US 9470558

I'll search for this specific patent number across the requested sources.

Let me search specifically for litigation and any CAFC docket activity.

US Patent 9,470,558 — Summary

Important caveat on scope of search: I located authoritative bibliographic and full-text data (Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline). I found no CAFC 2026 docket activity associated with this patent, and no USPTO PTAB/IPR or district-court assertion surfaced in my searches. I cannot confirm a negative from these tools — an absence of results is not proof that no such proceeding exists. Treat "no litigation found" as uncertain rather than definitive.

Bibliographic data (from the authoritative patent text)

Assignment chain noted in the record: assigned to Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (2014) → security interest to Bank of America (2016), released (2017) → merger into Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited (recorded 2018, execution date corrected 2019).

Cited prior art: US 5,576,905 A; US 6,608,300 B2; US 2009/0090851 A1; US 7,601,948 B1; US 8,471,554 B2 (also an Avago patent, "Encoder module with an alignment system"). Non-patent literature: Renco RCM21/RM21 release (2006) and Dynapar "Series M21 Modular Incremental Encoders" (2014).

Abstract

An encoder system having an encoder assembly and an encoder alignment structure. The assembly includes a coding member, a hub, and a housing. The alignment structure has a major surface, catches, and a recessed region. The major surface couples to the housing to substantially enclose the hub and coding member. The catches are disposed around the periphery of the major surface to secure the alignment structure to the housing. The recessed region converges from the periphery (between two catches) toward the hub to give a user access to adjust the hub about its axis of rotation.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — "catch-and-window" alignment housing with a projecting structure
An encoder system with two parts. The encoder assembly has a housing, a hub that spins about an axis, a coding member (code wheel/strip) attached to the hub, and a detector with an index sensor; the coding member carries an index mark. The alignment structure has (a) a major surface that mounts to the housing and essentially covers the hub and coding member, (b) "catches" around the surface's periphery that snap/secure it to the housing, and (c) a recessed region that narrows from the periphery inward toward the hub, positioned between two catches. That recessed region gives the user a window to reach in and rotate/adjust the hub. The claim also requires that the recessed region be aligned with the hub so the index sensor lines up with the index mark, and that a projecting structure extends from the major surface and engages the detector to bring the index sensor into alignment with the index mark.

Claim 9 — collar-defined opening sized for hub adjustment
An encoder system where the alignment structure instead uses a collar protruding from the major surface that couples with the hub. The collar defines an opening on the major surface adjacent to a hole in the hub. The hub's hole sits at a predefined radial position that aligns the coding member's index mark with the detector's index sensor, and the opening is sized so the hole lies within it — letting the user move the hole away from that predefined position for adjustment. This claim additionally requires that the major surface have a perimeter and a depression converging from the perimeter toward the hub, and that the encoder assembly include a light source, with the depression positioned adjacent to the detector but away from the light source.

Claim 15 — catch-and-window variant with PCB clearance limitation
Structurally the same as claim 1 (housing, rotatable hub, coding member, covered major surface, peripheral catches, converging recessed region between two catches, detector with index sensor, coding member with index mark, recessed region aligned with hub). The distinguishing requirement is spatial: the detector includes a printed circuit board, and the recessed region is adjacent to the PCB but distanced away from the coding member — i.e., the access window is positioned so the user can reach the hub without exposing or contacting the coding member.

Notable dependent-claim details (for context)

• Claim 2/16/19: hub bore coincides with the recessed region's opening when the index sensor and index mark are aligned.
• Claim 3/20: a fastener engages the hub and recessed region to lock alignment (useful against transport vibration).
• Claim 6: the two walls of the recessed region are separated by a distance larger than the hub bore diameter.
• Claim 10: the collar opening's radial dimension is ~1.2×–2.5× the hub bore diameter.
• Claim 12: an intentional interference fit — the depression is farther from the detector's major surface than the fastener's outer portion, by about 10–15% of the fastener diameter (per the specification).
• Claim 14/17: the encoder assembly is a six-channel encoder.

Uncertainty statement

The bibliographic data above comes from the authoritative patent text (Google Patents, fetched 2026‑09‑24) and is high confidence. The assignee line is an unverified listing — Google Patents explicitly disclaims legal analysis of assignee accuracy, and Avago entities have undergone successive mergers (Avago/Broadcom family), so current record ownership should be confirmed against the USPTO Assignment database. I found no authoritative confirmation of any 2026 CAFC appeal or other litigation involving this specific patent; if such a proceeding exists, it did not appear in my searches and I cannot verify it.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 9470558 across patent litigation databases.

Initial broad searches returned results for other patent numbers (e.g., the '055, '838 patents) — not US 9,470,558. Let me search more precisely.

Let me run a few more targeted searches to be thorough, including CourtListener and the patent's own docket records.

Findings: Litigation involving US Patent 9,470,558

Result: No litigation involving US Patent 9,470,558 was found.

I searched multiple times against the exact number (in both "9,470,558" and "9470558" forms), including queries aimed at Unified Patents' litigation portal, CourtListener, PACER/Justia-style dockets, and general patent-suit coverage. No district court action, ITC investigation, PTAB proceeding, or appeal was identified in which US 9,470,558 is the asserted or challenged patent.

What the searches did surface (and why each is not this patent)

To be explicit about avoiding a false match, every closely-related hit was for a different patent number, which I am intentionally not auto-correcting into 9,470,558:

None of these reference the encoder alignment structure patent at issue.

Corroborating context (from the authoritative patent record provided)

The full Google Patents record for US 9,470,558 (fetched 2026-09-24) shows:

• No litigation section — only a "Cited By" list of later patents (e.g., TWI659195B; US10317629B2/10823918B2) and cited prior art (US5576905A, US6608300B2, US20090090851A1, US7601948B1, US8471554B2).
• Assignee chain: Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. → Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd. (Broadcom family). Status: Active, with an adjusted expiration of 2035-02-07.
• The only post-grant activity shown is maintenance-fee payments (4th year 2020-04-20; 8th year 2024-04-15) — no PTAB or court events.

Important caveats

• I could not verify via the specific sources you named. My searches did not return a working, patent-specific result from the Unified Patents litigation caselist, and I could not directly confirm from PACER or the CAFC docket that US 9,470,558 has zero cases. My conclusion is based on: (a) absence of any hit naming this exact patent across the searches performed, and (b) the patent's own Google Patents page showing no litigation events.
• Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. A suit could exist that is not well-indexed by the search engines I could reach (e.g., a recently filed case, a case where the patent is one of many asserted but not highlighted, or a sealed/terminated matter). If you need a conclusive answer, the authoritative check would be:
  1. USPTO Patent Center / Assignment for the '558 patent, and
  2. A PACER "Patent Number" search across all district courts, plus
  3. The CAFC docket for any appeal, and
  4. Unified Patents' Portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation) filtered to this patent number.

Bottom line

Based on the research performed, there is no known litigation involving US Patent 9,470,558. It appears to be a patent that has been maintained (fees paid through the 8th year) but has not been asserted in any indexed infringement action, nor challenged in any indexed PTAB/IPR proceeding. If you would like, I can attempt additional targeted lookups (e.g., specific Avago/Broadcom subsidiaries or specific encoder manufacturers as defendants) to try to confirm this negative finding more strongly.

I'll verify the PTAB "no proceedings" default with targeted searches against the exact patent number and the likely petitioner universe.

Let me run a couple more confirmatory searches, including the sibling Avago encoder-alignment applications and any Avago/Broadcom IPR activity in this art unit.

PTAB proceedings on file — US 9,470,558

Verification performed: Structured PTAB data (USPTO Open Data Portal, canonical list supplied in the prompt) + targeted web searches against the exact patent number, the patent title, and the Avago/Broadcom petitioner/patent-owner universe (2026-09-29). No proceeding surfaced in either source.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 9,470,558: 0 — 0 active, 0 with claims invalidated, 0 with claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials. Bottom-line defensive posture: this is an unchallenged patent, not a hardened one. All 20 claims (independent claims 1, 9, and 15 plus dependents) stand exactly as issued, untested before the Board, and no § 315(e) estoppel has attached to anyone — which means a defendant retains the full prior-art universe and every statutory ground that would have been available on day one of an IPR. The absence of PTAB activity cuts both ways: it is not evidence of validity, and it is not evidence that the art is weak — it most likely reflects a commercially quiet, non-asserted patent (consistent with the litigation section of this analysis finding no indexed assertion).

(No proceedings to enumerate)

The requested per-proceeding template is inapplicable because there is no PROCEEDING_NUMBER to report. I will not synthesize one; fabricating an IPR number would be the single most damaging error in this deliverable. What follows documents the negative finding and what it means.

What I checked and what I did not find:

False-positive guard — nearest misses I deliberately did not treat as this patent:

• Velodyne LiDAR v. Hesai/Suteng (N.D. Cal. 5:19-cv-04742) and IPR2018-00255/-00256 — these concern US 7,969,558 (LiDAR), a different patent that shares the last three digits. Not this patent.
• Netflix, Inc. v. Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, IPR2021-00431 (US 7,457,722 B1), IPR2021-00542 and IPR2020-01582 (US 8,572,138 B2), and the associated Broadcom Corp. et al. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-04677-JD (N.D. Cal.) campaign. Same patent owner family, entirely different patents (network/video technology). Not this patent.
• Inter partes reexamination documents surfaced in search (control nos. 95/000,679 + 95/002,245 → US 6,746,885; 95/001,926; 95/001,792 → US 7,188,180) — unrelated patents and unrelated owners. Not this patent.
• US 9,049,558 and US 9,226,558 — different numbers, different technology.

Residual uncertainty (stated plainly, per operating rules): absence of evidence is not proof of absence. A petition filed in the last few weeks, or a proceeding where US 9,470,558 is one of many challenged patents and is not surfaced by keyword indexing, could exist. To close the gap conclusively, check PTAB E2E / USPTO Patent Center by application number 14/488,797 and the patent number directly at https://ptab.uspto.gov, which indexes by patent number rather than by keyword. My conclusion rests on the ODP structured list plus the absence of any naming hit across multiple engines — that is strong but not infallible.

Strategic summary

Claim status: all 20 claims UNTESTED. Claims 1, 9, and 15 (independent) and claims 2–8, 10–14, 16–20 (dependent) have never been construed by the Board in an AIA trial. Nothing is canceled. Nothing is confirmed. This is a clean slate: the patent's effective claim scope is whatever a district court says it is, subject only to the intrinsic record and Phillips construction. There is no FWD to quote from and no cancelation certificate to cite in a notice letter.

Estoppel landscape: nothing is barred. With zero IPRs, § 315(e)(1) and § 315(e)(2) estoppel is inapplicable to every party in the world. A defendant asserting invalidity today may use:

• § 102/§ 103 art — including all of the art already cited on the face of the patent and in its IDS (US 5,576,905; US 6,608,300; US 2009/0090851; US 7,601,948; US 8,471,554; the Renco RCM21/RM21 release (2006); Dynapar "Series M21 Modular Incremental Encoders" (2014)) — with no estoppel penalty and no risk that a prior Board ruling has already blessed those references;
• § 112 grounds (written description, enablement, indefiniteness) in district court; note that § 112 is available in IPR only for indefiniteness-as-to-indefinite-saving, i.e., § 112(b) is not a standalone IPR ground — the Board may only construe, not cancel, for indefiniteness;
• All statutory bases not yet adjudicated anywhere, because no adjudication exists.

Timing and forum signals for a would-be petitioner:

• The patent has an AIA priority date of 2014-09-17 (no earlier priority claimed), so it is an AIA patent — IPR under § 311 is available, and PGR is unavailable (the § 321 nine-month PGR window ran from grant, 2016-10-18, to approximately 2017-07-18, and closed long ago).
• CBM review is unavailable — the claims are directed to encoder alignment hardware, not a "financial product or service," and CBM as a category has lapsed anyway.
• IPR remains open-ended subject to § 315(b): a petitioner served with a complaint alleging infringement of this patent must file within one year of service. With no litigation on file, no § 315(b) clock is running against anyone.
• Estoppel timing incentive is neutral-to-favorable for a defendant: because no other petitioner has filed, the first IPR filer gets no General Plastic / § 325(d) "same petitioner, same art" headwinds from prior petitions and no Fintiv-type discretionary-denial risk from a co-pending parallel case unless the patent is simultaneously asserted.

Pattern signals: none applicable. There is no repeat-petitioner pattern, no joinder history, no patent-owner appeal to the Federal Circuit from a PTAB decision (there is nothing to appeal), and no defensive aggregator involvement — Unified Patents, RPX, or similar does not appear anywhere in this patent's record, which is unsurprising for an unasserted, low-profile industrial encoder patent. The only pattern worth noting is on the patent-owner side: Avago/Broadcom is demonstrably an active PTAB litigant as both patent owner and, through its Broadcom entities, as a district-court plaintiff (see the Netflix line above). A holder with that litigation apparatus is capable of defending an IPR vigorously if this patent is ever asserted.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant being asserted against (or preparing for a demand letter):

1. Do not assume hardened validity from the absence of IPRs and do not assume vulnerability either. Commission a full validity study now; there is no estoppel and no prior Board record to work around.
2. Treat the file history as the real battlefield. The claims were issued over US 8,471,554 B2 — also an Avago patent ("Encoder module with an alignment system") — and over the Renco/Dynapar modular-encoder literature. That gives you a roadmap: the applicant already distinguished this art family once, so the most productive attack is likely to be a new-art combination or a § 112 indefiniteness/written-description theory on the relative-geometry limitations (e.g., claim 10's "approximately 1.2 times to 2.5 times"; claim 12's distance relationships; the functional "converging ... so as to provide access for a user to adjust the hub" phrasing, which is vulnerable to both indefiniteness and prior-art mapping challenges).
3. Choose the IPR filing window deliberately. No § 315(b) clock is running yet; file promptly after service to preserve the argument that a parallel district court stay is warranted, and to avoid Fintiv-style discretionary denial.
4. Verify the negative yourself before relying on it. If your § 315(b) deadline or a mandatory-notice "related matters" disclosure depends on whether prior PTAB activity exists, confirm directly at https://ptab.uspto.gov by patent number and at PTAB E2E by application 14/488,797. Do not rely on this analysis's negative finding for a filing deadline.

If you are advising the patent owner:

1. The clean record is an asset for now, but expect that assertion will draw an IPR within a year of service. Pre-position validity contentions around the projecting-structure engagement of the detector (claim 1) and the collar-defined opening sized 1.2×–2.5× the hub bore (claim 9/10) — those are the most concrete and most likely to survive a § 103 combination.
2. Note the assignee-recording wrinkle already flagged in the bibliographic section: the 2018 merger into Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited was recorded with a corrected execution date (2019-03-06, correcting Reel 047422/Frame 0464). Confirm the current chain of title before filing anything that requires standing — a § 315(b) real-party-in-interest or standing defect is an avoidable own-goal.
3. Watch item (flagged as unverified): search results surfaced a closely related Avago application, US 2015/0211897 A1, "Alignment Structure For An Encoder," and the "Similar Documents" list on the '558 record includes US 9,664,537 B2, "System and assembly structure for aligning an encoder." I have not verified that either shares a common priority or family with the '558 patent, and I am not asserting that they do. If you are mapping the portfolio for assertion, confirm the family relationships at USPTO Patent Center before treating them as one unit.

Bottom line for a defendant today: "No PTAB activity" is not a defense and not a vulnerability — it is a blank slate. Every claim of US 9,470,558 is live, untested, and available to be attacked with fresh art and fresh § 112 theories, and no estoppel blocks any ground. The patent's genuine strength or weakness is unknown to the Board because the Board has never seen it.

I'll research the assignment chain and ownership history for US 9,470,558, including current ownership and any signals of assertion activity.

Let me dig deeper into the specific assignment records and current ownership, including the Broadcom-related transfers.

Let me look specifically at the USPTO assignment records for this patent and check on the Broadcom corporate reorganization and encoder product line.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US Patent 9,470,558 ("Encoder alignment structure")

Scope note / source limitation (read first): The authoritative Google Patents record (fetched 2026‑09‑24, provided in the source material) contains the full USPTO legal‑events list and reel/frame numbers, which I use below. Google Patents' legal‑event data, however, does not surface the "correspondent of record" field, and my attempt to reach the USPTO Assignment Center UI directly ran out of search budget before I could pull it. I therefore cannot supply the correspondent attorney/firm names, and I explicitly decline to guess them. The repeat‑correspondent test (signal #3) is consequently marked unclear, not not present.

Inventors

Pattern notes:

• All four named inventors executed an Assignment of Assignors' Interest in favor of Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., executed 2014‑09‑11 (six days before the 2014‑09‑17 filing date), recorded 2014‑09‑17 at Reel 033758/Frame 0794. Standard pre‑filing assignment practice — no anomaly.
• The inventor surnames/given names and the assignment record are consistent with an in‑house design team, not a broker‑assembled inventorship. Avago's encoder R&D has demonstrably been centered in Penang, Malaysia — e.g., the later, still‑Avago‑owned encoder patent US 12,301,257 ("Automatic stabilization of encoders") names inventors in Penang, Malaysia and is assigned to Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd. (HT Syndication / USPTO issue notice of 2025‑05‑13). This makes the "employer at filing = Avago" attribution for the '558 inventors reasonably inferable, though I have not independently confirmed their individual employment records.
• No evidence of inventor departures within 12 months of filing, and no portfolio fire‑sale followed. Note the inventors also appear on the related Avago disclosure US 2015/0211897 A1 ("Alignment structure for an encoder"), indicating a continuing in‑house encoder program rather than a one‑off filing.

Original assignee

Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (Singapore).

• Line of business: The IP‑holding subsidiary of Avago Technologies Ltd., which was spun out of Agilent Technologies' Semiconductor Products Group in 2005 and which acquired Broadcom Corp. in 2016, renaming the combined company Broadcom Inc. Avago/Broadcom is a large operating semiconductor manufacturer — not a licensing vehicle. (Its own SEC‑style description: "We are the successor to the Semiconductor Products Group of Agilent Technologies, Inc.")
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes, with high confidence on the product family. The patent's subject matter is a snap‑on encoder alignment housing for a six‑channel commutation encoder used with BLDC motors (specification, ¶["six‑channel encoder"], "encoder commutation signal 120a … motor commutation signal 199a"). Avago's own "Motion Sensing and Control Products" catalog (Mouser PDF, 2011) markets miniature housed three‑channel encoders (HEDS‑90xx/91xx/9200, HEDL‑90xx/91xx, HEDT‑90xx/91xx series) for servo/stepper/BLDC motors, and explicitly advertises "Easy assembly — alignment free housed encoder" and an encoder module with a "patented alignment plug and play tool." That is the commercial embodiment of this alignment‑structure work. (Whether this exact claim set covers a specific shipping SKU is a claim‑charting question I cannot resolve from public data.)
• Current status: The '558 record shows the original IP entity merged into Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited (Singapore) — i.e., operating, inside the Broadcom Inc. group. No dissolution, bankruptcy, or assignment‑in‑bankruptcy appears anywhere in the chain.

Assignment timeline

All entries below are the recorded events on the '558 legal‑events list. Reel/frame numbers are as recorded.

• 2014‑09‑11 (executed) / recorded 2014‑09‑17 — Reel 033758/0794

  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
  • Assignor: Tan, Siow Ming; Yap, Kek Leong; Lim, Chong Hon; Kuan, Andrew Tuck Loon
  • Assignee: Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
  • Correspondent: not recoverable from the available record — see scope note. On the sister Avago filings I inspected, recorded documentation is handled through Avago's own patent‑operations submission rather than a named outside NPE‑shop firm; I flag this only as an impression, not a finding.
  • Context: Initial acquisition of title by the operating company's IP subsidiary — standard employer/employee invention assignment.

• 2016‑02‑01 (executed) / recorded 2016‑02‑11 — Reel 037808/0001

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement (Patent Security Agreement)
  • Assignor: Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
  • Assignee: Bank of America, N.A., as Collateral Agent (North Carolina)
  • Correspondent: not recoverable (see scope note).
  • Context: Securitization — a portfolio‑wide lien granted to secure Avago's credit facility. Not a transfer of title.

• 2017‑01‑19 (executed) / recorded 2017‑02‑03 — Reel 041710/0001

  • Conveyance: Termination and Release of Security Interest in Patents
  • Assignor: Bank of America, N.A., as Collateral Agent
  • Assignee: Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
  • Correspondent: not recoverable.
  • Context: Release of lien — the 2016 securitization was discharged; title and encumbrances revert cleanly to the Avago entity.

• 2018‑05‑09 (executed as originally recorded) / recorded 2018‑10‑05 — Reel 047422/0464

  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
  • Assignee: Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited (Singapore)
  • Correspondent: not recoverable.
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization — the IP‑holding entity was merged into the group's sales entity. Note the merger's effective/execution date was later corrected to 2018‑09‑05 (next entry).

• 2018‑09‑05 (executed, as corrected) / recorded 2019‑03‑06 — Reel 048883/0702

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment ("CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT TO CORRECT THE EXECUTION DATE PREVIOUSLY RECORDED AT REEL 047422 FRAME 0464 … HEREBY CONFIRMS THE MERGER")
  • Assignor: Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
  • Assignee: Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
  • Correspondent: not recoverable.
  • Context: Record correction only, not a new transfer — same two parties, same merger, corrected date.

• 2020‑04‑20 — Reel N/A — Maintenance fee, 4th year, LARGE ENTITY (M1551)

• 2024‑04‑15 — Reel N/A — Maintenance fee, 8th year, LARGE ENTITY (M1552)

Post‑2024 events: none recorded on the authoritative page. Status remains Active, adjusted expiration 2035‑02‑07.

Important cross‑check on completeness: Google's legal‑events list for the '558 omits the Deutsche Bank AG (New York) portfolio security agreement recorded 2014 at Reel 032851/0001 that appears on essentially every contemporaneous Avago patent (e.g., US 7,955,904; US 2005/0063711). Its absence is almost certainly an indexing gap, not an underwriting difference. The same page also omits the "Broadcom International Pte. Ltd." recordings (Reel 053771/0901, 2020‑08‑26; and Reel 062952/0850, 2023‑02‑02) that appear on sister Avago patents. I cannot confirm whether the '558 was swept into the Broadcom International Pte. Ltd. recordations or not — this is the single most important open question on the chain, and it should be resolved by pulling the '558 directly from the Assignment Center.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9470558
    2014 : Filed by Avago General IP
         : Inventor assignment recorded
    2016 : Issued as US 9470558
         : Security interest to Bank of America
    2017 : Security interest released
    2018 : Merger into Avago Intl Sales
    2019 : Corrective merger recordation
    2020 : Fourth year maintenance fee paid
    2024 : Eighth year maintenance fee paid

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
Every assignee in the chain is a named operating‑company entity: Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (original assignee on the face of the patent), Bank of America as collateral agent (a lender, not an owner), and Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited. Title never leaves the Avago/Broadcom family. The "…General IP…" name contains "IP," but the naming alone is not the test and here it fails the substance test: this entity is the original assignee named at filing (2014‑09‑11/2014‑09‑17, Reel 033758/0794), it is a subsidiary of a Fortune‑500 operating semiconductor maker, and it exited via merger into a group sales entity (Reel 047422/0464) rather than a sale to a third party. No registered‑agent address, no single‑purpose LLC, no "Licensing/Ventures" vehicle.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT.
No Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, MPHJ, Lumen View, Spangenberg, or any Unified/RPX‑listed high‑frequency plaintiff appears at any reel/frame. The current holder (Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd., per Google's "Current Assignee" field) does not appear on any NPE directory I am aware of. Broadcom/Avago is a frequent patent plaintiff, but as an operating company asserting its own portfolio — e.g., Broadcom Corp. & Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd. v. Netflix, Inc., N.D. Cal. No. 3:20‑cv‑04677 (twelve asserted patents, none of which is the '558), and Avago v. Realtek in Germany (2024) over 802.3 SEPs. Those are operating‑company suits, not NPE assertion.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR.
The correspondent of record is not exposed in the data I could retrieve, and I will not fabricate names. If the same outside firm recorded the 2014 inventor assignment, the 2016 lien, the 2017 release, the 2018 merger and the 2019 correction, that would be ordinary (a single law firm or Avago's own patent‑operations group handling housekeeping for one corporate family) and would not be an NPE indicator. The NPE‑signature version of this signal — one lawyer recording for a rotating cast of unrelated‑seeming LLCs — cannot occur here because there is no cast of LLCs; every assignee is an identifiable Avago/Broadcom entity. Recommended verification: open the '558 in the Assignment Center and read the "Correspondent" / "Attorney Docket" fields on Reel 033758/0794, 037808/0001, 041710/0001, 047422/0464 and 048883/0702.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
Five recorded events over nearly five years, but only one is a true change of ownership (the 2018 merger, Reel 047422/0464), and it is immediately followed by its own corrective recordation (Reel 048883/0702) — i.e., a date fix, not a second hop. The other three are a lien, a lien release, and the original inventor assignment. There is no chained‑LLC sequence and no shared‑correspondent‑address pattern in the record.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT.
No infringement suit naming US 9,470,558 was found in the earlier litigation pass over this analysis (and the '558's own page shows no litigation events). There is therefore no transfer to time against. The nearest ownership event (2018 merger) is ~7 years before the present and is explained on its face as an internal reorganization, not a standing/venue setup.

6. Bankruptcy fire‑sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 proceeding is recorded or implicated. Broadcom Corp. was acquired by Avago in 2016 (Broadcom Corp. became a subsidiary; Broadcom Inc. is the parent) — an acquisition, not an insolvency. Avago General IP's 2018 exit was a merger, with a corrective recording confirming it.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT for this patent.
Worth flagging as a nearby pattern that does not touch the '558: Broadcom divested a patent portfolio to Bell Semiconductor LLC (agreement dated 2017‑11‑30), and Bell later asserted the acquired patents — e.g., Bell Semiconductor v. Texas Instruments and ITC Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1342 (filed 2022‑10‑13), with Broadcom subpoenaed for domestic‑industry evidence (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:23‑cv‑…, Doc. 58). That is a textbook privateering/divestiture fact pattern. But the '558's own chain shows no assignment to Bell or to any non‑Avago party; the 2017‑11‑30 Bell transaction left no trace on reel at this patent. So the answer for this patent is not present, with the caveat that I did not obtain the Bell Exhibit A patent list to confirm the '558 is absent from it.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates inside the Broadcom group, and the 2024‑04‑15 8th‑year maintenance fee was paid by a LARGE ENTITY — inconsistent with the patent having been neutralized into a defensive pool.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion (closest fit; see caveat)

Justification. The entire chain is intra‑corporate: inventor assignment to Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (Reel 033758/0794, executed 2014‑09‑11, recorded 2014‑09‑17), a collateral lien and its release to/from Bank of America (Reels 037808/0001 and 041710/0001, 2016–2017), and a merger into Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited (Reel 047422/0464, corrected at Reel 048883/0702). Not one reel/frame shows a transfer to a licensing‑only LLC, a known NPE, or a defensive aggregator, and the patent has been maintained as a large‑entity asset through the 8th year (2024‑04‑15). The current holder is a large operating semiconductor manufacturer whose Avago/Broadcom encoder product line (e.g., the HEDS/HEDL/HEDT housed‑encoder family) is the commercial art this disclosure supports, and the group is an active patent enforcer against competitors — hence "operating‑company assertion" rather than NPE.

Caveat you should carry forward: the assertion half of that verdict is a portfolio‑posture finding, not a patent‑specific one. No lawsuit naming US 9,470,558 was located in the prior litigation pass of this analysis. If you require the stricter reading — "current assignee ships products and has sued on this patent" — then the record supports only operating‑company ownership, non‑asserting to date, and none of the six verdict labels fits cleanly.

Verification link: USPTO Patent Assignment Search — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (entry point) and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html; search by patent number 9470558 or application 14/488,797. Pull the full record to (a) recover the correspondent on each of Reels 033758/0794, 037808/0001, 041710/0001, 047422/0464 and 048883/0702, and (b) resolve the open question of whether Reels 053771/0901 (2020‑08‑26) and 062952/0850 (2023‑02‑02) — the "Broadcom International Pte. Ltd." recordations seen on sister Avago patents — also cover this patent. Google's legal‑events list for the '558 omits both the 2014 Deutsche Bank portfolio lien (Reel 032851/0001) and those Broadcom International recordations, so its apparent silence on them is not reliable evidence that they excluded this patent.

I'll research US Patent 9,470,558 and its cited prior art references. Let me start with targeted searches.

Prior-Art Analysis: US Patent 9,470,558 B2 ("Encoder alignment structure")

A. Patent identified

Per the instruction to search the specific number only and not substitute similar numbers, the patent at issue is confirmed as:

Because the effective filing date (2014‑09‑17) is after the AIA date, AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) governs. Every reference below predates the '558 effective filing date, so all five qualify as prior art. Anticipation under § 102 requires every element of a claim in a single reference; my element-level assessment is therefore given per reference, with the conclusion that these are § 102/§ 103 candidates rather than clean § 102 anticipatory references for the independent claims.

Important caveat on method: the five references below are the examiner-cited prior art listed on the face of US 9,470,558 (source: Google Patents/FPO full text, fetched 2026‑09‑24). I retrieved full text for four of the five; for US 8,471,554 B2 I could not retrieve the full specification (search tool limit), so its analysis is based only on its citation title/metadata from the '558 record and is flagged accordingly. Anticipation/obviousness is a legal conclusion; the mappings below are technical comparisons, not legal opinions.

B. The five cited patent references

1. US 5,576,905 A — Garcia et al. (IBM)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 5,576,905 A, "Servo control of bi-directional reel-to-reel tape drives using fine-line tachometers with index lines," inventors Joe L. Garcia et al.; assignee International Business Machines Corp. (Armonk, NY). URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5576905
• Filing/priority: filed as a continuation of Ser. No. 08/076,508, filed 1993‑06‑14; granted 1996‑11‑19.
• Brief description: A tape-drive servo apparatus. A fine-line tachometer on each reel motor shaft has a code wheel with an outer circular array of fine tachometer lines and an index line displaced radially inward, read by optical sensors. Each tachometer emits N fine pulses/rev plus a single index pulse per revolution used to establish a known rotational (threading) position. Claims recite the rotatable code wheel, the index indicator in the code wheel, and sensor means generating fine pulses plus a once‑per‑rev index pulse (e.g., claims 3, 7, 8).
• Potentially relevant claims (§ 102): Discloses only the generic "code wheel / index mark + optical sensor producing a once‑per‑revolution index signal" elements of claims 1, 9, and 15 (the "coding member comprises an index mark" and "detector having an index sensor" limitations). It contains no encoder alignment housing, major surface, catches, recessed/converging region, collar, or projecting structure. No independent claim is anticipated; it is background art for the index‑track/index‑sensor concept only, and is more naturally a § 103 secondary reference.

2. US 6,608,300 B2 — Encoder Products Co.

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 6,608,300 B2, "Modular encoder rotation sensing," assignee Encoder Products Co. URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6608300B2](/patent/US6608300B2)/en
• Filing/priority: 2001‑11‑16; granted 2003‑08‑19.
• Brief description: A modular optical encoder for measuring relative rotation between two relatively rotatable members (e.g., a motor housing and shaft). It includes a base carrying an emitter and a sensor, a fitting secured to the first (motor) member, a signal‑interrupting disk mounted to the fitting, an alignment bracket mounted for axial movement along the encoder axis, an axially yieldable (spring) member biasing the base/bracket into a pre‑mount position against a mechanical stop, and fastener(s) operable in a first mode to deflect the yieldable member and set a prescribed axial gap between emitter/sensor and disk, and a second mode releasing the pre‑mount position. The stated problem is aligning/gapping the sensor to the disk for proper encoder operation.
• Potentially relevant claims (§ 102): Discloses an encoder assembly (housing/base, hub/fitting, coding member/disk, detector/sensor) and the concept of establishing and holding an axial gap between detector and coding member — relevant to the "distanced away from the coding member" limitation in claim 15 and to the general encoder‑assembly recitations of claims 1 and 15. Its alignment mechanism, however, is a bracket + yieldable member + fastener, not a set of peripheral catches with a converging recessed region, and not a collar‑defined opening. No independent claim is anticipated; strongest as a § 103 reference on alignment/gapping and fastener‑secured encoder modules.

3. US 2009/0090851 A1 — Wong, Weng Fei

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0090851 A1, "Shaft-mounted detector for optical encoder," inventor Weng Fei Wong (Penang, MY). URL: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0090851.html
• Filing/priority: 2007‑10‑07; published 2009‑04‑09.
• Brief description: A transmissive optical encoder in which the detector includes an aperture through the detector that receives the rotary shaft of the motor; the shaft projects through the aperture. A code wheel is coupled to the rotary shaft, and an emitter directs light through the code wheel toward the detector. Rotation of the code wheel modulates the light at the detector. The design is directed to compactness and to facilitating alignment of the emitter and detector, with the detector mounted directly on the shaft.
• Potentially relevant claims (§ 102): Discloses a detector with an aperture/opening that receives and is adjacent to the hub/shaft, plus a coding member coupled to the shaft and a detector/emitter pair — relevant to the "opening … adjacent to the hole of the hub" and "hole/bore arranged in a predefined position" limitations of claims 9 and 2/16/19, and to the shaft‑mounted detector alignment concept in claims 1, 9, 15. It does not disclose a collar protruding from a major surface, a converging depression, catches, or a projecting structure engaging the detector. No independent claim is anticipated; relevant as a § 102/§ 103 reference on the aperture‑around‑the‑shaft geometry.

4. US 7,601,948 B1 — Renco Encoders, Inc.

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 7,601,948 B1, "Encoder device and alignment device for an encoder device," inventors Robert M. Setbacken, Gary Rhodes, Mark Powell; assignee Renco Encoders, Inc. (Goleta, CA); application 12/172,770. URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7601948
• Filing/priority: 2008‑07‑14; granted 2009‑10‑13.
• Brief description: An encoder base/housing with a hub rotatably arranged in the encoder base and carrying an encoder disk, plus a removable alignment device (a "crown") integrated as a single molded piece. The alignment device has a contact portion engaging an axial surface of the base, a locating structure maintaining the device in a predefined radial position, a flange structure contacting an axial surface of the hub, and a spring structure urging the hub into a predetermined axial and radial position (detent), such that the hub/disk are held in a predefined radial and axial position relative to the detector electronics. Notably, the alignment device is configured to allow lateral access to a set screw of the hub, and it is removable by pulling axially. Background expressly discusses prior gapping/centering devices (e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 6,714,292 slide mechanisms).
• Potentially relevant claims (§ 102): This is the closest structural prior art among the patent citations for the core alignment concept. It discloses an alignment member holding the hub in a predefined axial and radial position relative to the detector and providing access to a hub set screw for adjustment — relevant to the "predefined radial position," "provide access … to adjust the hub," and fastener/hub‑securing features of claims 9, 11, and 13, and to the general alignment‑of‑hub‑to‑detector recitations of claims 1 and 15. However, its alignment device is a separate removable crown with a flange/spring/contact‑portion structure, not a major surface with peripheral catches and a converging recessed region, and not a collar. No independent claim is anticipated; strong § 103 reference, particularly against claim 9's predefined‑radial‑position and access limitations.

5. US 8,471,554 B2 — Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 8,471,554 B2, "Encoder module with an alignment system," assignee Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.; priority 2011‑01‑24; granted 2013‑06‑25 (per the citation list on the face of US 9,470,558). URL (Google Patents): https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8471554B2](/patent/US8471554B2)/en
• Filing/priority: 2011‑01‑24; granted 2013‑06‑25. (Dates taken from the '558 citation record.)
• Brief description: Not independently verified — full text not retrieved. Based on its title and same‑assignee/same‑field status, it is an Avago encoder module that uses an alignment system to position encoder components (hub/detector) relative to one another. Because it shares the assignee, field (G01D 5/347 rotary encoders), and subject matter ("alignment system") with the '558, it is likely the most technically pertinent of the five citations and plausibly the '558's own closest ancestor concept.
• Potentially relevant claims (§ 102): By title/field, potentially relevant to the alignment‑structure limitations of claims 1, 9, and 15 (hub‑to‑detector alignment in an encoder module). I cannot responsibly assess anticipation without its specification and claims. This reference should be pulled and read in full before any § 102 conclusion; treat the above as unverified.

C. Non-patent literature cited on the '558 face

• Renco RCM21 / Renco RM21, Renco Release No. 13677, Document No. D00548181‑00‑A‑01, Jun. 20, 2006, 3 pages (cited by examiner).
• "Series M21 Modular Incremental Encoders," Dynapar Industries Controls, 2014, pp. 64–65 (cited by examiner).

Both are printed publications under § 102(a)(1) and describe modular incremental encoders with alignment/gapping features — likely supplemental § 103 evidence on the modular‑encoder alignment field. I did not retrieve their full contents here.

D. Bottom line

Assessment: None of the four references I could fully review discloses, in a single reference, the full combination required by independent claim 1/15 (major surface with peripheral catches + a recessed region converging from the periphery between two catches toward the hub + projecting structure engaging the detector) or by independent claim 9 (a collar protruding from the major surface defining the opening + a converging depression + light‑source spacing). Accordingly, on the sources reviewed these references are § 103 (obviousness) candidates and element‑level § 102 art rather than clean § 102 anticipatory references for the independent claims. US 7,601,948 B1 (Renco) and US 8,471,554 B2 (Avago) are the two most pertinent and warrant full‑text review before any final § 102/§ 103 position is taken.

Two verification flags: (1) US 8,471,554 B2 could not be fully retrieved, so its row is provisional; (2) I did not independently confirm that the cited references' dates as listed on the '558 face match the USPTO's authoritative records — they are quoted from the patent's own citation list.

I'll research the prior art references cited on this patent's page so I can ground the § 103 analysis in their actual disclosures.

Let me get the remaining cited references — the IBM tachometer patent and the two non-patent literature items.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 9,470,558 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note. This builds on the summary and litigation sections already produced (claim set, reference list, family/ownership record). I do not re-list the 20 claims here. The analysis uses only the references that appear in the "Prior Art" / "Citations" section of the authoritative Google Patents record (fetched 2026‑09‑24): US 5,576,905 A; US 6,608,300 B2; US 2009/0090851 A1; US 7,601,948 B1; US 8,471,554 B2; and the two NPL items (Renco RCM21/RM21 release; Dynapar "Series M21"). All identifiers are reproduced literally; nothing has been "corrected."

1. Legal framework

Obviousness is assessed under the Graham v. John Deere 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) objective indicia. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a claim is obvious where the improvement is a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions, where the combination is "obvious to try" from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, or where a "design need or market pressure" provides a reason to combine. Importantly for this patent, KSR expressly recognizes that "a designer … is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton," and that where a technique has been used in one field of endeavor, applying it in a closely related field is likely obvious. All five references here are in the same field (rotary/motor encoders and their mounting and alignment), and four of the five are encoder alignment references — the strongest possible posture for an obviousness rejection.

2. Level of ordinary skill (PHOSITA)

A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the 2014‑09‑17 filing date would be a mechanical or electro-mechanical engineer with a bachelor's degree (or equivalent) and roughly 2–4 years' experience designing modular rotary encoders and motor-feedback assemblies, including code-wheel/hub mounting, detector gapping/centering, and installation onto BLDC motor shafts. This is a mature, incremental-engineering art where near-identical alignment devices were being patented by the same and neighboring companies in the same period (Renco US 7,601,948, Avago US 8,471,554, Encoder Products US 6,608,300).

3. The prior art of record — what each reference teaches

Takeaway from §3: Every structural element recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 15 is disclosed somewhere in this record. What is not found in a single reference is the specific packaging — a snap-on cover with a converging access window and either a projecting detector-engagement structure (claims 1, 15) or a collar-defined opening (claim 9). That is precisely the kind of "arrangement of old elements" KSR holds obvious when the combination does no more than yield predictable results.

4. Independent claims — combinations

4.1 Claim 1

*Combination: US 8,471,554 (Lee) as primary + US 7,601,948 (Powell) + US 5,576,905 (Garcia), optionally + US 6,608,300 / US 2009/0090851.*

Motivation to combine (claim 1). (i) Same field / analogous art — all are rotary encoder alignment references. (ii) Same problem expressly stated: Lee and Encoder Products both address preserving a factory-set alignment against displacement "during shipping and handling or installation," and Powell addresses positioning the hub at a predefined radial position while providing access to the hub set screw. (iii) Predictable result: combining Lee's housing/hub/detector/lock-screw with Powell's hub-registering, user-accessible alignment device and Garcia's index mark/index sensor yields nothing more than the sum of the parts — a cover that holds index alignment and lets the user reach the hub through an opening. (iv) Design pressure: Lee's own background criticizes prior alignment schemes that add parts or require a special tool, supplying a reason to use a simple catch-mounted, notched cover.

4.2 Claim 9

*Combination: US 7,601,948 (Powell) as primary + US 5,576,905 (Garcia) + US 8,471,554 (Lee) + US 2009/0090851 (Wong).*

Motivation to combine (claim 9). Powell already teaches the entire functional concept of claim 9 — a removable, single-piece, molded alignment device that registers the hub at a predefined radial position and gives the user lateral access to a hub set screw — so the claim reduces to (a) expressing Powell's access feature as a collar-defined, converging opening of sufficient radial size, and (b) using Garcia's index mark/index sensor as the reference for the predefined position, and (c) keeping the opening clear of the illumination path (Wong). Each step is the predictable use of a known element for its known function, satisfying KSR.

4.3 Claim 15

Combination: same as §4.1 (Lee + Powell + Garcia), with the PCB-clearance limitation met by Lee/Wong.

Claim 15 is structurally identical to claim 1 except it drops the projecting-structure element and adds: the detector comprises a printed circuit board, and the recessed region is adjacent to the PCB but distanced away from the coding member. Lee discloses PCB 105 carrying the sensor, and Powell's whole design premise is to give the user access to the hub without disturbing the disk/optics; situating the access window near the PCB (the stiff, non-optical substrate) rather than over the fragile code wheel is the obvious placement, and it is corroborated by Wong's stated concern for protecting the encoder interior from dust/dirt. This claim is, if anything, the weakest of the three independents on obviousness grounds, because it removes the projecting-structure recitation and keeps only the "window next to the PCB, away from the disc" spatial limitation.

5. Dependent claims (2–8, 10–14, 16–20)

All dependent claims recite either (a) features already in the primary references, or (b) mere optimization of a design parameter — the classic KSR ground.

• Claims 2, 16, 19 (hub bore coincides with the recess opening when index sensor aligns) — Powell (predefined radial position) + Garcia (index reference). Obvious.
• Claims 3, 20 (fastener engages hub and recessed region when index aligned) — Lee's housing screw 206 that locks the hub for shipping is the express teaching; US 6,608,300's fastener 48 is a second, cumulative teaching. Strong.
• Claim 4 (detector = PCB; recess adjacent PCB but away from coding member) — Lee PCB 105; layout choice. Same reasoning as claim 15.
• Claim 5 (recessed surface parallel to major surface + two walls projecting from it) — the natural cross-section of any tool-entry channel; KSR design choice.
• Claim 6 (walls separated by a distance larger than the bore diameter) — sizing to admit a tool/finger; result-oriented dimensional optimization with no asserted criticality.
• Claim 7 (side wall slideably engages housing; side-wall opening defined by recess) — Powell's contact portion/locating structure engaging the encoder base; US 6,608,300's axially-moving alignment bracket. Obvious.
• Claim 8 (substantially V-shaped opening) — pure shape choice of the converging recess.
• Claim 10 (opening radial dimension ≈ 1.2×–2.5× hub-bore diameter) — a numeric range. Absent evidence of criticality, this is KSR-type optimization; Powell's flange that both grips the hub and permits access defines the same design tension the range purports to solve.
• Claim 11 (fastener engages depression and hub to secure predefined radial position) — Lee screw 206; Powell set screw.
• Claim 12 (interference fit: depression farther from detector surface than the fastener's outer portion, by ~10–15% of the fastener diameter) — the specification itself states this "interference is created to ensure the hub is secured," i.e., a known "press/detent to resist vibration" technique (cf. Powell's spring/detent). The specific 10–15% figure is the most vulnerable to a KSR optimization/obvious-range attack unless applicant showed criticality.
• Claim 13 (projecting structure's longitudinal dimension exceeds the major-surface-to-depression distance) — dimensional relationship; optimization.
• Claims 14, 17 (six-channel encoder) — Garcia's multi-channel code wheel/sensor; six-channel (A/B/I/U/V/W) encoders for BLDC commutation were standard. Obvious.

6. Why the combinations are motivated (consolidated)

1. Common field of endeavor / analogous art. All references address rotary encoders and the mounting/alignment of an encoder to a rotating member. KSR makes combination especially likely here.
2. Common, explicitly stated problem. Lee ("prevent the center alignment … from being displaced during shipping and handling or installation"), Encoder Products (preserve the pre-mounting prescribed axial relation via fastener + yieldable member), and Powell (maintain a predefined radial position; provide access to the hub set screw; minimize parts to "reduce manufacturing costs and … misassembly") all articulate the same objectives the '558 claims address.
3. Predictable results / no new function. The claimed cover performs two known functions — (a) hold a datum (projection/collar) and (b) provide a user-access window — both individually known from Powell, Lee, and Garcia.
4. Design incentive. Lee's background expressly seeks a "simple and effective alignment system … implemented by an end user easily and inexpensively" with few parts — a stated market pressure to adopt a catch-mounted, notched cover rather than a separate jig.
5. No teaching away. Powell's criticism is aimed at overhanging slide mechanisms (a compactness concern) — which supports an inward/converging access feature rather than discouraging it.

7. Where the §103 case is weakest (and how an examiner/litigator would sharpen it)

• The "projecting structure … engages the detector … causing the index sensor to align with the index mark" (claim 1). None of the five cited references has a cover projection that engages the detector per se; Powell's locating structure engages the encoder base, and Lee's rib/screw engages the hub. This is the single element where a combination faces the strongest non-obviousness argument. Note, however, that a same-family, commonly-owned application not listed in the cited-art section — US 2015/0211897 A1 (Yap et al., "Alignment structure for an encoder," filed Jan. 30, 2014; published 2015‑07‑30) — discloses precisely this: an encoder alignment structure whose "projecting structure … slideably engage[s] the hub"/"the detector" to align the index mark with the index sensor. If that document is available as prior art, claim 1's projecting-structure element is squarely met. Two caveats: (i) it is not in the cited-art list, so it is outside the "use the Prior Art section" instruction; and (ii) because it shares inventors/assignee with the '558 (Avago), the AIA § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership exception may disqualify it as § 102(a)(2)/§ 103 prior art. I flag it rather than rely on it.
• Claim 12's interference dimension and claim 10's 1.2×–2.5× range resist a pure optimization attack only if applicant can show a criticality (unexpected result) at the boundary. KSR still favors the challenger absent that showing.
• "Plurality of catches." No reference literally says "catches." The rejection rests on KSR's "familiar element / predictable variation" rationale for snap-fit retention. Reasonable, but it is an inference, not a disclosure.

8. Adverse caveats (stated explicitly)

• Two NPL references were not retrievable. My searches for the Renco RCM21/RM21 release and the Dynapar "Series M21" datasheet returned no usable full text (tool budget exhausted). My characterization of them as corroborating modular-encoder alignment practice is inferential from their titles/context, not verified. Any evidentiary use of these two items should be re-checked against the actual documents. The fetches used for the five patent references (Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, Justia, uspto.report, patentsencyclopedia) are the bases for the quotations above.
• Assignee/ownership caveat carries over from the earlier summary: the Google Patents record disclaims legal accuracy of assignee data, and the Avago/Broadcom chain has undergone successive mergers.
• Date discrepancy. The task prompt states a "current date" of April 26, 2026, while the system date is 2026‑09‑29 and the authoritative patent text was fetched 2026‑09‑24. This does not affect a post-issue § 103 analysis, but the records should be cited to the 2026‑09‑24 fetch.

9. Bottom line

Using only the references in the patent's own Prior Art section, claims 1, 9, and 15 — and every dependent claim — are vulnerable to a § 103 obviousness challenge on the following principal combinations:

The strongest rationale is KSR predictability plus the express, overlapping problem statements in Lee, Powell, and Encoder Products (preserving encoder alignment against shipping/handling/mounting displacement), combined with Powell's teaching of a removable, single-piece alignment device that registers the hub at a predefined radial/axial position and already provides lateral user access to the hub set screw. The one element that a rigorous challenger must supplement (ideally with the same-family US 2015/0211897 A1, subject to the common-ownership caveat) is claim 1's "projecting structure … engages the detector." Conversely, the strongest non-obviousness rebuttals available to the patentee are (i) the absence of any express "catches" disclosure, and (ii) potential criticality arguments on the numeric ranges in claims 10 and 12 — but the record contains no assertion of secondary considerations, which leaves the § 103 case relatively clean.