I'll search for information on US Patent 8622748, including any CAFC 2026 docket references.

Let me do a couple more targeted searches to check for any USPTO record details and any CAFC or litigation activity involving this patent.

Let me do one final check specifically for any CAFC activity involving Humanetics in 2026 to be thorough.

Summary: US Patent 8622748 B2

Note on searching: I searched Google Patents/Justia/patent-aggregator records for the specific identifier 8622748 (application 13/338,760) and separately searched for CAFC 2026 docket activity. I found no CAFC 2026 docket entries, litigation, or appeal referencing this patent — but the absence of results from these searches is not definitive proof that no case exists. No information was found suggesting any CAFC proceeding involving this patent in 2026.

Bibliographic data (verified against search results)

Sources: Google Patents – US8622748B2, Justia – patent/8622748

Abstract (verbatim from the patent record)

"An ankle assembly for a crash test dummy includes an ankle clevis assembly for attachment to a leg assembly of the crash test dummy, an ankle base assembly for attachment to a foot assembly of the crash test dummy and cooperating with the ankle clevis assembly, a fastener to connect the clevis assembly and the ankle base assembly together to allow proper ankle positions for different ankles and also allow friction adjustment to simulate human bracing in impact conditions, and a plurality of elastomeric elements disposed between the clevis assembly and the ankle base assembly that allow proper inversion and eversion performance of the ankle assembly."

Independent claims — plain-language overview

Claim 1 (apparatus — ankle assembly): Claims an ankle assembly for a crash test dummy made of four cooperating elements:

1. An ankle clevis assembly — attaches to the dummy's leg assembly (in the preferred embodiment, an inverted-U-shaped clevis member with side apertures and an internal friction shoulder bolt).
2. An ankle base assembly — attaches to the dummy's foot assembly and cooperates with the clevis assembly (in the preferred embodiment, a U-shaped base with a pivotally connected ankle joint member).
3. A fastener connecting the clevis and base assemblies — functionally defined to (a) permit proper ankle positioning for different ankles and (b) allow friction adjustment to simulate human bracing during impact conditions (in the preferred embodiment, a friction shoulder bolt acting as a clamping nut, with a Belleville spring/stop ring/washer stack).
4. A plurality of elastomeric elements disposed between the clevis and base assemblies — functionally defined to allow proper inversion and eversion performance (in the preferred embodiment, cylindrical elastomeric "resistive elements" in retainer brackets around the joint shafts).

Claim 12 (apparatus — crash test dummy): Claims a full crash test dummy comprising a body with a leg assembly, a foot assembly, and an ankle assembly interconnecting them, where the ankle assembly incorporates the same four functional elements as claim 1 (clevis attached to the leg, base attached to the foot, connecting fastener with the same positioning/friction-adjustment function, and multiple elastomeric elements for inversion/eversion performance). In essence, claim 12 is the system-level counterpart of claim 1.

The dependent claims (2–11 and 13–22) add structural detail, e.g., the clevis member's inverted-U shape with apertured side portions (claims 2, 13), a securing screw (claims 3, 14), a spring about the fastener (claims 4, 15), the base member's U-shape (claims 5, 16), the pivotally connected ankle joint member (claims 6, 17), laterally extending shafts (claims 7, 18), retainer brackets over the shafts (claims 8, 19), a longitudinal aperture through the joint member receiving the fastener (claims 9, 20), cylindrical elastomeric elements between shafts and retainer brackets (claims 10, 21), and the elastomeric material itself (claims 11, 22).

Uncertainty / caveats

• I did not locate any CAFC 2026 docket entry, PTAB proceeding, or district-court litigation involving US 8622748 through these searches; if such a proceeding exists, it was not indexed in the results I retrieved.
• The assignee history includes security-interest transfers (GE Capital, Cortland, Antares, Goldman Sachs, ING, Owl Rock) and releases; the current record shows Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc. as assignee.
• All substantive patent text (claims, abstract, description) was corroborated across Google Patents, Justia, and patent-aggregator sources; no conflicts with the authoritative text were found.

Both initial searches returned no results. Let me try more targeted searches on litigation databases and docket sources.

The Unified Patents result is unrelated (a CAFC IPR transcript about video coding patents). Let me search court docket aggregators directly.

Based on the searches I was able to complete, here is my assessment:

Litigation Search Results: US Patent 8622748

No known litigation involving US Patent 8622748 was found.

I searched the following sources/strategies for the specific patent number 8622748 (and its variants "8,622,748" / "US 8622748 B2"):

The only "hit" resembling litigation was a CAFC oral-argument transcript surfaced through a Unified Patents-related query, but it concerned an unrelated IPR appeal involving video-coding patents (IDEAHUB / "associated with" claim construction) — not patent 8622748 or any crash-test-dummy patent.

Conclusion

• Plaintiff(s): None identified
• Defendant(s): None identified
• Jurisdiction / case number / filing date / outcome: N/A — no case found
• Current status: No district-court, ITC, PTAB, or CAFC proceeding involving US 8622748 was located in any search performed

Caveats (stated explicitly, per operating rules)

1. Absence of results is not definitive proof. My searches covered publicly indexed web sources and docket aggregators, but I did not perform a paid PACER full-text search or query the Unified Patents portal's internal case-list directly (the portal link you provided requires login for full case data).
2. PACER limitations: Federal district-court dockets are often not fully indexed by free web search engines, so an obscure or recently filed case could exist without appearing in these results.
3. The patent is active and maintained (12th-year maintenance fee paid June 25, 2025, per the USPTO legal-event record), so it remains enforceable and theoretically available for assertion — but I found no evidence it has been asserted in litigation to date.

If you need higher-confidence confirmation, I'd recommend a paid search of PACER (all districts), the Unified Patents litigation portal, and the USPTO Patent Center/PTAB filing records for the specific patent number.

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) on file for US 8622748 — the USPTO Open Data Portal returns no proceedings, and targeted web searches (including PTAB-focused and Humanetics-litigation queries) surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, settlement, or Federal Circuit appeal referencing this patent. The breakdown is therefore: 0 active, 0 with claims invalidated, 0 with claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution-denied. The bottom-line defensive posture: this patent has never been tested at the PTAB, so there is no IPR-based estoppel, no claim-cancellation leverage, and no "hardened" post-IPR presumption — but equally, no petitioner has ever identified it as valuable enough (or vulnerable enough) to challenge.

No proceedings to report

Because the canonical ODP data block states "The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest," and because my independent searches returned no proceeding numbers (I will not invent any), there are no per-proceeding entries. What I can confirm from the record:

• Patent status: Active; adjusted expiration 2032-07-22; maintenance fees paid through the 12th year (large entity, 2025-06-25). The claims are in full force — all 22 claims (independents 1 and 12; dependents 2–11 and 13–22) remain exactly as granted, with no PTAB or court-ordered amendment, cancellation, or reexamination certificate in the record.
• Assignee: Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc. (Plymouth, MI), formerly Safety Technology Systems, Inc. — a commercial seller of crash-test dummies (the patent is listed on Humanetics' own intellectual-property page as of 2026-03-24). This is a practicing entity, not a non-practicing troll, which is consistent with the absence of IPR activity: Humanetics' enforcement posture is product-driven, not demand-letter-driven.
• Cited-by / family signals: The patent's cited-by family (e.g., US 9,754,514 "Adjustable friction joint assembly for crash test dummy," US 9,721,484 and US 10,081,300 "Shoulder kit/assembly") shows Humanetics has continued to file improvement patents but none of those family members appear in PTAB proceedings either.

Strategic summary

Claims: CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. All 22 claims of US 8622748 — independent claims 1 and 12, and dependent claims 2–11 and 13–22 — are UNTESTED in any AIA trial proceeding. No claim has been canceled, no claim has been sustained through a Final Written Decision, and no claim has been the subject of a PTAB institution decision. If you are facing assertion of this patent, every claim asserted against you is presumptively valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282 and has never survived (or failed) adversarial review. The practical corollary: the patent's validity has not been "hardened" by surviving IPRs, but its enforceability has also never been dented — a § 103 attack on claim 1's combination of (clevis + base + clamping fastener + elastomeric elements) remains fully available to a defendant.

Estoppel landscape (§ 315(e)). Because no IPR/PGR has been filed and no Final Written Decision has issued, there is no statutory estoppel against anyone under § 315(e)(1) or (e)(2). A defendant today faces zero estoppel constraints: every prior-art ground (anticipation under § 102, obviousness under § 103, written-description/definiteness under § 112) that "reasonably could have been raised" is still open. The § 315(b) one-year bar from service of a complaint is the only timing trap — if you are sued, the IPR petition clock starts running on service, so early diligence on prior art (the patent's own cited art includes US 5,741,989 "Lower leg for crash test dummy," US 4,349,339 "Force-indicating dummy legs," US 4,850,877, US 6,957,961, US 7,891,259, and US 6,409,516) is the critical-path item.

Pattern signals. There are no pattern signals at the PTAB: no repeat petitioner, no Unified Patents / defensive-aggregator involvement, and no patent-owner aggressiveness at the Board — because no proceeding has ever been brought. The one relevant business signal is that Humanetics is a practicing crash-test-dummy manufacturer that actively markets the Q-series child dummies using this ankle assembly; it has litigated and settled patent matters in other contexts but has no PTAB footprint on this patent. The absence of IPR activity after 12+ years of enforcement life is itself informative: either the patent is perceived as too narrow to bother attacking (the claims are quite specific — inverted-U clevis, friction shoulder bolt, U-shaped base, elastomeric resistive elements in retainer brackets), or no competitor has been hit with it in a way that justified a ~$400K+ IPR campaign.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant facing assertion of US 8622748: there is no FWD to quote because none exists — do not let anyone represent otherwise. Your lever is a fresh § 103 / § 102 IPR, and you have a clean slate: no estoppel, no overlapping proceedings, no prior PTAB claim constructions. Do a priority-date-focused prior-art search (the provisional 61/428,565 was filed 2010-12-30; art dated 2010-12-30 or earlier is the relevant window). The most promising attack surface is independent claim 1's functional limitations ("allow proper ankle positions for different ankles and also allow friction adjustment to simulate human bracing") and claim 12's identical functional language, combined with the specific mechanical structure in dependents 2–11 / 13–22.
2. Mind the § 315(b) clock: file any IPR within one year of service of a complaint naming you (or your privy/RPI). If a complaint has already been served, compute the bar date immediately — a time-bar denial (as in the PTAB's CommScope/2Wire line of decisions) is fatal and cannot be cured by joinder to a later-filed petition.
3. Confirm the docket before filing: verify directly on USPTO PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov/) and the USPTO Patent Center using application number 13/338,760 that no petition has been filed in the last several weeks (ODP ingestion lags; my searches cover public indexes only). Also check the patent's assignment/security-interest chain (GE Capital → Antares → Goldman Sachs → ING → Owl Rock, with releases) — if you negotiate, confirm you are dealing with the current owner, Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc., and not a secured party.
4. If no IPR is filed: the absence of PTAB activity is a double-edged sword — it means the claims are untested, but it also means Humanetics has never been forced to defend the ankle assembly's validity; a well-funded challenger with good prior art (e.g., earlier FTSS/Humanetics lower-leg assemblies, US 5,741,989 and its family) could be the first to define the claim scope at the Board. That first-mover position carries both opportunity (no adverse claim constructions on record) and risk (you bear the cost of establishing the record).

Bottom line: US 8622748 is a fully intact, actively maintained, never-challenged patent. There is no PTAB precedent to lean on and no canceled claim to cite — a defendant's realistic play is a well-timed, well-researched first IPR, filed before the § 315(b) bar, on § 102/§ 103 grounds that no one has yet had the chance to raise.

The direct reel/frame searches returned nothing. Let me try alternative query formats.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 8622748 B2 (Ankle assembly for crash test dummy)

Source note: My direct queries to the USPTO Assignment Center index and reel/frame lookups (028136/0445, 031749/0299, 031766/0990, 063627/0920) returned no retrievable records through the available search tool, and I hit the search step limit before I could pull correspondent names. The assignment timeline below is reconstructed from the legal-events / assignment history section of the Google Patents record for US8622748 (the authoritative patent text supplied), which includes conveyance type, parties, dates, and reel/frame for every recorded event. The one gap in this reconstruction is the correspondent-of-record (attorney/firm) field, which the Google Patents legal-events feed does not publish; I did not fabricate it and flag it explicitly below. All reel/frame numbers and dates below come from the patent record and are verifiable against the USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) by searching patent number 8622748.

Inventors

Pattern check: No unusual pattern evident. All three inventors assigned to their employer (the original assignee) on 2011-12-07 through 2011-12-21 — a routine pre-grant employment assignment, not a post-filing departure or portfolio fire-sale precursor. I have no data on whether any inventor left the company within 12 months of filing; do not treat that as established.

Original assignee

• Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc. (Plymouth, MI), formerly Safety Technology Systems, Inc. — the name correction is itself a recorded assignment (reel 031731/0964, recorded 2013-11-27).
• Line of business: Operating manufacturer of anthropomorphic test devices — crash test dummies (Hybrid III, THOR, and the Q-series child dummies, including the Q3s three-year-old side-impact dummy that this ankle assembly is built for, per the patent's own description) plus test equipment and instrumentation.
• Product embodiment: Yes — the patent describes the ankle assembly in operational relationship with a three-year-old child side impact dummy (Q3s), which is a commercial Humanetics product.
• Current status: Operating. Patent remains Active with adjusted expiration 2032-07-22; maintenance fees paid through the 12th year (large entity) on 2025-06-25, and the 8th year paid 2021-06-21. No bankruptcy, dissolution, or sale of the patent itself is recorded.

Assignment timeline

All entries below are recorded assignments found in the patent's legal-events record. Correspondent names are not published in the source I have and could not be retrieved from the USPTO Assignment Center via the available search tool; each entry below therefore omits the correspondent field rather than guessing. This is the sole incompleteness in the chain reconstruction.

• 2011-12-07 → 2011-12-21 (executed) / recorded 2012-05-01 — Reel 028136/0445

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Zhenwen J. Wang; Bernard Been; Cheng Yao (inventors)
  • Assignee: Humanetics Innovative Solutions (Michigan)
  • Correspondent: not available in source
  • Context: Routine employment assignment from inventors to their employer, recorded ~5 months later (pre-grant).

• 2011-12-07 → 2011-12-21 (executed) / recorded 2013-11-27 — Reel 031731/0964

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment
  • Assignor: Zhenwen J. Wang; Bernard Been; Cheng Yao
  • Assignee: Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc. (Michigan)
  • Correspondent: not available in source
  • Context: Corrects the assignee name on reel 028136/0445 from "Humanetics Innovative Solutions" to "Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc." — name-only correction, no change in beneficial ownership.

• 2013-12-02 (effective) / recorded 2013-12-02 — Reel 031749/0299

  • Conveyance: First Lien Patent Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc. (formerly Safety Technology Systems, Inc.)
  • Assignee: General Electric Capital Corporation, as First Lien Agent
  • Correspondent: not available in source
  • Context: Debt financing — grant of a first-priority security interest over the patent portfolio to GE Capital; not an ownership transfer.

• 2013-12-02 (effective) / recorded 2013-12-05 — Reel 031766/0990

  • Conveyance: Second Lien Patent Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc.
  • Assignee: Cortland Capital Market Services LLC, as Agent
  • Correspondent: not available in source
  • Context: Second-priority lien in the same 2013 financing structure.

• 2015-08-21 (effective) / recorded 2015-08-25 — Reel 036463/0157

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Intellectual Property Security Agreements
  • Assignor: General Electric Capital Corporation, as Retiring Agent
  • Assignee: Antares Capital LP, as Successor Agent
  • Correspondent: not available in source
  • Context: Lender-side succession — GE Capital's first-lien agency role (and its security interest) transferred to Antares; borrower unchanged.

• 2016-07-29 (effective) / recorded 2016-07-29 — Reel 039295/0268

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Humanetics Innovative Solutions
  • Assignee: Goldman Sachs Lending Partners LLC
  • Correspondent: not available in source
  • Context: Refinancing — new lender takes a security interest over the portfolio.

• 2016-07-09 (effective) / recorded 2016-08-03 — Reel 039333/0218

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Antares Capital LP
  • Assignee: Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not available in source
  • Context: Release of the Antares (ex-GE Capital) first-lien interest upon refinancing — ownership/reversion to Humanetics.

• 2016-07-29 (effective) / recorded 2016-08-05 — Reel 039353/0641

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Cortland Capital Market Services LLC
  • Assignee: Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not available in source
  • Context: Release of the Cortland second-lien interest in the same refinancing.

• 2018-03-21 (effective) / recorded 2018-03-21 — Reel 045307/0454

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc.
  • Assignee: ING Capital LLC, as Collateral Agent
  • Correspondent: not available in source
  • Context: Next refinancing cycle — ING takes a collateral-agent security interest.

• 2018-03-21 (effective) / recorded 2018-03-21 — Reel 045307/0421

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Goldman Sachs Lending Partners LLC, as Agent
  • Assignee: Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not available in source
  • Context: Release of the 2016 Goldman Sachs interest, recorded the same day as the ING grant — a coordinated refinancing.

• 2023-05-12 (effective) / recorded 2023-05-12 — Reel 063627/0920

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc.
  • Assignee: Owl Rock Capital Corporation, as Collateral Agent
  • Correspondent: not available in source
  • Context: Latest financing — Owl Rock (Blue Owl) takes a collateral-agent security interest.

• 2023-05-12 (effective) / recorded 2023-05-15 — Reel 063641/0606

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: ING Capital LLC
  • Assignee: Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not available in source
  • Context: Release of the 2018 ING interest — closes out the prior lien; Humanetics remains record owner.

Net ownership result: Every security agreement was later released back to Humanetics. No assignment ever transferred legal title of US 8622748 out of the operating company. The original assignee remains the current owner of record.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8622748
    2010 : Provisional application filed
    2011 : Utility application filed
         : Inventors assign to Humanetics
    2012 : Assignment recorded
    2013 : Corrective assignment recorded
         : GE Capital first lien recorded
         : Cortland second lien recorded
    2014 : Patent issued
    2015 : GE lien assigned to Antares
    2016 : Goldman Sachs lien recorded
         : Antares release recorded
         : Cortland release recorded
    2018 : ING Capital lien recorded
         : Goldman Sachs release recorded
    2021 : Maintenance fee 8th year paid
    2023 : Owl Rock lien recorded
         : ING Capital release recorded
    2025 : Maintenance fee 12th year paid

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. Every assignee is either the operating company (Humanetics) or a regulated financial institution acting as a secured lender (GE Capital, Cortland, Antares, Goldman Sachs, ING, Owl Rock). No "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" LLCs appear anywhere in the chain (reels 028136/0445 → 063641/0606).

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. None of the named parties (GE Capital, Cortland Capital, Antares, Goldman Sachs Lending Partners, ING Capital, Owl Rock/Blue Owl) is on the Acacia / Marathon / Intellectual Ventures / IPNav / Wi-LAN / Mosaid / Vringo / Pendrell / Innovatio / MPHJ / Round Rock / Spangenberg-type NPE lists. They are lenders, and lenders hold security interests, not title — none of these entities ever had standing to assert the patent.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear — data gap. The correspondent-of-record field is not present in the Google Patents legal-events feed, and I could not retrieve USPTO Assignment Center records to capture it. I can neither confirm nor rule out a recurring recording attorney. This is the one signal I cannot score from available evidence; it should be checked directly at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "8622748" → view each reel/frame) before any contrary conclusion.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. The sequence is a textbook leveraged-finance cycle, not NPE chaining: 2013 GE/Cortland liens → 2015/2016 Antares/Goldman refinancing + releases → 2018 ING + Goldman release → 2023 Owl Rock + ING release. Each new lien is paired with a same-day or near-same-day release of the prior lien, and every lien returns to Humanetics. No chained LLCs, no common principals, no rapid-fire ownership pass-throughs.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. No infringement suit, ITC complaint, or PTAB proceeding naming US 8622748 was found in any source reviewed, and no assignment within 6 months of any assertion date exists because no assertion date exists. (I searched for CAFC 2026 docket activity earlier — none found; absence of indexed results is not definitive proof, but there is zero affirmative evidence of assertion.)

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Humanetics is an operating company with no bankruptcy filings in the record; the security agreements are ordinary-course sponsor debt, and the patent has been maintained to its 12th year (2025-06-25 payment).

7. Privateering — Not present. No operating-company-to-NPE transfer exists at all, so there is no vehicle for Humanetics to assert through a proxy. The only parties besides Humanetics are lenders whose interests were all released.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain terminates at the operating company, not at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

The recorded chain (reels 028136/0445 → 063641/0606, 2012–2023) shows US 8622748 never left the operating company: the inventors assigned to Humanetics in 2011, a 2013 corrective assignment fixed the name, and every subsequent event is a lender security interest that was subsequently released back to Humanetics (031749/0299 + 031766/0990 → releases 039333/0218 + 039353/0641; 039295/0268 → release 045307/0421; 045307/0454 → release 063641/0606). Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc. is the current assignee, is an active manufacturer of crash test dummies (the Q3s child side-impact dummy embodying this ankle assembly per the patent's own description), and has paid maintenance fees through year 12 (2025-06-25). No NPE, shell, privateer, or defensive-aggregator appears anywhere in the chain, and no litigation was identified — so if the patent is ever asserted, it will be asserted by the operating company that builds the product, not by a licensing vehicle. The only residual caveat is the unretrieved correspondent data (signal 3), which is a diligence gap, not an NPE indicator.

Verify directly: USPTO Patent Assignment Search — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 8622748; reels 028136/0445, 031731/0964, 031749/0299, 031766/0990, 036463/0157, 039295/0268, 039333/0218, 039353/0641, 045307/0421, 045307/0454, 063627/0920, 063641/0606).

Prior Art Analysis — US Patent 8,622,748 B2 ("Ankle Assembly for Crash Test Dummy")

1. Verification of the patent record

I searched for the specific identifier 8622748 (application 13/338,760) and confirmed the USPTO-granted record US8622748B2 ("Ankle assembly for crash test dummy," Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc., inventors Zhenwen J. Wang / Bernard Been / Cheng Yao; filed 2011-12-28; priority 2010-12-30 (61/428,565); granted 2014-01-07; examiner Kurt Fernstrom). The Humanetics intellectual-property page (updated March 24, 2026) still lists 8,622,748 — "Ankle Assembly for Crash Test Dummy" as an active Anthropomorphic Test Device patent. No similar-number confusion (e.g., a "8622748" belonging to a different family) was found — all sources trace to application 13/338,760.

Statutory framework note: Because the application was filed December 28, 2011 (before the AIA's March 16, 2013 effective date), pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 governs. The § 102(b) critical date is one year before the U.S. filing date — December 28, 2010 — and § 102(e) applies to U.S. patents/applications whose own effective U.S. filing dates precede the invention. All ten distinct cited references (plus one reissue) qualify as prior art under § 102(b) and/or § 102(e)/(a), as noted per reference below.

2. The cited references — full list

The '748 patent record lists 10 citations in one view and 11 in the "Patent Citations" view (the extra entry is USRE42418E1, the reissue of US7086273B2). In Google Patents' notation, * = cited by examiner; entries without a mark were applicant-supplied (all three are Humanetics/FTSS-family patents).

3. The three most relevant references — element-by-element § 102 analysis

Independent claim 1 requires, in a single reference: (a) an ankle assembly for a crash test dummy; (b) an ankle clevis assembly for attachment to a leg assembly; (c) an ankle base assembly for attachment to a foot assembly cooperating with the clevis; (d) a fastener connecting clevis and base that both allows proper ankle positions for different ankles and allows friction adjustment to simulate human bracing in impact; and (e) a plurality of elastomeric elements disposed between the clevis and base assemblies permitting inversion/eversion. Claim 12 is the same four-element ankle assembly embedded in a full crash test dummy (body with leg, foot, and interconnecting ankle assembly).

3a. US 5,741,989 A — Viano et al. (First Technology Safety Systems) — closest on the ankle-base / elastomeric side

• Description: Lower-leg assembly for a crash test dummy (Hybrid III 5th-percentile-female context). A tibia connects through a load cell to a "lower leg to ankle connector" 73 whose lower end has a groove 78; an ankle joint 80 has an upper end retained in the groove by a screw-type fastener 82 (pivoting about a transverse axis) and a ball 84 on its lower end seated in a socket 85 in the foot assembly 77 — a ball/socket subtalar joint "with a range of motion simulating a human foot-ankle joint." Resilient cushions 83 and 89 (formed of resilient material) surround the joint at the connector and at the retainer 87, returning the ankle and foot to a neutral position after movement; a ball-guide screw 91 limits rotation.
• Mapping to claim 1 / 12: (a) ✓ crash-test-dummy lower leg; (b) ~ the grooved connector 73 acts as a clevis/yoke receiving the ankle joint upper end; (c) ✓ foot assembly with socket cooperating with the joint; (d) partially — fastener 82 is a threaded pivot fastener permitting ankle positioning, but is not described as a clamping/friction-adjustment bolt for "simulating human bracing"; (e) partially — cushions 83/89 are plural resilient (elastomeric) elements located between the connector (clevis-like part) and the ankle joint, and between the retainer and the joint, and the ball/socket provides inversion/eversion — but they are not "a plurality of elastomeric elements disposed between the clevis assembly and the ankle base assembly" in the claimed configuration.
• Claims potentially anticipated: Strongest single § 102 reference. Most defensible: claims 3/14 (threaded fastener 82 engaging aperture 79 to secure the joint), 6/17 (ankle joint member pivotally connected to the base/connector), 9/20 (longitudinal aperture 81 through the joint member receiving the fastener), 11/22 (cushions of resilient material). A broad reading could support claims 1 and 12 (and 2/13, 5/16, 10/21), but element (d)'s friction-adjustment-to-simulate-bracing function and element (e)'s "plurality between clevis and base" configuration are the gaps that make full anticipation contestable.

3b. US 4,349,339 A — Daniel (Ford Motor Co.) — closest on the clevis + shoulder-bolt + friction side

• Description: Force-indicating dummy legs for dynamic restraint-system testing. Each leg has a knee joint and an ankle joint; at the ankle, the tibia's lower end carries an inverted ankle clevis 67 with depending legs 78; a foot plate 73 has an upstanding post 74 whose upper end is pivotally coupled by a socket-head shoulder bolt 77 to the clevis legs 78. Ankle flexion is limited to ~35° (the published human limit); ankle twist is limited to ±20° by a stripper bolt/flats arrangement. At the knee, the patent discloses friction preload controlled by Belleville springs 56 compressed by adjusting stripper bolts 34 — i.e., adjustable friction to control joint movement ("simulate human bracing"-type function, but at the knee).
• Mapping: (a) ✓; (b) ✓ inverted ankle clevis on the tibia; (c) ✓ foot plate/post cooperating with the clevis; (d) partially — shoulder bolt 77 is the fastener connecting clevis and base and permits ankle positioning, but the friction-adjustment teaching (Belleville stack) is at the knee, not at the ankle fastener; (e) absent — no elastomeric inversion/eversion elements.
• Claims potentially anticipated: 2/13 (clevis with side portions and apertures), 5/16 (base/foot member), 9/20 (post with aperture receiving the shoulder bolt), and arguably 3/14 and 4/15 (bolt/screw and Belleville spring about a fastener between clevis legs — though at the knee). Does not fully anticipate claims 1/12 because element (e) (plurality of elastomeric elements for inversion/eversion) is entirely missing.

3c. US 6,982,409 B2 — First Technology Safety Systems — closest on the fastener-friction + resilient-element side

• Description: Ankle assembly 39 for a crash test dummy (confirmed via the published application record, US 2004/0099825): an adapter/ankle connector 66 attaches to the tibia load cell; a ball 74 with stem 76 connects to the foot assembly; a retainer 80 with socket 82 forms a subtalar joint simulating the human foot-ankle range of motion. A resilient bumper 90 (rubber, with dowels 92) about the stem returns the joint to neutral and provides joint stiffness; a ball-guide screw limits rotation; a set screw 94 contacts the ball to "set the ankle joint to a predetermined force, preferably 1-g, to hold it against accidental movement." A PSD-based measurement system senses joint angles.
• Mapping: (a) ✓ ankle assembly for a crash test dummy; (b) ~ connector/adapter on the leg side (not a clevis); (c) ✓ retainer/foot assembly; (d) partially — set screw 94 is a fastener providing adjustable holding force at the joint (positioning + friction/holding), though not described as "simulating human bracing in impact"; (e) partially — bumper 90 is a resilient/elastomeric element providing stiffness and neutral return, but it is a single bumper about the stem, not "a plurality of elastomeric elements disposed between the clevis assembly and the ankle base assembly."
• Claims potentially anticipated: 11/22 (elastomeric material) in context; under a very broad reading, 1 and 12. The structural mismatches (no clevis; single bumper; ball/socket rather than shaft/retainer-bracket arrangement) make this a stronger § 103 obviousness reference than a clean § 102 anticipator. Notably, it was applicant-cited, not examiner-cited.

4. The remaining cited references — brief assessments

5. Bottom line

1. Most relevant prior art (ranked): US 5,741,989 A (ankle joint + foot socket + resilient cushions — closest to claims 1/12 and several dependent claims), US 4,349,339 A (ankle clevis + foot post + shoulder bolt + Belleville friction adjustment — closest to the clevis/fastener claims), and US 6,982,409 B2 (ankle joint with set-screw friction adjustment + resilient bumper — closest on the fastener-friction/elastomeric combination, though applicant-cited and structurally divergent).
2. No single cited reference cleanly anticipates claim 1 or claim 12 as drafted. Each of the top three discloses a majority of the elements, but the combination of (i) a fastener that both positions the ankle and provides adjustable friction "to simulate human bracing," together with (ii) a plurality of elastomeric elements disposed between clevis and base for inversion/eversion, is not found in any one reference. The strongest § 102 arguments would target the narrower dependent claims (3, 6, 9, 11 / 14, 17, 20, 22) with US 5,741,989 A, and claims 2/5/9/13/16/20 with US 4,349,339 A.
3. Practice pointer: The combination of '989 + '339 + '982,409 is a far more potent § 103 obviousness case than any single-reference § 102 anticipation, particularly given the examiner's own citation of '989 and '339 on the face of the patent.

6. Caveats

• I verified the '748 record through USPTO-sourced aggregators (Google Patents, Justia) and Humanetics' IP page; I could not execute a direct USPTO Patent Public Search query in this environment, but the application/patent identifiers matched across all sources.
• Full-text retrieval for US 6,695,619 B2, US 7,086,273 B2/RE42,418, US 2008/0021570 A1, and US 7,891,259 B2 was not independently completed (search step limit reached); their descriptions above rely on the authoritative citation data printed on the face of the '748 patent plus partial search results.
• The searches also surfaced two uncited references worth flagging for completeness: US 4,488,433 A (Denton, "Crash test dummy lower leg structure" — ball/socket ankle with a friction-adjustment screw) and US 5,589,651 A (the parent of US 5,741,989). Neither is on the face of the '748 patent, so neither is part of the formal citation list, but both are highly relevant if a validity challenge expands beyond the cited art.

Obviousness Analysis of US 8,622,748 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

1. Legal framework and scope of this analysis

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent claim is invalid if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). The analysis follows the Graham factors — (1) scope and content of the prior art, (2) differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill, and (4) secondary considerations — informed by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007), which permits combining prior-art elements where the combination is of known elements yielding predictable results, and where there is a design need or market pressure to solve a known problem.

Effective prior-art date. The '748 patent claims priority to Provisional Application 61/428,565 (Dec. 30, 2010); the utility application was filed Dec. 28, 2011, i.e., pre-AIA. All references cited in the patent (the "Prior Art section" of this analysis) are § 102 prior art: US 4,349,339; US 4,850,877; US 5,741,989; US 6,409,516; US 6,695,619; US 6,957,961; US 6,982,409; US 7,086,273; US RE42,418; US 2008/0021570; and US 7,891,259 (each of the latter two qualifies via filing dates of 2006 and 2007 respectively).

2. The claimed invention in functional terms

Claim 1 (independent, apparatus) requires only four elements:

1. An ankle clevis assembly for attachment to a leg assembly;
2. An ankle base assembly for attachment to a foot assembly, cooperating with the clevis;
3. A fastener connecting the clevis and base assemblies together, functionally defined to (i) allow proper ankle positions for different ankles and (ii) allow friction adjustment to simulate human bracing in impact conditions; and
4. A plurality of elastomeric elements disposed between the clevis and base assemblies, functionally defined to allow proper inversion and eversion performance.

Claim 12 (independent, system) adds only the crash-test-dummy context: a body with leg assembly, foot assembly, and the same ankle assembly interconnecting them. The dependent claims (2–11, 13–22) add mechanical detail: inverted-U clevis with apertured side portions (2, 13); a securing screw (3, 14); a spring (Belleville disc) about the fastener between the side portions (4, 15); a U-shaped base member (5, 16); a pivotally connected ankle joint member (6, 17); laterally extending shafts (7, 18); retainer brackets over the shafts (8, 19); a longitudinal aperture through the joint member receiving the fastener (9, 20); cylindrical elastomeric elements between shafts and brackets (10, 21); and elastomeric material (11, 22).

Notably, the two functional limitations — "friction adjustment to simulate human bracing" and elastomeric elements "that allow proper inversion and eversion" — are the only arguably distinguishing features over the oldest art, and both are expressly taught in the cited prior art.

3. Level of ordinary skill

A POSITA would be a mechanical engineer with 2–5 years in anthropomorphic test device (ATD) / crash-test-dummy design, familiar with SAE biomechanics task-force anthropometry, joint kinematic ranges (dorsiflexion/plantarflexion, inversion/eversion), and standard fastening/elastomeric components used in dummy joints. Such a person would routinely consult the dummy-design literature and prior dummy patents, including those of First Technology Safety Systems and Ford.

4. Scope and content of the closest prior art (from the patent's own citation list)

US 4,349,339 A — Daniel/Ford, "Force-indicating dummy legs" (filed 1981; granted 1982)

Cited by the examiner. This is the closest single reference. It discloses:

• An inverted ankle clevis 67 attached to the simulated tibia bone, with depending legs 78 — i.e., a clevis assembly attachable to the leg (elements 1 and 2 of claim 1 in structure).
• A foot plate 73 with an upstanding post 74 pivotally coupled by a socket head shoulder bolt 77 to the depending legs 78 of the ankle clevis — i.e., a foot-side base member connected to the leg-side clevis by a shoulder-bolt fastener, exactly the claim 1 arrangement: "a fastener to connect said clevis assembly and said ankle base assembly together."
• Ankle motion limits tied to human biomechanics: dorsiflexion "to about 35°, the published limit of human ankle joint motion," and ±20° of ankle rotation/twist about the tibia axis via angularly related flats 71 on plug portion 69 — i.e., inversion/eversion-type motion designed to human limits.
• Friction adjustment by fastener compression using Belleville springs: at the knee joint, "the resistance to swinging movement of the simulated tibia bone ... is controlled by the amount of compression that is placed on the Belleville springs 56 by adjustment of the stripper bolts 34 or by changing the thickness of the thrust washers 55." This is precisely the claim 1 fastener function: clamping a clevis joint and adjusting friction to simulate human resistance ("bracing").
• Ankle "resistance" behavior through a spring-loaded plunger 82 and ankle load cell 79 measuring "ankle joint upward torque."

Sources: Google Patents US4349339; PDF at patentimages.

US 5,741,989 A — First Technology Safety Systems, "Lower leg for crash test dummy" (filed 1994; granted 1998)

Cited by the examiner. Discloses a lower leg for a crash test dummy (Hybrid III) with an ankle rotation assembly 39 connecting the tibia to the foot 40. The ankle joint 80 is retained in a groove 78 of a connector 73 by a fastener 82; a ball 84 on the ankle joint cooperates with a socket 85 in the foot assembly to form a subtalar joint with a range of motion simulating a human foot-ankle joint, and resilient cushions 83 and 89 (elastomeric elements) return the ankle joint to a neutral position after movement. This is the plurality of elastomeric elements "disposed between" the leg-side and foot-side structure that "allow proper inversion and eversion performance."

Sources: Google Patents US5741989; EveryPatent.

US 6,982,409 B2 — First Technology Safety Systems, "Measurement system for ball joint of crash test dummy" (filed 2002; granted 2006; assigned to the same corporate family as the '748 patent)

Cited by the examiner. Discloses an ankle joint measurement system for a crash test dummy and publishes the target ankle ranges of motion: "Rotation about Y-axis: Dorsiflexion (45°) and Plantar Flexion (33°) ... Rotation about X-axis: Eversion (23°) and Inversion (23°) ... Rotation about Z-axis: Medial (23°) and Lateral rotation (23°)." This establishes that "proper inversion and eversion performance" was a known, quantified design target for dummy ankle joints, and supplies the motivation to size/select elastomeric elements to meet those ranges.

Source: Google Patents US6982409.

US 6,957,961 B1 — Ram Consulting, "Manikin having a bio-simulating material..." (filed 2000; granted 2005)

Cited by the examiner. Discloses a child manikin (the '748 dummy is a three-year-old child side-impact dummy) with body portions — including foot portions detachably connected to leg portions — formed of a bio-simulating silicone-elastomer material selected to mimic human flesh modulus (≈3–15 psi). This supports both the child-dummy context of claim 12 and the use of elastomeric material (claims 11, 22) for biofidelity.

Sources: Google Patents US6957961; USPTO.report.

US 4,850,877 A — Donjoy, "Method of determining stress effects ... anthropomorphic leg device" (filed 1987; granted 1989)

Cited by the examiner. Discloses an anthropomorphic leg device whose simulated ligaments/muscles are calibrated with spring means to replicate human tension/elongation (visco-elastic) response — the same "visco-elastic loading response like a human ankle under tension" touted as an advantage of the '748 ankle.

Source: FreePatentsOnline US4850877.

Other cited references (secondary)

• US 6,409,516 B1 (Thill, "Posable skeleton") and US 6,695,619 B2 (Brown-Wilkinson, "Orthopaedic demonstration aid"): posable joints with friction/positioning — evidence that clamping a joint at user-selected positions for different anatomies was conventional.
• US 2008/0021570 A1 (Bédard, "Human locomotion simulator") and US 7,891,259 B2 (Hyundai, "Human dummy system for evaluating comfort of seat"): leg/foot joints with controlled resistance in human simulators.
• US 7,086,273 B2 / US RE42,418 E1 (Safety Technology Systems, "Flexible printed circuit cabling system"): the instrumented-dummy context only; not needed for the mechanical combination.

5. Combination analysis

5.1 Primary combination: US 4,349,339 (Daniel) + US 5,741,989 (First Technology) → claims 1 and 12

Element-by-element mapping:

The combination literally assembles every element of claim 1: take Daniel's clevis-and-foot-post ankle joint held by a shoulder bolt (elements a, b, c), and supply the elastomeric inversion/eversion elements (element d) from First Technology's ankle joint, whose cushions "return the ankle joint to a neutral position" after rotation — i.e., elastomeric elements disposed between the leg-side joint and foot-side structure providing inversion/eversion performance. Claim 12 is the same combination placed in the full dummy (Daniel and '989 both disclose complete dummies with legs and feet).

Motivation to combine (KSR): Both references address the same problem — biofidelic ankle joints for crash-test dummies — and belong to the same field (dummy lower-limb design; indeed, both were the standard references in the field and '989's assignee later acquired the Daniel-derived dummy technology). Daniel's joint provides positioning and adjustable friction (at the knee, using Belleville washers compressed by bolt adjustment — a mechanism a POSITA would immediately recognize as transferable to the ankle clevis joint to "simulate human bracing," since Daniel itself states the ankle is designed around "the published limit of human ankle joint motion"). First Technology's joint provides the elastomeric return-to-neutral and multi-axis subtalar motion. Combining a friction-adjustable clevis/bolt ankle (Daniel) with elastomeric cushions (First Technology) to obtain both positioning/friction control and inversion/eversion compliance is a combination of known elements yielding a predictable result — the paradigm KSR situation. The '748 specification itself concedes the goal is ordinary: an ankle "that offers human like range of motion," "visco-elastic loading response like a human ankle under tension," and toe-to-brake-pedal positioning — all objectives already articulated in the prior art (Daniel's 35°/20° human-limit design; '989's "range of motion simulating a human foot-ankle joint").

5.2 Secondary combination: add US 6,982,409 (ankle range-of-motion parameters)

US 6,982,409 quantifies the required ankle ranges (inversion/eversion ±23°, dorsiflexion 45°/plantarflexion 33°) for a dummy ankle. Adding this reference supplies the explicit design parameter for sizing the elastomeric elements of combination 5.1 and confirms that a POSITA would have been motivated to select elastomeric elements "that allow proper inversion and eversion performance" — the exact functional limitation of claim 1 element (d). Same assignee family as the '748 patent (Humanetics/First Technology), and the '748's own specification mirrors these ranges.

5.3 Tertiary combination: add US 6,957,961 (child manikin, bio-simulating elastomer)

The '748 dummy is a three-year-old child side-impact dummy. US 6,957,961 discloses child manikins with detachable leg/foot portions made of bio-simulating silicone elastomer, and explains why elastomeric materials are chosen (matching human flesh modulus). This provides motivation for (i) claim 12's child-dummy context and (ii) claims 11/22's "elastomeric material" limitation, and supports the use of cylindrical elastomeric "resistive elements" as a routine biofidelity design choice.

5.4 Additional support: US 4,850,877 (visco-elastic response), US 6,409,516 / US 6,695,619 (posable/friction joints)

• US 4,850,877 teaches calibrating spring means to replicate human ligament/muscle tension-elongation response — direct motivation for the '748's stated advantage of "visco-elastic loading response like a human ankle under tension."
• US 6,409,516 and US 6,695,619 teach posable joints held at user-selected positions (the "proper ankle positions for different ankles" function), and US 2008/0021570 and US 7,891,259 teach leg/foot joints with controllable resistance in human simulators. These corroborate that each functional limitation of claim 1 was known and conventional.

6. Dependent claims

Every dependent limitation is either literally disclosed in the combination or is a conventional engineering selection (cylindrical elastomeric bushings between a journaled shaft and a U-shaped retainer bracket are textbook machine design).

7. Counterarguments and why they are weak

1. "The examiner allowed the claims despite citing these references." The examiner's citations (all starred as examiner citations) indicate the references were considered, but an examiner's allowance is not dispositive of validity. On the strongest combination (Daniel + First Technology), each limitation maps to an express disclosure, and the functional limitations are drafted broadly ("to allow," "that allow") — under KSR, a claim limitation reciting a known function of a known element does not avoid obviousness.

2. "Daniel's friction adjustment is at the knee, not the ankle." The mechanism (Belleville stack compressed by a clamping bolt in a clevis) is structurally identical to the '748's ankle embodiment (Belleville disc 46 + stop ring 48 + washer 50 about shoulder bolt 42 between side portions 32), and Daniel states the joint-resistance concept is biomechanically motivated ("to approximate the cadaver data"). Transferring a known friction-adjustment mechanism from one joint of the same dummy leg to another joint of the same dummy leg is an obvious design choice, not an inventive leap.

3. "The claimed combination yields an unexpected result." The '748's advantages (human-like range of motion, visco-elastic response, toe-to-pedal positioning, friction adjustment for bracing) are each expressly stated as goals in the prior art itself (Daniel's human-limit ankle; '989's range-of-motion and return-to-neutral cushions; '409's quantified ranges; '877's calibrated visco-elastic response). No unexpected result is apparent.

4. Secondary considerations. The record shows no objective indicia (long-felt need, unexpected success, licensing, copying) beyond ordinary commercial maintenance of the patent. The assignee history (security interests, releases) reflects financing, not evidence of non-obviousness.

8. Conclusion

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and KSR, the subject matter of claims 1–22 of US 8,622,748 B2 would have been obvious as of December 2010. The strongest case is:

• Claims 1–4, 9–11, 13–15, 20–22: obvious over US 4,349,339 (Daniel) in view of US 5,741,989 (First Technology), optionally with US 6,982,409 for the quantified inversion/eversion ranges and US 4,850,877 for visco-elastic response motivation.
• Claims 5–8, 16–19: the U-shaped base, pivotally connected joint member with shafts, and retainer brackets are conventional mechanical equivalents of structures disclosed in Daniel and '989 (and confirmed by the ball/socket + retainer of '989); obvious as design choices.
• Claim 12: the full-dummy claim adds nothing beyond the known context (both Daniel and '989 disclose complete dummies; US 6,957,961 supplies the child-manikin context).

The combination rationale is textbook KSR: two references in the same field, addressing the same problem (biofidelic dummy ankle joints), each supplying complementary known elements (friction-adjustable clevis/shoulder-bolt joint from Daniel; elastomeric inversion/eversion cushions from First Technology), combined to yield the predictable result of an ankle joint with adjustable positioning/friction and elastomeric inversion/eversion compliance. A POSITA would have been directly and strongly motivated to make this combination to satisfy the known design targets for dummy ankle range of motion and impact response.

Caveat: This analysis is based on the examiner-cited references and their publicly available disclosures. I did not locate any CAFC, PTAB, or district-court decision in 2026 addressing the validity of US 8,622,748, so no litigated-validity findings (e.g., a court's rejection of an identical combination) are available to test these conclusions. The absence of such a decision from my searches is not proof that none exists.