US 9625347

I'll verify the patent details and check for any litigation activity.

US Patent 9,625,347 B2 — Summary

Identifier note: I treated the number literally as 9,625,347 (US9625347B2). Searches returned only this patent and its own publication/family members — no results for adjacent numbers were substituted. Details below are drawn from the patent's own front-matter/claim text as published on Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, and the USPTO-hosted PDF, which agree with one another.

Bibliographic data

Uncertainty flags (authoritative-source caveats):

• The legal-events feed shows the reinstatement/petition-granted entry dated 2026-04-30, which post-dates the April 26, 2026 query date you specified. I am reporting it as the source lists it, but the timeline is internally inconsistent and should be re-verified at USPTO Patent Center.
• Google Patents itself labels the legal status as "an assumption and not a legal conclusion"; treat "Active – Reinstated" as a data-provider indication, not a legal determination.
• The priority date (2013-06-26) is likewise flagged by the source as an assumption.

Abstract (as published)

"An adaptor for use to direct pressurized fluid into a glove to inflate the glove is disclosed. A kit for holding several test components for use to inflate a glove is also disclosed. The kit is provided for testing a glove for leakage. The components include an adaptor, a strap, and a portable pump, which can be either a DC-powered air compressor or a hand or foot pump. A method is also disclosed for inflating a glove to test the glove for leaks."

Plain-language overview of the independent claim

Claim 1 — portable glove-testing system (the only independent claim). In plain terms, it covers a carryable container (e.g., a bucket) packaged with everything needed to field-test a glove, the components being sized to fit inside with the container closed. The kit must contain:

1. An adaptor — the core structure, defined with specificity:
   • a body of non-compressible material with a wider first section (glove end) and a narrower second section (fluid-source end);
   • the first section has an interior surface forming a bore and an exterior annular groove for the retaining strap;
   • the second section has a bore, an end surface, and an inlet bore through that end surface;
   • a one-way spring valve (e.g., Schrader/Presta type) attached to the inlet bore;
   • a relief bore extending from the end surface;
   • a transition between the two sections, with the first section ~1.4× to ~2.5× larger in cross-sectional dimension than the second.
2. An inflation device producing pressurized fluid — expressly DC-powered or manually operable (this limitation is what distinguishes the system from shop-air/pedestal testers).
3. An air hose linking the inflation device to the adaptor.
4. A strap tightenable around the first end to clamp the glove against the groove.
5. A dispenser of leak-detection substance (e.g., soap) for applying to the glove's exterior.

Claim 2 — "method for inflating a glove using the portable system of claim 1." Although it is written as a method claim and is nominally the second claim, it incorporates claim 1's system by reference rather than standing fully alone as a separate independent claim. Practically, its steps are: slip the glove cuff over the adaptor's first end → cinch the strap around the cuff and the groove → connect the hose between the valve and the inflation device → apply the leak-detection substance to the glove → operate the inflation device to push pressurized air through the valve into the glove. Claims 3–10 add method features (transition; second/relief valve, including automatic opening at a set pressure; DC power, optionally from a vehicle; manual hand/foot pump; removable reusable lid; common longitudinal axis). Claims 11–13 add system features to claim 1 (common longitudinal axis; second valve on the relief bore; automatic-opening relief valve).

Corresponding disclosed embodiments (context, not separate claims)

• Body of ABS, polycarbonate, aluminum, carbon steel, or stainless steel; may be unitary or two joined pieces (a "form-fitting adaptor set" with different first-section sizes, threaded or taper-fit — FIG. 6A).
• Alternative profiles: frusto-conical transition section (6B), fully frusto-conical second section (6C), elongated section with semi-spherical end (6D).
• Strap = reusable/releasable cable tie (Monoprice, Gardner Bender, Panduit) or zip-tie, D-ring, buckle, or cinch-bar designs.
• Test pressure ~3 psi (range cited 14 in. water to ~5 psi); glove care per ASTM F496-08; gloves per ANSI/ASTM D120 and NFPA 70E.
• Container = 5-gallon round or 4-gallon square bucket with lid and optional peelable security strap; invert includes DC compressors from VIAIR/Masterflow/SuperFlow (12 V) or VIAIR-style vehicle-cord power.

Prior art cited on the face of the patent (9 U.S. references)

US 2,054,204 (McDonald); US 2,074,140 (Bates); US 2,799,882 (Falk, Leak detector kit); US 3,603,138 (Peterson, Pneumatic tester for lineman's gloves); US 3,991,604 (Parke, Davis); US 4,072,171 (Nakazawa, sphygmomanometer pressure control valve); US 6,379,178 B1 (EWD, Adjustable vehicle power point); US 2006/0144127 A1 (Westerberg, Portable testing apparatus for electrical insulating gloves); US 2011/0253184 A1 (Mills, Inflatable tent). Examiner-cited non-patent literature: Salisbury by Honeywell Product Catalog 2010 (p. E-4); Tampa Electric Company Task No. 103 (pp. 6–9, 1990).

Notably, Westerberg US 2006/0144127 (and its apparent divisional/continuation US 7,143,633 B2, "Portable testing apparatus for electrical insulating gloves") is the closest cited art, which is consistent with the claim-1 language adding the carryable container, the DC/manual inflation limitation, and the specific adaptor geometry ("relief bore extending from the end surface" and the 1.4 × –2.5 × cross-sectional ratio) — the likely points of novelty over Westerberg.

Litigation / CAFC 2026 dockets

I ran a targeted search for CAFC 2026 docket activity tied to 9,625,347 and for SDG&E patent litigation involving this number. No Federal Circuit 2026 appeal, and no district-court complaint, was found naming this patent. Search hits for San Diego Gas & Electric in litigation databases relate to unrelated matters (e.g., TAS Energy v. SDG&E, S.D. Cal. No. 3:12-cv-02777, involving different patents; TransData v. SDG&E re U.S. 6,294,294 / 6,462,713 / 6,903,699; and wildfire/utility proceedings). Two caveats: (1) my searches are not a substitute for a full Docket Navigator / PACER / CAFC opinion search, and (2) absence of a hit is not proof of absence of litigation. I would not represent to you that "no litigation exists" with high confidence — only that nothing surfaced.

No third-party citations are recorded against the patent; one forward citation by an examiner exists: CN 112213052 A (2020-11-03, Qingdao Huizhilan Intelligent Technology), Method for detecting air tightness of disposable gloves. Frustratingly for the "families citing" list, the patent is cited by later art including US 10,966,475 B2 (Inteplast Group, glove-coating fixture) and FR 3,140,433 B1 (Jegou Ind, "Pneumatic glove tester with deflation valve," 2025) — the latter being worth noting as evidence of continuing activity in this space.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9625347.

Let me search litigation-specific databases for this patent.

Let me try more targeted litigation database searches.

Litigation Search Results: US Patent No. 9,625,347

Bottom line: I found no known litigation — neither district court actions nor PTAB proceedings — involving US Patent No. 9,625,347.

What I searched

I ran targeted queries against litigation-tracking resources (Unified Patents litigation/PTAB portal, Docket Alarm, PlainSite, Justia dockets, and general web searches) using the literal identifier "9625347" / "9,625,347," including owner- and subject-matter cross-checks (San Diego Gas & Electric; insulating-glove testing). No case, complaint, or IPR/PGR petition naming this patent as an asserted or challenged patent surfaced.

Why "no results" is plausible here

Based on the patent's own record (the authoritative source provided), the facts are consistent with a patent that has never been asserted:

• Owner is an operating utility, not a patent monetizer. The current assignee is San Diego Gas & Electric Company (assignment recorded Dec. 8, 2016, effective Oct. 24, 2016). Inventors are Rogelio Marquez, Jr. and Daniel P. Rodriguez. A regulated electric utility holds this as an internal/departmental tool, which reduces the likelihood of an infringement suit.
• Narrow field of use. The patent covers a portable adaptor/kit for inflating and leak-testing electrical insulating gloves (field testing away from AC power, using a DC or manual pump). This is a niche product category with few commercial competitors.
• No PTAB activity. The Google Patents page lists no IPR/PGR, and my searches returned none. The only "Cited By" entry is a later Chinese patent (CN112213052A, 2021) — a citation, not litigation.
• The only related "SDG&E" litigation I found is unrelated to this patent. In TAS Energy, Inc. v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (S.D. Cal., No. 3:12-cv-02777, filed Nov. 16, 2012) and in TransData, Inc. v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co., SDG&E was a defendant accused of infringement (of unrelated patents — e.g., TransData's '294, '713, and '699 patents). In neither case was US 9,625,347 the patent-in-suit, nor did SDG&E assert it. I am reporting these only to rule them out; they do not involve the '347 patent.

Case-by-case table requested

Important caveats

• Search coverage is not exhaustive. PACER and Docket Navigator are the definitive sources, but both are paywalled/subscription-only and I could not directly query them in this session. It is possible a recently filed (e.g., 2025–2026) complaint exists that has not yet propagated to free aggregators.
• I did not auto-correct the number. Every search used the literal string "9625347" and returns for it were screened to exclude similar-but-distinct patent numbers.
• This is a search-based conclusion as of the current date (April 26, 2026); it is not a legal opinion or a substitute for an actual PACER/Docket Navigator litigation check, which I'd recommend running to confirm before relying on it for any filing or clearance purpose.

If you'd like, I can re-run this against a specific free source (e.g., Justia's San Diego Gas & Electric docket page or the Unified Patents caselist) if you can lift the step limit, or draft a short PACER search string you can run directly.

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

Let me run a few more targeted checks to confirm the absence and rule out near-number mismatches.

One final check against decision databases and any CAFC activity.

PTAB proceedings on file

No proceedings. Searches are summarized below; I did not find any proceeding number to report.

Proceedings overview

Total on file: 0. Breakdown: 0 active / 0 with claims invalidated / 0 with claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied. There are no IPR, PGR, or CBM numbers to enumerate — the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal) returns nothing for US 9,625,347, and independent web searches surfaced no AIA trial proceeding naming this patent or San Diego Gas & Electric as patent owner. Bottom line for a defendant: this is a validity-untested patent, not a hardened one and not a dead one. Nothing has been canceled, so there is no "the troll has no case" argument to make; by the same token, there is no FWD, no claim-construction ruling, and no § 315(e) estoppel walling off the best art. You would be the first petitioner, and you would be starting from a blank slate.

Verification performed (and its limits). I ran searches against the patent number, the title, the assignee, and generic PTAB databases; hits returned only the patent's own publications and unrelated decisions (e.g., IPR2017-02104, IPR2017-02097, IPR2020-00580 — none of which involve 9,625,347 or SDG&E). Consistent with the earlier litigation screen in this analysis, no 2026 CAFC appeal touching this patent surfaced either. Caveat, stated explicitly: absence of hits is not proof of absence. I could not run a direct query against the PTAB Decisions API or PTAB E2E from here. Before relying on "zero proceedings," confirm at https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-web/#/search/proceedings (search by patent number 9625347) and via PTAB E2E at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/.

(No proceeding sections — nothing to report)

I am deliberately not generating proceeding headers. Any proceeding number, panel, or FWD disposition I wrote here would be invented. If a proceeding does exist that the ODP ingest missed, it will be visible in PTAB E2E by application number 14/314,884 or patent number 9625347.

Strategic summary

Claim status — all 13 claims are UNTESTED at the PTAB. Claims 1–13 stand as issued (subject to the 2018-12-04 certificate of correction), and no claim is canceled. For a defendant, that means: (a) every claim you could be asserted against — including independent claim 1 and its method counterpart claim 2 — is live and presumptively valid; and (b) there is no prior FWD to mine for the panel's claim constructions, no institution decision telling you which prior-art combinations the Board found credible, and no adjudicated reading of the two limitations that most likely carry the novelty: the "relief bore extending from the end surface" recital and the "about 1.4 to about 2.5 times larger in cross-sectional dimension" ratio. Those figures and that bore placement are the natural targets, because the face-cited art (notably Westerberg, US 2006/0144127 A1, and its apparent sibling US 7,143,633 B2) predates the claim language that was added to distinguish the portable/DC-powered kit.

Estoppel landscape — clean. Because no IPR or PGR was ever instituted, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel is not triggered against anyone, and no petitioner is barred by § 315(e)(1) at the Office. Practically, a defendant today can raise any invalidity ground, including art that a hypothetical earlier petitioner raised, art it could have raised, and printed-publication/system-prior-art grounds that IPR cannot reach at all. Conversely, note the asymmetry: the patent owner has never had to defend its claims in an adversarial post-grant forum, so its prosecution record is thin — only 9 U.S. patent references were cited on the face, plus two non-patent items (Salisbury 2010 catalog p. E-4; Tampa Electric Task No. 103, pp. 6–9, 1990). That is a small prior-art record for a mechanical device patent, which cuts in a petitioner's favor under § 325(d) (the Board is less likely to find the art "previously presented").

Pattern signals — none of the usual ones. No serial petitioner (there is no petitioner at all). No defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents / RPX-style entity appears in the record). No aggressive PO appellate behavior, because there was nothing to appeal. The only post-grant activity on this patent is administrative housekeeping in the file wrapper: a certificate of correction (2018-12-04), a 4th-year fee (2020-09-24), a lapse for non-payment (2025-05-26), and an 8th-year fee paid with a petition to accept late payment filed 2026-03-09, granted 2026-04-30 per the ODP feed. Flagging the inconsistency already noted in the earlier summary: that 2026-04-30 grant date sits after the query date used in the prior section, so re-verify it — but if it is accurate, the patent is currently alive and reinstated, which materially affects the calculus below.

Two structural points that matter more than the (empty) PTAB docket:

1. PGR is unavailable — the window closed. Grant was 2017-04-18; the 9-month PGR window under § 321(c) expired on or about 2018-01-18. (The patent's post-March-16-2013 filing date makes it AIA-era and PGR-eligible in principle, but that window is long gone and no reissue has reopened it.) CBM is unavailable twice over: this patent is a mechanical glove-inflation/testing device (G01M 3/02–3/20), not directed to a "financial product or service," and the CBM transitional program sunset 2020-09-16, so no new CBM petition can be filed. IPR is your only AIA-trial route, and it remains open indefinitely, subject to the § 315(b) one-year bar running from service of a complaint and to § 314(a)/§ 325(d) discretionary denial.

2. The lapse-and-reinstatement episode should be run down. A patent that lapsed 2025-05-26 and was reinstated on a late-payment petition granted in 2026 potentially carries intervening-rights exposure for activity during the lapse period, and the petition's "unintentional" character is itself a fact question. I am not asserting a specific statutory cite for the intervening-rights consequences with high confidence — the § 41(c) late-payment/intervening-rights framework should be pulled and applied by counsel rather than taken from this summary. But if you have products or sales in the 2025-05-26 → 2026-04-30 window, this is worth a fact-specific look before you decide how to respond to any demand letter.

Recommended next steps

• Confirm the docket is genuinely empty. Query PTAB E2E / the PTAB Decisions API by application 14/314,884 and patent 9625347. There is no FWD to link to — I am not going to cite one. Do not rely on the ODP ingest alone if your decision turns on the point.
• Pull the complete file wrapper, including the 2018-12-04 certificate of correction. The published claim text contains apparent typographical variance across sources (e.g., claim 9's "resuable"/"restable" lid language), and the certificate of correction likely fixed exactly these. You want the corrected claim text before charting art, because § 282 and any IPR petition must track the operative claims.
• Move quickly on the § 315(b) clock. If SDG&E (or a licensee) serves a complaint on you, your one-year IPR deadline starts running immediately. Given that the patent has never been tested and is currently reinstated, the highest-value defensive move is a pre-assertion invalidity study built around (i) US 2006/0144127 A1 (Westerberg) and US 7,143,633 B2, and (ii) the examiner-cited Salisbury 2010 catalog and Tampa Electric Task No. 103, supplemented by your own portable-air-compressor and glove-test-kit art.
• Consider a declaratory-judgment posture check. With no § 315(e) estoppel and no prior petitioner in the chain, a defendant retains the unusual option of using IPR as a pre-emptive tool rather than a reaction — but only where there is an actual controversy, and only after confirming the patent's live status post-reinstatement.
• Do not expect discretionary denial to do the work. With no parallel petitions and no earlier PTAB record, § 314(a)/§ 325(d) arguments against institution are weak on the facts as they currently stand; the fight would be on the merits.

Sources consulted: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9625347B2](/patent/US9625347B2)/en (claims, cited art, legal events); https://www.freepatentsonline.com/9625347.html; https://patents.justia.com/patent/9625347; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c2/10/04/65ca92846d8403/US9625347.pdf. No PTAB decision, FWD, or CAFC opinion for this patent was located; PTAB decision search available at https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-web/#/search/decisions and CourtListener at https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%229%2C625%2C347%22.

I'll research the assignment chain, ownership history, and any NPE signals for US 9,625,347.

Let me dig into the assignment record specifics and the assignee's corporate status.

I hit the tool-budget limit before I could pull every field (notably the recorded correspondent), so I'm flagging those gaps explicitly rather than filling them in. Here is the ownership-chain reconstruction.

Inventors

Timing pattern (the one notable thing here): both inventors appear as assignors on a single instrument conveying to SDG&E that was executed 2016-10-24 and recorded 2016-12-08 (reel/frame 040602/0061) — roughly 28–29 months after the 2014-06-25 nonprovisional filing and ~4 months before the 2017-04-18 grant. SDG&E was already the named applicant at filing, so this reads as a confirmatory / late-perfected assignment (or a re-execution of a lost original), not an arm's-length sale. It is not the "inventors depart en masse within 12 months" precursor pattern: there is no evidence either inventor left, no second assignment driven by an inventor, and no inventor-side transfer to a third party anywhere in the chain.

Caveat on "employer": I could not independently confirm employment status at filing from a primary source within my search budget. Applicant-of-record status (SDG&E) plus a signed assignment of inventors' interest is strong circumstantial evidence of employment, but I am labeling it inferred, not verified.

Original assignee

San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), 488 8th Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101 — a California-incorporated regulated electric and natural-gas utility under CPUC jurisdiction, and a subsidiary of Sempra (formerly Sempra Energy).

• Ships a product embodying the claims? No. SDG&E is a utility, not a product manufacturer. This patent claims a field tool (an adaptor/kit for pressure-testing insulating gloves) that SDG&E's own linemen would use, not sell. There is no evidence of a commercial SDG&E-branded glove tester.
• Primary line of business: regulated transmission/distribution of electricity and natural gas; also a substantial smart-grid / EV-charging / grid-innovation patent portfolio (≈33–41 granted US patents, primary CPC class G01R per PatentsView-derived trackers).
• Status: Operating, solvent, large entity (it paid "large entity" maintenance fees — 4th year 2020-09-24, 8th year 2026-03-09). No bankruptcy, no dissolution, no acquisition of the patent-holding entity.
• Relevant institutional pattern: SDG&E has historically monetized IP by granting exclusive licenses to operating partners with CPUC approval, not by fire-selling patents. Two documented examples in CPUC filings: US 8,024,077 licensed to GridSense, Inc. (smart-transformer monitoring, ~4% royalty, 60/40 ratepayer/shareholder split), and an EV-charging license to Juice Technologies. That is the opposite of a privateering/NPE pipeline. (No evidence this glove patent was ever licensed under that model — noted only as institutional context.)

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center / Google Patents legal-events record shows exactly ONE recorded assignment for US 9,625,347.

• 2016-10-24 (executed) / recorded 2016-12-08 — Reel 040602/0061
  • Conveyance: Assignment (front-matter text: "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:MARQUEZ, ROGELIO, JR.;RODRIGUEZ, DANIEL P.")
  • Assignor: Rogelio Marquez, Jr. and Daniel P. Rodriguez (individually)
  • Assignee: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (San Diego, CA)
  • Correspondent: ⚠️ NOT RETRIEVED. The Assignment Center/PEDS correspondent-of-record field for this reel/frame was not captured before I exhausted my search budget. This is the single most diagnostically useful field for your purpose, and I am not going to guess it. Recommend pulling it directly at the Assignment Center link below (search 9625347 → open reel 040602/0061 → "Correspondent"). My prior a priori expectation is SDG&E in-house counsel or a San Diego general-practice firm on a routine employee-invention recordation — but that is expectation, not data, and should not be relied on.
  • Context: original/confirmatory assignment — inventors to their employer, perfecting SDG&E's title to an application it already owned as applicant. Not a fire-sale, not a reorg, not a transfer to an asserter.

If the front-matter legal events are complete, there are no post-issuance assignments. No transfer to any LLC, holding company, or licensing entity appears anywhere in the record. The only post-grant "events" are administrative: Certificate of Correction (2018-12-04), fee payments, the 2025-05-26 lapse for non-payment, and the 2026-03-09/2026-04-30 late-payment petition and grant.

Data caveats / contradictions to flag: (1) The correspondent field is an open gap (above). (2) The Google Patents legal-events feed lists the reinstatement and petition-granted entries as 2026-04-30, which is after the query date used in the earlier-generated summary — that internal inconsistency was already flagged in the prior section and I am carrying it forward, not re-deriving it. Both the "Active – Reinstated" status and the 2013-06-26 priority date are labeled by the source itself as assumptions, not legal conclusions. The lapse-and-reinstate sequence confirms the patent was briefly expired (effective 2025-04-18) and was revived in 2026, which is a maintenance-history fact, not an ownership fact.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9625347
    2013 : Provisional application filed
    2014 : Nonprovisional filed by SDGE
    2015 : Application published
    2016 : Inventors assign to SDGE
    2017 : Patent issued
    2025 : Lapsed for unpaid fee
    2026 : Late payment accepted

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Insufficient data — and, affirmatively, anti-NPE.

Under your rubric this lands in "Insufficient data (… only the original assignment)" because the entire post-issuance record is a single instrument — the inventors' assignment to SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, executed 2016-10-24, recorded 2016-12-08, reel 040602/0061 — with no transfer to any third party, LLC, or asserter afterward. Nothing in the record resembles an NPE chain: the patent never left the original operating-utility assignee, the only assignee is a solvent CPUC-regulated utility, and all eight NPE signals are either not present or (signal 3) unassessable for lack of data. The one material gap is the correspondent-of-record field on reel 040602/0061, which I could not retrieve — if you need a hard confirmation that no outsourced/asserter-side filer touched this record, pull that field directly.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search 9625347; mirror index at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). Also cross-check USPTO Patent Center for the 2025 lapse / 2026 reinstatement documents, which are ownership-neutral but confirm the current assignee of record.

I'll verify the patent record and research each cited reference.

Now let me research the remaining cited references, starting with the closest art.

Now let me research the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 9,625,347 B2

"Adaptor, system, and method for inflating a glove" (SDG&E; filed 2014‑06‑25; granted 2017‑04‑18)

1. Verification of the target patent record

I searched on the literal string 9625347 (and 9,625,347) and screened out similar-but-distinct numbers. The record returned is consistent across the mirrors of the USPTO full-text I could reach:

Caveat on method: I could not run a direct, credentialed query against USPTO Patent Center / PatentScope in this session. The full text used here is the authoritative text supplied to me, corroborated by the Google Patents and FPO mirrors of the same USPTO record. I did not auto-correct the number. Where I could not retrieve a reference's full text, I say so explicitly rather than paraphrasing from memory as if verified.

2. The cited prior art — full citations, dates, descriptions

All nine U.S. references appear on the face of the patent as examiner-cited art (cross-checked on the Google Patents front page).

Non-patent literature (examiner-cited):

• Salisbury by Honeywell, Salisbury Product Catalog 2010, p. E‑4 (URL as cited: http://ljmequipment.com/PDF/Salisbury-Product-Catalog-2010.pdf) — commercial insulating-glove PPE/tester catalogue.
• Tampa Electric Company, Task No. 103, pp. 6–9 (1990) (http://www.tampaelectric.com/files/powerpros/powerprossamplemodule.pdf) — utility training module; likely evidence of the field practice of glove testing.

Confidence flags: Items 4, 7, 8 are verified by retrieved text/PDFs (high confidence). Item 1 is verified at the abstract/spec-fragment level. Items 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 I could not retrieve full text for in this session — their descriptions above are drawn from the patent's own citation table and titles, and should be treated as lower-confidence pending a full-text pull.

3. § 102 anticipation analysis — element-by-element

3.1 What each claim requires

Because claim 2 is drafted as "A method … using the portable system of claim 1," it imports the entire claim‑1 apparatus. That means every claim in the patent (1–13) requires, at minimum, the full claim‑1 combination:

3.2 Reference-by-reference: does any single reference anticipate?

3.3 Bottom line

No single cited reference anticipates any claim of US 9,625,347 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Every claim, including the method claims, requires the full claim‑1 combination — a carryable container holding a DC-powered or manually operable inflation device, air hose, strap, leak-detection dispenser, and the specific adaptor geometry (annular groove + inlet bore through the end surface + relief bore from the end surface + spring one-way valve + 1.4×–2.5× ratio). The closest reference, Westerberg (US 2006/0144127 / US 7,143,633), supplies essentially only the adaptor body, groove, and one-way valve — and it deliberately depends on a separate, pre-existing glove inflator, which is the very thing the '347 claim replaces with a self-contained DC/manual kit.

Therefore the cited references are properly § 103 (obviousness) or background art, not § 102 anticipation art, and the specific points of novelty over Westerberg are:

1. the carryable container/kit limitation (A);
2. the DC-powered-or-manually-operable inflation device (G), supported by the vehicle-power-point art (US 6,379,178) as the "from a vehicle" variant (claim 7);
3. the relief bore extending from the end surface (E) and the automatic-opening relief valve (claims 5, 13);
4. the 1.4×–2.5× cross-sectional ratio (F); and
5. the leak-detection dispenser (J).

3.4 Where a § 103 combination could plausibly be assembled

If one were attacking the claims, the natural combinations would be:

• Westerberg + US 6,379,178 (EWD) → the DC/vehicle-power feature;
• Westerberg + US 4,072,171 (Nakazawa) → spring-actuated valve / relief-valve features (claims 4, 5, 12, 13);
• Westerberg + US 2,799,882 (Falk) → the kit + leak-detection-substance feature;
• Peterson (US 3,603,138) + Westerberg → portable, field-deployable inflation of a lineman's glove with a grooved adaptor.

None of these is a § 102 reference standing alone; they are only potentially useful in combination.

4. Caveats and recommended verification

• I could not confirm the full text of US 2,074,140, US 2,799,882, US 3,991,604, US 4,072,171, and US 2011/0253184 with primary sources in this session (searches were truncated). Their entries above are title/front-matter-based, so the element mapping for those five is provisional. A definitive antec

I'll verify the content of the key prior-art references cited on the face of the patent so the obviousness analysis is grounded in what each reference actually discloses.

Good — I now have the key references. Let me verify the remaining cited references (McDonald, Bates, Parke Davis, Mills) and the Salisbury catalog to complete the picture.

Obviousness Analysis — US 9,625,347 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Builds on the earlier Patent Summary and Litigation Summary. As instructed, I use the prior art on the face of the patent (the "Prior Art" section), and I do not repeat the bibliographic/litigation content already generated. One correction to the earlier section is flagged in § 1.

1. Reference set, dates, and a correction to the earlier summary

All nine U.S. references and both NPL items cited on the face of the '347 patent pre-date the 2013-06-26 priority date and therefore qualify as prior art under § 102(a)/(b). None is a "secret" or otherwise disqualified reference.

Correction to the earlier section. The prior "Patent summary" described US 7,143,633 B2 as Westerberg's "apparent divisional/continuation." The live records resolve this: US 2006/0144127 A1 and US 7,143,633 B2 are the publication and the grant of the same application, No. 11/021,400, filed 2004-12-27. They are not separate family members, so only one Westerberg disclosure exists to cite — but it supplies both the published application and the granted-patent text (single claim; cylindrical body 2, grooved housing 3, air outlet end 6, air outlet 7 with center air-valve hole 14, air valve 8, o-ring 12). Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7143633B2](/patent/US7143633B2)/en ; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2006/0144127.html

2. Legal framework

Under Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the question is whether the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill at the time of invention. The KSR rationales most relevant here are:

• (A) Combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
• (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
• (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (ready for improvement) to yield predictable results;
• (F) "Obvious to try" — identifying a need and using a finite number of identified, predictable solutions; and
• (G) Design incentives / market forces, including the portability-driven demand the patent's own background concedes.

Secondary considerations are analyzed in § 7. There is no record here of unexpected results, teaching away, or a nexus-qualified commercial-success/long-felt-need showing.

3. Level of ordinary skill (PHOSITA)

The claimed subject matter sits at the intersection of (i) glove/fluid-tightness testing and (ii) small pneumatic-fixture design. A PHOSITA would be a person with a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering (or equivalent hands-on trade experience) and roughly 2–5 years' experience designing pneumatic test fixtures, small air compressors/pumps, or pressurized leak-test equipment — or a skilled electrical-lineman/utility safety technician with substantial field experience testing insulating gloves. This is a low-to-moderate level of skill; the inventions are mechanical and the components (tubing, valves, hoses, buckets, soap) are all conventional. This skill level favors obviousness, because combining off-the-shelf pneumatic components is routine.

4. Claim construction of the limitations that matter

5. Claim 1 — element-by-element mapping

Primary combination: Westerberg + Falk + Nakazawa + EWD, optionally with Peterson for the portability/field-testing motivation. Every element of claim 1 is either literally in Westerberg or supplied by a reference addressing a recognized need that Westerberg's own background leaves open (portability, kit packaging, DC power, soap testing, spring-relief valving).

6. Motivation to combine (the "why would they?")

1. Same field / same problem. Westerberg's background is nearly verbatim parallel to the '347 spec: "There are several testing products intended to be used in the service shop, some pedestal styles and others bench top styles. There was a need for a portable testing apparatus, to allow for testing in the field…" The '347 patent repeats this at col. "BACKGROUND." A PHOSITA reading both sees the same unmet need (field testing away from shop air).
2. Predictable-result combination. Each added piece is a known component doing what it is known to do: a 12 V compressor inflates (EWD), a spring valve holds/releases pressure (Nakazawa), soapy water bubbles at a leak (Falk), a bucket carries parts (Falk). KSR rationale (A).
3. Design incentive / market force. Utility field crews (the assignee is itself an electric utility) want a carryable, self-contained glove tester — the express goal of both Westerberg and the '347 patent. KSR rationale (G).
4. Simple substitution. Westerberg already uses a glove-retaining means (o-ring / rubber band / fabric strip); swapping it for a cinch strap or releasable cable tie (which the '347 spec itself admits are prior art from Monoprice/Gardner Bender/Panduit) is a substitution of known equivalents. KSR rationale (B).
5. Obvious to try. Starting from Westerberg and reaching for a spring check valve and a second vent port on the end wall is one of a finite number of predictable ways to add a pressure-release function. KSR rationale (F).

No reference teaches away. Westerberg in fact encourages adaptation, since its stated purpose is accommodating "any size glove" and "existing glove inflators."

7. Secondary considerations

Nothing in the record supports non-obviousness:

• No unexpected results are asserted for the 1.4–2.5× ratio or the relief-bore placement; the spec calls alternative dimensions "contemplated."
• No recognized teaching away.
• No nexus-qualified commercial success — the earlier Litigation Summary found no assertion history and the owner is an operating utility using the device as an internal tool, not a commercial seller with sales/praise evidence. Absent a nexus, any commercial story would carry little weight.
• No copying or industry-acclaim evidence appears on the record.

The forward citation FR 3,140,433 B1 (Jegou Ind, "Pneumatic glove tester with deflation valve," 2025) is worth flagging: it suggests later designers independently arrived at a "glove tester with deflation valve," which undercuts any argument that adding a relief/deflation valve to a glove tester was a non-obvious insight.

8. Dependent claims and the method claims

Because claims 2–13 all depend from (or incorporate) claim 1, they rise or fall with it unless they add separately-patentable matter — and none does:

9. Bottom line and honest uncertainties

Assessment: Claims 1–13 are vulnerable to a § 103 obviousness challenge. The strongest rejection is a Westerberg-based combination:

Westerberg (US 2006/0144127 A1 / US 7,143,633 B2) as the primary reference — for the portable glove adaptor with the grooved, non-compressible cylindrical housing, end-face air outlet, one-way valve, and glove-retaining means — in view of Falk (US 2,799,882) for the carryable kit and leak-detector dispenser, Nakazawa (US 4,072,171) for the spring valve and the relief/venting function, and EWD (US 6,379,178 B1) for DC/vehicle-powered inflation; optionally with Peterson (US 3,603,138) for the express field-portability motivation.

The likely point of genuine dispute is not the field or the kit concept — those are squarely taught — but two structural details: (i) the relief bore exiting the same end surface as the inlet (claim 1, and the "second valve on the relief bore" claims 4, 5, 12, 13), and (ii) the 1.4×–2.5× cross-sectional ratio. Both are, in my view, more likely than not to be held obvious design choices, but they are the limitations I would expect a patentee to defend, and they are where an IPR petitioner should expect the fight.

Explicit uncertainty flags (per the operating rules):

• I obtained full text for Westerberg, Peterson, Falk, Nakazawa, and EWD (cited above) and verified them against Google Patents/FreePatentsOnline. The step limit cut off my verification of McDonald '204, Bates '140, Parke Davis '604, and Mills 2011/0253184, so my treatment of those is based on their titles/classes as recorded on the patent face — I would not rely on specific content claims for those four without a re-check.
• This is a technical obviousness analysis for a hypothetical challenge, not a legal opinion, and it does not address claim construction under the Phillips framework as a court would apply it or any § 112 issues.
• Consistent with the earlier section, I kept the identifier literal: US 9,625,347 B2 / application 14/314,884; no neighboring patent numbers were substituted.