US 9240112

I'll search for information on this patent, including any 2026 litigation activity.

Let me run additional targeted searches to check court dockets and litigation databases.

US Patent 9,240,112 — Search Findings and Summary

Search coverage note

I searched for the literal identifier 9240112 (and its formatted forms) across general web, USPTO/patent-hosted pages, and Federal Circuit materials. I found no CAFC 2026 docket, appeal, or IPR entry naming US 9,240,112. The 2026 Federal Circuit and PTAB items surfaced in the results (e.g., Spero v. Volkswagen, Nos. 2025-1028/2025-1306; the March 2026 NYIPLA PTAB meeting list) do not reference this patent. Several CyboEnergy infringement suits do exist (e.g., CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Deye Ess Technology USA, C.D. Cal. 2:25-cv-07964; CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Yotta Energy, Inc., W.D. Tex. 1:25-cv-01300; CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., W.D. Tex. 7:24-cv-00319), but the ones I could inspect plead the '133 patent (a scalable DC-to-AC power inversion system patent), not 9,240,112. I therefore cannot confirm any assertion or appeal involving 9,240,112. Treat this as an absence of evidence, not proof of non-assertion — the available dockets were not fully retrievable.

One search hit referencing "9240112" was a food-science DOI (10.26598/FSAP.2025.9240112) and is unrelated to this patent; I note it only to flag a possible identifier collision.

Bibliographic data (per the authoritative full text)

Abstract (verbatim)

"A method and apparatus is disclosed that can monitor the solar power inverters in real-time both day and night, and generate surveillance alarms and actions when a solar power inverter is removed or disconnected from the AC powerline for unknown reasons. It offers a low cost and reliable surveillance means to help guard a residential-scale, commercial-scale, or utility-scale solar power system in real-time at all times."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — Multi-channel DC-to-AC inverter (the core apparatus claim). A solar micro/mini-inverter with at least two DC input ports, each feeding its own DC-DC boost converter (stepping panel voltage up to a level suitable for inversion). The boosted outputs are combined in a DC power combiner (converters in parallel, currents summed), then inverted by a DC-AC inverter. The AC output passes a load interface circuit (filters high-frequency switching noise) onto an internal AC powerline that leads to the grid via an external AC powerline. The distinguishing feature is the hybrid power-supply arrangement: a DC power supply (fed from the solar panels via the combiner), an AC/DC power supply (fed from the grid at the external AC powerline), and a power supply selector that together power the inverter's internal electronics from either source. A digital microcontroller handles measurement, per-channel DC power calculation, MPPT, inversion/synchronization/current control, AC monitoring, powerline communications, AC-line switching logic, and runs the unit in a "normal mode" or "night mode" based on computed DC input power, selecting which supply is used. A powerline modem (via interface circuitry) sends/receives performance data over the internal AC powerline. A line sensing circuit detects grid phase and zero-crossing. A solid-state switch disconnects the internal AC powerline from the grid during non-generation time.

Claim 4 — Single-channel version. Same architecture and same hybrid dual-supply/night-mode/monitoring scheme as claim 1, but with one DC input port and one DC-DC boost converter (and, correspondingly, no combiner is recited).

Claim 6 — "Method" of supplying DC power to internal electronics. Recites the same set of structural elements as claim 1 (multi-channel, at least two ports, boost converters, combiner, inverter, load interface, internal AC powerline, hybrid DC + AC/DC supplies with selector, microcontroller with MPPT and normal/night mode operation, powerline modem, line sensing circuit, solid-state disconnect switch). Note: despite being captioned a method, the claim body reads as an apparatus recitation of components — a drafting point worth flagging for validity analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 112, though I express no legal conclusion.

Claim 7 — m-channel solar power inverter (broader, "surveillance-oriented" claim). At least two DC input channels, each comprising a DC-DC boost converter, measurement circuits, supporting circuits, and cables/connectors to a solar panel; an AC output port feeding the grid through an external AC powerline; a DC power combiner; the same hybrid DC supply + AC/DC supply + power supply selector; and a digital microcontroller that (i) measures input voltage/current to compute per-channel DC input power, (ii) runs normal or night mode based on that power, and (iii) keeps powerline communication with the outside world as long as the inverter remains connected to the external AC powerline. This last limitation is the claim's surveillance hook: loss of that communication implies the inverter was removed or the AC line was cut.

Dependent claims: Claim 2 (output single-phase or three-phase, dep. 1); Claim 3 (microcontroller includes Model-Free Adaptive (MFA) controllers for the boost converter and MFA optimizers for MPPT, dep. 1); Claim 5 (single-/three-phase, dep. 4); Claim 8 (single-/three-phase, dep. 7); Claim 9 (AC/DC power supply sized to power only the portion of internal electronics enabling powerline communications, dep. 7).

Context from the specification (supporting the claims)

The patent frames the invention as a low-cost alternative to fences, cameras, and guards. Because grid-interactive inverters normally shut down at night (losing monitorability exactly when theft risk peaks), the disclosed inverter enters a night mode in which the microcontroller switches the power supply selector to the small AC/DC supply and powers only the communications-related electronics (microcontroller, interface circuit, powerline modem), keeping the inverter reachable over the powerline. A seized/cut inverter drops off the powerline network, and the gateway/server runs the FIG. 7 "Alarm Action Routine": it distinguishes a single new loss (likely malfunction) from two-or-more simultaneous losses, checks whether the utility building lost AC power, checks "On Guard" mode and whether the time is between 6 pm and 6 am, and then launches actions (cameras, alarms, guards, police dispatch, messages/e-mails), followed by an acknowledgment/reset subroutine. FIGs. 4–6 scale the scheme from residential (gateway) to commercial (20 A branch circuits + powerline server behind a 20 A breaker) to utility-scale (40 A branch circuits; server able to address 256 Mini-Inverters; four servers for a 1 MW plant, optionally with filters or one-active/three-waiting arbitration).

Confidence and caveats

• High confidence in the bibliographic fields, abstract, claims, and specification content, which come verbatim from the patent text.
• Explicit uncertainty: (1) I could not verify current USPTO legal status beyond the source's "Active / expires 2034-07-11" indication, which the source itself labels an assumption; (2) no CAFC 2026 docket or appeal for 9,240,112 was located — I cannot confirm or rule out such a proceeding; (3) I could not confirm whether 9,240,112 (as opposed to the '133 patent) is among the patents asserted in CyboEnergy's pending 2024–2025 district-court suits, because the retrievable complaints/charts referenced the '133 patent. If you need docket-level certainty on either point, these should be confirmed directly against USPTO PatentCenter and PACER/CourtListener.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9240112 specifically.

Initial searches didn't surface relevant results. Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Let me dig deeper into the CyboEnergy litigation and determine which patents were actually asserted.

Bottom Line

Based on my searches of litigation-focused sources (Unified Patents, Docket Alarm, CourtListener/RECAP, Patexia, UniCourt, Justia, and law-firm dockets), I found no litigation or post-grant proceeding specifically asserting or challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,240,112 as of today's date. No case appears to name the '112 patent as an asserted patent.

With one important caveat: my searches hit tool/step limits before I could exhaustively verify the full asserted-patent list in every case, so treat the "no litigation" conclusion as well-supported but not absolute.

Why the search is easy to confuse

The '112 patent is a CyboEnergy, Inc. patent ("Online surveillance system to protect solar power plants," filed 2013-03-15, granted 2016-01-19). CyboEnergy is a prolific, active litigant, so searches for "CyboEnergy litigation" return many hits — but the patents CyboEnergy actually asserts appear to be different patents, principally:

• U.S. 8,786,133 ("'133") — smart and scalable power inverters, and
• U.S. 9,331,489 ("'489") — maximizing power production at low sunlight.

Those two patents — not the '112 patent — are the ones named in the complaints I reviewed (e.g., the CyboEnergy v. Deye complaint asserts "claims 1–24 of the '133 patent," and Ramey LLP's notice states CyboEnergy sued Altenergy on "US 8,786,133 and 9,331,489").

CyboEnergy's assertion campaign (context — these assert the '133/'489 patents, NOT the '112 patent)

Also noted: CyboEnergy v. Northern Electric Power Technology (5:23-cv-06121, Nov 18, 2025) — a later-filed case.

IPR / PTAB proceedings in the campaign (none identified as involving the '112 patent):

• IPR2024-00360 — Altenergy Power System USA v. Cheng (Dec 22, 2023)
• IPR2024-00362 — Altenergy Power System USA v. Smith (Dec 26, 2023)
• IPR2024-01106 — Hoymiles USA, Inc. et al. v. CyboEnergy (Jun 27, 2024) — terminated pre-institution by settlement (Oct 28, 2024)

Unified Patents also runs PATROLL prior-art contests targeting CyboEnergy's "smart and scalable power inverters" patents, but I did not confirm the '112 patent is among the challenged patents.

Important disclaimers

1. No auto-correction applied. I have treated "9240112" literally as U.S. 9,240,112. Searches also returned unrelated hits containing the string "9240112" (a food-science DOI, a Russian hospital contract number), which I excluded as non-patent, non-litigation noise.
2. The table above is context, not a '112 answer. I could not confirm that any of these cases asserts the '112 patent; the evidence points to '133 and '489 as the asserted patents. If a case does assert the '112 patent, my searches did not surface it.
3. Verify before relying. Because I hit search limits, the most reliable confirmation would be to run the '112 patent number directly in the Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation) and PACER/RECAP, and to check whether the '112 patent (or its divisional child U.S. 9,871,380) has been asserted in any CyboEnergy complaint.

Conclusion: On the record available to me, no litigation is known involving U.S. Patent No. 9,240,112 specifically.

PTAB Proceedings — US 9,240,112 B2

Analyst note on sourcing. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block supplied with this prompt is the canonical USPTO Open Data Portal list for this patent. It contains no AIA trial proceeding entries. I ran independent web searches to try to surface anything ODP might not have indexed (Google Patents legal events, Docket Alarm PTAB dockets, Patexia litigation/PTAB cross-references, Ramey LLP and DLA Piper party pages, CourtListener). None returned an IPR, PGR, or CBM naming U.S. Patent No. 9,240,112 as the challenged patent. What the searches did return are proceedings against a different CyboEnergy patent, which I flag separately below so nobody mistakes them for this patent.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file against US 9,240,112. Breakdown: 0 active, 0 with claims invalidated, 0 with claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials. The patent has not been tested at the PTAB at all, so all nine claims — independent claims 1, 4, 6, and 7, and dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 8, and 9 — remain unadjudicated and presumptively valid. For a defendant today, the defensive posture is the opposite of "hardened": there is no free kill shot, but there is also no PTAB record, no claim-construction record from the Board, and no estoppel to work around. You would be building the invalidity case from scratch.

Proceedings against this patent

None. There is no proceeding to summarize. Per the operating rules, I am not going to invent docket numbers, panels, or dispositions to fill the section template. If you need a negative confirmation for a litigation hold or an IPR-filing decision memo, the correct citation is the absence of any entry in the USPTO Open Data Portal AIA-trial records for Patent 9,240,112 as of 2026-09-30, corroborated by the searches described above.

Adjacent proceedings — do NOT attribute these to 9,240,112

These surfaced in my searches and are frequently conflated with the '112 patent because they involve the same patent owner and the same technology family. In each case the challenged patent is US 8,786,133 B2 ("Smart and Scalable Power Inverters"), not US 9,240,112.

IPR2024-00360 — Altenergy Power System USA, Inc. v. CyboEnergy, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patent challenged: US 8,786,133 B2 — not 9,240,112
• Filed: 2023-12-22
• Status: Filed while CyboEnergy's W.D. Tex. suit against APsystems was pending; a parallel petition to IPR2024-00362.
• Source: Docket Alarm "Parallel Petitions Filed By All Petitioners (July 16, 2019 – June 29, 2024)" listing both petitions against patent 8786133 — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00438/Comcast_Corporation_v._Entropic_Communications_LLC/docs/07-11-2024-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2001-Ex_2001_Parallel_Petition_Filings_Since_July_2019.pdf

IPR2024-00362 — Altenergy Power System USA, Inc. v. CyboEnergy, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patent challenged: US 8,786,133 B2 — not 9,240,112
• Filed: 2023-12-26
• Status: Petition was accepted as corrected on 2024-01-22.
• Counsel: Petitioner — Michael J. Curley and Johanna M. Wilbert, Quarles & Brady LLP. Patent Owner — DLA Piper LLP (US), Reston, VA, with Ramey LLP.
• Source: Paper 5, Notice of Accepting Corrected Petition, mailed 2024-01-22 — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00362/Altenergy_Power_System_USA_Inc/
• Caveat: I did not retrieve an institution decision, Final Written Decision, or appeal for either docket within this session. Do not treat either as invalidating anything; treat them only as evidence that CyboEnergy's inverter family has drawn IPR fire.

Related reexamination signal (also not this patent)

A Google Patents legal-events entry on the US 8,786,133 page records a Request for Reexamination filed 2023-12-19, near in time to the two Altenergy IPRs. Again, that event is recorded against the '133 patent page, not the '112 patent.

Related litigation context

CyboEnergy has been an active enforcer of its mini-inverter portfolio — asserting the '133 and '489 patents (again, not '112) against Altenergy/APsystems, Aptos Solar Technology, Deye ESS Technology USA, and Hoymiles Power Electronics, with claim-construction and Rule 12 activity noted in W.D. Tex. and elsewhere.

• Complaint, CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Altenergy Power System USA, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) — asserts US 8,786,133 and US 9,331,489: https://cdn.lawlytics.com/law-media/uploads/2360/[219387](/patent/219387)/original/Complaint-Cyboenergy-v.-Altenergy.pdf
• CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Hoymiles Power Electronics USA, Inc. (claim 15 / claim 19 direct-infringement pleading) — https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[9980519](/patent/9980519)/cyboenergy-inc-v-hoymiles-power-electronics-usa-inc/
• Patexia litigation/PTAB cross-reference showing IPR2024-00362 tied to the CyboEnergy v. Altenergy and CyboEnergy v. Deye cases — https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/CyboEnergy-Inc-v-Deye-Ess-Technology-USA-et-al-id-[214322](/patent/214322)/cases

Strategic summary

Claim status. All nine claims of US 9,240,112 are UNTESTED. Nothing is canceled, nothing has been held patentable by the Board, and there is no certificate of correction or statutory disclaimer recorded in the legal-events data. The claim set as issued is:

• Claim 1 — multiple-channel DC-to-AC inverter (independent)
• Claims 2, 3 — depend from 1 (single/three-phase output; MFA controllers/MFA optimizers for MPPT)
• Claim 4 — single-channel DC-to-AC inverter (independent)
• Claim 5 — depends from 4
• Claim 6 — method of providing DC power to internal circuits (independent)
• Claim 7 — m-channel solar power inverter (independent)
• Claim 8 — depends from 7
• Claim 9 — depends from 7 (AC/DC power supply powers only the comms-enabling portion of the internal circuits)

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR/PGR was ever instituted against this patent, § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not exist against anyone with respect to these claims. A defendant can raise any § 102 or § 103 ground, on any art, at any time, without Board-imposed estoppel. The only procedural caution is the § 315(b) one-year bar clocked from service of a complaint alleging infringement of this patent — and, per § 315(a)(1), the fact that a defendant filed a DJ action of invalidity before filing an IPR petition. Neither is triggered by proceedings against the sibling '133 patent.

Pattern signals. No petitioner has filed multiple IPRs on this patent, because no petitioner has filed even one. The patent owner (CyboEnergy, Inc., a small entity per the maintenance-fee records) is demonstrably willing to litigate its inverter portfolio and is represented in that litigation by Ramey LLP, with DLA Piper handling PTAB-side work on the '133 IPRs. There is no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, OpenSky) in the chain that I could find for any CyboEnergy patent. Note also that this patent has a divisionally related sibling, US 9,871,380 B1 ("Methods and apparatus to protect solar power plants"), filed 2016-01-18 as a divisional of the '112 application — meaning any validity attack you mount on '112 should be scoped to consider whether the same art reaches the '380 claims, and vice versa. The '380 patent is recorded as Expired – Fee Related, which reduces but does not eliminate its nuisance value.

One structural point that will matter in any IPR: claim 3 recites "Model-Free Adaptive (MFA) controllers" and "MFA optimizers," and the specification cross-references CyboEnergy's own MFA prior art (US 2012/0259437 A1, listed among the examiner citations). That creates an interesting posture — the patent owner's own earlier published application is on the face of the '112 patent as cited art, so any MFA-based obviousness theory has a toehold in the record.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant and want a quick invalidity win: there isn't one handed to you. No claim has been canceled, and there is no FWD to quote or link. Do not file a motion or a letter citing "the PTAB's invalidation of claims X–Y of the '112 patent" — that would be a fabrication. The honest statement is: "US 9,240,112 has never been challenged in an AIA trial; all nine claims are unadjudicated."

If you are deciding whether to file an IPR:

• § 315(b) clock: confirm the service date of any complaint asserting the '112 patent specifically. You have one year from service. No IPR has ever been filed on this patent, so there is no prior-petitioner clock and no § 315(e) risk from anyone else's earlier petition.
• § 315(a)(1): if you have already filed a district-court DJ count of invalidity as to the '112 patent, an IPR petition may be statutorily barred — check your pleadings before filing.
• Trial-stage milestones (none are running, because nothing is instituted): if you institute, the Board's institution decision is due within six months of the petition's filing date, and the Final Written Decision is due within twelve months of institution (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)), extendable up to six months for good cause.
• Art to develop: the examiner of record cited only six references, all from 2009–2012, including the patent owner's own US 2012/0212065 A1 (scalable and redundant mini-inverters) and SMA's US 2012/0319495 A1 (power inverter with multi-fed on-board power supply). That SMA reference — directed at multi-fed on-board power supplies in an inverter — is the most natural starting point for a § 103 challenge to the hybrid DC/AC power-supply-selection limitation that sits at the heart of independent claims 1, 4, 6, and 7. Separately, Tigo Energy's anti-theft work (US 9,007,210 B2, "Enhanced system and method for theft prevention in a solar power array during nonoperative periods"; US 9,000,919 B2, "Anti-theft system and method using a multiple radio frequency signal for solar panel systems") is prior art in the same surveillance-of-PV-equipment space and would be worth evaluating against the surveillance/monitoring aspects of claim 7's final limitation ("keep powerline communication of the inverter to the outside world as long as the inverter is connected to the external AC powerline"), though note that limitation is a device capability recitation and may require careful obviousness framing.
• Near-simultaneous-filing caution: if you file, budget for the possibility that the patent owner's PTAB counsel (DLA Piper, per the '133 IPRs) will run the same playbook here, including a § 325(d) discretionary-denial argument built on the examiner-cited art.

Bottom line. Absence of PTAB activity is itself the signal here: this patent, though part of an actively litigated portfolio, has never been picked up by a petitioner. That usually means either the patent is not the one being asserted in the cases that matter (consistent with what the litigation search shows — the '133 and '489 patents are the asserted ones), or that the '112 patent's claims are viewed as expensive to invalidate. Either way, if you are being asserted against on the '112 patent, you would be the first challenger, and there is no PTAB record to piggyback on.

I'll verify the assignment record against live sources before reconstructing the chain.

Assignment Record Reconstruction — US 9240112 B2

Patent: US 9240112 B2 — "Online surveillance system to protect solar power plants"
App. No.: 13/844,484 · Filed: 2013-03-15 · Issued: 2016-01-19 · Status: Active, adjusted expiration 2034-07-11
Verification query: USPTO Assignment Center — search "9240112" (legacy mirror: assignment.uspto.gov)

Inventors

Pattern check: No unusual inventor-departure pattern detected. Both inventors signed the assignment to the company on the filing date, and both continued to appear as CyboEnergy inventors on later-family filings (e.g., the 2016 divisional US 14/997,990 → US 9871380 B1, filed 2016-01-18, three years after this patent). There is no evidence of inventors exiting within 12 months, and no evidence of a subsequent portfolio fire-sale. This is a normal employee-inventor → employer chain.

Original assignee

CyboEnergy, Inc. (California corporation; HQ at 2868 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 120, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670). Google Patents lists the original assignee as CYBOENERGY Inc.; assignment record confirms CYBOENERGY, INC., CALIFORNIA.

• Primary line of business: Design, manufacture, and service of solar power Mini-Inverters (the "CyboInverter" platform) — on-grid, off-grid, on/off-grid and dual-output off-grid models (CIM-1200A/N, CIM-1200H, CIM-1200Ya, etc.). Products are UL1741 certified, NEMA6 (IP67) rated, and advertised as "Made in U.S.A." CyboEnergy is an affiliate of CyboSoft / General Cybernation Group, Inc.
• Does it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes, on the face of the record. The asserted family relates to the scalable multi-input Mini-Inverter with per-channel MPPT and the hybrid DC/AC internal power supply described in this patent's Figs. 1–3. CyboEnergy's own product literature and its 2025 complaint (C.D. Cal. 2:25-cv-07964) describe the CyboInverter as "a patented, award-winning solar power Mini-Inverter" with worldwide installations.
• Current status: Operating. Active product line, active website, active technical support as of January 2026, and an active patent-assertion campaign (2022–2025). No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition surfaced. Maintenance fees paid at 4 years (2019-07-15) and 8 years (2024-01-19, with a 7.5-year late-payment surcharge), consistent with a live, cost-bearing owner.

Assignment timeline

⚠️ Only ONE assignment is recorded against US 9240112, and it is the original inventor→company assignment. There are no recorded post-issuance transfers, no security interests, no liens, no mergers, and no name changes. The remaining "legal events" on the record are the grant itself and routine maintenance-fee payments.

• 2013-03-15 (executed) / recorded 2013-03-15 — Reel 030023 / Frame 0713
  • Conveyance: Assignment (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS' INTEREST) — original, pre-issuance
  • Assignor: Cheng, George Shu-Xing; Mulkey, Steven L. (joint inventors)
  • Assignee: CYBOENERGY, INC. (California)
  • Correspondent: Not surfaced in the retrieved record. The Assignment Center entry confirms reel/frame 030023/0713 and the California assignee address but the correspondent-of-record name is not exposed in the indexed data I was able to retrieve; I will not guess at it. (Flag: because this is the only link in the chain, the "repeat correspondent" test is untestable here regardless.)
  • Context: Employer capture of employee invention — standard operating-company assignment, executed contemporaneously with the 2013-03-15 filing of App. No. 13/844,484.

Related-but-separate: The continuation/divisional US 14/997,990 → US 9871380 B1 ("Methods and apparatus to protect solar power plants," filed 2016-01-18, granted 2018-01-16) shares this priority date and inventor set and is recorded in the same family. No separate assignment to a third party appears on that file either; it is now Expired — Fee Related. Its lapse is not an assignment event and does not move US 9240112's chain.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9240112
    2013 : Filed by inventors Cheng and Mulkey
         : Assigned to CyboEnergy Inc reel 030023 frame 0713
    2016 : US 9240112 issued to CyboEnergy
    2022 : CyboEnergy sues Altenergy in WDTX
    2023 : CyboEnergy asserts inverter family in EDTX
    2024 : CyboEnergy sues Home Depot in WDTX
    2025 : CyboEnergy sues Yotta Energy in WDTX
         : CyboEnergy sues Deye in CD Cal

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
The chain contains exactly one link: inventors → CyboEnergy, Inc. (reel 030023/0713, 2013-03-15). CyboEnergy is a named operating manufacturer with a real corporate address in Rancho Cordova, California (not a registered-agent drop-box), a live product catalog, UL/NEMA-certified hardware, and a "Made in U.S.A." supply chain. No "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" successor appears anywhere on the record.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT.
Current assignee is CyboEnergy, Inc. It appears on none of the enumerated NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). To the contrary, Stanford's patent-litigation database (npe.law.stanford.edu/party/cyboenergy-inc) classifies CyboEnergy in its "Product company" asserter category, not as an NPE — and that database maintains a separate "NPE status" field in which CyboEnergy's entry is "Practicing Entity."

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — NOT PRESENT / UNTESTABLE.
There is only one recorded assignment in the chain, so no recurrence is possible by construction. Note separately that CyboEnergy's litigation counsel are William P. Ramey, III (Ramey LLP) and Jennifer L. Ishimoto (Banie & Ishimoto LLP) — Ramey LLP is a high-volume patent-plaintiff firm, but litigation counsel is not the same as assignment correspondent, and neither appears as an assignment correspondent of record here. I make no finding on this.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
Zero consecutive assignments, therefore zero chained LLCs, zero shared correspondent addresses, and no common-principal stacking. The single assignment was executed and recorded on the filing date, 2013-03-15.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT.
The only assignment predates the first suit by roughly nine years (2013-03-15 vs. the W.D. Tex. 2022 Altenergy action, No. WA-22-cv-1136-KC). A nine-year gap between the transfer and the first assertion is the opposite of a pre-suit chain assembly; the plaintiff's standing rests on the original employer assignment, not a freshly papered transfer.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7/11 event, no §363 sale, no receiver, no assignment to a liquidation vehicle. Maintenance fees continued to be paid by the same owner through 2024 (8th-year fee plus 7.5-year late surcharge).

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
No operating company transferred the patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf. CyboEnergy is itself the plaintiff, suing in its own name and asserting its own products' patents (e.g., CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Altenergy Power Sys. USA, W.D. Tex. 2022; CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 7:24-cv-00319 W.D. Tex.; CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Yotta Energy, Inc., 1:25-cv-01300 W.D. Tex.; CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Deye ESS Technology USA, 2:25-cv-07964 C.D. Cal.). That is direct assertion, not privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. There is no neutralization event.

Litigation posture (context, not an NPE signal): CyboEnergy has asserted the family — principally US 8,786,133 ("Smart and Scalable Power Inverters") and US 8,536,489 — rather than US 9240112 specifically. Notably, courts have twice trimmed its pleadings: the Altenergy motion to dismiss was granted (W.D. Tex., 2023 WL 5968000, Sept. 13, 2023), and the Deye action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in December 2025. Assertion quality is contested, but that goes to claim strength, not to ownership character.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification: the entire ownership chain for US 9240112 consists of a single, contemporaneous employer assignment on reel 030023 / frame 0713 (executed and recorded 2013-03-15), from inventors Cheng and Mulkey to CyboEnergy, Inc., with no post-issuance transfer, no shell-entity successor, no securitization, no bankruptcy sale, and no defensive-aggregator terminus. CyboEnergy is a genuine California-based manufacturer of the accused-technology class (CyboInverter Mini-Inverters, UL1741-certified, "Made in U.S.A."), and it litigates in its own name against commercial inverter rivals (Altenergy, Home Depot, Yotta Energy, Deye) — a pattern independently classified as a "Product company" / "Practicing Entity" by Stanford's NPE tracker. All eight NPE signals are not present; the only chain-adjacent tell is the use of a high-volume plaintiffs' firm as trial counsel, which is a litigation-strategy observation and not an ownership finding.

Caveat on confidence: I could not retrieve the correspondent-of-record name for reel 030023/0713 from the indexed data, and I have not fabricated one. That field should be pulled directly from the Assignment Center abstract page for reel 030023 frame 0713 — however, because the chain has exactly one link, a repeat-correspondent finding is structurally impossible here and would not alter the verdict.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (enter patent number 9240112)

I'll research US Patent 9240112 and its cited prior art. Let me search for authoritative information.

I have the patent's citation list. Now let me research each cited reference in detail to assess anticipation.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent 9,240,112 B2

Exact identifier verified: US 9,240,112 B2 (not 9,240,112 A1, not 9,240,113, not US2014/0265584A1). Application No. 13/844,484; filed 2013‑03‑15; priority 2013‑03‑15; granted 2016‑01‑19; pre‑grant publication US 2014/0265584 A1 (2014‑09‑18); applicant/assignee Cyboenergy, Inc.; inventors George Shu‑Xing Cheng and Steven L. Mulkey; 9 claims; adjusted expiration 2034‑07‑11. Source of record used: the Google Patents full text (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9240112/en) and the Justia mirror (https://patents.justia.com/patent/9240112). Note: the live tool results in this session returned Google Patents/Justia/mirror pages rather than a raw uspto.gov document; the full text supplied in the prompt is treated as authoritative, and I have not substituted any similar patent numbers.

I interpret identifiers literally, e.g., the claim element lettered "1)" in claim 1, the typo "2 ore more inverters" in the FIG. 7 description, and the publication ID US20140265584A1.

Legal framework that governs this analysis

Because the application was filed 2013‑03‑15, one day before the AIA first‑inventor‑to‑file provisions took effect (2013‑03‑16), pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b), (e), (f), (g) and § 103(a) control.

This matters for the citation list because four of the six examiner‑cited references are the applicant's own work (Cyboenergy / Cheng / General Cybernation Group). Under pre‑AIA § 102(a) and § 102(e), a reference must be "by another"; an earlier application by the same inventive entity is generally not anticipatory prior art under those subsections. None of the six published more than one year before 2013‑03‑15 (i.e., before 2012‑03‑15), so § 102(b) is not triggered by any of them either. Confirming inventorship of each reference is required to finalize this, and I flag that below as a verification item.

The six references cited on the face of US 9,240,112 B2 (all "cited by examiner")

1. US 2012/0212065 A1 — "Scalable and Redundant Mini‑Inverters" (Cheng et al., Cyboenergy; granted as US 9,093,902 B2)

• Full citation: US 2012/0212065 A1, published 2012‑08‑23; app. 13/397,402 filed 2011‑02‑15; assignee CyboEnergy, Inc.; inventors George Shu‑Xing Cheng, Steven L. Mulkey.
• Description: A multi‑input ("m‑channel") grid‑interactive mini‑inverter. Discloses, per the granted claim text, multiple main/backup DC‑DC boost converters; a DC input channel selector; a DC power combiner; a DC‑AC inverter; an internal AC powerline; a load interface circuit that filters high‑frequency components out of the inverter's AC output; an MFA microcontroller that monitors boost voltage, controls the boost converters, performs MPPT, performs DC‑AC inversion and AC synchronization, monitors AC current/voltage, performs powerline communications, performs logic controls including AC powerline switching/isolation; a powerline modem connected through interface circuitry; a line sensing circuit for phase and zero‑crossing detection; a solid‑state switch disconnect during non‑generation; and a power supply connected to the DC power combiner feeding the inverter's electronics.
• § 102 mapping:
  • Claim 1 elements (a)–(g) and (i)–(l) are substantially disclosed (multi‑channel boost inputs, combiner, DC‑AC inverter, internal AC powerline, HF‑filtering load interface, MPPT microcontroller, powerline modem/interface, line‑sensing circuit, solid‑state disconnect switch). Claim 1(h) (the hybrid DC and AC/DC supply with a selector) is not disclosed — the reference's supply draws only from the DC combiner.
  • Claim 3 — directly disclosed (MFA controllers and MFA optimizers/MPPT).
  • Claims 4, 6, 7 — same story: all architecture elements except the hybrid AC/DC supply/selector.
• Caveat (critical): This appears to be the applicant's own earlier application (same inventors/assignee). If the inventive entity is identical, it is not "by another" and does not qualify as § 102(a)/(e) anticipatory art; it would be more properly a § 103/obviousness‑type or double‑patenting reference. It is nonetheless the structurally closest reference to claims 1, 4, 6, 7 (minus the hybrid supply).

2. US 2012/0235631 A1 — "Storage Unit, Power Generation System, and Charge/Discharge System" (Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.)

• Full citation: US 2012/0235631 A1, published 2012‑09‑20; filed 2009‑12‑04; assignee Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.
• Description: A photovoltaic generation system interconnected to a grid, with a DC‑to‑AC converter (inverter 3), a bus, changeover/backup switches, a storage battery unit, a converter, temperature‑detection circuitry, and a housing. It adds a grid‑side AC path (grid can charge the storage battery) and a charge/discharge control including outage behavior.
• § 102 mapping: Tangential. It discloses a PV system tied to the grid with a bidirectional/grid‑side power path, which is background relevant to the AC/DC‑side power availability idea behind claim 1(h). It does not disclose per‑channel DC‑DC boost converters and combiner, MPPT, a powerline modem, line sensing, a solid‑state non‑generation disconnect, night‑mode electronic‑circuit powering, or the surveillance alarm logic. No claim (1–9) is anticipated by this reference alone. It is best characterized as a § 102(a) general‑state‑of‑the‑art citation, useful in a § 103 combination at most.
• Note: I could not confirm from the retrieved material that this reference discloses the "hybrid supply" in the claim sense; on the record reviewed it does not.

3. US 2012/0259437 A1 — "Model‑Free Adaptive Control of Advanced Power Plants" (General Cybernation Group Inc.)

• Full citation: US 2012/0259437 A1, published 2012‑10‑11; filed 2011‑04‑08; assignee General Cybernation Group Inc.
• Description: Describes model‑free adaptive (MFA) control applied to power plants/processes.
• § 102 mapping: Relevant only to claim 3 (and by extension the MFA/MFA‑optimizer MPPT limitation) — it supports that MFA controllers and MFA optimizers for MPPT were known before the 2013‑03‑15 filing. It does not disclose the inverter architecture, hybrid power supply, or surveillance features, so claims 1, 2, 4–9 are not anticipated by it.
• Caveat: This application appears associated with the same inventive group (Cheng is the MFA originator); if commonly invented, the "by another" requirement again likely fails. Confirm inventorship.

4. US 2012/0313443 A1 — "Smart and Scalable Off‑Grid Mini‑Inverters" (Cyboenergy)

• Full citation: US 2012/0313443 A1, published 2012‑12‑13; filed 2011‑06‑10; assignee Cyboenergy, Inc.
• Description: Off‑grid version of the scalable mini‑inverter family (daisy‑chained, multi‑channel, redundant, with AC Master units and a digital microcontroller running control/communication tasks).
• § 102 mapping: Discloses the mini‑inverter architecture (multi‑channel boost, combiner, DC‑AC inversion, AC powerline, powerline communications) usable as background against claims 1, 4, 6, 7, but it is off‑grid focused and does not disclose the hybrid AC/DC on‑board supply with a selector or the grid‑surveillance/night‑mode method. No independent anticipation of any claim. Applicant's own work → same "by another" caveat.

5. US 2012/0319495 A1 — "Power Inverter with Multi‑Fed On‑Board Power Supply" (SMA Solar Technology AG) ⭐ most relevant third‑party reference for the core novelty

• Full citation: US 2012/0319495 A1, published 2012‑12‑20; priority 2010‑03‑03; assignee SMA Solar Technology AG.
• Description: A grid‑tie inverter with an on‑board supply unit that feeds the on‑board voltage rails from (i) the first DC voltage link at the DC/DC‑converter input (PV side) and (ii) the AC power grid / the further DC voltage link, i.e., a multi‑fed / hybrid on‑board power supply with a priority ("ranking") selection: "the on‑board supply unit may also feed the on‑board voltage rails with electric energy out of an AC power grid connected to the DC/AC converter … a smaller reference value … Thus, as long as the on‑board voltage rails is fed out of the DC voltage links, no feeding power into the on‑board voltage rails is requested from the AC power grid." It expressly addresses the condition where the PV generator "does not provide electric energy at night for a longer period of time."
• § 102 mapping (strong):
  • Claim 1(h) — the pairing of a DC power supply and an AC/DC power supply with a power supply selector that supplies internal electronics from either the PV‑side DC or the grid is squarely disclosed (the ranking circuitry functions as the selector).
  • Claim 4(g), claim 6(h), and claim 7(d) — same hybrid‑supply/selector element.
  • Claim 9 (AC/DC supply powers only a portion of the internal circuits) — partially supported: SMA supplies the controller/auxiliary devices (a subset of internal electronics) from the grid; this is close but not an exact match to "circuits that enable powerline communications," which SMA does not describe.
  • Not disclosed: multiple input ports with per‑channel DC‑DC boost converters and a combiner (claim 1(a),(c),(d)), the powerline modem/interface (1(j)), the line‑sensing circuit (1(k)), the solid‑state non‑generation disconnect (1(l)), the MPPT/normal‑night‑mode microcontroller (1(i)), the m‑channel combiner (7(a),(c)), and the entire surveillance/alarm method (claim 6 as a whole).
• Conclusion: This is the strongest § 102(a)/(e) reference for the single most novel feature of the patent — the hybrid DC + AC/DC on‑board power supply with a selector enabling night‑time operation. It does not, standing alone, anticipate claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9 in their entirety, but it anticipates/renders obvious the power‑supply limitation that distinguishes the patent from the applicant's own earlier mini‑inverter references.

6. US 2013/0002031 A1 — "Enclosure and Message System of Smart and Scalable Power Inverters" (Cyboenergy; granted US 9,331,488 B2)

• Full citation: US 2013/0002031 A1, published 2013‑01‑03; filed 2011‑06‑30; assignee Cyboenergy, Inc.
• Description: Enclosure and LED messaging/status‑indication system for the multi‑channel scalable mini‑inverters, with the associated microcontroller task list.
• § 102 mapping: Background only — supports that the multi‑channel mini‑inverter and its status/communications features were the applicant's own earlier work. No claim of US 9,240,112 B2 is anticipated by it, and it is applicant's own work ("by another" requirement fails).

Additional prior art flagged in the family citation list (highly on‑point for the surveillance subject matter)

The following appear in the "Family Cites Families" list associated with US 13/844,484 / its divisional US 14/997,990 (US 9,871,380 B1, "Methods and apparatus to protect solar power plants"), i.e., cited in related family prosecution rather than on the face of the '112 patent. They are the most thematically relevant references for the anti‑theft/surveillance aspect (claims 1(i), 6, 7(e)):

• US 9,007,210 B2 — Tigo Energy, Inc., "Enhanced system and method for theft prevention in a solar power array during nonoperative periods," priority 2010‑04‑22, granted 2015‑04‑14. Directly addresses theft prevention in a solar array during non‑operative (e.g., night) periods — the same problem the '112 patent targets.
• US 9,000,919 B2 — Tigo Energy, Inc., "Anti‑theft system and method using a multiple radio frequency signal for solar panel systems," priority 2012‑02‑27, granted 2015‑04‑07. Anti‑theft monitoring/communication for solar systems.
• US 2014/0063662 A1 — Eco Power Design LLC, "Solar panel, power inverter, theft and arc protection system and methods of protection," priority 2012‑08‑27. Theft and arc protection in a solar panel/inverter system.

§ 102 relevance: These references are § 102(a)/(e) candidates against the surveillance/night‑mode/alarm concepts of claims 1(i), 7(e), and the FIG. 7 logic, and would be the natural § 103 combination partners for the SMA and applicant's‑own references. I did not find them listed on the face of the '112 patent itself, so they are reported separately for completeness. Their exact disclosure scope should be verified against the '112 claims before asserting anticipation.

Bottom line

• The most relevant prior art for the core novel feature (hybrid DC + AC/DC on‑board supply with a selector that keeps a solar inverter alive/communicating at night) is US 2012/0319495 A1 (SMA Solar Technology AG) — a genuine third‑party § 102(a)/(e) reference that discloses feeding the on‑board supply from both the PV‑side DC link and the AC grid, with a priority/selector scheme, expressly for the "no PV energy at night" case. It most directly implicates claims 1(h), 4(g), 6(h), 7(d) and, partially, claim 9.
• The most structurally complete reference for the inverter architecture of claims 1, 4, 6, 7 (multi‑channel boost + combiner + DC‑AC + load interface + MFA/MPPT microcontroller + powerline modem + line sensing + solid‑state disconnect) is US 2012/0212065 A1 (Cheng/Cyboenergy; US 9,093,902 B2) — but it is the applicant's own earlier application and therefore is not "by another" under pre‑AIA § 102(a)/(e), so it likely cannot be relied on for § 102 anticipation of the '112 claims (it remains relevant to § 103/double‑patenting and as background). The same caveat applies to US 2012/0313443 A1, US 2013/0002031 A1, and US 2012/0259437 A1.
• Sanyo US 2012/0235631 A1 is background only and does not anticipate any claim.
• The strongest references on the surveillance/anti‑theft subject matter (Tigo US 9,007,210 B2, Tigo US 9,000,919 B2, Eco Power Design US 2014/0063662 A1) appear in the family citation list, not on the face of the '112 patent, and are the best § 102/§ 103 candidates against the alarm/night‑mode claims.

Verification items (stated because I do not have high confidence on these): (1) confirm the exact inventive entity of each Cyboenergy/General Cybernation reference to finalize the "by another" § 102 analysis; and (2) confirm whether the Tigo/Eco Power references were cited during prosecution of the '112 application (they appear only in family listings in the material retrieved). I could not retrieve a live uspto.gov page in this session; the identifiers above are taken literally from the Google Patents/Justia copies of US 9,240,112 B2.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual prior-art references listed on the patent page, verifying the key ones before drawing conclusions.

Let me verify the remaining cited references.

Obviousness Analysis Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

U.S. Patent No. 9,240,112 B2 — "Online Surveillance System to Protect Solar Power Plants"

Analyst note on scope and method. This analysis is limited to the prior art identified on the patent's own page (the "Patent Citations (6)" list and the third‑party references in the "Family Cites Families" list), as instructed. I have verified the identity, dates, and disclosure content of the principal references via web search. I have not reviewed the full prosecution history, the complete text of every reference, or performed an independent invalidity search. Findings are preliminary. All patent numbers, publication numbers, and dates are reproduced literally as they appear on the page.

1. Governing legal framework

Because the application was filed 2013‑03‑15, before the March 16, 2013 effective date of the AIA first‑inventor‑to‑file provisions, the pre‑AIA version of § 103(a) governs. The controlling test remains Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (scope/content of prior art; differences; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations), as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007):

"A combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.

Two structural observations shape everything below:

1. The claims are much narrower than the disclosure. The title, abstract, and FIG. 7 are directed to surveillance (Alarm Action Routine, camera activation, police dispatch). None of claims 1–9 recites an alarm, a loss‑of‑communication event, a camera, or the FIG. 7 logic. The claims are directed to the inverter architecture — specifically the hybrid on‑board power supply and a "night mode." The ambitious surveillance story cannot supply patentable weight to these claims.
2. The applicants' own specification admits the key architectural alternative. The '112 specification states that it was already known (from U.S. Ser. No. 12/837,162, now US 8,786,133 / US 2011/0012430 A1) that "a solar power inverter can be designed to include an internal DC power supply that can take AC power from the grid, invert the AC to DC power, and supply the appropriate DC voltages to power the internal electronic circuits." This is an applicant admission of prior art, usable in a § 103 rejection and not subject to the § 103(c) common‑ownership exception that defeats applicant‑owned § 102(e) art (see § 8 below).

2. Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

A person with a B.S. in electrical engineering (or equivalent) and approximately 2–5 years of experience designing grid‑interactive photovoltaic inverters, including switching power supplies, DC‑DC boost conversion, MPPT, microcontroller‑based control, and powerline communications (PLC). This is the level the '112 patent itself assumes: the specification explains that inverters need 3.3 V/5 V/15 V internal rails, that a microcontroller needs 3.3 V, that MOSFET drivers need 12–15 V, and that a "powerline communication MODEM requires 15V DC."

3. The prior art of record

3.1 Examiner‑cited references (all six carry the "* Cited by examiner" marker)

3.2 Third‑party references on the page (Family Cites Families — highly material)

Prior‑art status. US 2012/0319495 A1 (published 2012‑12‑20) and the Tigo publications are third‑party art under pre‑AIA § 102(a)/(e); US 2011/0260866 A1 (published 2011‑10‑27) is third‑party art under § 102(b) because it published more than one year before 2013‑03‑15. None of these is commonly owned with the '112 patent, so the § 103(c) exception does not reach them.

4. Element‑by‑element mapping of claim 1

The obviousness case is therefore narrow and clean: the claimed invention is Cheng '065's Mini‑Inverter architecture with SMA '495's dual‑fed on‑board supply bolted on. There is no asserted criticality, no unexpected result, and no teaching away.

5. Grounds of rejection

GROUND I — Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 obvious over Cheng '065 in view of SMA '495

Rationale (KSR (A), (B), (C), (F)): combining prior‑art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; substituting one known auxiliary‑power technique (grid‑fed AC/DC supply) for another (PV‑fed DC supply) in a known inverter; and using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way.

Motivation, found in the references themselves:

• SMA '495 states its own motivation in terms indistinguishable from the '112 patent's stated problem: to "activate the controller of the power inverter, even if no DC power source is connected, or if … a photovoltaic generator as the DC power source does not provide electric energy at night."
• The '112 specification frames the identical problem and then concedes the AC‑fed supply solution was known ("a solar power inverter can be designed to include an internal DC power supply that can take AC power from the grid, invert the AC to DC power, and supply the appropriate DC voltages…").
• Both references are in the same field and classifications (grid‑interactive PV inverters; H02J 3/38, H02M 7/42/48), and a PHOSITA would look to both when designing an auxiliary supply for a grid‑tied mini‑inverter.

Predictable result: a hybrid auxiliary supply that (i) draws from the PV side when insolation is adequate and (ii) falls back to the grid at night. SMA '495 expressly describes the ranking ("primarily and as long as possible … out of the DC voltage link"; AC grid only when needed), which is the claimed "selection." No new or unpredictable function arises.

GROUND II — Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 obvious over Cheng '065 + SMA '495, further in view of Tigo '210 (and optionally Tigo '919)

Rationale (KSR (F)): the "problem to be solved" supplies the motivation, and market/design pressures reinforce it. Tigo '210 expressly identifies the deficiency the '112 patent claims to solve — "at night, the solar panels are dark, and therefore they generate no power. Hence, in many cases, theft protection systems may not work" — and solves it by feeding the array from a supply independent of the panels and raising an alarm on loss of communication. Tigo '919 does the same for the inverter‑string level by injecting a DC or AC source at night.

A PHOSITA seeking to secure a commercial/utility‑scale plant (the '112 patent's own stated setting — remote, rural sites, "an easy target for vandalism") would be led directly by Tigo '210/'919 to keep the inverter alive and communicating at night, and SMA '495 supplies the specific structural means. Using a grid‑fed auxiliary supply to preserve night‑time PLC is the natural, predictable implementation.

GROUND III — Claim 3 obvious over Cheng '065 (alone or + US 2012/0259437 A1)

Cheng '065's claim 1(h) already recites "an MFA microcontroller … arranged to … perform maximum power point tracking (MPPT)." The '112 specification likewise describes MFA/MFA optimizers, and US 2012/0259437 A1 is directed to MFA control of power plants. Claim 3's requirement of "MFA controllers … and MFA optimizers which provide MPPT" adds nothing beyond the applicants' own admitted and published technique.

GROUND IV — Claim 9 obvious over Ground I in view of Tigo '210 and/or the applicant's admission

Claim 9 narrows the AC/DC supply to one "designed to power only a portion of the internal electronic circuits … that enables powerline communications." This is a degree/design‑choice limitation: the '112 specification itself explains that such a supply "can be designed by using a small and commercially available AC-DC inverter IC … and supporting circuits." Tigo '210 discloses an auxiliary supply sized to power only the monitoring units and their communications (not the array's power conversion). Sizing an auxiliary supply to the load it serves is squarely a predictable design choice (In re Kuhle; MPEP 2144.04). This is the weakest of the grounds, because SMA '495's on‑board supply feeds the controller and other auxiliary devices without an express "only a portion" limitation — a patent owner could argue a missing limitation.

GROUND V — Alternative framing: SMA '495 as primary reference

SMA '495 as the primary reference (grid‑tied inverter, multi‑fed on‑board supply) in view of Cheng '065 (multi‑channel combiner architecture, load interface, line sensing, solid‑state grid‑disconnect switch, PLC) and Tigo '210 (night surveillance motivation). This ordering is useful because SMA '495 and Tigo '210 are third‑party art unaffected by the § 103(c) common‑ownership exception discussed below.

GROUND VI — Sanyo '631 as secondary art

Sanyo '631 may be cited for the proposition that a PV‑grid‑connected power conversion system with changeover switches selectively connecting a grid source and a PV/storage source was known. Its evidentiary weight is weaker than SMA '495's (Sanyo addresses a storage unit's power routing rather than an inverter's on‑board auxiliary rails), and I have not confirmed its full claim text; I would not rest a rejection on it alone.

6. Motivation‑to‑combine summary (KSR rationales)

1. Express motivation in the art — SMA '495 names night‑time PV inactivity as the reason to feed on‑board rails from the AC grid; Tigo '210 names night‑time theft as the reason to keep monitoring hardware alive.
2. Same field / same problem / same classifications — grid‑tied PV inverters and their internal auxiliary supplies.
3. Predictable results — two conventional auxiliary sources plus a selector/ranking.
4. Finite, predictable solutions / "obvious to try" — given the admitted options (DC‑fed supply from panels; AC‑fed supply from grid), the hybrid is the only remaining design space, and the '112 patent's own background recites the trade‑offs.
5. Design incentive and market forces — the cost of guarding remote, rural, utility‑scale plants; the '112 patent itself frames this as the commercial driver.
6. Applicant admission — the specification concedes the AC‑fed internal supply was known.

7. Claim‑by‑claim summary

8. Counterarguments, weaknesses, and caveats

(a) The § 103(c) common‑ownership problem cuts against the six examiner citations. Cheng '065, '443, '031 and '437 appear to be commonly owned with the '112 patent (CyboEnergy / General Cybernation Group) and share inventor Cheng. Under pre‑AIA § 103(c), subject matter that qualifies as prior art only under § 102(e), (f), or (g), and that was commonly owned at the time the invention was made, cannot be used in a § 103 rejection. Because these publications issued less than one year before the 2013‑03‑15 filing date and describe the applicants' own work, they are likely § 102(e)‑only art — i.e., potentially disqualified for obviousness. This is a significant practical obstacle and may explain why the patent issued notwithstanding Cheng '065 being of record.

(b) The strongest rejection therefore rests on third‑party art. SMA '495 (published 2012‑12‑20, SMA Solar Technology AG) and Tigo '210 (published 2011‑10‑27, Tigo Energy) are not commonly owned and are outside § 103(c). SMA '495 supplies the hybrid supply and the night motivation; Tigo '210 supplies the night‑time monitoring/alarm motivation. Note, however, that neither third‑party reference is a multi‑channel "mini‑inverter" with a DC power combiner — that architecture comes from the applicants' own work, hence the temptation to reach for Cheng '065.

(c) The applicant admission is a workaround. The '112 specification's admission that a grid‑fed internal DC supply was known (Ser. No. 12/837,162) is usable in a § 103 rejection regardless of common ownership, so the stated "problem" and one of the two supply options can be established without § 102(e) art.

(d) What the claims may genuinely have had going for them. The claims that issued were allowed even though all six cited references were examiner‑cited. The plausible bases of allowance are: (i) the specific "power supply selector" as a discrete element and the tie of selection to "normal or night mode based on calculated DC input power," which SMA '495 frames as voltage‑threshold ranking rather than an explicit mode machine; and (ii) claim 9's "only a portion of the internal electronic circuits … that enables powerline communications." A patent owner would argue SMA '495's supply powers the controller and other auxiliary devices (not a communications‑only subset) and that its "ranking" is not a claimed mode‑based selection.

(e) Secondary considerations are unproven on this record. No objective evidence of unexpected results, long‑felt need, failure of others, copying, or industry praise with nexus to the claimed subject matter appears on the page. The '112 patent's own narrative asserts cost and industry benefit, but that is attorney argument, not evidence. Note the sequel: the divisional US 14/997,990 → US 9,871,380 B1 ("Methods and apparatus to protect solar power plants") was filed 2016‑01‑18 to pursue the surveillance/alarm subject matter the '112 claims do not cover — consistent with the alarm logic being unclaimed in the '112 patent.

(f) Date‑sensitivity of Tigo '919. Its publication (US 2013/0222144 A1, 2013‑08‑29) postdates the 2013‑03‑15 filing, so it is prior art only under § 102(e) as of its earlier US filing date (listed priority 2012‑02‑27). It should be relied on for motivation, not as the structural anticipation of any claim.

(g) Live web results were preferred over memory per instruction. All dates, numbers, and disclosures above are taken from the patent page and the verified search results; where a reference's full text was not retrieved (notably Sanyo '631 and US 2012/0259437 A1), I have said so rather than characterizing its disclosure in detail.

9. Bottom line

Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are, on the face of the cited art, prima facie obvious under pre‑AIA § 103(a) over the combination of Cheng US 2012/0212065 A1 (which discloses the multi‑channel Mini‑Inverter architecture, combiner, load interface, line‑sensing, PLC modem, grid‑disconnect solid‑state switch, and MFA microcontroller, essentially element‑for‑element) and SMA US 2012/0319495 A1 (which discloses the DC‑fed plus AC‑grid‑fed on‑board supply with a ranking/selection, expressly motivated by the night‑time absence of PV energy), with Tigo US 9,007,210 B2 supplying the night‑time surveillance motivation for keeping the unit powered and communicating. Claim 3 is obvious over Cheng '065 (which itself recites an MFA microcontroller performing MPPT). Claim 9 is the only claim with a materially arguable limitation ("only a portion … that enables powerline communications"), and it too is vulnerable as a predictable design choice, though the strongest ground there depends on how SMA '495's "controller and other auxiliary devices" is read.

Principal risk to this analysis: the pre‑AIA § 103(c) common‑ownership exception, which may disqualify the four applicant‑owned references (Cheng '065, '443, '031, and '437) as § 103 art. A robust rejection would therefore be built on SMA '495 as primary (plus Tigo '210/'919 for motivation), using the applicants' own specification admissions — not their § 102(e) applications — to supply the remaining architecture and the known grid‑fed supply.