US 7634983

US 7,634,983 B2 — Verification Summary

Verification status: Confirmed against the full Google Patents record for US7634983B2 fetched 2026‑09‑11 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7634983/en). Web searches for a CAFC 2026 docket naming this specific number returned no results; the only 2026 automotive‑aftermarket patent case surfaced (Holley Performance Products Inc. v. Aces Fuel Injection, Inc., 1:26‑cv‑00059, E.D. Tenn., filed 03/06/2026 — https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/litigation/tnedce-[123355](/patent/123355)-holley-performance-products-v-aces-fuel-injection) asserts patents referred to only as the "'515" and "'083" patents, whose quoted claim elements (four bores through a throttle body, opposing fuel component covers) do not match claim 1 of 7,634,983. I therefore cannot state that 7,634,983 has been litigated or appealed. Treat any litigation/CAFC connection as unverified. (Note: the session metadata gives today's date as 2026‑09‑11 while your instruction says 2026‑04‑26; I have not reconciled that discrepancy.)

Abstract (as filed): A fuel delivery system for an internal combustion engine includes induction conduits of effectively equal flow resistance for guiding separate air and fuel streams to each of the cylinders. Each conduit has at its entrance a sleeve venturi for inducing fuel into the air stream and a booster venturi; a fuel injector applies fuel at high pressure to the booster venturi. Flow modifiers may be positioned in the venturi throat and downstream of the venturi for modifying the flow of the stream after fuel has been induced and injected, for further subdividing the fuel vapor to increase combustion effectiveness.

Independent Claims in Plain Language

Claim 1 — V‑bank induction assembly with per‑runner ring injectors.
A manifold assembly for a V‑shaped engine with left and right cylinder banks, comprising: (a) a first set of induction conduits ("runners") mounted over the engine, whose inlet openings sit at the left bank and whose delivery openings feed the right bank; (b) a second set whose inlets sit at the right bank and whose deliveries feed the left bank (a crossover layout); (c) a fuel injector at each conduit; and (d) each injector including an injector ring mounted in the air stream, with a central venturi opening substantially aligned with the conduit, and nozzles that direct fuel from the injector into that central venturi opening and into the air stream. In operation, engine vacuum draws air through both series of runners over the engine and into the cylinders while fuel is injected into those streams.

Claim 9 — Alternating crossover runners with equal rectilinear segments.
An induction assembly for a V‑engine with multiple induction conduits, each having an inlet and a delivery opening to a cylinder; first alternate conduits deliver to the right bank and second alternate conduits deliver to the left bank; a fuel injector communicates with each conduit; each injector has an injector ring with a central venturi opening substantially centrally aligned with its conduit and a nozzle that directs fuel into the air moving through that opening; and all conduits have substantially rectilinear segments of substantially equal length so the air/fuel mixture is delivered at substantially equal rates to every cylinder.

Claim 10 — Per‑cylinder conduits with ring injectors and equal‑length straight runs.
An induction system for a multi‑cylinder engine with one conduit per cylinder, each defining an inlet for an air stream and an outlet mountable to a cylinder; a fuel injector in fluid communication with each conduit, each injector comprising an injection ring aligned with the air stream plus a support stem supporting the ring, the ring having an annular inner venturi surface with fluid openings; and each conduit having a rectilinear segment along at least a major portion of its length downstream of the injector, those rectilinear segments being substantially equal in length. Result: low‑pressure/high‑velocity zones form in the injector rings, fuel is added at the inner venturi surface, and the fuel is subdivided as the mixture travels the rectilinear segments.

Claim 15 — Equal‑resistance runners with a surrounding flow modifier.
An induction system with multiple conduits each directing air to one cylinder; a venturi ring in each conduit for forming the air/fuel stream; a flow modifier surrounding the air/fuel stream for changing its velocity and dividing the fuel droplets; and the conduits being of effectively the same breadth and length (from their booster venturis to their cylinders) so that substantially equal surface resistance is applied to each air/fuel stream.

Claim 16 — Induced + injected fuel with sleeve venturis.
An induction system with one conduit per cylinder (inlet and outlet as above); a venturi sleeve in each conduit to lower the air‑stream pressure and induce fuel flow; a fuel injector per conduit; each injector comprising an injection ring aligned with the air stream and a support stem, with an annular inner venturi surface having fluid openings — such that low‑pressure/high‑velocity zones form in the injectors and fuel is added at the inner venturi surface.

Claim 21 — Method of inducing liquid into an air stream.
A method comprising: drawing an air stream through a venturi throat; increasing the air velocity as it enters the throat; decreasing velocity as it exits; inducing liquid into the air stream as velocity decreases; and moving the air stream about an object in the venturi throat that changes the air stream's velocity.

Dependent‑claim highlights

• 2 / 11–13 / 17–19: flow modifiers in the central venturi opening / on the injector‑ring inner venturi surface — protrusions (semi‑spherical), detents, a ledge/shelf, or a grid/screen.
• 3–5: venturi sleeves at the conduit inlets surrounding the injection rings, with the rings inside the sleeves and the sleeves removably mounted.
• 6: interleaved/cross‑over arrangement (some first‑series runners between second‑series runners).
• 7: first and second fuel supply manifolds, each running along and feeding one series of injectors (fuel crosses to the opposite bank).
• 8: substantially equal inlet‑to‑delivery distances for all conduits.
• 14: venturi sleeve surrounding the injector rings (in the claim 10 family).
• 20: the fluid induction port delivers liquid as droplets and the flow modifier divides them into smaller droplets.
• 22: the throat object is a ledge, an array of protrusions, an array of detents, or a screen.

Analytical Observations (for diligence purposes)

• No earlier priority claim: the 2007‑06‑13 filing is the earliest date, so §102/§103 art through mid‑2007 is relevant.
• Small self‑authored prior‑art family: the specification expressly incorporates U.S. Pat. No. 6,120,007 and cites Grant's own U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,807,512, 5,809,972 and 5,863,470 — these are the closest starting points for the sleeve/ring venturi structure.
• Claim drafting weaknesses worth flagging: (i) claim 5 depends from claim 2 but refers to "said venturi sleeves," which claim 2 never introduces (claim 3 does); (ii) claim 20 depends from claim 15 but recites "the fluid induction port," which claim 15 never introduces; (iii) claim 15 mixes "venturi ring" and "booster venturis" terminology. These antecedent‑basis gaps are the kind of thing that invites §112(b) attack.
• Reference‑numeral inconsistency in the spec: the plenums are numbered 38/39 in the detailed description but 48/49 in one passage — a transcription artifact, not substantive.
• Enforcement posture: the patent lapsed for non‑payment of maintenance fees (effective 2021‑12‑22), so it is no longer enforceable; the current assignee's 2026 activity appears directed at other Holley throttle‑body patents.

Uncertainty statement: The bibliographic data above is drawn from the patent record itself and is authoritative. I found no USPTO or CAFC 2026 docket entry naming US 7,634,983 specifically, and my searches returned empty or only tangentially related results; I cannot confirm any 2026 litigation or appeal involving this patent, and I did not auto‑correct the patent numbers appearing in the 2026 Holley v. Aces Fuel Injection case.

I'll search litigation databases and related sources for US patent 7634983.

Let me dig into litigation-specific databases.

Search Results: Litigation Involving US Patent 7,634,983

Summary: I found no litigation involving US Patent 7,634,983.

I searched for the specific number 7,634,983 (and variants) across general web sources and targeted litigation-oriented queries (Unified Patents portal, docket-oriented phrasing, plaintiff/assignee names, and inventor names). The searches returned zero relevant litigation records for this patent number. The only substantive returns were the patent document itself (Google Patents / Justia) and citation tables — no court cases, complaints, or docket entries.

What I could and could not verify

Important caveats (read before relying on this)

• Absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence. My searches returned no hits, but I did not obtain a confirmed "no cases" result from PACER, Unified Patents, or Docket Navigator directly. A negative from those authoritative databases would be required to state definitively that no litigation exists.
• Low-value/expired patents often see no litigation. Per the patent's own prosecution record, the patent expired for failure to pay maintenance fees effective 2021-12-22 (lapse recorded 2022-01-24), with a "adjusted expiration" listed as 2027-07-21. An expired patent is an unlikely litigation candidate and would not support post-expiration infringement damages.
• Unrecorded or non-public matters. Settlement-only disputes, state-court actions, foreign proceedings, and matters never docketed under the patent number would not appear in these searches.

Useful context from the patent record (for follow-up searches)

The record shows a long chain of ownership that could be relevant if litigation exists but was filed under an assignee name rather than the patent number:

• Inventor: Barry S. Grant
• Original assignee: Individual (Grant)
• Assignments: High Performance Industries, Inc. → Demon Fuel Systems, Inc. → (merger) Holley Performance Products Inc.
• Current assignee of record (as listed): Holley Performance Products Inc.
• Related patents in the same family that are more likely to be asserted and worth checking: US 5,807,512; US 5,809,972; US 5,863,470; US 6,120,007 (all Grant).

If you need a definitive answer, the next best steps are: (1) a direct PACER/RECAP docket search on "7,634,983"; (2) a Docket Navigator or Unified Patents query by patent number; and (3) a search by the assignee names above. I can run additional targeted searches if you'd like, but based on everything I retrieved, there is no known litigation to report for US 7,634,983.

I'll verify the structured data with targeted searches before drafting.

PTAB Activity Report — US 7,634,983 B2

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file. The canonical structured block in this prompt (USPTO Open Data Portal) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings for US 7,634,983, and my web searches surfaced nothing to the contrary — no petitions, no institution decisions, no Final Written Decisions, no settlements, and no Federal Circuit appeals arising from a PTAB trial. The breakdown is therefore: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0. The defensive posture is not "hardened by PTAB review" — it is "never tested." That cuts both ways: there is no favorable estoppel to inherit, but there is also no adverse FWD to work around. Critically, the more powerful fact for a defendant here is not a PTAB outcome but the fee-lapse expiration reflected in the structured data (see below).

Proceeding-by-proceeding

None. There is nothing to report at the proceeding level, and I will not manufacture proceeding numbers to fill the section.

The one thing a defendant actually needs to know: the patent appears expired for fee lapse

This is outside the literal scope of "PTAB proceedings," but it dominates the defensive analysis and I would be doing the client a disservice to bury it.

The structured legal-events timeline shows:

• 2017-06-22 — FPAY, 8-year maintenance fee paid.
• 2021-08-09 — FEPP, "MAINTENANCE FEE REMINDER MAILED."
• 2022-01-24 — LAPS, "PATENT EXPIRED FOR FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES."
• 2022-01-24 — STCH, "PATENT EXPIRED DUE TO NONPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEES UNDER 37 CFR 1.362."
• 2022-02-15 — FP, "Lapsed due to failure to pay maintenance fee," effective date 2021-12-22.

That is the 12-year maintenance fee (application filed 2007-06-13), which was not paid within the 6-month grace period. Note the conflicting entry at the top of the record: a "current" status of "Expired - Fee Related" with an "Adjusted expiration 2027-07-21." Those two data points are inconsistent, and the "2027-07-21" figure looks like a mechanical projection of a 20-year term from filing plus adjustments, not a reinstatement event. I cannot resolve that conflict from this record and I am not going to assert the patent is definitively dead without checking the fee history directly.

Verify before you rely on it: pull the fee/transaction history in USPTO Patent Center for application 11/762,095. Look specifically for (a) a 12-year maintenance fee payment after the lapse, and (b) any petition to reinstate under 37 CFR 1.378 (unintentional or unavoidable delay), which would revive the patent retroactively but with intervening-rights limits under 35 U.S.C. § 41(c)(2). Note also that the ownership chain runs to Holley Performance Products, Inc. (via merger of Demon Fuel Systems, Inc., effective 2014-04-10), so a Holley docket search is the right place to check whether reinstatement was pursued.

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything UNTESTED. All 22 claims of US 7,634,983 — including independent claims 1, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 21 — stand exactly as issued on 2009-12-22. No claim has been canceled, narrowed, or confirmed by the Board. There is no surviving-claim list to hand a defendant beyond the patent's own text, and no claim-construction guidance from any IPR FWD. If a demand letter cites claims 1 or 10 (the core "cross-over runner with injector ring" claims), you cannot answer with a cancellation order the way you could against a patent that lost an IPR.

Estoppel landscape: blank slate. Because no petition was ever filed, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to anyone. A defendant is free to raise any prior-art ground — § 102, § 103, § 112 — in district court or in a fresh IPR, with no "raised or reasonably could have raised" baggage and no privity tracing. The corollary is that there is no petitioner whose work product you can free-ride on either; you would be building the invalidity case from scratch. The cited prior art on the face of the patent is a reasonable starting shelf: US 5,807,512 (Grant), US 5,809,972 (Grant), US 5,863,470 (Grant), US 6,120,007 (Grant), plus the examiner-cited US 5,353,767 (GM), US 4,882, and the Rutschmann US 2007/0137603 A1 reference. The heavy self-citation to Grant's own carburetor family is worth a hard look for § 102(b)/§ 103 overlap, since the patent expressly incorporates US 6,120,007 by reference.

Pattern signals: none. No petitioner filed once, let alone repeatedly. No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, OpenSky, etc.) appears anywhere in the record. The patent owner never had occasion to defend at the PTAB and therefore never had a PTAB loss to appeal to the Federal Circuit — the CAFC docket is empty of anything traceable to this patent. The Cited By list is active and commercially relevant (Holley's own US 10,012,197 and its continuations on "fuel injection throttle body," plus Kohler's venturi-insert work and a recent Edelbrock filing), which shows this is a live design space — but that is downstream patenting activity, not validity litigation.

The absence of any IPR after 19 years of enforceability is itself a signal, and it points in the patent owner's favor rather than the defendant's: this patent does not appear to have been asserted against a well-capitalized defendant in a way that provoked a validity challenge. That is more consistent with a patent that was never a significant litigation asset than one that was tested and survived.

Recommended next steps

1. Pull the fee history first — this controls everything. Before spending a dollar on invalidity contentions, confirm in USPTO Patent Center whether the 12-year maintenance fee was ever paid or the patent reinstated. If the lapse is unreversed, the patent is unenforceable for pre-lapse conduct, and any assertion against you is answerable on that ground alone. If it was reinstated, note the § 41(c)(2) intervening-rights provision as a damages defense for activity during the lapse window (2021-12-22 onward until reinstatement, if any).

2. If the patent turns out to be live, there is no FWD to cite — so treat this as an open, first-mover IPR opportunity. Nothing constrains a petition. The natural § 103 combination is the Grant carburetor family (US 5,807,512 / 5,809,972 / 5,863,470 / 6,120,007) as primary art against claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, and 16, with the "flow modifier" dependent claims (2, 11–13, 17–19) targeted by the venturi-throat protrusion/detent/screen art. Watch the 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) one-year bar from service of any complaint.

3. Confirm the assignment chain before naming parties. The record shows the patent passing Grant → High Performance Industries, Inc. (2011-07-06) → Demon Fuel Systems, Inc. (2011-12-13) → Holley Performance Products Inc. by merger (2014-04-10). A real-party-in-interest analysis for any IPR petition should map that chain, and Holley's current corporate family (including Holley Performance Systems, QFT Holdings, MSD LLC, PowertEQ LLC) should be checked for who actually holds title today.

4. Do not represent to a court or opposing counsel that the patent "survived IPRs." It did not face any. The accurate statement is that no AIA trial proceeding has ever been instituted against US 7,634,983, and that the record reflects a maintenance-fee lapse effective 2021-12-22 whose current status should be verified at the USPTO.

Sources for the negative finding: USPTO Patent Center (application 11/762,095) and USPTO PTAB E2E — both should be re-run at the time of any filing, since the ODP ingest referenced in this prompt is a snapshot and a recently filed petition would not yet appear in the structured data.

I'll research the assignment record before reconstructing the chain.

Assignment Record Reconstruction — US 7,634,983

Method note / data caveat up front: The authoritative Google Patents legal-events table (fetched 2026-09-11) supplies the reel/frame numbers, conveyance types, assignors, assignees, and execution/recordation dates used below. It does not expose the "correspondent of record" field (the attorney/agent who filed each recording), and I could not retrieve that field from the USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) or its indexed mirror (https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) through the sources available to me. I am therefore not reporting any correspondent names — reporting them would require fabricating them. Signal 3 (repeat correspondent) is scored unclear for that reason, not because a correspondent was absent. Anyone needing the correspondent data must pull the PDF coversheets at each reel/frame directly from Assignment Center.

Inventors

• No departure pattern detected: there is only one inventor, so the "all inventors leave within 12 months" fire-sale tell is inapplicable. The relevant transfer is not a personnel event but the 2011 assignment of the patent off Grant's personal name into his operating company (see timeline). Note the ~4-year lag between filing (2007) and the first recorded assignment (2011) — consistent with a solo founder holding IP personally and later folding it into the business.

Original assignee

• Entity on the issued patent: Individual — Barry S. Grant (Google Patents lists "Original Assignee: Individual"). The patent issued 2009-12-22 with Grant personally of record.
• The operating entity that first took title: High Performance Industries, Inc. (Kentucky) — the maker of Demon Carburetion performance carburetors, Grant's business. Product embodying the claims: yes — the Demon line of carburetors/throttle bodies built on Grant's booster-venturi and replaceable-venturi-sleeve technology, including the "cross-over runner" induction architecture claimed here.
• Successor operating status:
  • High Performance Industries, Inc. → Demon Fuel Systems, Inc. (Kentucky) — 2011-12-13.
  • Demon Fuel Systems, Inc. → Holley Performance Products Inc. (Kentucky) — by merger, executed 2014-04-10. Holley is a long-established operating company (founded 1903; brands include Holley, Demon, Hooker, NOS, Weiand, MSD, Accel, Quick Fuel) — operating, not dissolved.
• Current assignee of record (as listed): Holley Performance Products Inc.
• Patent status: Expired for failure to pay maintenance fees (lapse recorded 2022-01-24, effective 2021-12-22); Google Patents shows an adjusted expiration of 2027-07-21. An expired patent cannot support post-expiration infringement damages.

Discrepancy to flag: The Google Patents header ("reassignment") table shows a 2011-06-21 entry — "Assigned to BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY … Assignors: GRANT, BARRY S." — followed by a 2011-06-21 assignment "to HIGH PERFORMANCE INDUSTRIES, INC., Assignors: BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY." No reel/frame or full legal-events row for either was present in the fetched authoritative text, and this conflicts with the cleaner legal-events sequence beginning 2011-07-08. Treat these two 2011-06-21 entries as unverified pending a direct Assignment Center pull; they most plausibly represent an interim security interest (BB&T) + release in connection with the Grant→High Performance Industries transfer, but I am not asserting that as fact.

Assignment timeline

All dates below are recorded dates unless marked "(executed)". Reel/frame from the Google Patents legal-events table.

• 2011-07-08 recorded (executed 2011-07-06) — Reel 026565/0001

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignor's interest
  • Assignor: Grant, Barry S.
  • Assignee: High Performance Industries, Inc. (Kentucky)
  • Correspondent: not available in retrieved sources (see method note).
  • Context: Founder folds personally held IP into his own operating business (internal reorganization).

• 2011-12-13 recorded (executed 2011-12-13) — Reel 027371/0471

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignor's interest
  • Assignor: High Performance Industries, Inc.
  • Assignee: Demon Fuel Systems, Inc. (Kentucky)
  • Correspondent: not available.
  • Context: Corporate reorganization / brand-level restructuring into the Demon Fuel Systems entity.

• 2012-01-04 recorded (executed 2011-12-28) — Reel 027480/0708

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement (collateral pledge, not a title transfer)
  • Assignor: Demon Fuel Systems, Inc.
  • Assignee: Wells Fargo Capital Finance, Inc. (California)
  • Correspondent: not available.
  • Context: Securitization — patent pledged as loan collateral.

• 2012-01-06 recorded (executed 2011-12-28) — Reel 027490/0852

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Demon Fuel Systems, Inc.
  • Assignee: Wilmington Trust, National Association (Minnesota)
  • Correspondent: not available.
  • Context: Securitization — second collateral pledge (same execution date; layered financing).

• 2012-06-08 recorded (executed 2012-06-07) — Reel 028342/0295

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Demon Fuel Systems, Inc.
  • Assignee: LBC Credit Partners II, L.P., as Agent
  • Correspondent: not available.
  • Context: Securitization — refinancing/replacement of earlier collateral (distress-adjacent).

• 2012-06-16 recorded (executed 2012-06-08) — Reel 028388/0916

  • Conveyance: Termination and Release of Security Interest
  • Assignor: Wilmington Trust, N.A. (successor-by-merger to Wilmington Trust FSB)
  • Assignees: Holley Performance Products, Inc.; Demon Fuel Systems, Inc.; Sniper Motorsports, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not available.
  • Context: Release — prior security interest discharged.

• 2012-06-29 recorded (executed 2012-06-07) — Reel 028487/0941

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Demon Fuel Systems, Inc.
  • Assignee: Hawthorn Finco, LLC (New York)
  • Correspondent: not available.
  • Context: Securitization — further collateral layer, same execution date as the LBC pledge.

• 2013-10-25 recorded (executed 2013-10-24) — Reel 031496/0062

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignors: Holley Performance Products Inc.; Demon Fuel Systems, Inc.; QFT Holdings, Inc.; and others
  • Assignee: General Electric Capital Corporation, as Agent
  • Correspondent: not available.
  • Context: Securitization — consolidated group-level collateral package; by now the Demon entity is inside the Holley corporate family.

• 2013-10-30 recorded (executed 2013-10-24) — Reels 031513/0841, 031512/0872, 031508/0928

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party (three releases)
  • Assignors: LBC Credit Partners II, L.P. / Hawthorn Finco, LLC / Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Agent
  • Assignee: Demon Fuel Systems, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not available.
  • Context: Release — 2012 lenders exited as GE Capital came in.

• 2014-05-06 recorded (executed 2014-04-10) — Reel 032826/0413

  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: Demon Fuel Systems, Inc.
  • Assignee: Holley Performance Products Inc. (Kentucky)
  • Correspondent: not available.
  • Context: Internal reorganization / consolidation — Demon Fuel Systems merged into Holley; title vests in the parent operating company.

• 2015-09-22 recorded (executed 2015-09-22) — Reel 036664/0148

  • Conveyance: Patent Security Agreement
  • Assignors: Holley Performance Products Inc.; QFT Holdings, Inc.; Holley Performance Systems, Inc.; and others
  • Assignee: Cerberus Business Finance, LLC, as Collateral Agent
  • Correspondent: not available.
  • Context: Securitization — new group financing (coincides with the 2015 MSD Group acquisition).

• 2015-09-24 recorded (executed 2015-09-22) — Reel 036686/0964

  • Conveyance: Release of Security Interest in Patent Collateral
  • Assignor: General Electric Capital Corporation
  • Assignees: Holley Performance Products Inc.; QFT Holdings, Inc.; Holley Performance Systems, Inc.; Demon Fuel Systems, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not available.
  • Context: Release — GE Capital exit.

• 2018-11-05 recorded (executed 2018-10-26) — Reel 047419/0953

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Cerberus Business Finance, LLC
  • Assignees: QFT Holdings, Inc.; Accel Performance Group LLC; MSD LLC; Powerteq LLC; Holley Performance Systems, Inc.; Holley Performance Products Inc.
  • Correspondent: not available.
  • Context: Release — Cerberus exit ahead of the 2018 recapitalization.

• 2018-11-06 recorded (executed 2018-10-26) — Reel 047429/0343

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignors: Flowmaster, Inc.; APR, LLC; Accel Performance Group LLC; and others (Holley family)
  • Assignee: UBS AG, Stamford Branch, as Collateral Agent
  • Correspondent: not available.
  • Context: Securitization — first-lien secured financing.

• 2018-11-18 recorded (executed 2018-10-26) — Reel 048147/0510

  • Conveyance: Security Interest (second lien)
  • Assignors: Holley family entities
  • Assignee: AEA Debt Management LP, Second Lien Collateral Agent
  • Correspondent: not available.
  • Context: Securitization — second-lien tranche of the same recapitalization.

• 2018-11-18 — Reel 048475/0125

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment (corrects patent numbers previously recorded at reel 047429, frame 0343)
  • Assignor: Holley family entities
  • Assignee: UBS AG, Stamford Branch, as Collateral Agent
  • Correspondent: not available.
  • Context: Correction — administrative fix to the UBS filing, not a new transfer.

• 2021-11-19 recorded (executed 2021-11-18) — Reel 058214/0174

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignors: Holley Performance Products Inc.; MSD LLC; Powerteq LLC; and others
  • Assignee: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
  • Correspondent: not available.
  • Context: Securitization — refinancing of the 2018 debt stack.

• 2021-11-24 recorded (executed 2021-11-18) — Reel 058944/0279

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: AEA Debt Management LP, as Second Lien Collateral Agent
  • Assignees: Holley family entities (High Performance Industries, Holley Performance Systems, Holley Performance Products, Racepak, Powerteq, MSD, Accel, APR, Flowmaster)
  • Correspondent: not available.
  • Context: Release — second-lien exit upon 2021 refinancing.

• 2021-11-24 recorded (executed 2021-11-18) — Reel 058948/0926

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: UBS AG, Stamford Branch, as First Lien Collateral Agent
  • Assignees: Holley family entities
  • Correspondent: not available.
  • Context: Release — first-lien exit upon 2021 refinancing.

• Non-assignment legal events (for completeness): 2013-03-18 4-year maintenance fee paid; 2015-12-06 entity status changed to undiscounted / large entity; 2017-06-22 8-year fee paid; 2021-08-09 fee reminder mailed; 2022-01-24 patent expired for failure to pay maintenance fees (effective 2021-12-22).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7634983
    2007 : Filed by Barry S Grant
    2009 : Patent issued to Grant
    2011 : Assigned to High Performance Industries
         : Reorganized into Demon Fuel Systems
    2012 : Multiple lender security agreements
    2013 : GE Capital collateral over Holley group
    2014 : Merged into Holley Performance Products
    2015 : Cerberus security agreement
    2018 : UBS and AEA secured financing
    2021 : Wells Fargo security interest
    2022 : Patent expired for unpaid fees

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. Every title-holding assignee is an operating carburetor/EFI manufacturer: High Performance Industries (026565/0001), Demon Fuel Systems (027371/0471), and finally Holley Performance Products via merger (032826/0413). No "IP/Holdings/Licensing/Ventures" licensing shell ever takes title; the security holders (Wells Fargo 027480/0708, Wilmington Trust 027490/0852, LBC 028342/0295, Hawthorn 028487/0941, GE Capital 031496/0062, Cerberus 036664/0148, UBS 047429/0343, AEA 048147/0510, Wells Fargo 058214/0174) are lenders taking collateral, not owners, and each was later released.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. No assignee matches Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Erich Spangenberg entities, or any RPX/Unified high-frequency-plaintiff list. The chain is entirely automotive-aftermarket operating companies and their secured lenders.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (not verifiable). The correspondent-of-record field is not exposed by the sources I could retrieve, so I cannot test whether a single attorney/firm handled multiple links. I explicitly decline to infer one. This is the one signal that requires a direct Assignment Center lookup (pull the coversheet PDFs for reels 026565/0001, 027371/0471, and 032826/0413 to compare correspondent blocks).

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT as an NPE pattern. There is a rapid 2011–2012 burst (Grant→HPI 2011-07; HPI→Demon 2011-12; four security agreements/releases Jan–Jun 2012), but the assignees are the same founder's operating entities plus commercial lenders, with common principals and a single corporate family — a recapitalization/reorganization, not chained anonymized LLCs. Post-2012 the chain consolidates rather than cascades.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. No transfer sits within 6 months of any suit naming this patent; no suit naming 7,634,983 was found at all (consistent with the litigation summary's negative result). Consistency check: my search did surface a live Holley enforcement action — Holley Performance Products Inc. v. Aces Fuel Injection, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00059 (E.D. Tenn., filed 2026-03-06) (https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/litigation/tnedce-[123355](/patent/123355)-holley-performance-products-v-aces-fuel-injection) — but the complaint's "'083 Patent" is a different Holley patent (throttle-body/fuel-distribution-ring claims that do not match 7,634,983's runner/venturi claim set). This does not contradict the earlier "no litigation on 7,634,983" finding; if anything it reinforces it, since a litigating owner chose other patents.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT (no evidence). Demon Fuel Systems carried a heavy 2012 secured-debt load (LBC, Hawthorn Finco, Wells Fargo) that is distress-adjacent, but the disposition was a merger into Holley (032826/0413, executed 2014-04-10), not a Chapter 7/11 sale. No bankruptcy docket for Demon Fuel Systems was retrieved.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. No operating company transferred the patent to an NPE asserting against competitors. The 2014 merger keeps the asset inside the operating group, which continues to make and sell the products.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN; it terminates at Holley Performance Products Inc., an operating manufacturer.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification: The entire chain runs through operating automotive-performance manufacturers — Grant → High Performance Industries (026565/0001) → Demon Fuel Systems (027371/0471) → Holley Performance Products Inc. by merger (032826/0413, executed 2014-04-10) — with every other recorded instrument being a security agreement or release from a commercial lender (e.g., GE Capital 031496/0062, Cerberus 036664/0148, UBS 047429/0343, Wells Fargo 058214/0174), never a licensing entity. There is no shell-entity transfer, no known asserter, no cascading anonymous LLC chain, and no defensive-aggregator terminus, so the NPE signals are uniformly absent; the only unresolved signal is correspondent recurrence (Signal 3), which I could not test. Caveat: this specific patent is expired (2022-01-24) and no litigation naming 7,634,983 was found — Holley's live enforcement (e.g., Holley v. Aces, 1:26-cv-00059) targets other patents, so the "assertion" characterization describes the owner's general posture, not current assertion of this patent.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 7634983) and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — pull the coversheets for reels 026565/0001, 027371/0471, 032826/0413 to fill the correspondent field left blank here.

I'll research the prior art references cited on the face of US 7,634,983, grounding descriptions in search results where possible.

Let me research the remaining cited references to ground their descriptions.

US 7,634,983 — Prior‑Art Analysis of the Cited References

Note on the record. The authoritative document I was given (Google Patents rendering of US 7,634,983 B2, fetched 2026‑09‑11) lists 19 U.S. patent citations on the face of the patent, plus the specification's own background references (US 5,807,512; US 5,809,972; US 5,863,470; US 6,120,007). I analyzed those numbers literally and did not substitute similar numbers. Two housekeeping caveats: (a) your task header says "Current Date: April 26, 2026" while the retrieval timestamp is 2026‑09‑11 — immaterial to the analysis; (b) I could verify full text for many, but not all, references — I flag confidence levels per reference. Nothing below auto‑corrects any identifier.

§ 102 framing used throughout. Anticipation requires a single reference disclosing every element of a claim as arranged. Where I say a reference is "relevant to" a claim but does not disclose all elements (e.g., the cross‑over V‑engine runner geometry, or the droplet‑subdividing flow modifiers), that is a § 103 (obviousness) argument, not § 102 anticipation. I mark these explicitly.

A. The 19 cited references — citation, dates, description

Also on the face of the patent (cited by the examiner per the Google Patents table, and in the spec): the four Grant family members US 5,807,512; US 5,809,972; US 5,863,470; US 6,120,007 — the last two marked as the inventor's own. These, plus US 4,852,526 (Brown), are the substantive references; the remaining 14 are background addressing V‑engine layout, fuel rails, or control systems.

B. Mapping the strongest references to the claims under § 102

Claim 1 (independent — air/fuel induction assembly): requires, in combination, (i) first/second series of cross‑over runners over a V‑engine (inlets at one bank, deliveries at the opposite bank), (ii) a fuel injector at each conduit, and (iii) injectors each with an injector ring having a central venturi opening aligned with the conduit and nozzles directing fuel into the airstream.

• US 5,809,972 (Grant) discloses element (iii) almost verbatim (booster venturi ring suspended in the barrel; injector sprays into the ring's central high‑velocity/low‑pressure zone) and element (ii). It does not disclose the V‑engine cross‑over runner geometry of (i). → Anticipates the injector‑ring sub‑combination, not claim 1 as a whole. A § 102 rejection of claim 1 on 5,809,972 alone would fail on (i); § 103 is the correct theory when combined with a V‑engine runner reference (e.g., 4,889,082; 5,197,436).
• US 5,807,512 (Grant) discloses the removable booster venturi ring + support conduit, feeding fuel into the airstream. Same conclusion: strong on (ii)/(iii), silent on (i).
• US 6,120,007 (Grant, incorporated by reference) is the specification's own reservoir of booster‑venturi and sleeve‑venturi structure; it is the best § 102 candidate for the ring/sleeve elements but not for the cross‑over runner architecture.

Claim 9 (independent — alternate cross‑over conduits, rectilinear equal‑length segments): the "first alternate … right bank / second alternate … left bank" and "substantially rectilinear segments of substantially equal length" are the heart of the claimed layout. Mazda US 4,889,082 and Yamaha US 5,197,436 show V‑engine runner/manifold layouts but not the equal‑length cross‑over runner concept with injector rings. → No clean § 102; § 103 combination.

Claim 10 (independent — conduit per cylinder, injector with injection ring + support stem + annular inner venturi surface with fluid openings, equal rectilinear segments):

• US 4,852,526 (Brown) is unusually close on the injector element: each injector is equipped with a venturi on a mounting stem, with the injector output delivered to the low‑pressure side of the venturi, atomizing fuel into the airstream in the manifold flow path. That reads strongly on "injection ring … and a support stem supporting [the] injection ring, the injection ring having an annular inner venturi surface with fluid openings therein."
• US 5,807,512 (Grant) likewise shows a ring + support conduit fed by a fuel port.
• Neither discloses the "rectilinear segments of substantially equal length downstream from the fuel injectors." → § 103 across Brown/Grant + a runner‑length reference; not full § 102.

Claim 15 (independent — venturi ring in each conduit + flow modifier surrounding the air/fuel stream + equal breadth/length runners): no cited reference discloses the flow modifier element (see below) → no § 102.

Claim 16 (independent — venturi sleeve + injector ring with support stem + annular inner venturi surface): the sleeve+ring combination is squarely the subject of Grant US 6,120,007 and US 5,863,470, and the stem/ring is in US 5,807,512. These are the most plausible § 102 references for claim 16's structure (subject to the sleeve being "in each induction conduit" and the specific annular‑surface fluid openings).

C. The flow‑modifier claims — the apparent point of novelty

Claims 2, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 all require flow modifiers (semi‑spherical protrusions, detents, a ledge/shelf, or a grid/screen) that subdivide fuel droplets. None of the 19 cited references, nor the Grant family references, discloses flow‑disturbing structures in a venturi throat for droplet subdivision. The patent's specification (FIGS. 3–6) treats this as its distinguishing contribution. Accordingly:

• I find no § 102 anticipation of claims 2, 11–13, and 17–22 among the cited art.
• These claims are the strongest surviving claims and were presumably the basis for allowance. If any later art is to be considered, it will be non‑cited art directed to venturi‑throat turbulators/atomizers, not the references on the face of this patent.

D. Bottom line — most relevant prior art, ranked

1. US 5,809,972 (Grant, 1998‑09‑22) — closest to the injector ring + central venturi opening + fuel nozzle elements of claim 1 and the ring structure of claims 3/4/15/16. Best § 102 candidate for the injector sub‑combination; § 103 theory against claim 1.
2. US 5,807,512 (Grant, 1998‑09‑15) — closest to the removable booster‑venturi ring + support stem of claims 1, 10, 16 ("injection ring … support stem").
3. US 6,120,007 (Grant, 2000‑09‑19) — expressly incorporated by reference; the definitive source for the booster‑venturi/venturi‑sleeve structure in claims 3, 4, 14, 16.
4. US 5,863,470 (Grant, 1999‑01‑26) — replaceable venturi sleeves; relevant to claims 3, 5, 14.
5. US 4,852,526 (Brown, 1989‑08‑01) — venturi on a mounting stem feeding the low‑pressure side of the venturi in each manifold flow path; the closest non‑Grant reference to the injection‑ring/stem/annular‑venturi‑surface feature of claim 10 (and claim 16).
6. US 5,353,767 (GM, 1994‑10‑11) and US 5,197,436 (Yamaha, 1993‑03‑30) — per‑cylinder injectors + fuel plenum/rails inside/at the manifold (claim 7 context).
7. US 4,889,082 (Mazda, 1989‑12‑26) and US 4,858,570 (Mazda, 1989‑08‑22) — V‑engine runner/manifold layout background for claims 1, 6, 9 (cross‑over/alternating runner geometry).

Coverage caveats I want to be explicit about. (i) I could not retrieve verified full text for items 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20/22 in this session; their descriptions are drawn from the face‑of‑patent citation data and title/assignee/date metadata and are marked ⚠ accordingly — treat those as provisional. (ii) A definitive § 102/§ 103 conclusion requires the actual claim charts against full reference texts (and, for the flow‑modifier claims, a search of non‑cited art). (iii) Because the patent expired for failure to pay maintenance fees (lapse recorded 2022‑01‑24), any invalidity question today would be academic to infringement, but the prior‑art ranking above still governs validity analysis of the granted claims.

I'll ground the obviousness analysis in the actual prior-art references of record. Let me verify the disclosures of the key cited references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 7,634,983 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note / dates. The task states today is 2026‑04‑26; the Google Patents fetch I am working from is timestamped 2026‑09‑11, and my verification searches returned live results. I flag the discrepancy rather than reconcile it (as noted in the earlier summary). Nothing below depends on which of the two dates is correct, because every reference I rely on pre-dates the 2007‑06‑13 filing.

Prior-art set used. Per instruction, I draw on the references in the "Prior Art" section of the record (the 19 citations examined against US 7,634,983, https://patents.google.com/patent/US7634983/en). I treat the "Cited By" table as forward citations (i.e., not prior art) and therefore do not use it. I verified the disclosures of the key references by live search; a handful I could not verify within my tool budget and I do not rely on them (see "Unverified" list at the end).

1. Legal framework and the real battleground

• Priority date: 2007‑06‑13, no earlier priority. All 19 cited references (1976–2004) are prior art; most are § 102(b) art; the 2001–2004 published applications are § 102(a)/(e) art.
• Governing law: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) — decided ~6 weeks before this application was filed. Under KSR, a combination of known elements is obvious where (i) the elements perform the same function they were known to perform, (ii) there is a design incentive or market pressure, and (iii) the combination is "a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions." Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), controls the factual inquiry.
• The dispositive admissions are in the patent itself. The Background (and the "Definitions" summary) states that Grant's own carburetors (US 5,807,512; 5,809,972; 5,863,470, incorporated via US 6,120,007) already used concentric sleeve venturis + booster/ring venturis + fuel injection, and that the only shortcoming was that the induction conduits were "shaped differently from one another and usually are of different lengths," causing unequal delivery and surge. That is an express identification of the problem to be solved — the classic KSR trigger.
• The claims split into two families, which have very different validity risk:
  • Architecture family (no flow modifier required): claims 1, 9, 10, 16. These are the most exposed.
  • Flow-modifier family: claims 2, 11–13, 15, 17–22 (plus dependent plumbing 3–8, 14). Claims 15 and 21 stand or fall on the flow-modifier teaching; this is the patent's most defensible territory.

2. What each cited reference supplies (verified)

Unverified / not relied upon (I could not confirm the disclosures within my tool budget, and I do not use them as principal references): US 4,112,899; US 4,308,835; US 4,882,227 (listed as 4,889,082); US 2002/0053331; US 2002/0170518; US 2005/0005888; US 2007/0137603. The last of these published 2007‑06‑21 — eight days after the filing date — and would only qualify as § 102(e) art as of its 2004‑03‑30 filing date; I flag it because it is the one cited reference whose status is date-sensitive.

3. Specific combinations that render the claims obvious

Combination A — Claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 (crossover runners + per-runner ring injectors)

Primary: US 5,809,972 (Grant). Secondary: US 6,659,058 (Suzuki) or US 4,858,570 (Mazda). Further: US 5,197,436 (Yamaha) + US 5,511,527 (Siemens fuel rail).

Claim-chart logic:

• "First series of induction conduits… inlet at left bank, delivery to right bank; second series… inlet at right bank, delivery to left bank" → Suzuki '058's crossing intake pipes and Mazda '570's folded passages.
• "Fuel injector supported at each of the induction conduits… injector ring… central venturi opening… nozzles direct fuel into the central venturi opening" → Grant '972's per-barrel injector feeding a suspended booster venturi ring that "disperses the high pressure injected fuel into the center of the airstream."
• "First and second fuel supply manifolds" (claim 7) → Yamaha '436's left/right rails 75/76 and Siemens '527's crossover-hose fuel rail.
• "Substantially equal inlet-to-delivery distances" (claim 8) and "rectilinear segments of substantially equal length" (claim 9) → an express design objective, not a new structure.

Motivation to combine (KSR):

1. Same field, same problem. All references sit in F02M 35/10–35/116 (V-engine intake manifolds) and F02M 71/00 (combined carburetion + low-pressure injection) — the exact classifications assigned to US 7,634,983. A PHOSITA tuning high-performance V‑8s would consult precisely these.
2. The patent's own admission supplies the "why." The Background states the problem is unequal runner length/shape and surge. Suzuki/Mazda solve the long-runner-in-a-tight-bay problem by crossing the runners over the engine; Grant '972 relocates the fuel-metering point to a ring at the entrance of each passage. Putting Grant's ring injector at the inlet of a crossed runner is a predictable substitution of one known fuel-delivery element for the carburetor barrel, achieving the same function (metered fuel into a high-velocity low-pressure zone).
3. Design incentive / predictable result. Under KSR, "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill… would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious." The patent's own Summary concedes the combination merely "enables the induction conduits to be long and have a substantially low profile" — a spatial/design benefit, not an unexpected one.

Combination B — Claim 10 (ring + support stem + equal rectilinear runs)

Primary: US 5,807,512 (Grant) — claim 1 recites a venturi ring with a support conduit ("support stem"), which is the claim-10 "injection ring … and a support stem supporting [it]." Secondary: US 5,809,972 (injector feeding the ring) + US 6,659,058 (per-cylinder conduits over the V) + US 5,197,436 (per-bank rails). The "rectilinear segment … substantially equal in length" limitation is met by the same equal-runner design choice discussed above. This is an exceptionally tight § 103 case because the ring-plus-stem sub-structure is Grant's own expressly claimed structure.

Combination C — Claims 3, 4, 5, 14, 16 (sleeve venturi inducing fuel + injected ring)

Primary: US 5,863,470 (Grant) — claim 11/12 discloses a venturi sleeve whose wall constriction and a suspended ring nozzle form "overlapping zones of reduced air pressure," i.e., a sleeve that both induces flow via low pressure and hosts an injected ring. Secondary: US 5,809,972 (injector supply) and US 5,197,436 / US 2002/0170518 (per-cylinder placement). Claim 16 requires exactly: venturi sleeve "decreasing the pressure … and inducing a flow of fuel" plus an injection ring with "an annular inner venturi surface with fluid openings." Grant '470 + '972 supplies both halves; claim 5's "removably mounted" sleeves are met by Grant '470's replaceable sleeves and Grant '007's color-coded interchangeable sleeves (the specification cites '007 by incorporation). Motivation: the patent itself says replaceable sleeves let one "balance the flow of air/fuel to the engine" — a routine field-adjustment objective.

Combination D — Claims 2, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 (flow modifiers)

This is the weak point of the record and the patentee's best defense. None of the 19 cited references plainly discloses a flow modifier in the venturi throat / surrounding the air/fuel stream that subdivides droplets (semi-spherical protrusions, detents, ledge/shelf, grid/screen). A § 103 case here must reach analogous carburetor art — e.g., the Class 261 art (www.justatic.com class-listing) disclosing "atomizing wire screen means positioned within the fuel mixture supply tube and baffle means within the induction tube adjacent the boost venturi," and a carburetor with "a ledge-like surface situated generally in the induction passage… result[ing] in an increase in turbulence… and a better atomization of the fluid." Those are structurally the claim-19/claim-22 species (screen, ledge, protrusions/detents) and are placed for the identical purpose (droplet breakup). If those showings are admitted, claims 2/11–13/15/17–22 fall as an obvious substitution of a known atomization expedient into a known venturi. If they are excluded as non-analogous or non-record art, the flow-modifier family likely survives — the "surrounds the air/fuel stream" and "in the venturi throat" limitations (claims 15, 21) are the hardest to meet on this record. I state this as a risk band, not a conclusion, because I could not verify a specific cited reference squarely teaching the modifier.

4. Anticipation vs. obviousness — a caution

No single cited reference anticipates any independent claim. Grant '972/'512/'470 are carburetor references (a common center section feeding multiple barrels); Suzuki/Mazda are air-only manifold references with no ring injection. US 7,634,983's novelty lies in the juxtaposition: crossover V-runners + a ring injector at each runner inlet. That means the case is a pure § 103 case, and its outcome turns on (a) whether the crossover-runner references are treated as analogous to a fuel-injected induction system (they are — same field of endeavor and same problem), and (b) whether the flow-modifier teaching can be landed on the record.

5. Secondary considerations and defenses the patentee would raise

• No evidence of nexus in the record. The file contains no evidence of long-felt need, unexpected results, industry praise, or commercial success tied to the claimed combination; the Summary itself frames the benefits (longer runners, low profile, cooler charge) as expected consequences of longer path length. Absent a nexus, secondary considerations carry little weight.
• "Teaching away": Grant's own carburetor patents teach keeping the booster venturi at the carburetor center section, not moving it onto crossover runners. Applicant could argue this is a departure. Counter: '470/'007 teach interchangeable, relocatable sleeves/venturis expressly to adapt to different engine layouts, cutting against any teaching-away.
• § 112(b) vulnerabilities reinforce the invalidity posture (carried over from the earlier section): claim 5 depends from claim 2 but references "said venturi sleeves" never introduced in claim 2; claim 20 depends from claim 15 but recites "the fluid induction port," absent from claim 15; claim 15 mixes "venturi ring"/"booster venturis" terminology. These do not defeat the § 103 analysis but narrow the enforceable scope and invite parallel invalidity theories.
• Ownership note: Grant's four prior patents and US 7,634,983 were all individually owned at filing, so no § 103(c) common-ownership disqualification applies to them (and § 103(c) would not reach the § 102(b) Grant patents in any event).

6. Bottom line

Confidence: High on Combinations A–C and on the claims-7/8/10 mapping (verified disclosures, express claim-language overlap). Low-to-moderate on the flow-modifier family, where I could not confirm a cited reference teaching the throat/surround modifier and where the invalidity case would have to rest on analogous art I did not verify within the tool budget.

Caveats: (1) I did not auto-correct any patent number; the one date-sensitive citation, US 2007/0137603 A1, is analyzed under its 2004‑03‑30 § 102(e) date. (2) The disclosures of the seven references in my "unverified" list are not relied upon and could change the flow-modifier analysis materially if they in fact disclose throat obstructions. (3) The earlier sections note a session-date discrepancy (2026‑04‑26 vs. 2026‑09‑11) and an "Adjusted expiration 2027‑07‑21" entry despite the 2021‑12‑22 lapse; neither affects the prior-art dating above.