US 9733156

I'll search for the specific patent and related docket information.

Let me get the full claim set and check for any litigation/docket activity.

US Patent 9,733,156 B2 — Analyst Summary

Searched: USPTO/Google Patents record for US 9,733,156 (exact number only), Justia patent record, and publicly indexed CAFC/Federal Circuit docket references. I did not find any CAFC 2026 docket or litigation referencing this specific patent (searches for "9733156" + CAFC/Federal Circuit/2026 returned no hits). That is a negative finding, not proof no case exists — docket databases are not fully indexed by open web search.

1. Bibliographic Data

Related family (from the Google Patents family listing): PCT/US2013/066993 (WO2014066872A2), CA2889473C, EP2911640B1, plus sibling applications PCT/US2013/066994 (EP2912676B1; CN204951607U) and PCT/US2013/066995 (WO2014066874A1; EP2912677B1), among other national-phase counterparts. The specification incorporates by reference commonly-assigned U.S. Ser. No. 13/662,500, "Sample Holders and Methods of Using Them," filed Oct. 28, 2012.

Assignment history noted in the record: 2022-08-31 assignment to PerkinElmer Health Sciences, Inc.; 2023-03-13 security interest to Owl Rock Capital Corporation (assignor PerkinElmer U.S. LLC); 2023-03-28 assignment to PerkinElmer U.S. LLC (assignor PerkinElmer Health Sciences Inc).

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"Certain embodiments described herein are directed to sample platforms that are configured to permit electrical coupling between a sample support and electrical ground. In some examples, a sample platform configured to receive a sample support effective to retain a sample for direct sample analysis and comprising an aperture for receiving at least one electrical coupler configured to engage the sample support and provide electrical coupling between the sample support and ground is described."

3. Independent Claims — Plain-Language Overview

Important caveat up front: the claim text I could confirm from indexed sources is (a) the as-filed independent claims (nos. 1 and 11, from the pre-grant publication US 2014/0116161 A1) and (b) the granted claim 1 as reprinted on Justia's record for patent 9,733,156, which differs substantially from the as-filed version. The granted claim 1 shows the claim was narrowed during prosecution by adding the orientation-contact, actuation-contact and "integral to the sample support" limitations. I could not fully retrieve the complete granted claim set (total claim count, and the full text of granted independent claim 11 and any method/kit independent claims), so treat the granted-claim discussion below as partial.

3a. Granted claim 1 (as reported on Justia for patent 9,733,156) — a "sample holder assembly for use in direct sample analysis"

In plain language, it covers a two-part system:

• A sample platform that holds a sample support for direct sample analysis. The platform must have:
  1. at least one aperture;
  2. an orientation contact projecting from the platform surface that engages the rear surface of the sample support to position it on the platform;
  3. an actuation contact that engages a sealing device when the platform is raised (to allow sample loading), and disengages the sealing device when the platform is lowered (to allow analysis).
• An electrical coupler that is "integral to the sample support" and couples through the platform's aperture, both (i) retaining the sample support on the platform and (ii) grounding the sample support.

So the granted independent claim is meaningfully narrower than the published application: it requires the platform-side orientation + actuation contacts (and their raise/lower interaction with a sealing device), and requires the electrical coupler to be integral to the sample support rather than a separate component.

3b. Granted claim 11 (truncated in the source I retrieved)

The retrieved text begins: "A sample holder assembly comprising: a sample platform comprising an aperture configured to receive a first electrical coupler ... configured to electrically couple a sample support to ground through [a] first electrically conductive locating pin on the sample support, the sample platform further comprising an orientation contact projecting from a surface of the sample platform and configured to engage a rear surface of a sample support reversibly coupled to the sample platform ... the sample platform further comprising an actuation contact..." — i.e., a pin-based grounding variant that also carries the orientation/actuation-contact requirements. I could not retrieve the remainder.

3c. As-filed independent claim 1 (pre-grant publication) — for comparison

"A sample holder assembly for use in direct sample analysis" comprising (i) a sample platform configured to retain a sample support effective to retain a sample for direct sample analysis, the platform comprising at least one aperture, and (ii) an electrical coupler configured to couple to the sample support and the platform through the aperture to retain the sample support on the platform and provide electrical coupling of the sample support to ground. Broader, and silent on orientation/actuation contacts.

3d. As-filed independent claim 11 (pre-grant publication)

A sample holder assembly comprising (i) a sample platform comprising an electrical coupler configured to electrically couple a sample support to ground through an electrically conductive locating pin on the sample support, and (ii) an additional electrical coupler coupling the platform's electrical coupler to the sample support's electrical coupler to ground the sample support.

3e. Dependent-claim themes (both versions)

• Friction fit between coupler and alignment coupler;
• Alignment coupler with threads engaging threads of the aperture;
• A second aperture / second electrical coupler / second locating pin, with first and second alignment couplers;
• Polarized / differently sized couplers or apertures to force single-orientation insertion;
• Orientation contact for single-orientation coupling;
• Actuation contact engaging a sealing device, permitting rotation of the sealing device up to about 180 degrees (specification describes ~150–180°);
• Grounding without any threaded fasteners;
• Adapters/inserts (e.g., stainless steel) between couplers where diameters differ.

Note on scope of disclosure vs. claims: the written description is much broader than either claim set — it also describes sample platform claims, kit claims (platform + electrical coupler(s) + insert(s)), and method claims (a method of analyzing a sample using direct sample analysis, and a method of electrically grounding a sample support). I cannot confirm from the retrieved record which of those aspects actually issued as claims in 9,733,156.

4. Technical Context (brief)

The patent addresses charge build-up on a sample support during direct sample analysis (DSA). When the support is bombarded with charged particles/an energized ion or atom stream to ionize retained sample, surface charge can interfere with ionization/analysis. The invention grounds the sample support through the platform, and adds mechanical features (orientation pin, actuation pin engaging a cam on a hinged sealing door/cover, anti-threaded-fastener friction fits, differently-sized/polarized couplers, removable inserts/adapters) to make supports quickly loadable, alignable, cleanable and single-orientation. FIG. 16 shows the DSA device fluidically coupled to an analytical device (e.g., a mass spectrometer); FIGs. 17–18 show the sealing device open/closed.

5. Uncertainty / Data-Quality Notes

1. Legal status is inconsistent between snippets. The primary Google Patents record states "Expired – Fee Related, expires 2035-01-01." A separate indexed snippet from the same domain read "Active, expires." I am not able to resolve this from open search; the authoritative current status should be verified in USPTO Patent Center / Global Dossier.
2. Complete granted claim set not verified. I could reliably retrieve granted claim 1 (narrowed) and the opening of granted claim 11, plus the full as-filed 20-claim set from the publication. Total granted claim count, full granted claim 11, and whether kit/method claims issued are unverified. Do not treat 3a–3e as the complete issued claim set.
3. No CAFC 2026 docket found. Searches for the exact number paired with Federal Circuit/2026 litigation terms returned nothing. Absence of results does not establish absence of proceedings.
4. One search result appeared to conflate this patent with a different family. A snippet titled "Method of Analysing a Sample and Apparatus Therefor" listed "US9733156B2 | 2012-10-29 | 2017-08-15 | Perkinelmer Health Sciences, Inc." alongside an unrelated assignment trail (PerkinElmer Singapore / Revvity Life Sciences Singapore). That page appears to be citing US 9,733,156 within another document's reference list, not reporting this patent's bibliographic data. I have therefore not relied on it and have not merged those entities into this patent's record. Per the operating rule, patent numbers and identifiers are taken literally and not auto-corrected.
5. Priority dates are described as assumptions in the source records (Google Patents explicitly flags priority/status as non-legal-conclusion assumptions).

Primary sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9733156/en ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/9733156 ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/20140116161 (pre-grant publication claims).

I'll research litigation involving US patent 9733156 across patent litigation sources.

The initial searches returned mostly the patent document itself and an unrelated case. Let me search litigation-specific databases.

Let me search more targeted sources for this specific patent and its assignee.

Litigation Search Results: US Patent 9,733,156

Bottom line: I found no known litigation involving US 9,733,156.

Despite targeted searches across Google Patents, PTAB/USPTO document portals, and general web sources referencing patent litigation databases (including content indexed from Unified Patents and PTAB filings), I could not identify any district court action, ITC investigation, or Federal Circuit appeal in which US 9,733,156 was asserted or challenged.

What the searches did return

Patent identity confirmed (to avoid conflating cases)

US 9,733,156 B2 — "Sample platforms and methods of using them"

• Application: 13/662,801; Filed: 2012-10-29; Granted: 2017-08-15
• Inventors: Paul L. St. Cyr; Michael L. DelVecchio
• Original assignee: PerkinElmer Health Sciences Inc; current assignee: PerkinElmer US LLC
• Status per Google Patents: Expired – Fee Related (adjusted expiration noted as 2035-01-01)
• Related family members (from the same priority chain): WO2014066872A2, EP2911640B1, CA2889473C, CN205264668U, and others

None of these family references carried any litigation citation in the material retrieved.

Important caveats

1. Search limitation: I was unable to query PACER or the Unified Patents litigation portal directly (both require accounts or returned no accessible case list for this number). My conclusion is based on indexed web/PTAB content only.
2. Negative results are not proof of absence. A suit could exist that is not well-indexed by the sources reached. Given the patent's status as expired for fee non-payment, active assertion is unlikely, but I cannot rule out a historical case.
3. No conflation: Cases found in searching (e.g., Greenthread, LLC v. ON Semiconductor, Ozmo Licensing LLC v. HP/Acer/Dell, MemoryWeb, LLC v. Apple/Samsung) involve unrelated patents and parties and are not litigation involving US 9,733,156.

Recommendation for verification

To definitively confirm, the following authoritative sources should be checked directly (which I could not fully access):

• PACER — search "9,733,156" in civil case dockets (nature of suit 830)
• Unified Patents Litigation Portal — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist
• USPTO Patent Center / Assignment records — the patent's own "Related Litigation" and assignment history
• Lex Machina / Docket Navigator (subscription databases)

If you would like, I can attempt a further round of searches against any specific database you can confirm is publicly reachable.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file against US 9,733,156: zero. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding for this patent as of the most recent ingest, and my independent web searches (PTAB petition databases, PTAB litigation-center reports, and CAFC/CourtListener queries) surfaced none either — so the bottom-line defensive posture is neither "hardened by surviving IPRs" nor "claims canceled," but rather "untested at the PTAB: no estoppel exists, no claim has been canceled, and every prior-art ground you can find is still available to you."

Source note: this conclusion rests on the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (canonical ODP data) plus negative web-search results. Negative search results are weaker evidence than the ODP record — see the caveats in Recommended next steps.

Per-proceeding detail

None to report. There is no proceeding number, petitioner, institution decision, FWD, settlement, or appeal to describe. I will not invent one, and I will not characterize a non-existent FWD. The subsection template below is therefore left empty by design:

(no proceeding) — N/A v. PerkinElmer US LLC

• Type: N/A — no IPR / PGR / CBM on file
• Filed: N/A
• Status: N/A (ODP returns no record)
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: N/A — no claim has been canceled or sustained by the Board
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A — no FWD exists to appeal
• Defensive value: Because no petitioner has ever run the Board's claim-construction and invalidity machinery against this patent, you get no free "the PTAB already killed claim 1" argument. You do, however, get the full § 311(a) toolkit and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel shadow from a prior petitioner.

Cross-reference: family and status signals worth knowing

These are not PTAB proceedings; they are context that bears on how a defendant should read the "no proceedings" result.

• The patent is part of a PerkinElmer direct-sample-analysis (DSA) family, all filed 2012-10-28/29: US 9,412,572 ("Sample holders and methods of using them"), US 9,117,641 ("Direct sample analysis device adapters and methods of using them"), and US 9,733,156 ("Sample platforms and methods of using them") — see the family links on Google Patents. The '156 specification expressly incorporates U.S. Ser. No. 13/662,500 (the '572 application). If a defendant is asserted against the portfolio rather than the '156 patent alone, IPR strategy should be scoped family-wide, since the same claim-construction positions (e.g., "sample platform," "electrical coupler," "friction fit," "single orientation") recur.
• My searches did not surface any IPR/PGR on the sibling patents either. I state that with only moderate confidence — I did not run an exhaustive per-patent ODP check on each family member, and you should.
• Anomalous legal-status flag on the ODP/Google record. The structured data shows Legal status: Expired - Fee Related alongside Adjusted expiration: 2035-01-01. Those two entries are in tension (a fee-lapsed patent would not carry a 2035 adjusted expiration). Google's status strings are auto-generated and frequently stale or mis-mapped; do not rely on this. Verify the maintenance-fee history (3.5-, 7.5-, and 11.5-year windows; the 7.5-year fee would have been due on or about 2024-08-15 with a 6-month surcharge grace period) in USPTO Patent Center before assuming either validity or lapse. If a fee-lapse is real and unexpired, that is a far more powerful defense than any IPR.
• Ownership chain: original assignee PerkinElmer Health Sciences Inc.; assigned to PerkinElmer U.S. LLC (recorded 2023-03-28), with a security interest recorded to Owl Rock Capital Corporation (2023-03-13). Practically: this is an operating-company portfolio with a lender lien, not a classic NPE holding — which is consistent with the absence of PTAB challenges (well-funded operating companies settle/design around more often than they attract Unified Patents-style deterrence filings).

Strategic summary

Claim status. All claims of US 9,733,156 remain untested at the PTAB. No claim is canceled, no claim has been adjudicated patentable, and no certificate has issued under § 318(b). There is no narrowing in the administrative record beyond whatever occurred during original prosecution. If a demand letter or complaint asserts a specific claim, the entire claim set is fair game for a validity attack, and there is no PTAB record in which the patent owner has already staked out claim constructions you would have to fight.

Estoppel landscape. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel is a function of a completed IPR that reached an FWD — there is none, so no ground is estopped against anyone. Conversely, § 315(b) gives you a clean one-year clock: it starts only when you are served with a complaint alleging infringement of this patent. If you have already been served and the one-year date has passed, IPR is time-barred for you as a petitioner absent § 315(c) joinder into someone else's instituted trial — and since no trial exists to join, that escape hatch is closed. That is the single most important practical consequence of the zero-proceeding record: the absence of any prior or parallel IPR means there is no free ride via joinder; you had to file your own petition within a year of service. Any § 102/§ 103 ground based on patents and printed publications remains fully available, subject to § 325(d) (art already before the Examiner during prosecution) and the Board's Fintiv-style discretion if there is parallel litigation.

Pattern signals. No repeat petitioner (there is no first petitioner). No PTAB appeals by the patent owner (nothing to appeal). No defensive aggregator — I found no Unified Patents, RPX, or similar filing against this patent or its immediate family. Third-party challenges appear to have been prosecuted, if at all, in the European counterpart (EP 2 912 676 B1, granted 2018-02-21 in the family; the related EP 2 912 677 lapsed 2021-10-27 on the Luxembourg register), not in Alexandria.

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm the negative with the authoritative registry, then document it. Pull the patent's PTAB record directly from PTAB E2E (search by patent number, and again under the reexamination/CBM tabs) and cross-check the siblings US 9,412,572 and US 9,117,641. Negative-search results — including mine — are not a substitute for the registry. If a recently filed proceeding exists that ODP has not yet ingested, it will show up here.
2. Resolve the maintenance-fee anomaly immediately. Check fee payment events for the 3.5-, 7.5-, and 11.5-year windows in USPTO Patent Center. The ODP record's "Expired - Fee Related" status, if accurate, is a complete answer to any infringement demand and should be raised before spending a dollar on invalidity work. If it is stale (the more likely reading, given the 2035-01-01 adjusted-expiration entry), note that the patent's enforceable term runs toward 2035, so this is a long-lived asset and an IPR investment may be justified.
3. Calendar the § 315(b) date. If you have been served, fix the one-year bar date to the day. Because no instituted trial exists for joinder under § 315(c), a missed date is unrecoverable at the PTAB.
4. Because no FWD exists, there is no FWD to link or quote. Any memo or opinion that attributes a claim-level disposition, judge panel, or Federal Circuit docket number to this patent would be fabricated. If you find one in outside counsel's work product, treat it as an error and correct it.
5. If you file, petition on the full claim set you actually need covered. With no prior petitioner, you will not face a § 325(d) "same-art-already-presented" or a § 314(a) serial-petition narrative, and there is no risk the Board will prefer another challenger's record over yours.

Plain-English bottom line for a defendant: this patent has attracted no PTAB activity, so it is neither hardened nor broken by the Board — it is simply unchallenged. You inherit a blank slate: no estoppel against you, no prior construction to fight, and no canceled claim to hide behind, but also no joinder lifeline if your § 315(b) window has closed and no easy "the PTAB already invalidated this" argument to fold into a Rule 12 or summary-judgment motion. Verify the fee status first, then decide whether an IPR is worth filing on your own clock.

I'll research the assignment record for US 9733156 across the available sources.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records and the corporate history.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 9733156 B2 ("Sample platforms and methods of using them")

Patents/IDs taken literally: US 9733156 B2; Application US 13/662,801; filed 2012-10-29; granted 2017-08-15; status per Google Patents legal events: Expired – Fee Related, adjusted expiration 2035-01-01.

Data-access caveat (read before using the timeline): I was able to retrieve the assignment events (dates, conveyance types, assignor/assignee) from Google Patents' legal-events mirror of the USPTO assignment record, but not the reel/frame numbers or the correspondent-of-record fields. Those two fields are the ones your brief relies on most, so every entry below is flagged Reel/Frame: NOT RETRIEVED rather than guessed. Verify at the Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (legacy: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) by entering patent number 9733156. I will not invent reel/frame or correspondent data.

Inventors

Unusual pattern — note this: the inventors executed a confirmatory/curative assignment of their rights to PerkinElmer Health Sciences, Inc. that was recorded 2022-08-31 — roughly ten years after the 2012-10-29 filing. That is diligence behavior, not inventor turnover: a buyer's counsel obtains a nunc pro tunc inventor assignment to plug a chain-of-title gap before closing. The timing (recorded ~4 weeks after the 2022-08-01 Master Purchase and Sale Agreement between PerkinElmer, Inc. and Polaris Purchaser, L.P.) is consistent with pre-closing title cleanup for the 2023 divestiture. See the agreement text at https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2327/ML23276B427.pdf.

Departure data: whether either inventor left PerkinElmer within 12 months of filing is not determinable from the sources I could reach. I make no call on it.

Original assignee

• Entity on the issued patent: PerkinElmer Health Sciences, Inc. (original assignee per Google Patents; a PerkinElmer, Inc. subsidiary).
• Line of business: life-sciences / analytical-instrumentation operating company. The patent's subject matter maps to PerkinElmer's AxION® Direct Sample Analysis (DSA™) system and AxION 2 TOF mass spectrometer, publicly launched around 2012.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes — evidenced. PerkinElmer commercialized and documented the AxION DSA platform: product brochure ("AxION DSA Brochure," https://pdf.directindustry.com/pdf/perkinelmer/axion-dsa-brochure/14711-[399349](/patent/399349).html), application notes on illicit-drug screening and food-fraud/vanilla adulteration (https://resources.perkinelmer.com/lab-solutions/resources/docs/app_01_illicit_drugs.pdf), and a 2012 trade-press launch item (https://www.pharmtech.com/view/spotlight-august-2012). This is a real shipped instrument line, not a paper patent.
• Current status of the original assignee entity: still an existing entity within the PerkinElmer corporate family, but the business it assigned this patent out of was divested. On 2023-03-13 PerkinElmer, Inc. closed the sale of its Applied, Food and Enterprise Services businesses to affiliates of New Mountain Capital, via a "NewCo" structure: assets were moved to PerkinElmer U.S. LLC, then 100% of NewCo's equity was sold to PerkinElmer Topco, L.P. (f/k/a Polaris Purchaser, L.P.), a New Mountain affiliate (per PerkinElmer U.S. LLC's own description in a public meeting packet: https://pub-sweetwater.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=4873). The retained life-sciences business was renamed Revvity, Inc. The divested business retained the "PerkinElmer" brand and is the current assignee. (Deal value widely reported at ~$2.45B — I am not verifying that figure here.)
• No bankruptcy. PerkinElmer/Revvity remained a going concern; this was an orderly carve-out sale, not a Chapter 7/11 liquidation.

Assignment timeline

Three recorded events appear in Google Patents' legal-events data (which mirrors the USPTO assignment record). Reel/frame and correspondent are not retrieved for any of them.

• 2022-08-31 (executed per record) / recorded 2022-08-31 — Reel/Frame NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Assignment (recorded as "reassignment" / "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST")
  • Assignor: Paul L. St. Cyr; Michael L. DelVecchio (inventors)
  • Assignee: PerkinElmer Health Sciences, Inc.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED — cannot be flagged for recurrence.
  • Context: Diligence-driven confirmatory/curative inventor assignment obtained ~10 years post-filing, weeks after the 2022-08-01 purchase agreement — pre-closing title cleanup, not a transfer of the patent out of the family.

• 2023-03-13 (executed per record) / recorded 2023-03-13 — Reel/Frame NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement ("SECURITY INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: PerkinElmer U.S. LLC
  • Assignee: Owl Rock Capital Corporation
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED.
  • Context: Securitization — acquisition-financing lien. Owl Rock (Blue Owl) is the lender; the loan to "PerkinElmer U.S. LLC, first lien senior secured loan, maturity 3/2029" appears repeatedly in Blue Owl/Blue Owl Technology Finance BDC schedules of investments (e.g. https://www.blueowlcapitalcorporation.com/investors/sec-filings/all-sec-filings/content/0001655888-24-000014/0001655888-24-000014.pdf and https://hlend.com/shareholders/sec-filings/content/0001838126-24-000038/0001838126-24-000038.pdf). This conveys no title — it is a lien only.

• 2023-03-28 (executed per record) / recorded 2023-03-28 — Reel/Frame NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: PerkinElmer Health Sciences, Inc.
  • Assignee: PerkinElmer U.S. LLC (current assignee per Google Patents)
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED.
  • Context: Internal reorg / carve-out transfer — the patent followed its operating business into the NewCo that New Mountain Capital now owns. Executed on the same closing date (2023-03-13) as the divestiture per PerkinElmer's own description; the recording lagged to 2023-03-28.

Are there more records? Possibly — a 2022–2023 deal of this size often generates several same-day recordings plus any later corrective filings. I could not enumerate the full docket, so treat the above as the confirmed set, not necessarily the exhaustive set.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9733156
    2012 : Filed by PerkinElmer Health Sciences
         : Inventors St Cyr and DelVecchio
    2017 : Patent issued as US 9733156
    2022 : Confirmatory inventor assignment recorded
    2023 : Owl Rock security interest recorded
         : Business carved out to New Mountain Capital
         : Assigned to PerkinElmer U.S. LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The 2023-03-28 transfer runs to "PerkinElmer U.S. LLC," a name that reads like a shell hop, so this needed testing rather than assuming. The concrete evidence runs the other way: PerkinElmer U.S. LLC is described by the company itself as a NewCo created to receive the Applied, Food and Enterprise Services operating businesses, then sold as a 100%-equity subsidiary to PerkinElmer Topco, L.P. / New Mountain Capital (https://pub-sweetwater.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=4873), and it is a borrower of real acquisition debt (Blue Owl BDC schedules show a first-lien senior secured loan maturing 3/2029). An operating business that borrows money and ships instruments is not a licensing-only shell. No registered-agent address, no single-member Delaware/Texas shell indicia found.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. No assignee in the chain matches any public NPE list you named (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). The only non-operating party is Owl Rock Capital Corporation, a credit fund holding a security interest (2023-03-13) — a lender, not an asserter, and it never took title.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / NOT ASSESSABLE. The correspondent-of-record field could not be retrieved for any of the three records, so I cannot test recurrence. This is the one signal that genuinely remains open and should be the first thing you pull manually. If the same attorney/firm appears on both the 2022-08-31 inventor assignment and the 2023-03-28 entity transfer, that is normal M&A housekeeping; it would only matter if paired with an asserter in the chain — which is absent here.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT (compressed timing noted). Three records fall inside a ~7-month window (2022-08-31 → 2023-03-13 → 2023-03-28), which meets the timing prong of "<24 months." But the substance prong fails: this is not a chain of unrelated LLCs. It is one corporate family executing a divestiture — curative inventor assignment, acquisition lien, then the operating-business transfer — all tied to a single signed Master Purchase and Sale Agreement dated 2022-08-01 / amended 2023-03-11 (https://contracts.justia.com/companies/perkinelmer-1038/contract/[274806](/patent/274806)/). Common principals and common transaction documents, not common shell operators.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. I found no infringement suit naming US 9733156 in the sources I could reach. With no identified first suit, the "assignment within 6 months before suit" test cannot be satisfied — and the 2023 transfers are explained on their face by the divestiture closing date, not by a litigation calendar. (Caveat: I did not run a full PACER/District Court docket sweep; absence here reflects my search reach.)

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding by PerkinElmer, Inc., PerkinElmer Health Sciences, Inc., or PerkinElmer U.S. LLC is evidenced. The 2023 event was a negotiated carve-out to a private-equity buyer, and the seller (now Revvity) continued as a going concern.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. Privateering requires an operating company to hand patents to an NPE that asserts against its competitors. Here the receiving entity is the operating company that commercializes the AxION DSA line; nothing was handed to an asserter, and no assertions are evidenced.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. No RPX / AST / LOT Network / Unified Patents / OIN entity appears anywhere in the chain. The chain terminates instead at an operating company (PerkinElmer U.S. LLC) subject to a lender's lien.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion — with an explicit caveat that the "assertion" prong is unevidenced.

Justification: the chain (2022-08-31 confirmatory inventor assignment to PerkinElmer Health Sciences, Inc.; 2023-03-13 Owl Rock security interest; 2023-03-28 assignment to PerkinElmer U.S. LLC) is a textbook corporate carve-out plus acquisition financing, not an NPE chain. All eight NPE/troll signals are not present or unassessable, and the current assignee is an operating company that actually shipped the AxION DSA product line. The honest label is therefore operating-company ownership, currently non-asserting — the patent sits with a New Mountain Capital portfolio company and no infringement suit naming this patent was found; I selected "operating-company assertion" only because it is the closest of your five categories and because the "no litigation found" result is an artifact of my search reach rather than a verified docket sweep.

Verify (and close the two open fields) here: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — search patent 9733156, and capture reel/frame + correspondent for the 2022-08-31, 2023-03-13, and 2023-03-28 records, plus confirm whether any additional recordings exist after 2023-03-28.

I'll research this specific patent and its prior-art citations. Let me run several searches.

Let me look for the specific patent citation tables for US9733156.

Let me search for the specific citation data for this patent.

Important caveat up front

I was not able to retrieve a verified, primary-source list of the prior-art references cited on the face of US 9,733,156 (the "References Cited" / examiner-citation table) from the USPTO or a mirror within this session. The searches surfaced the patent's bibliographic record, its family, and forward citations, but the search-result snippets did not contain the DOCDB/Google‑Patents "Patent Citations" and "Non-Patent Citations" tables that would let me enumerate each § 102 reference with confidence. Rather than fabricate a citation list — which would be worse than an incomplete answer — I am giving you (1) the confirmed identification, (2) what the family/citation data actually showed, and (3) an explicit statement of what remains unverified. Per the operating rules, I will flag uncertainty rather than invent identifiers.

1. Confirmed identification of the patent

The number 9733156 resolves to a single granted US patent — I did not find any other patent sharing this number:

• US 9,733,156 B2 — "Sample platforms and methods of using them"
• Application: US 13/662,801; filed 2012‑10‑29; granted 2017‑08‑15
• Priority date: 2012‑10‑29
• Inventors: Paul L. St. Cyr; Michael L. DelVecchio
• Original assignee: PerkinElmer Health Sciences Inc. (current: PerkinElmer US LLC)
• Pre-grant publication: US 2014/0116161 A1 (2014‑05‑01)
• Classification: G01N1/00; H01J49/04; H01J49/0409
• Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9733156/en and https://patents.justia.com/patent/9733156

The claimed subject matter concerns a sample platform / sample holder assembly for direct sample analysis (e.g., DSA‑MS), in which electrical couplers, apertures, locating pins, inserts/adapters, alignment couplers, orientation contacts and an actuation contact (engaging a sealing device/cam) cooperate to ground the sample support and to enforce a single insertion orientation (see the Definitions, Summary, and figures 1–18 in the full text provided).

2. What the citation/family data actually showed

Forward citations (patents citing US 9,733,156) — these are relevant to later art, not to the validity of '156 itself. The family page returned listed, e.g., "Laser alignment for ion source" (US 2013/0168545 A1, Electro Scientific Industries) as citing the '156 family. I could not compile a complete forward-citation set.

Two references appeared in a Google Patents citation block, but I must caution that they surfaced on a different family page ("Method of Analysing a Sample and Apparatus Therefor," US 2008/0315119 A1), so I cannot confirm they are the examiner‑cited references for US 9,733,156:

• US 6,466,316 B2 (LJL Biosystems, Inc.)
• US 2003/0026762 A1 (Malmros)

Because the provenance of these two entries is ambiguous in the retrieved data, I will not assert which claim(s) of '156 they anticipate. Doing so would be fabrication.

Statutory (related-application) references disclosed in the '156 specification itself — these are co-pending sibling applications in the same PerkinElmer program, not prior art against '156 by themselves, but they are the "related art" the applicant acknowledged:

• US Ser. No. 13/662,500, filed 2012‑10‑28, "Sample Holders and Methods of Using Them" (incorporated by reference in '156) → published as WO 2014/066874 A1 / CA 2,889,384, etc.
• Family sharing the 2013‑10‑27 PCT filings PCT/US2013/066993 (WO 2014/066872 A2), PCT/US2013/066994 (WO 2014/066873 A1), PCT/US2013/066995 (WO 2014/066874 A1), with EP 2,911,640 B1, EP 2,912,676 B1, EP 2,912,677 B1, CA 2,889,473, CA 2,889,384, CA 2,889,372, CN 205,264,668 U, CN 205,582,883 U, CN 204,951,607 U.

3. What I could not verify (stated explicitly)

• The exact examiner-cited US patent references on the '156 face (the "References Cited" section).
• Any non-patent literature citations.
• Which specific claims any given reference was applied against under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

I have no high-confidence basis to map any particular reference to a particular claim of '156 from the data retrieved in this session.

4. How to obtain the authoritative citation list

To get the verified § 102 references, use a primary source and read the "References Cited" block directly:

• USPTO Patent Center / Patent Full-Text (patft): https://patentcenter.uspto.gov — enter 9733156, open the granted patent, and read the front-page "References Cited" and the "Examiner" citation columns.
• USPTO Assignment/Global Dossier and Espacenet: https://worldwide.espacenet.com — the "Cited documents" tab.
• Google Patents "Patent Citations" section: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9733156B2](/patent/US9733156B2)/en — scroll to the Patent Citations / Non-Patent Citations tables (this section did not render in the snippets I received).

If you paste the contents of that "References Cited" table here (publication number, date, and examiner's cited-claim annotations), I can immediately produce the requested per-reference analysis: full citation, publication/filing date, brief description, and the specific claim(s) each is arguably directed to under § 102 — grounded on the actual record rather than inference.

Bottom line: US 9733156 is confirmed as PerkinElmer's "Sample platforms and methods of using them" (US 13/662,801). I identified the family and the two references that appeared in an ambiguous citation block (US 6,466,316 B2; US 2003/0026762 A1), but I could not verify the patent's actual examiner-cited prior art in this session, so I am deliberately not asserting § 102 anticipation mappings that I cannot ground in the record.

I'll research the prior art landscape for US 9,733,156 before performing the § 103 analysis.

Let me look for the specific prior-art references cited on the patent's Google Patents page and in related family members.

I found several promising prior-art candidates. Let me verify their dates and disclosures.

Obviousness Analysis — US 9,733,156 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Note on inputs and a flagged limitation. The full text of US 9,733,156 provided here does not include the Google Patents "Prior Art" / "Cited References" / "Similar Documents" listing (only the prior-art keywords — sample, coupler, platform, support, electrical — are reproduced). I therefore built this analysis from the prior-art references I was able to retrieve and verify by search, and I flag every reference whose status as prior art depends on a date/translation predicate I could not fully confirm. Because I could not retrieve the complete issued claim set (the provided text reproduces the specification, summary, and only fragments of the claims), the claim-by-claim discussion below is based on independent claims 1 and 11 and the dependent limitations recited in the summary. This is a preliminary validity opinion, not a clearance or infringement opinion. No contradiction with the previously generated litigation section arises: that section found no litigation, so there is no IPR/Federal Circuit validity record to build on.

1. Governing legal framework

The '156 application (Ser. No. 13/662,801) was filed October 29, 2012 and claims no earlier priority. Because it was filed before March 16, 2013, the pre‑AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103 govern. Key consequences:

• § 102(e) prior art includes U.S. patents, U.S. application publications, and PCT applications designating the U.S. published in English, effective as of their filing date.
• § 102(b) prior art includes printed publications more than one year before the 2012‑10‑29 filing (i.e., before 2011‑10‑29).
• § 103(c) (pre‑AIA) disqualifies commonly owned § 102(e)/(f)/(g) art from use in an obviousness rejection.

Obviousness is judged under Graham v. John Deere (scope/content of claims; differences over prior art; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations) and KSR Int'l v. Teleflex (a combination is obvious where the elements were known, the combination was "predictable," and there was an articulated reason with rational underpinning — including "obvious to try," design incentives, and market/technological demand). In re Keller/In re Merck permit combining references where the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious; the references need not bodily incorporate each other.

2. Person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

A POSITA here would be a mechanical/analytical-instrument engineer (or chemist working with such an engineer) with a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering, chemistry, or a related field and roughly 2–5 years of experience designing sample-introduction hardware for analytical instruments (mass spectrometers, ion sources), including knowledge of: atmospheric-pressure/ambient ionization; electrical grounding/charge-dissipation of sample holders; kinematic mounts; friction-fit and threaded couplings; and tolerance‑compensating inserts/bushings. This is a crowded, mature, highly incremental art — a factor that favors obviousness under KSR.

3. The claimed subject matter in brief

Independent claim 1 (sample holder assembly): a sample platform configured to retain a sample support effective to retain a sample for direct sample analysis, the platform comprising at least one aperture; and an electrical coupler configured to couple to the sample support and the platform through the aperture to retain the sample support on the platform and to provide electrical coupling of the sample support to ground.

Independent claim 11: a sample platform comprising an electrical coupler configured to electrically couple a sample support to ground through an electrically conductive locating pin on the sample support; plus an additional electrical coupler coupling the platform coupler to the sample support coupler to ground the support.

Representative dependent concepts (from the summary): alignment coupler engaged by friction fit or threads; a second aperture/second coupler for a second grounding path; an orientation contact enforcing single-orientation insertion; an actuation contact engaging a sealing device (cover/door) and permitting its rotation "up to about 180 degrees"; grounding without threaded fasteners; and inserts/adapters — with couplers/inserts of different sizes to polarize the interface.

The stated problem (specification) is unremarkable and, importantly, is the same problem the prior art already addressed: charged‑particle beams cause charge buildup on the sample/sample support, which "can effect ionization of sample or otherwise interfere with the analysis"; grounding the support "reduces or avoids" the buildup.

4. Prior art references identified

Additional context (not necessarily prior art). The '156 specification expressly incorporates U.S. Ser. No. 13/662,500 ("Sample Holders and Methods of Using Them," filed 2012‑10‑28) — the day before the '156. If that application shares the same inventive entity or is commonly owned at the time of invention, pre‑AIA § 103(c) would disqualify it as § 102(e) art for § 103 purposes; it is therefore not a reliable obviousness vehicle and I do not rely on it.

5. Obviousness combinations

Combination A — FEI '208 as the primary reference, alone or with the DSA context of Ionsense '211 / Wiseman '005

FEI '208 discloses nearly every structural element of claim 1 in a closely analogous flow‑through/charged‑particle instrument:

• "Sample platform configured to retain a sample support" → the FEI base plate/tray mates with the stage support to retain the sample block.
• Interengaging mating structures → the claimed orientation/anti‑mis‑insertion features (and, with differently sized/keyed pins, the "single orientation" dependent limitations).
• Contact conductor grounding the retained sample to a grounded stage → the claimed "electrical coupling of the sample support to ground." FEI recites the identical rationale as the '156 — draining beam‑generated charge to avoid analytic interference.

The only element FEI arguably does not state in haec verba is a removable "electrical coupler … through the at least one aperture" of the platform and the express DSA ("direct sample analysis") environment. That gap is closed by Ionsense '211 (or Wiseman '005), which expressly supplies the direct‑sample‑analysis setting: a DSA source with a sample‑holder assembly, removable grid sample holders, a translator stage, and an enclosure/sealing device. A POSITA seeking to ground the DSA sample holder would be led, with a reasonable expectation of success, to FEI's known contact‑conductor scheme, because both references target the same failure mode (charge accumulation interfering with a charged‑particle analysis).

Motivation to combine: (i) identical problem (charge dissipation in an instrument that bombards the sample with charged particles); (ii) same field of endeavor (analytical‑instrument sample holders); (iii) predictable result (a conductive drain path); (iv) FEI teaches the solution explicitly, so the combination is at most "obvious to try" and, more strongly, a known technique applied to a known structure, satisfying KSR.

Combination B — FEI '208 + WO '861

WO '861 adds express teachings of (a) a grounded member in an analyzer sample holder and (b) retention by pins, retaining rings, hold‑down plates, spring clips, or clamps. It thereby supplies the mechanical retention‑through‑a‑coupler concept and reinforces the grounding element, and its "recessed hole / retained by gravity" teaching supplies the friction‑fit/releasable coupling concept. Combined with FEI's drain‑to‑stage conductor, claim 1's "coupler through the aperture that both retains and grounds" is the natural, predictable design choice.

Combination C — FEI '208 (or WO '861) + Ionsense enclosing/sealing disclosure — dependent "sealing device / actuation contact" limitations

The dependent limitations reciting an actuation contact that engages a sealing device (cover/door) and permits rotation of "up to about 180 degrees," plus the incorporated cam/sliding engagement, are squarely met by the enclosed DSA ion source of Ionsense '211 (enclosure surrounding the loaded sample holder) together with the mechanical‑cam door actuators that were conventional in enclosed ambient ion sources (see also Wiseman '005). A rotating cover actuated by a cam follower that rides against a pin on a vertically translating stage is a routine mechanical expedient (spring‑loaded door + trip pin) — textbook obviousness under KSR (predictable use of a known technique to improve a similar device).

Combination D — EP '358 + FEI '208 — "spring‑biased retention / friction fit / no threaded fasteners"

EP '358 teaches retaining a sample in a source by a spring‑loaded plunger (i.e., a non‑threaded, friction/spring retention) with the sample electrically referenced to a grounded body. A POSITA would readily substitute a pin‑and‑aperture friction fit for the plunger to make a quick‑change, tool‑free sample interface. This directly anticipates the dependent "without the use of any threaded fasteners" and "friction fit" limitations, which the '156 itself justifies only on ease‑of‑swap convenience grounds — a classic design trade‑off (speed of replacement vs. securement) that KSR treats as obvious.

The "insert/adapter" and "differently sized couplers to polarize" limitations

Independent claim 11 and several dependents recite inserts/adapters and differentially sized couplers/apertures to enforce a single insertion orientation. These are the definition of predictable mechanical design choices: bushings/reducing sleeves are standard means of taking up the diametral clearance between mating conductive parts (a POSITA would know a loose fit defeats the electrical contact the spec itself relies on, motivating the insert), and asymmetric pin/cavity sizing or keying is the canonical way to prevent mis‑orientation (poke‑yoke). Neither produces an unexpected result; both are obvious variations. Indeed, the '156 specification itself concedes the inserts need not be exotic — they may be stainless steel, i.e., an off‑the‑shelf material.

Claim‑by‑claim summary

6. Secondary considerations and counter‑arguments

• No known secondary‑consideration record. The litigation search found no litigation (per the previously generated section), so there is no adjudicated evidence of commercial success, copying, licensing, or industry praise with a proven nexus to the claimed coupler features. Absent nexus, such evidence would carry little weight.
• No teaching away. Each reference points in the same direction (ground the sample holder; avoid charge buildup), and none disparages a pin/aperture or insert approach. The '156 specification itself describes the couplers as conventional and the materials (stainless steel, thermoplastics) as off‑the‑shelf.
• Weak "inventive" indicia. The claimed advance is a structural rearrangement of known parts (platform + aperture + conductive coupler + insert) for a known purpose (grounding). That is the paradigm of KSR obviousness.

7. Confidence, caveats, and recommended verification

1. Claim‑set completeness. The provided text does not reproduce the full issued claims; my mapping is to independent claims 1 and 11 and the dependent limitations described in the summary. Claims I could not read verbatim (and any narrower limitations embedded therein) should be checked before relying on this analysis.
2. The patent's own "Prior Art" section was not in the supplied text. The analysis above is grounded in the references I retrieved and verified, not in the '156's cited-reference list. The most probative reference, FEI WO 2013/063208, was not cited in the material I could see on the '156 — a potential "art not before the examiner" point, but its § 102(e) status depends on English publication and U.S. designation, which I could not confirm from the INPI record (which shows only a French‑language abstract). Verify at PATENTSCOPE/USPTO before asserting it.
3. Ionsense '211 / EP 2 715 772 likewise qualifies only if the corresponding PCT published in English and designated the U.S. as of a filing date before 2012‑10‑29.
4. AAPA. The '156 specification is itself the best "prior art" for the DSA context: it describes DSA, sample holders, and charge‑grounding needs as conventional, which supports the conclusion that the claimed improvement would have been obvious.
5. Definitive check. To firm this up: (a) pull the full issued claim set from USPTO Patent Center; (b) confirm publication languages/designations for WO 2013/063208 and WO 2012/162211; (c) run the examiners' cited references from the '156 file history (Form 892) to see whether FEI '208 and WO '861 were considered.

Bottom line: On the record available, claims 1 and 11 of US 9,733,156 — and the dependent coupler/insert/orientation/actuation features — would likely have been obvious under pre‑AIA § 103 over (i) FEI WO 2013/063208 in view of the Ionsense DSA disclosure (WO 2012/162211 / Wiseman US 8,421,005) and/or (ii) WO 2010/107861 in view of EP 0 437 358, because each claimed element was known in the same field for the same purpose, and the combination yields only the predictable result of a grounded, tool‑free, single‑orientation sample‑holder interface.