The record shows a single original application (07/817,591), granted 1994-08-23, with assignments to The Walt Disney Company and later Disney Enterprises, Inc. It is expired as of the anticipated 2012-01-07 term end, so it is no longer enforceable and cannot be asserted in new infringement actions.
• CAFC 2026 dockets: My searches returned no evidence of any 2026 (or other) Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docket involving US 5,339,741. The Federal Circuit / patent-litigation results that surfaced concerned unrelated patents (e.g., Taction Technology v. Apple, Orange Electronics v. Autel). Search hits for "5339741" were all citations of this patent as prior art (e.g., German PCT search report WO2012000607 citing "US 5 339 741 A (Craven)"), not litigation.
• Uncertainty: I cannot rule out a 2026 district-court or CAFC filing that is not yet indexed in the sources I can reach, and I do not have direct access to PACER/CAFC docket systems. Treat "no litigation found" as a search result, not a certified clearance. Note also that the patent's expired status makes any 2026 enforcement appeal highly unlikely.

Independent claims — important limitation on my answer

I do not have the claim text for this patent. The provided full text stops mid-description, and my searches did not retrieve the claim set. One indirect data point: a European search report (WO2012000607A1) cites "US 5 339 741 A … Ansprüche 39-43" (claims 39–43), which indicates the patent carries at least 43 claims — a large claim set, likely including apparatus, system, and method claims.

Because I will not fabricate claim language, what follows is a plain-language characterization of the disclosed invention, which is the subject matter the independent claims almost certainly cover. This is inference from the specification and abstract, not a verified reading of the claims:

1. Consumable/combustible fireworks projectile (shell). A projectile whose shell is made from a consumable binding agent (paper or plastic) plus an explosive additive such as nitrocellulose (disclosed range ~0.6–1.3 g/cm³; an exemplary composition of ~40–70% nitrocellulose, 15–40% cellulose, 7–13% cured polyurethane resin, 0.5–1.5% N'-methyl-N,N-diphenylurea, available from Olin Corp. under Product Code DPE04000). The shell fragments on detonation into small particles that burn up before reaching the ground. The inner shell surface may be scored with intersecting grooves or ridges (e.g., ~½ shell thickness, spaced 3/8–1 inch for a nominal 6-inch shell). Shell shapes disclosed: bullet, cylindrical, spherical. The projectile contains a burst charge, a star/flash-and-sound composition, and an electronic fuse with a squib.

2. Compressed-gas launcher. A pressure tank, a launching tube, and a fast-acting valve (disclosed minimum opening time ~12 ms; a Fisher Controls 8-inch butterfly valve, Type 1066, Body 8522) that admits a controlled, predetermined volume/pressure of gas (disclosed 20–150 psi; exit velocities up to ~500 ft/s; altitudes 50–2,000+ ft) to expel the projectile. Various breech embodiments (sliding sleeve, pivoting door/latch, pivoting launch tube, and a multi-projectile indexing breech) and an adjustable-leg aiming apparatus are disclosed.

3. Electronic-fuse/control system. A central controller (with serial interface, timing-signal interface accepting MIDI/SMPTE time codes or tone bursts, keyboard/display, processor), local control units, and an electronic fuse with a counter, delay-time storage, and capacitor energy storage; a launch cord severed at launch to confirm launch, a confirm-before-launch delay-time verification handshake, and a two-step pre-counter/launch safety sequence. Disclosed detonation timing accuracy: within 25 milliseconds.

4. Method claims. Likely directed to the method of launching a projectile using compressed gas and detonating it in the air via a programmed electronic delay, and/or the method of making/using the consumable shell.

To get exact independent claims, you would need the granted claim set from the USPTO Patent Center / Patent Public Search full-text or the printed patent columns (the specification indicates figures and reference numerals 10–130, with claims following the description). I'd recommend retrieving that document directly; I can analyze the verbatim claims if you supply them.

Quick-take significance

The patent is a well-known Disney innovation in the fireworks field: it replaces the black-powder lift charge with compressed gas and replaces the pyrotechnic time fuse with an electronic delay fuse, while using a nitrocellulose-bearing combustible shell to reduce ground-level smoke, corrosive fallout, and unburned shell debris. It is frequently cited as prior art in later pyrotechnics and fireworks patents (e.g., WO2012000607, JP2011043323, RU2258197, US6,912,958) and as an early "green fireworks" reference.

I'll run targeted searches for litigation records on this specific patent number.

Initial searches returned unrelated results. Let me narrow the queries.

Still nothing on point. Let me run a few more specific queries.

Known litigation involving US Patent 5,339,741 (Craven et al.)

Bottom line: I found no litigation — no district court case, no CAFC appeal, no ITC investigation, and no PTAB proceeding — in which US 5,339,741 was asserted or challenged.

Search method and results

Every substantive "5339741" hit returned was the patent being cited as prior art, never as an asserted patent:

• WO2012000607A1 — German-language search report citing "US 5 339 741 A (CRAVEN B THOMAS [US] ET AL) … Ansprüche 39-43" (as prior art).
• JP2011043323A — cites US 5,339,741 as describing reduced-emission fireworks using a compressed-air launcher and electronic delay.
• RU2258197C2 — cites "US-A-5339741" as prior art.
• US 5,739,462 (also Walt Disney Co.) — lists 5,339,741 in its references.
• IEEE "Wireless Remote Controlled Solid-State Fireworks Detonation System" — cites the patent in its reference list.

None of these are litigation; they are citations.

The one adjacent (non-patent) case — not a patent suit

• Case: Fabricio Javier Sanchez Lopez v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.
• Court: Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County, Florida
• Case number: not stated in the document I retrieved (caption filed with blank "CASE NO")
• Filing date: October 31, 2025
• Nature: Personal-injury negligence / strict liability claim arising from fireworks debris at the "Happily Ever After" show (Nov. 24, 2023)
• Relevance to the patent: None legally — it is a tort case, does not assert or mention US 5,339,741, and I include it only because it surfaced in a Disney-plus-fireworks search. Do not treat it as patent litigation.

Why no litigation is expected

The patent is expired – lifetime, with an anticipated expiration of January 7, 2012, per the record you provided. An expired patent cannot support a claim for prospective injunctive relief or ongoing infringement damages, so it could only have been asserted for past damages during its term (1994–2012). It has also been extensively cited as prior art, but no reexamination, IPR, or PGR involving it appears in my results.

Caveats (stated explicitly, per your rule)

• I do not have direct access to PACER, the CAFC docket system, Docket Navigator, or Lexis/Westlaw CourtLink; my searches are of public web/patent sources. Treat "no litigation found" as a search result, not a certified clearance.
• It is possible a case exists that is not well indexed on the open web, but I have no evidence of one, and I will not fabricate case names, numbers, or outcomes.
• The patent number search returned no results for the specific identifier except prior-art citations; I did not substitute similar numbers.

If you need a definitive negative, the authoritative check would be a docket-database search (Docket Navigator / Lexis CourtLink / PACER) on "5,339,741," which I cannot run directly here.

I'll verify the structured data ("no AIA proceedings on file") against public sources before drafting.

No hits so far. Let me run a couple more targeted checks before concluding.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal, canonical source for this analysis) is empty, and my independent searches surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or appeal involving US 5,339,741. There are therefore no claims invalidated, none sustained, none settled, and no institution denials — every claim of the patent is untested at the PTAB. The bottom-line defensive posture is not "the patent is hardened by surviving IPRs" and not "the claims are dead." It is: there is no PTAB record at all, because there was never a practical reason to create one — the patent expired on 2012-01-07, and any petitioner's money was better spent elsewhere. A defendant today should treat the absence of PTAB activity as corroboration that the patent is commercially inert, not as evidence of strength.

Proceedings

No proceedings of record

• Type: N/A — no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition was filed against US 5,339,741.
• Filed: N/A.
• Status: N/A. (The patent's own status is Expired – Lifetime, anticipated expiration 2012-01-07, per the front matter of the patent text.)
• Judge panel: N/A.
• Petition grounds: N/A.
• Institution decision: N/A.
• Final Written Decision: N/A — no claim of this patent has ever been construed, invalidated, or upheld by the Board. This matters for the constraint in this task: because no FWD exists, I cannot and will not attribute any claim-level disposition to a proceeding.
• Settlement / termination: N/A.
• Appeal: N/A. No PTAB decision existed to appeal, so there is no CAFC docket arising from an AIA trial. (This is consistent with the earlier-generated summary, which likewise found no CAFC docket for this patent.)
• Defensive value: The absence of PTAB history means there is no statutory estoppel under § 315(e)(2) binding anyone, and no Board claim construction to borrow. If the patent were ever asserted, a defendant would have a completely clean slate at the PTAB — but see the strategic discussion below on why filing would usually be pointless.

Vehicle availability, for completeness (practitioner framing, not a finding of fact about any filing):

• PGR — unavailable. PGR must be petitioned within nine months of grant (35 U.S.C. § 321(c)); this patent issued 1994-08-23, so that window closed in 1995.
• CBM — unavailable. The transitional CBM program applied only to petitions filed on or before 2020-09-16.
• IPR — the only AIA vehicle that was ever legally available post-1995 (nine months after issuance onward), and it remained available in principle after expiration. No petition was filed.

Strategic summary

Claim status: entirely untested, and largely irrelevant. No claim of US 5,339,741 is canceled, sustained, or construed — the PTAB has never touched it. The earlier section of this analysis flagged an indirect data point that a European search report (WO2012000607A1) cites "Ansprüche 39-43" of this patent, indicating a claim set of at least 43 claims; the provided full text cuts off before the claims, so the exact independent-claim numbering remains unverified. For a defendant, the practical claim-status question is moot in a different way: the patent expired 2012-01-07, so there is no live claim scope to design around and no prospective injunctive exposure.

Estoppel landscape: empty, but so is the opportunity. Because no AIA trial was ever instituted, § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to no one — no petitioner or privy is barred from anything. Conversely, a defendant facing assertion today would not need PTAB relief to win: an expired patent cannot support a forward-looking injunction, and damages are limited to infringement occurring within the six-year lookback of 35 U.S.C. § 286. Measured from the 2012-01-07 expiration, that damages window closed in 2018. In other words, the estoppel question is academic — there is effectively nothing left to assert.

Pattern signals: none. No serial petitioner, no repeat IPR filer, no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) activity, and no patent-owner appeal practice — because there was no proceeding at all. The only recurring pattern in my searches is the patent appearing as prior art cited against later patents (e.g., WO2012000607A1, RU2258197C2, RU2577820C1), which is exactly what you would expect of a famous-but-expired 1994 Disney reference, not of a litigated asset. Note the earlier-generated summary likewise found only prior-art citations, never litigation.

Recommended next steps

1. If a demand letter cites US 5,339,741: the primary response is status, not validity. The patent expired 2012-01-07 (anticipated expiration per the patent record at https://patents.google.com/patent/US5339741/en), so there is no enforceable right today and the § 286 damages window has closed. Ask the sender to identify the pre-2012 accused acts and the specific claim numbers, since no adjudicated claim construction exists to anchor any theory.
2. Do not expect an FWD to cite. There is none. If opposing counsel or a vendor report asserts "IPR202x-xxxxx invalidated claims 1–5 of the '741 patent," that is fabricated — no such proceeding exists in the ODP data or in my searches. Treat any such citation as a red flag.
3. Verify independently before relying on this. Confirm the null result directly at the USPTO AIA trials portal (P‑TACTS, which has replaced PTAB E2E: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and via USPTO Patent Public Search / Patent Center for application 07/817,591. Also check CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/) for any district or Federal Circuit activity; I have no PACER access.
4. No trial-stage milestones to track. Because there are no active proceedings, there is no institution-decision deadline, no oral hearing date, and no statutory one-year FWD due date to calendar.
5. If you nevertheless want a PTAB filing (e.g., to obtain a cancelation for reputational or portfolio reasons, or in response to a revival/continuation theory): IPR is the only AIA vehicle, and expired-patent claims are construed under Phillips. But weigh this against the Board's current discretionary-denial posture — the Office has recently denied institution where a long-expired or long-in-force patent creates settled expectations, and the October 2025 Director-led institution process (Director Squires' 2025-10-16 memorandum) emphasizes exactly those discretionary factors. A petition on a 1994-expired patent is a weak candidate for institution.

Confidence and caveats

• High confidence in the zero-proceedings finding with respect to the ODP-sourced canonical list, which is authoritative for this task.
• Moderate confidence that no AIA petition was filed and later dismissed before the ODP index. Pre-institution dismissals are still recorded on the docket, so the risk of a missed record is low, but I cannot fully exclude an unindexed filing.
• Not searched to conclusion: ex parte reexamination or reissue history. Those are outside the AIA-trial scope of this task and were not systematically checked; no evidence of either surfaced incidentally.
• Do not treat "no PTAB activity" as a certification of clearance, and do not treat it as evidence that the claims are strong. For this patent specifically, the null result is best explained by expiration, not by claim strength.

I'll search for the assignment record data to ground this analysis, then build the required output.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 5,339,741

Data-integrity note up front: The USPTO Assignment Center / Assignments-on-the-Web record for this patent is not mirrored with reel/frame detail in any source I could reach. The Google Patents Legal Events table reproduces the three assignment events (two invention assignments + one change of name) but omits reel/frame and correspondent fields. I therefore report the events and dates I can verify, and mark every reel/frame and correspondent field "not retrieved" rather than inventing it. This is the single most important limitation of this report.

Contradiction flag vs. the prior section: The previously generated summary stated the USPTO record shows "a single original application… with assignments to [The Walt Disney Company](/litigations/by-plaintiff/The%20Walt%20Disney%20Company) and later Disney Enterprises, Inc." That is consistent with what I found, but the prior section did not disclose that the original conveyance is split across two separate recorded assignments (seven inventors on one, Froelich alone on the other). Treat the two-record structure below as the correction.

Contradiction flag #2: The prior section's "Quick-take" characterization of the name change as a "transfer" is imprecise — the 1997-10-14 record is a Change of Name only (no change in beneficial owner), per Google Patents' own conveyance label.

Inventors

Eight named inventors, all filing under The Walt Disney Company and all appearing as assignors on Disney's own recorded assignments — i.e., a standard employee-invention capture, not a curated inventor group assembled for a sale.

Unusual-pattern check — negative. The "all inventors depart within 12 months of filing" red flag (a common precursor to a portfolio fire-sale) is not present. The opposite is documented: inventor Poor was still executing invention assignments in favour of The Walt Disney Company twelve years later. The only structural oddity is administrative — Froelich's assignment was recorded roughly 11 weeks after the other seven (1992-05-22 vs. 1992-03-06), the classic signature-collection lag, not a departure.

Uncertainty: I cannot verify individual job titles or the specific Disney unit (e.g., Walt Disney Imagineering vs. Disney engineering) from the record; employer is inferred from the assignor side of the recorded instruments.

Original assignee

The Walt Disney Company (a Delaware corporation), 500 South Buena Vista Street, Burbank, CA 91521 — stated on the face of the patent as "Walt Disney Co."

• Primary line of business: Diversified media and entertainment (filmed entertainment, television, consumer products, and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, which itself designs and fires the aerial pyrotechnic shows that this patent's disclosure is written around).
• Product embodying the claims? Unverified. The specification is written as an internal show-production system (no commercial "for sale" hardware is described). I have no admissible evidence that the apparatus or the combustible shell was ever sold as a product to third parties; Disney's use case is captive — firing its own park displays. Disney also continued in-house development around it (continuation US 5,526,750, "Fireworks projectile having combustible shell"; and later US 5,739,462, "Method and apparatus for creating pyrotechnic effects," filed 1995-06-27, Walt Disney Company assignee). Do not treat "shipped a product" as established.
• Current status: Operating. Publicly traded (NYSE: DIS). Not acquired, not dissolved, not in bankruptcy. The assignee of record today is Disney Enterprises, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Disney affiliate, via a change of name — the corporate name change took effect 1996-02-09.

Assignment timeline

Three (3) recorded conveyance events exist for US 5,339,741. No security agreements, licenses, releases, or corrections are recorded against it, and there is no post-issuance transfer to any third party. All reel/frame values below are unavailable — see the data-integrity note.

1. 1992-03-06 (date as indexed by Google Patents; executed-vs-recorded not distinguished in that source) — Reel not retrieved

• Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
• Assignor: William G. Adamson; Bruce S. Johnson; Michael H. Peterson; B. Thomas Craven; Kyle W. Poor; John W. Sogge; William G. Wiedefeld (7 of 8 inventors)
• Assignee: The Walt Disney Company, a Delaware corporation
• Correspondent: not retrieved (assignment-branch correspondent of record not exposed in any mirror I could reach)
• Context: Ordinary employee-invention assignment at filing — internal capture, not an acquisition.

2. 1992-05-22 (as indexed) — Reel not retrieved

• Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
• Assignor: Ronald W. Froelich
• Assignee: The Walt Disney Company, a Delaware corporation
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: Clean-up of the eighth inventor's paperwork ~4½ months after the first seven; administrative, not transactional.

Correspondent caveat, explicitly not a finding: I could not retrieve a correspondent of record for this patent. A contemporaneous Disney assignment on an unrelated patent (1995, Assignment 7585/109, "Method and Apparatus for an Amusement Ride Having an Interactive Guided Vehicle") names correspondent Laurence H. Pretty, Pretty & Schroeder, PC, Los Angeles. That is not verified to apply here and should not be reported as the correspondent for 5,339,741.

3. 1996-02-09 (executed) / recorded 1997-10-14 — Reel not retrieved

• Conveyance: Change of Name (see document for details)
• Assignor: The Walt Disney Company
• Assignee: Disney Enterprises, Inc.
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: Internal reorg / change of name only. No change in beneficial ownership. Recording lag: the name change was effective 1996-02-09 but was not recorded against this patent until 1997-10-14 (~20 months). Corroboration for the 1996-02-09 effective date appears in a Disney trademark filing, which recites that "THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, changed its name to DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC., a Delaware corporation, on February 9, 1996 and this name change was recorded with the Assignment Branch of the USPTO, Reel/Frame 1607/0628." Note: 1607/0628 is the reel/frame cited for trademark Reg. No. 1,703,188 — it is not established as the reel/frame for this patent, and I am not so representing it.

4. 2012-01-07 — no assignment. Anticipated term expiry (20 years from the 1992-01-07 filing date). The patent is Expired – Lifetime and unenforceable against new conduct.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 5339741
    1992 : Filed by eight inventors
         : Seven inventors assign to Walt Disney
         : Froelich assigns separately
    1994 : Patent issued
    1996 : Disney name change effective Feb 9
    1997 : Name change recorded to Disney Enterprises
    2012 : Term expires

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Insufficient data — read as a clean-chain, no-NPE call, not as genuine ambiguity.

Justification: the entire recorded chain consists of (a) the two 1992 invention assignments from eight Disney employees to The Walt Disney Company and (b) the 1997-10-14 Change of Name record to Disney Enterprises, Inc. Nothing else is recorded — no third-party buyer, no security interest, no license, no release, and no assertion. Every one of the eight NPE signals is not present on the record, and signal 3 (repeat correspondent) is merely untestable because the correspondent field could not be retrieved. Under the options provided, "Insufficient data" is the literal fit (the chain is, in substance, "only the original assignment"); the practical conclusion is that this patent never left its operating-company owner and shows no NPE or troll pattern. The single caveat is that I could not obtain reel/frame or correspondent values from the Assignment Center record, so a hypothetical unindexed later filing cannot be affirmatively excluded — though the 2012-01-07 expiry makes one economically irrational.

Verify at:

• USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 5339741)
• USPTO Assignments on the Web — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search 5339741)
• Google Patents legal events (the source I could actually reach) — https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5339741A](/patent/US5339741A)/en (Legal Events section)

I'll search for the USPTO record of this patent and its front-page cited references.

Let me try to retrieve the front-page "References Cited" list for this patent.

Let me pull the Justia and FreePatentsOnline records, which list front-page cited references.

Bottom line up front

I could not complete the task as specified, because two inputs the analysis requires are missing, and I will not fabricate them:

1. The front-page "References Cited" list of US 5,339,741 was never retrieved. The authoritative Google Patents text you supplied is table-stripped and ends mid-sentence ("The serial interface 112 accepts data from the central controller 92 and formats the…"). It contains the classification tables and landscape tables but no "Patent Citations" / "References Cited" table, and no claims.
2. The claim set is still unavailable. The patent carries at least 43 claims (the German search report on WO2012000607A1 cites "Ansprüche 39-43" of US 5 339 741 A). Under pre‑AIA §102, anticipation requires one reference disclosing every limitation arranged as in the claim. Without verbatim claims, any "which claim does it anticipate" answer would be invented.

Scope note on the tooling: I do not have direct API access to USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter. What follows is grounded in public mirrors of the USPTO record (Google Patents, Justia, FreePatentsOnline, patentimages PDFs of search reports), all cited by URL. I did confirm the specific record for 5,339,741 (no substitute number).

Date discrepancy (flagged, not resolved): the system header says today is 2026‑09‑30; your task header says April 26, 2026. Nothing in my answer depends on it.

1. Verified record for US 5,339,741 (cross-referenced, not repeated)

Application 07/817,591; filed and priority 1992‑01‑07; issued 1994‑08‑23; [The Walt Disney Company](/litigations/by-plaintiff/The%20Walt%20Disney%20Company) → Disney Enterprises, Inc.; anticipated expiration 2012‑01‑07. Title: Precision fireworks display system having a decreased environmental impact. These match the previously generated sections; I found nothing contradicting them.

One correction to the earlier section: the prior summary listed "earlier divisional 07/097,007 (abandoned)" in the continuation family. I could not verify application 07/097,007 anywhere in my searches; treat that item as unverified and do not rely on it.

2. The one thing I did verify that is directly on point: 5,339,741 as cited prior art

These are documents that cite 5,339,741 as prior art (i.e., "citations of 5,339,741"), with the exact claims the citing examiner mapped it to. This is the closest verifiable evidence of which disclosure clusters of the patent are considered the technically load-bearing ones — useful for anticipating how a §102 analysis of its mirror-image claims would run.

URLs: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/2b/a7/7c/24c56f813ed3a6/WO1999054676A3.pdf and https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/bb/6b/65/705df73041cbce/WO2012000607A1.pdf

What this tells us: independent claim 1 of 5,339,741 is almost certainly a system/apparatus claim broad enough that Figs. 3 (launcher) and 24 (fuse) read on it — consistent with the four disclosure clusters in the earlier section. Claims 39‑43 appear to be a later-ordered claim group (likely method claims, since method claims are conventionally placed last in this era), which is consistent with the earlier section's inference of method claims.

3. Candidate §102 prior art — explicitly labeled as candidates, not confirmed on-face references

Because I could not retrieve 5,339,741's own front-page reference list, I will not present the following as "the citations on 5,339,741." They are the most technically relevant pre‑1991‑01‑07 references I could verify by citation, drawn from the reference lists of two later fireworks-launcher patents — US 5,691,500 (Mancini, "Remotely-actuated fireworks launcher apparatus," filed 1995‑08‑11) and US D429,516 / D541,898 — plus one search-report hit. All predate 5,339,741's filing date by more than one year, so each would be pre‑AIA §102(b) art if it is in fact on the face.

Sources: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/5691500.html; https://patents.justia.com/patent/D541898; https://patents.justia.com/patent/D429516; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/7d/ff/5d/c4056ce72895ac/JP5038478B2.pdf

Why most "related" hits are not §102 art to 5,339,741

This is the most important analytic point, and it is one the raw citation lists obscure:

• US 5,282,455 (Adamson et al.) — filed 1992‑06‑11, issued 1994‑02‑01. It appears next to 5,339,741 in later lists, but it postdates 5,339,741's 1992‑01‑07 filing date. It cannot be §102 prior art to 5,339,741.
• US 5,526,750 / US 5,627,338 / US 5,739,462 (Disney) — same priority date or later; these are family/continuation members, not prior art.
• US 5,429,053 (Walker), US 5,249,528 (Lee) — issued 1995 and 1993 respectively; irrelevant as §102 art to a 1992 filing.
• Every search hit for "5339741" outside the two search reports in §2 was a citation, never an assertion or challenge.

4. What a real §102 analysis still needs

To convert §3 from "candidate clusters" to an actual anticipation mapping, obtain:

1. The printed patent front page (56) "References Cited" block for US 5,339,741 — from USPTO Patent Public Search full-text or PatentCenter, or the OCR'd patent PDF. That is the only authoritative list of "each patent citation for 5339741."
2. The verbatim claim set (claims 1–43+) — required for any element-by-element §102 comparison.
3. For each reference, the relevant passage/column/line cites, so the analysis is limitations-based rather than field-based.

Offer: paste the front-page reference list and the claims, and I will produce the limitation-by-limitation §102 chart (each reference × each independent claim, plus dependent claims), with explicit "discloses / does not disclose" findings.

5. Caveats (stated per your operating rules)

• No verified on-face reference list was obtained. I am not asserting that any §3 item is cited on 5,339,741's face.
• No claim text was obtained, so no statement here is a legal conclusion of anticipation or invalidity; "potentially anticipates" in §3 is scoped to the disclosure cluster, not to claim language.
• I did not substitute similar patent numbers. All bibliographic identifiers are reproduced literally as found (including "US 5 339 741 A," "US 2,532,901," etc.), and I did not auto-correct any of them.
• One prior-section item — abandoned divisional 07/097,007 — remains unverified and should be dropped unless confirmed.
• Search results took precedence over recollection throughout; where the two conflicted (e.g., the existence of any litigation), I reported the search result and labeled the negative as a search result, not a clearance.

I'll pull the cited prior-art references for this patent before building the §103 analysis.

I now have the claim text. Let me characterize the key cited references and get the rest of the claim set.

Obviousness Analysis — US 5,339,741 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Evidence base, and a correction to the earlier sections

Correction to the previously generated "Patent summary": that section stated "I do not have the claim text for this patent… Because I will not fabricate claim language, what follows is a plain-language characterization." I have now located the verbatim claim text for claims 1–21 (EveryPatent mirror of the printed patent: http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat5339741.html), including independent claims 1, 5, and 6. This section therefore supersedes the inference discussion of claim scope in the earlier summary. The earlier inference turned out to be substantially accurate, but it should now be treated as verified only for claims 1–21; the reference to claims 39–43 in the WO2012000607 search report indicates the patent has ≥43 claims, and I did not retrieve claims 22–43 in this session.

Prior-art record used here. The provided page text (fetched 2026-09-24) contains the "Definitions" block = the patent's Background of the Invention, plus the heading "Prior art keywords: projectile, fireworks, shell, air, launcher." It does not include the "References Cited" list. I retrieved that list from the printed patent's mirrors (EveryPatent; the family member US 5,526,750 front page at patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/93/43/c8/c84bd15c8247be/US5526750.pdf). Key entries:

Honest limitation: I have the numbers, dates, inventors and old US class/subclass for these references, but not their full texts. The mappings below are therefore class- and date-based inferences, flagged as such, not verified readings. Paragraph-form citation of title/abstract would require pulling each reference.

Legal frame. Effective filing date 1992-01-07 → pre-AIA § 103(a). Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), factors; KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (predictable combinations; "known technique to improve similar devices in the same way"); MPEP §§ 2141–2144.4. I have no access to the file history, so I cannot report what the examiner actually rejected or whether any § 103 rejection was made and overcome.

1. PHOSITA

A person of ordinary skill would have a bachelor's degree in mechanical/aerospace engineering (or equivalent experience) plus ~3–5 years in either (i) display-pyrotechnics design and shell/mortar systems, or (ii) ordnance/projectile launchers and fuzing. Crucially, the PHOSITA is charged with knowledge of adjacent arts that the patent itself invokes: pneumatic/compressed-gas launchers (line-throwing guns, air mortars, gas guns) and electronic time fuzes (military/ordnance and commercial blasting detonators).

2. What the Background admits (these are powerful § 103 motivators)

The Background is an admission of the state of the art and of the problems solved:

• Chemical delay fuses "are usually non-uniform… a pyrotechnic projectile set to detonate at approximately 600 feet… may detonate anywhere from between 500 feet and 700 feet, roughly a 16 percent deviation."
• Black powder lift "forms a residue having a detrimental environmental impact"; "extremely corrosive agents (e.g., various acids)"; "large quantities of smoke… very distracting to the guests."
• Shells "are not usually completely fragmented… many portions of the shell, some of them quite large, fall back to the ground," creating litter, "a safety hazard," and "a severe fire hazard."
• "There is no existing method of noise reduction for the prior art devices."
• "In spite of the inability to precisely control fireworks displays, no change from the existing system has ever been successful because of the inability to detonate the main burst… by means other than ignition by the initial burst."

An applicant's own characterization of the prior art is usable as evidence of what was known. The first four bullets supply the motivation; the last bullet is the patentee's best rebuttal and is addressed in § 7.

3. Independent claim 1 (reproduced verbatim)

1. A system for creating a fireworks display, comprising: (a) a fireworks projectile… comprising a shell containing an explosive charge, wherein the shell is constructed from a composition that includes an additive such that upon detonation of the charge the shell is exploded along with the charge into small particles that are rapidly burned and consumed; (b) an electronic fuse connected to the explosive charge… for detonating the explosive charge… at a predetermined time period after launch; and (c) a launcher for launching the fireworks projectile into the air, in which a non-explosive launching medium comprising a compressed gas at a controlled pressure is used to propel the fireworks projectile from the launcher into the air.

Claim 1 is a three-element aggregation in which each element performs its own established function and there is no claim-required interaction: (a) terminal effect/frangibility, (b) timing, (c) lift. That structure is highly vulnerable under KSR.

Combination 1 (primary, for claim 1)

Motivation to combine (KSR rationales):

1. Simple substitution of known elements for known elements to obtain predictable results — compressed gas replaces the black-powder lift charge; an electronic time fuze replaces the chemical delay fuze; a consumable/structurally weakened shell replaces the laminated-paper/plastic shell. Each substitution produces only its expected benefit, and the Background expressly identifies each problem (smoke/corrosion, 16% timing deviation, burning debris).
2. Improvement of similar devices in the same way — pneumatic launch (line-throwing guns, air cannons) and field-programmable electronic delay detonators were each mature arts before 1992.
3. Design incentive / market force — Disney's own admission of regulatory burden ("strict statutory shipping requirements for hazardous materials… These factors consequently increase fireworks display expense") supplies a concrete commercial driver to eliminate on-site energetic material.
4. No claim-required functional interaction among (a), (b), (c); the combination is a collocation of predictable results.

Anticipation note: if any single 102(b) reference discloses a compressed-gas fireworks launcher together with an electronic programmable post-launch delay (Conkling's 1990 Scientific American survey is of-record NPL and may describe air-launch proposals), a § 102(b) attack on claim 1 would be available; I cannot verify that from the text I have.

4. Independent claim 5 (the electronic fuse) — the patent's strongest claim

Claim 5 requires the fuse to comprise energy storage means (capacitors), counting means with a precounter sequence after launch and a main counter sequence commencing on expiration of the precounter, and count storage means for the predetermined delay.

• The generic programmable-counter fuse (energy storage + counter + stored count) is squarely in Beuchat 4,116,133 and Miki 4,586,437 (electronic delay detonators) and Ochi 4,825,765.
• The two-stage precounter/main counter is a recognizable safety-integrity expedient: it prevents a zero/short count from firing the shell and isolates the fuse inputs from launch-transient electrical noise — the specification itself states these two purposes (col. describing the "pre-counter sequence… a safety device having two distinct purposes").
• Proposed § 103 rationale: obvious design choice / recognized safety requirement in electrical-detonator art (where a mandatory arming delay before the firing delay is standard, and where RF/ESD/transient immunity is a well-known design constraint).

This is nonetheless the claim a patentee would most credibly defend: a two-stage counter implemented in hardwired logic with the specific precounter-then-main-counter architecture is narrower than the generic counter art. I would rate the prima facie case here as moderate, not strong, absent a reference showing a safety-precounter-plus-firing-counter arrangement.

5. The intermediate and dependent claims

6. What a well-run obviousness challenge would look like

1. Primary reference: a pre-1992 pneumatic/compressed-gas launcher adapted to a pyrotechnic payload (Kaye, Becher, Palmer, Schermuly, Kotikov or Snyder from the record), disclosing controlled-pressure launch.
2. Secondary reference: a programmable electronic time fuze/electronic delay detonator (Beuchat, Miki, Ochi), disclosing counter + energy-storage + stored-count.
3. Tertiary reference: a combustible/consumable and/or structurally weakened shell or case (Osofsky, Maures; plus consumable ammunition-case art), disclosing a shell that fragments into small particles and burns.
4. Background admissions as motivation for each substitution.
5. Optional: Conkling, Scientific American (July 1990), of record, as corroborating the state of pyrotechnic shell design and the recognized desire for cleaner launches.

7. Rebuttal case (secondary considerations), and why I assess it as probably insufficient

• Teaching away / "failure of others": the Background asserts "no change from the existing system has ever been successful because of the inability to detonate the main burst… by means other than ignition by the initial burst." This is the patentee's best argument. It is weakened because (i) the asserted barrier is technical, yet the record itself cites multiple electronic-fuze references that supply the missing means; (ii) a bare statement in the specification is attorney argument, not evidence of a recognized prejudice; and (iii) the field's immobility is at least partly regulatory/commercial.
• Long-felt need: 1992 minus the background's "centuries" of stasis is a very long period — supports nonobviousness if nexus is shown, but the need cuts both ways under KSR (a long-recognized problem with available component solutions is a recipe for combination).
• Commercial success: Disney's adoption and the 2004 press release (https://www.4cleanair.org/wp-content/uploads/Oldmembers/members/committee/criteria/AttahmentA-fireworks.pdf) show success, but nexus is weak — the 2004 "air launch" commercial system postdates issuance by a decade, and Disney's own materials group "seven patents" in the family, so success cannot be apportioned to the claims here.
• Unexpected results: the claim-1 combination yields higher altitude (2,000 ft+ vs. ~600 ft). That is arguably a predictable consequence of not being pressure-limited by a black-powder burst (the spec says exactly this: a thicker shell "can withstand higher launching pressures"). A patentee would need data showing results beyond expectation.
• No on-sale/prosecution-nexus evidence, and no litigation or PTAB record — consistent with the earlier Litigation summary; the patent expired 2012-01-07 and is unenforceable, so there will be no adjudicated answer.

8. Conclusion

• Claim 1: prima facie obvious under pre-AIA § 103(a) over (pneumatic launcher + programmable electronic delay fuze + consumable/structurally weakened shell), with the Background supplying the motivations. This is the claim most likely to fall. Confidence: moderate-high on the legal framework, moderate on any specific three-reference combination, because I have not verified the individual reference disclosures.
• Claims 2–4, 7–21: largely obvious as routine design choices and range/process optimizations, with claims 13–20 supported by the structurally-weakened-casing art in the patent's own class (102/493). Confidence: moderate.
• Claim 5: the best nonobviousness candidate; the precounter/main-counter safety architecture is not clearly shown in the references I identified. Confidence: low-moderate.
• Claims 22–43: not assessed — their text was not available to me.

What would change this answer: (i) the full texts of Osofsky (4,664,035), Beuchat (4,116,133), Miki (4,586,437) and Ochi (4,825,765); (ii) any § 102(b) reference showing an air-launched pyrotechnic with an electronic delay; (iii) the pre-1992 consumable-cartridge-case literature (nitrocellulose-impregnated paper) rather than the narrower munitions citations of record; and (iv) the file history, which would show whether the examiner actually tested these combinations. I have flagged every element of this analysis that rests on inference rather than verified text.