Invalidity dossier
US 5886630
Alarm and monitoring device for the presumption of bodies in danger in a swimming pool
Current assignee: Individual
Added 9/23/2026, 7:00:06 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US 5,886,630 A
Title: Alarm and monitoring device for the presumption of bodies in danger in a swimming pool
Assignee/Inventor: Individual; inventor Edouard Menoud.
Key dates: Priority date 1994-06-09; application US08/781,946 filed 1996-12-06; granted and published 1999-03-23; anticipated expiration 2016-12-06; legal status listed as "Expired – Fee Related."
Classification: G08B21/08 and G08B21/082 — alarms for ensuring the safety of persons responsive to the presence of persons in a body of water (including by monitoring electrical characteristics of the water).
Purpose: A non-constraining system for monitoring a swimming pool to speed detection of submerged, immobile bodies. It presumes danger and triggers an alert when monitoring is disturbed, since "each few seconds before an alert is given can be decisive." It distinguishes absence of submerged immobile bodies from other bodies, alarming when observed immobility in a critical zone exceeds a threshold.
Plain-language scope (from the supplied excerpt): At least one observing means operates at visible wavelengths, using emitters/receivers to watch volumes adjacent and parallel to the pool bottom. A stationary pattern (e.g., contrasting tiles, chequer or stripes) on lower pool walls is permanently detected; danger is signaled by its temporary but not transcient obstruction. Detection may use multiple light barriers, reflection barriers, projectors, luminous strips, or daylight, with video cameras and image-processing software (Fourier/spectral analysis, background-noise subtraction, histogram classification). Multiple cameras image the pool bottom; digitized images are superimposed into a plan view. A central computer may cycle through cameras (~0.5 s each), alarming if a minimum portion is disturbed for ~20–30 seconds. Alarms may be audible plus visual zone indication; the system may self-disable and signal loss of monitoring. Claims are referenced as comprising the observing means and pattern, but specific claim text is not reproduced in the excerpt.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5886630/en
What the excerpt does not establish: Exact claim wording and count, full specification, all cited prior art beyond the brief mention of U.S. Pat. No. 5,043,705, prosecution history, figure details, or omitted text (the excerpt is explicitly partial).
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:42:22 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 5886630. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.