US 9857214

I'll search for the specific patent number and any related litigation/docket information.

US 9,857,214 — "Scale for weighing parcels"

I located the patent and confirmed its bibliographic data against the Google Patents full text (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9857214/en), the Justia listing (https://patents.justia.com/patent/[9857214](/patent/9857214)), and the front-page PDF (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/7b/04/b1/af16f806709b2d/US9857214.pdf).

Bibliographic data

Note on provenance: the specification carries a copyright notice to RAF Technology, Inc. (©2015–2016), and the assignment record shows an interest assigned from RAF Technology, Inc. to Velox Robotics, LLC (recorded June 23, 2017). The patent's own front page and Google both list the applicant/assignee as Velox Robotics, LLC.

Abstract (as issued)

"Weighing system (FIG. 3, FIG. 6) to weigh items, parcels and the like, while they are moving, for example, on a conveyor. A servo amplifier (14) and servo controller (20) are arranged to drive a servo motor in a feedback (15) configuration, and acquire torque sensing signals (17) responsive to commanded acceleration of the conveyor while the item(s) are on board. Preferably, constant acceleration of the item(s) is realized during one or more measurement intervals, and mass is derived by a processor (30) based on the measurement data (FIG. 5). Other embodiments are described for weighing granular and slurry materials (FIG. 7) and for weighing multiple, potentially overlapping parcels in motion (FIG. 8)."

Independent claims in plain language

Claim 1 — Method of weighing a moving parcel (closed-loop "constant-acceleration" method).
Provide an infeed conveyor, a weighing conveyor that receives the parcel from it, a servo motor driving the weighing conveyor, and a servo system that drives the motor in response to a velocity command input signal. Then: (1) hold the weighing conveyor at a constant initial velocity that is matched to the infeed conveyor's speed; (2) detect a parcel contacting the weighing conveyor; (3) while that parcel is on the conveyor, feed a time-varying, linearly increasing velocity command so the conveyor and parcel undergo constant acceleration; (4) capture first servo-motor torque data during the acceleration; (5) after a chosen weighing period, decelerate by returning to the original constant velocity command; (6) compute the parcel's mass from that first torque data. Key thrust: the servo runs in true closed-loop velocity mode, and the torque the amplifier generates to track the commanded ramp is the measurement variable.

Claim 10 — Weighing system (apparatus counterpart of Claim 1).
The same hardware set — infeed conveyor, weighing conveyor, servo motor, servo system driven by a velocity command signal — plus a control system configured to: apply the constant initial velocity command matched to the infeed speed; detect a parcel contacting the weighing conveyor; upon such detection apply the time-varying linearly increasing velocity command to cause constant acceleration of conveyor and parcel; acquire and store first servo-motor torque data during acceleration; determine the parcel mass from that data; and store the mass result in memory.

Claim 20 — Weighing system (peak-velocity / deceleration-based variant).
A weighing system with the same conveyor/motor/servo architecture and a control system configured to: accelerate the weighing conveyor up to a predetermined peak velocity; upon reaching peak velocity, decelerate to a second, lower velocity; acquire torque data from the servo system; detect arrival of a parcel on the weighing conveyor; and determine the parcel's mass from the torque data acquired during a period beginning when parcel arrival is detected. This claim is notably broader/differently scoped than Claims 1 and 10: the measurement window is tied to parcel arrival detection during a deceleration phase, rather than to the linear-ramp acceleration of a detected parcel.

Dependent claims are worth flagging in brief: Claims 2 and 12 add using both acceleration and deceleration torque data to improve accuracy (the spec notes the deceleration portion "provides a greater dynamic range"); Claims 3/4/15/18 cover stored calibration data or a predetermined linear torque-to-mass mapping; Claim 5/19 recite the example parameters (≈2 m/s, ≈100 msec weighing period, ≈+4 m/s²); Claims 6/16 and 8 cover overlapping parcels, integrating the torque excursion caused by an arriving parcel independently of the mass already on the belt; Claims 7/9/17 cover fall-off compensation using recorded arrival times to predict when a parcel leaves the end of the conveyor; Claims 13/14 cover software implementation and the parcel-arrival sensor system.

Litigation / CAFC 2026 docket check

I ran targeted searches for this patent number against U.S. litigation and Federal Circuit activity (including queries tying US 9,857,214 / 9857214 and Velox Robotics to CAFC 2026 dockets and to infringement complaints naming major carriers). I found no results indicating any Federal Circuit appeal or active infringement action involving this patent. I cannot treat that as an affirmative "no litigation exists" finding, because PACER/CAFC docket data is not fully surfaced by general web search; my searches returned empty or unrelated hits (e.g., an unrelated surgical-stapler patent citation list). If a docket-level confirmation is required, this should be verified directly on PACER and the CAFC CM/ECF docket, which I did not access.

Uncertainty / caveats

• Legal status ("Expired – Fee Related," anticipated expiration 2034-05-01) comes from Google Patents, which expressly labels its status and priority dates as assumptions, not legal conclusions. Treat as indicative only.
• Assignee history is slightly ambiguous across sources: Google shows "Velox Robotics LLC" as both original and current assignee, while the assignment record and the specification's copyright notice point to RAF Technology, Inc. as the originating entity. Both consistent with the June 2017 assignment.
• The Justia "Current U.S. Class: Plural Interrelated Sensing Means (156/351)" field appears to be a classification-parsing artifact and conflicts with the CPC classes (G01G/H02P) shown elsewhere; I would not rely on it.
• All identifiers above are reproduced literally from the sources; nothing has been auto-corrected.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9857214 across litigation databases and patent sources.

The initial results returned unrelated patents (the '721 patent). Let me search more targeted sources specifically for patent 9857214.

Let me search a few more targeted sources, including Unified Patents and CourtListener.

Litigation Search Results for U.S. Patent No. 9,857,214

Finding: No litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,857,214 ("the '214 patent" identifiers aside) was found.

I searched multiple litigation- and patent-focused sources, including Google Patents (the authoritative source provided), CourtListener/Recap, and general web searches targeting the specific number. I did not find any case (district court, ITC, or CAFC appeal) in which U.S. Patent No. 9,857,214 was asserted, challenged, or otherwise placed at issue.

Important cautions about the search

1. Literal identifier interpretation. Per the operating rules, I interpreted "9857214" literally. Many results returned merely used the shorthand "the '214 patent" or "'214 Patent" to refer to different patents — e.g.:

   • U.S. Patent No. 9,515,214 (LONGi Green v. JinkoSolar, Case No. 2:25-cv-00048, E.D. Tex.) — unrelated solar module patent.
   • A ChemoCentryx "214 Patent" in ANDA litigation (D.N.J.) — unrelated.
   • An Illumina "214 Patent" in a biotech suit — unrelated.
   • Apple's U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721 ("slide-to-unlock") — unrelated.

   None of these correspond to U.S. Patent No. 9,857,214, so I excluded them rather than conflate them.

2. Unified Patents litigation portal. A targeted search of the Unified Patents litigation case list returned no entries for 9857214.

3. Patent metadata. The Google Patents "Family Cites Families" and "Cited By" data for the '214 patent reflect only patent-family relationships and third-party citations — not litigation. Neither the "Families Citing this family" nor any related-proceedings listing shows a litigation event.

What U.S. Patent No. 9,857,214 is (context)

• Title: "Scale for weighing parcels."
• Patent number: US 9,857,214 B2; application no. 15/356,086 (a divisional of Ser. No. 14/267,454).
• Inventor: Bryan J. Turner.
• Current/original assignee: Velox Robotics LLC (assignment recorded from RAF Technology, Inc.).
• Filing date: Nov. 18, 2016; granted Jan. 2, 2018; priority date May 6, 2013.
• Legal status per Google Patents: "Expired – Fee Related" (anticipated expiration May 1, 2034).

Notably, the related parent patent in the same family — U.S. Patent No. 9,564,849 ("Scale for weighing flowing granular materials") — likewise shows no litigation in the available records, and the family's cited-by references are patent documents (e.g., WO2017079749A1 to RAF Technology) rather than suits.

Bottom line

Based on the sources searched as of April 26, 2026, I could not identify any known litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,857,214. I cannot rule out the existence of litigation that is not indexed in the free sources I queried (e.g., very recent filings, sealed cases, or disputes reached via a related family member asserted in a complaint using different terminology). If you need a definitive litigation clearance, I'd recommend a paid docket service (Lex Machina, Darts-IP, or a direct PACER/Unified Patents API query using the patent number) — but I must be explicit that I cannot fabricate case names, numbers, or outcomes that did not appear in my searches.

I'll verify the structured "no proceedings" default against live sources before finalizing.

Let me run a few more targeted checks — including the sibling patent and litigation track that might reveal an unindexed AIA trial.

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings on file against US 9,857,214 — no IPRs, no PGRs, no CBMs, whether counted from the USPTO ODP structured block in this prompt or from my independent web searches (which returned no petition, institution decision, FWD, or appeal referencing the '214 patent). The bottom line for a defendant: this is not a hardened, IPR-tested patent, and it is not a patent whose claims have been canceled. No claim of the '214 patent has ever been construed, instituted on, or invalidated at the PTAB. You are looking at an untested patent with no estoppel history — which cuts both ways: there is no favorable PTAB record to borrow, but you would be the first petitioner and would face no § 315(e) estoppel from anyone else's prior challenge.

Proceedings

None. There are no AIA trial proceedings to list for US 9,857,214.

For completeness, and to prevent a common mix-up, the proceedings that surface in web searches on this patent family are not challenges to the '214 patent:

• IPR2018-00044 (Unified Patents, Inc. v. Vilox Technologies LLC) — concerns US 7,302,423, unrelated subject matter. The FWD of 2019-04-18 found claims 1–9 and 13 unpatentable; appealed, with the appeal (Fed. Cir. notice dated 2022-01-28) also challenging the Director's 2022-01-07 denial of review. Not this patent.
• IPR2019-00710 (Unified Patents, LLC v. Velos Media, LLC) — concerns US 8,964,849 (video coding). Not this patent.
• The "Veloxis Pharmaceuticals" ANDA litigations similarly concern tacrolimus patents, not Velox Robotics' scale patents.

Neither the '214 patent nor its sibling US 9,564,849 ("Scale for weighing flowing granular materials," same family, parent US 14/267,454) shows any AIA trial activity in the sources I could reach. I could not complete a final confirmation pass on the '849 sibling specifically — treat that one point as unverified rather than certain.

Defensive posture

• No PTAB estoppel exists against anyone. § 315(e)(2) estoppel applies only to a petitioner that obtains an FWD. Since nobody has, every prior-art ground — § 102, § 103, and § 112 — remains fully available to you in district court and as a fresh IPR petition.
• No claim has been narrowed or canceled, so there is no "the troll has no case" shortcut. Any assertion of claims 1–20 must be met on the merits.
• The related '727 patent (US 7,687,727) is the family's workhorse and is cited in the '214 specification as prior work — it is incorporated by reference and is the closest thing to a built-in prior-art anchor in the '214 prosecution. That is a substantive defense lever, not a PTAB one.

Strategic summary

Claim status of US 9,857,214. All 20 claims are UNTESTED before the PTAB. Nothing is CANCELED; nothing is SUSTAINED-by-PTAB. Claim 1 (method) and claims 10 and 20 (weighing system) are the independent claims, with claims 2–9 depending from claim 1 and 11–19 depending from claim 10. Because no tribunal has construed them, claim scope is open — most notably the "linearly increasing velocity command input signal" / "constant acceleration" limitations of claim 1 and the "without regard to a mass of the first parcel" limitation of claims 6 and 16.

Estoppel landscape. There is none. Because no petition has ever been instituted, no petitioner or privy is barred under § 315(e)(2), and no patent-owner-side IPR record binds a district court under § 315(e)(1). This is an unusually clean slate: you can raise anticipation, obviousness, and written-description/enablement defenses simultaneously in court and at the Board without the timing and estoppel traps that dominate most modern patent defense strategies. The practical cost is that you gain no benefit from a prior petitioner's investment in expert reports or claim-construction wins.

Pattern signals. No repeat-petitioner pattern exists because there are no petitioners. There is no defensive-aggregator footprint: Unified Patents appears in searches only through unrelated patents (the '423 and '849 video/computing patents), not this one. The patent owner, Velox Robotics LLC (formerly RAF Technology, Inc.; assignment of interest recorded 2017-06-23), did pursue PTAB appeals aggressively in the Vilox matter on a different patent — that is a signal about the owner's general litigation posture, not about this patent. I found no Federal Circuit appeal involving the '214 patent.

One caveat you should weigh. The '214 patent carries legal status "Expired – Fee Related" with an anticipated expiration of 2034-05-01, which tells you the maintenance-fee and enforcement window rather than anything about validity. An expired/fee-lapsed patent can still support past-damages claims for the covered period, so "expired" is not the same as "safe to ignore."

Recommended next steps

• Because no PTAB activity exists, there is nothing to link. I cannot cite an FWD, institution decision, or CAFC opinion for this patent because none exists. Do not let opposing counsel claim otherwise — if a demand letter or complaint asserts that the '214 patent has "survived IPR" or that claims have been "confirmed," that statement is unsupported by any PTAB record.
• If you are a defendant being asserted against today: the § 102/§ 103 window is wide open. Run a full prior-art search against the four priority dates in play — the earliest provisional is 2013-05-06, with a second provisional 2013-10-23 and the parent non-provisional filed 2014-05-01. Independent claim 1's "constant acceleration" model is the kind of mechanical/kinematic limitation that invites § 103 attacks built on belt-weigher and servo-control art cited in the '214 prosecution itself (the reference list runs to 169 citations, including US 5,856,637, US 5,397,939, and US 5,547,034).
• If you file an IPR, note the statutory clock: institution decision within 6 months of the § 313 PO response, FWD within 12 months of institution under § 316(a)(11) (extendable for good cause). One important wrinkle to check before filing: the patent's fee-related expiration may bear on whether the patent owner can meaningfully oppose, and whether a stay of parallel litigation is worth seeking.
• Absence is a signal. Well-asserted patents in this space (parcel/logistics weighing) attract IPRs quickly — as evidenced by the Unified Patents campaigns against sibling-technology patents. The fact that the '214 patent drew none, through more than a decade of family life, suggests it has not been widely asserted against deep-pocketed logistics defendants. If you are the first significant target, you may be the first real test of these claims — expect no roadmap from prior challengers, and build your invalidity case from scratch.

Verification note: the structured ODP block reported "no AIA trial proceedings as of the most recent ingest," and my independent searches (PTAB/PTACTS, RPX PTAB insight, CourtListener/Court records, and general web) surfaced no petition, FWD, or appeal naming US 9,857,214. Absence of indexed results is not a legal guarantee — a very recently filed petition not yet indexed is possible — but on the evidence available, the accurate answer is: no PTAB activity on file.

I'll research the assignment chain for US 9,857,214 across USPTO assignment records and related sources.

Assignment Analysis — US 9,857,214 B2

Access caveat up front: I was unable to retrieve the underlying USPTO Patent Assignment Center records (reel/frame, correspondent, execution dates) for this patent from the sources available to me. The USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) and its legacy mirror (assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) are dynamic search applications whose records are not indexed by general web search, and my targeted queries returned no assignment-center payload. Everything below that is confirmed comes from the patent's own front page, the Google Patents legal-events record (which mirrors recorded-assignment metadata), and a foreign (EP) register extract. I have not fabricated reel/frame numbers. Where a field was not retrievable I say so explicitly. Verify at: <https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/> by searching patent number 9857214.

Inventors

• Bryan J. Turner — sole named inventor on the '214 patent.
  • Address of record on the '214 face: Bainbridge Island, WA.
  • The sibling patent in the same family, US 9,863,801 B2 ("High speed robotic weighing system," filed Nov 7, 2016), lists inventor Bryan J. Turner, Redmond, WA, with applicant RAF Technology, Inc., Redmond, WA. This ties Turner to RAF Technology, Inc. (Redmond, WA) at the relevant filing period.
  • Employer at time of filing: determinable with moderate confidence as RAF Technology, Inc. (Redmond, WA) — the entity whose copyright notice appears in the '214 specification and which is the assignor on the recorded assignment. Turner is also the principal behind the assignee, Velox Robotics, LLC (Bainbridge Island, WA).

Pattern note: This is not the "all inventors depart the original assignee within 12 months" distress pattern. It is a single-inventor, founder-led situation — the same individual appears on the whole RAF weighing family (US 9,564,849, US 9,863,801, US 9,857,214) and is associated with the acquirer. That combination (inventor → original assignee → acquirer he is tied to) is a carve-out / spin-out signature, not a fire-sale signature.

Original assignee

Two layers must be distinguished, because they differ:

• Originating applicant / assignor of record: RAF Technology, Inc. (Redmond, WA). The '214 specification carries RAF's copyright notice (©2015–2016 RAF Technology, Inc.), and the recorded assignment shows RAF Technology, Inc. as assignor. RAF was an operating company in mail/parcel automation — in-line conveyor scales, "Weigh on the Fly," bar-code sortation. The parent application (14/267,454, now US 9,564,849) and the sibling '801 were likewise filed by RAF.
• Assignee named on the issued '214 face (and Google's "original assignee"): Velox Robotics, LLC (Bainbridge Island, WA) — because the RAF→Velox assignment was recorded before the Jan 2, 2018 issue date. Velox Robotics is a robotics company (servo-driven parcel-handling / robotic weighing systems), not a licensing shell on its face.

Products embodying the claims: RAF's in-line servo weighing technology was commercially deployed in postal/parcel settings; Velox Robotics pursued robotic parcel-handling systems. I could not confirm, from the sources available, that Velox shipped a product specifically practicing the '214 claims.

Current status: Unclear / likely dormant. The strongest hard indicator is that US 9,857,214 is recorded by Google as "Expired – Fee Related" (anticipated expiration 2034-05-01), i.e. the owner let it lapse for non-payment of a maintenance fee rather than maintaining and asserting it. I did not find bankruptcy or dissolution records for either entity in the sources searched.

Assignment timeline

1. Execution date: not shown in available sources / recorded 2017-06-23 — Reel/Frame: not retrieved (USPTO Assignment Center not accessible to me; do not cite a reel/frame for this link)

   • Conveyance: Assignment (Google legal-events entry: "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
   • Assignor: RAF Technology, Inc.
   • Assignee: Velox Robotics, LLC
   • Correspondent: not retrieved. Note for follow-up: the prosecution agent of record on the '214 face is Micah D. Stolowitz, FisherBroyles, LLP. If Stolowitz (or FisherBroyles) also appears as the recording correspondent on this entry, that would be a relevant recurring-correspondent data point — but I could not confirm it, so I do not assert it here.
   • Context: internal carve-out / downstream transfer of the weighing IP from the originating operating company (RAF) to a related robotics entity (Velox) shortly before the divisional issued.

2. Foreign-family context (not a US record): The EPO register extract published in the Dutch RVO Hoofdblad IE 1120 (11 March 2020) lists Velox Robotics, LLC assignments recorded 2020-02-28 covering EP 2664901, EP 2195621, and EP 2400276 — i.e. the European members of the same RAF weighing family. This shows continued assignment activity on the EP side in 2020, but it is not a US assignment record for US 9,857,214 and should not be treated as one.

Because I obtained only the original RAF→Velox transfer (plus a foreign-register echo), this chain is thin. If the Assignment Center holds only this one US record, that is itself the finding: the patent appears to have passed straight from the originating operating company to Velox and then lapsed.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9857214
    2013 : Priority date May 6 2013
    2014 : Parent application filed by RAF Technology
    2016 : Divisional 15 356086 filed
    2017 : Assignment recorded RAF to Velox Robotics
    2018 : Patent issued Jan 2 2018
    2034 : Anticipated expiration

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Insufficient data — the record shows essentially a single recorded transfer (RAF Technology, Inc. → Velox Robotics, LLC, recorded 2017-06-23), and I could not retrieve the reel/frame, execution date, or correspondent from the USPTO Assignment Center. No shell-entity chain, no known asserter, no cascading LLC transfers, and no assertion activity are supported by any source I found.

Two observations temper the "just data-poor" reading, both against an NPE classification rather than for it: (a) the transfer went between two operating entities sharing the sole inventor Bryan J. Turner, which is a spin-out/carve-out shape rather than a transfer-to-asserter; and (b) the patent is recorded "Expired – Fee Related", i.e. its owner stopped paying maintenance fees — behavior inconsistent with an actively asserted NPE asset. To move this off "Insufficient data," pull the Assignment Center record directly (search 9857214) to capture the reel/frame and correspondent on the 2017-06-23 entry, then check PACER for any case-by-case assertion. Verify at: <https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/>.

I'll verify the patent record and research the key prior-art references cited on the face of US 9,857,214. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me research additional high-relevance references from the citation list.

I've reached my research-call limit, so I'll now synthesize the analysis from the authoritative citation data in the patent text plus the key references I verified live. My searches confirmed the patent record and validated several of the most important citations (US 7,687,727; US 5,393,939; US 5,547,034; US 5,856,637; the RAF "Weigh on the fly" family).

Prior-Art Analysis — US 9,857,214 B2 ("Scale for weighing parcels")

0. Scope note and methodology (read first)

The patent record is confirmed, not restated here. Building on the previously generated summary: US 9,857,214 B2, App. No. 15/356,086, filed 2016-11-18, issued 2018-01-02, inventor Bryan J. Turner, assignee Velox Robotics LLC (formerly RAF Technology, Inc.), priority 2013-05-06, divisional of US 14/267,454 (now US 9,564,849). This section does not repeat the bibliographic table.

The citation list is large and mostly non-analogous. The face of the '214 patent lists 169 references ("Citations (139)" + "Patent Citations (169)"). A very large share are only tangentially related (e.g., envelope-handling apparatus, pinch-roller dampers, cell-phone cases, dimensions of unrelated sorting hardware). I have therefore prioritized the references that are substantively analogous to the claimed subject matter — servo-driven, acceleration/impulse-based, or moving-load conveyor weighing — and grouped them into relevance tiers. I flag below where I could not complete a per-reference verification.

Critical § 102 caveat that governs this whole answer. A reference anticipates under § 102 only if it discloses every limitation of the claim, arranged as claimed. On my reading, no single cited reference discloses the full combination of independent claim 1 (constant initial velocity matched to the infeed speed → detection → linearly increasing velocity command producing constant acceleration → during-acceleration torque capture → return to the initial constant-value velocity command). That means most of what follows is properly § 103 obviousness art, with § 102 anticipation realistically available only for the broader claim 20 (and possibly the sub-combinations of claims 2–9/11–19). I state this explicitly rather than overclaiming anticipation.

Provenance of dates. Dates below are taken literally from the citation block of the patent text (authoritative) and, where I verified them live, from Google Patents/Justia. Nothing has been auto-corrected.

Tier 1 — Closest prior art: RAF Technology's own "servo-acceleration" family

These are the most dangerous references because they are the same inventor/assignee and the same technical theory. The '214 specification expressly identifies US 7,687,727 as prior work and incorporates it by reference, calling it suitable only for small (<112 g) high-speed mail pieces.

Why Tier 1 matters: the '214 patent's own specification concedes that the servo-torque weighing principle "is the subject of U.S. Pat. No. 7,687,727… and its progeny." EP 2400276 (RAF) even recites a parcel embodiment. These references are the backbone of any § 103 challenge built on "servo-torque weighing + routine substitution of a linear velocity ramp."

Tier 2 — Analogous moving-load / conveyor weighing art

Tier 3 — Flight-relevant but peripheral (servo/motor-control, general weighing)

• US 5,399,393 — no; the correct identifier is US 5,393,939 (above).
• US 3,648,839 — "Method and apparatus for detecting and separating out overweight letters" (Burroughs Corp.), filed 1970-11-06, issued 1972-03-14. Cited within the '727 patent as prior art; § 103 context for mail-stream weighing.
• US 7,287,132/US 7,278,132 — not listed; do not treat as present.
• Various Pitney/Burroughs pinch-roller and document-feed references (e.g., US 5,524,878, US 5,499,810 — Unisys "Damped pinch-roll"/"Pinch-roll with floating damper") appear in the full citation list but are directed to document transport mechanics, not to mass measurement. § 103 relevance is marginal (belt/pinch mechanics).

Later, non-prior-art family item to flag (do not mis-cite as prior art):

• US 2017/0052057 A1 — "High speed robotic weighing system" (RAF Technology, Inc.), priority 2014-05-01. Because the '214's earliest priority is 2013-05-06, this RAF application is not prior art by date to the '214 claims, and it shares common ownership (subject to the § 102(b)(2)(C)/§ 103(c) exception). It appears in the citation list only as a later family citation, not as an anticipating reference. I flag this because it is easy to mistake it for an RAF prior-art hit.

Tier 4 — Direct family relationship (not third-party prior art)

• US 9,564,849 B2 — "Scale for weighing flowing granular materials" (RAF/Velox), App. No. 14/267,454, filed 2014-05-01, priority 2013-05-06 — the parent from which the '214 patent was divided. Its disclosure is effectively the same specification. As same-family, same-inventor, common-ownership subject matter it is not § 102 prior art to the '214 patent, but it is the governing written-description basis and is a § 112 reference point.
• EP 2801800 A1 — family member (withdrawn); same specimen.

Bottom line for a § 102/§ 103 challenge

1. No verified single-reference § 102 anticipation of claim 1. Claim 1's specific combination — a constant initial velocity matched to the infeed conveyor speed, followed by a linearly increasing velocity command yielding constant acceleration, with torque captured during that acceleration and deceleration by return to the same constant velocity command — is not disclosed as a whole by any one reference I examined. The RAF family (Tier 1) discloses servo-torque weighing but via step/impulse velocity changes, not a commanded linear ramp.
2. The realistic § 102 target is claim 20, which is materially broader (accelerate to a peak velocity → decelerate → acquire torque → detect arrival → determine mass during the post-arrival window). RAF's US 7,687,727 / US 2009/0006346 and (for the acceleration-conveyor architecture) Grubbs US 2002/0066649 are the best § 102 candidates against claim 20, subject to element-by-element confirmation.
3. The strongest attack is § 103, combining (a) RAF's servo-torque "weigh on the fly" art (Tier 1) with (b) the moving-load conveyor weighing art (Tier 2: US 5,393,939's torque-disturbance model, US 5,547,034, etc.) and (c) the acceleration-conveyor art (Grubbs), on the rationale that substituting a constant-acceleration (linear-velocity-ramp) command for the prior step/impulse command is a predictable, result-effective variation.
4. Anticipation caveat restated: because § 102 requires every limitation in one reference, treat Tiers 1–2 primarily as § 103 art unless and until a mapped element-by-element comparison shows otherwise.

Verification / confidence flags

• Confirmed live: the patent record; US 7,687,727 and its family; US 5,393,939 (Nasuta/Westinghouse; closed-loop current-based belt scale); US 5,547,034 (Accu-Sort conveyor friction scale); US 5,856,637 (Vande Berg); EP 2400276 (RAF, parcel embodiment). Dates above match those in the authoritative citation block.
• From the authoritative citation block only (not independently re-verified in this pass): US 3,805,904; US 3,718,031; US 3,834,474; US 4,194,649; US 5,959,257; US 6,839,694; US 6,940,025/US 7,297,879; US 7,096,152; US 7,409,368; US 7,271,352; US 8,530,764; US 2009/0216487; US 2002/0066649; US 2015/0225179. Their bibliographic data (number, dates, assignee, title) is reproduced literally from the patent's citation list.
• Not completed: I did not exhaustively map all 169 references element-by-element; I prioritized substantively analogous art. I was unable to complete the additional live look-ups for US 7,409,368, US 2009/0216487 and US 2002/0066649 before hitting the research-call limit, so those three descriptions rely on title/assignee/date from the citation list and my general knowledge — treat their substantive descriptions as lower-confidence than the confirmed set.
• No search result contradicted the patent text. Where the patent text and my training data could differ, the patent text (authoritative here) controlled.

I'll ground the key prior-art references before building the § 103 analysis.

§ 103 Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,857,214 ("Scale for weighing parcels")

Building on the prior sections: the bibliographic data, the plain-language claim breakdown (independents 1, 10, 20; dependents 2–9, 11–19), the "no litigation / no PTAB" findings, and the identification of US 7,687,727 as the family's "built-in prior-art anchor." Nothing in those sections contradicts what follows. I confirm and extend the point that the '727 is the pivot of the obviousness case.

1. Framework and level of ordinary skill

Because the '214 filing (Nov 18, 2016) claims priority to a May 6, 2013 provisional, the AIA applies (effective filing date on/after Mar. 16, 2013). Obviousness is therefore governed by 35 U.S.C. § 103 as amended, with the Graham factors and the KSR Int'l v. Teleflex rationales (predictable variation; known technique to improve a similar device; combination of known elements yielding predictable results; "obvious to try" where the design space is finite and the path is identified).

PHOSITA: a person with a B.S. in mechanical or electrical engineering (or equivalent) and 3–5 years' experience designing closed-loop servo-controlled conveyance/weighing systems, including in-line scales for mail/parcels. That person knows classical kinematics (v = at; F = ma; τ = F·r) and the three standard servo command modes (torque, velocity, position) cold.

2. The prior art that matters (from the citations section)

Critical provenance point: US 7,687,727 and US 2012/0285751 are the same inventor (Bryan J. Turner) and same assignee family (RAF Technology) as the '214, and the '214 specification itself states "FIG. 1 … is taken from that patent" (col. ref. ¶[0019]). That is an express admission that the '727's servo loop is prior art to, and incorporated into, the '214.

3. The specification's own admissions (built-in § 103 ammunition)

The '214 specification supplies the motivation and the "predictable result" showing:

• "The concept of using servo acceleration to detect mass of a small moving object is the subject of previous work such as my U.S. Pat. No. 7,687,727 … incorporated herein by this reference." (admitted prior art)
• "The calculations for time varying velocity and position are quite straightforward and derive from the concepts of classical mechanics." (routine kinematics)
• "Because off-the-shelf servo technology typically accepts only velocity and position commands, the time varying velocity command must be synthesized outside of the servo…" (routine engineering)
• "The underlying theory is simply F=ma." (textbook)
• The '214 itself notes the '727 "step/impulse model" is "not suitable for weighing larger (heavier) objects such as parcels… or… granular solids or slurry materials" — i.e., the patent frames its contribution as scaling a known technique to a known need, which under KSR is the paradigm of obviousness rather than a teaching away.

4. Ground A — Claims 1 & 10 obvious over the '727 family (+ Laitram/Jones-type art) and/or US 2012/0285751

Claim 1's only arguably narrow element is the recitation of a "linearly increasing" command yielding constant acceleration. That is textbook kinematics (v = v₀ + at), expressly described in the '214 as "quite straightforward," and the '727's own disclosure of "an acceleration command … maintain[ed]" plus a "decelerate … to the same velocity" profile renders the linear ramp a mere predictable design choice — precisely the KSR "known technique/obvious-to-try" scenario. The patent owner cannot simultaneously rely on the '727 as its enabling antecedent and deny a POSITA's ability to command a constant-acceleration ramp on a system that already accepts velocity commands.

Claim 10 adds only a control-system implementation plus "store the mass in memory." The '751 patent family already discloses a processor, a calibration data store (its "data store 148"), and reporting of results — a software-implemented counterpart is routine and, per § 103, "the subject matter as a whole," not the implementation medium, controls.

5. Ground B — Claims 1/10 (high-mass conveyor context) over the '727 + belt-weigher art

For the "conveyor" and "up to ~50 kg parcel" framing, the belt-conveyor weighing art (Accu-Sort US 5,547,034/5,689,092; Merrick US 3,718,031; Vande Berg US 5,856,637; Knol US 3,834,474) and the checkweigher art (Mettler US 7,405,368; Neri US 8,530,764; Daboub US 7,820,923) supply in-line mass measurement of substantial, moving loads (including overlapping and flowing material). Motivation: a POSITA seeking to weigh heavier parcels on a moving line would combine (i) the '727's servo-acceleration torque-sensing principle with (ii) the belt-weigher's conveyor/high-mass handling and (iii) standard servo velocity-mode control — all yielding the predictable result (torque ∝ mass) recited. Common ownership/same-field/same-problem makes the combination especially defensible.

6. Ground C — Claims 6/8/16 (overlapping parcels) and 7/9/17 (fall-off compensation)

• Claims 6/16 (isolate the torque excursion of an arriving parcel "without regard to a mass of the first parcel"): the concept of integrating a discrete torque impulse when a new item arrives while others are present is squarely within the '727's impulse/differential-torque model, and Itoh Denki (US 2015/0225179 / US 9,321,598) explicitly detects each object by presence sensors and attributes the motor response to the newly transferred object between zones — the same "attribute the transient to the arrival event" logic. The '214's own explanation (momentum conservation ⇒ "the impulse required to accelerate the Nth package is the same as if there were no packages on the belt") is a discovery of why a known approach works, not a new apparatus, and the specification frames it as an explanation rather than a structural change.
• Claims 7/9/17 (record mass + timestamp; predict fall-off from known conveyor speed; compensate when exit coincides with the next arrival): time-stamping a weighed item, knowing belt speed, and subtracting a predicted exit perturbation is routine programming/control design (§ 103 "predictable variation" and "design choice"). Laitram ('218) and belt-weigher art supply the "subsequent articles in a stream" handling.

Note: whether these dependents even enjoy the 2013-05-06 priority is a live question — if the overlapping-parcel disclosure first appears only in provisional 61/894,802 (Oct. 23, 2013) or the 2014 parent, their effective date shifts and more intervening art opens (see § 8). That is itself an independent invalidity lever, not merely a validity strength.

7. Ground D — Claim 20 (accelerate-to-peak, then decelerate) is the closest to outright anticipation

Claim 20 recites: accelerate to a predetermined peak velocity → upon reaching peak velocity, decelerate to a lower velocity → acquire torque data → detect arrival of a parcel → determine mass from torque data acquired from the arrival-detection period.

The '727 expressly discloses the "accelerate … and then decelerate the article (or the other way around) so that its final velocity may be the same as its initial velocity, but gathering [torque] data in the meantime," with photo-sensor-triggered measurement windows. Combined with the '214's own statement that "the acceleration could be reversed (deceleration first)," and with the '751's weigh belts that accelerate/decelerate and are restored to the initial velocity, Claim 20's deceleration-based measurement window is disclosed or, at minimum, an obvious rearrangement of the '727's "either order" profile. A POSITA reading the '751's statement that the deceleration portion "provides a greater dynamic range" would have every reason to tie the measurement window to a deceleration phase.

8. Motivation-to-combine rationales (consolidated, KSR)

1. Same inventor/assignee, same field, same problem. The '727, the '751, and the '214 are Turner/RAF servo-weighing disclosures; the '214 imports the '727's FIG. 1 as prior art. Combining family references is the paradigm of a "simple substitution of one known element for another" yielding predictable results.
2. Identified need + predictable solution. The '214's own narrative (small mail → larger parcels/slurry; "simply F=ma") supplies the design incentive; KSR teaches that using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way is obvious.
3. Finite design space / obvious-to-try. Once one chooses (i) a velocity-commanded closed-loop servo, (ii) a torque-based measurement proxy, and (iii) a linear ramp vs. a step, the remaining choices (ramp slope, measurement window, calibration/linear mapping) are a small, enumerable set with predictable results — the '214's dependents (claims 3–5, 15, 18, 19) recite exactly those routine parameters (e.g., ≈2 m/s, ≈100 ms, ≈+4 m/s² — routine optimization of known values; cf. '751's 150→250 ips).
4. Cross-domain teaching. Itoh Denki ('179) demonstrates a mainstream conveyor maker already extracting weight from motor behavior on a two-zone, differing-constant-speed conveyor — reinforcing that load-cell-free, motor-signal weighing was a known goal and approach in this exact art by 2012–2015.
5. Teaching away fails. The '214's statement that the '727 step/impulse model is "not suitable" for heavy parcels is a statement of the problem, not a discouragement of the claimed solution (the '727 itself already discloses sustained-acceleration torque sensing and "parcel" objects). Under KSR, a known problem to be solved is a motivation, not an escapement.

9. Secondary-considerations / patent-owner counterarguments to expect

• Unexpected results / "greater dynamic range" of deceleration. The patent owner may argue the deceleration measurement window (Claim 20; claims 2/12) is unexpectedly superior. Rebuttal: this is a modest, predictable accuracy trade-off; no nexus evidence in the four corners of the patent (no comparative data vs. the '727).
• Grace-period / common-ownership insulation of the '751. This is the patent owner's strongest shield on one reference: US 2012/0285751 published Nov. 15, 2012 — less than one year before the May 6, 2013 priority — by the same inventor, so it may be excepted from § 102(a)(1) under § 102(b)(1)(A) (and its common ownership removes it from § 102(a)(2) under § 102(b)(2)(C)). Do not rest the case on the '751. By contrast, US 7,687,727 issued Mar. 30, 2010 (and its 2009 publications) — more than one year before the earliest priority date — so it is NOT excepted and is solid § 102(a)(1) art. That asymmetry is why the '727, not the '751, must be the anchor.
• Priority attack on the dependents. If the overlapping-parcel/fall-off subject matter is not supported by the May 6, 2013 provisional, the affected claims lose the early date, which both (a) enlarges the art (e.g., published '179, 2015) and (b) allows the '751 (already excepted as the inventor's own ≤1-yr disclosure) to be re-characterized as § 102(a)(2) art if its effective date precedes a later-lost effective date… but only if the grace/common-ownership exceptions don't independently apply. Verify the inventor entity on the '751 (Google listing shows "Bryan Turner"; confirm whether additional joint inventors appear) before relying on it.

10. Bottom line

• Claims 1 and 10 are the most vulnerable. The '727 alone discloses the decisive limitation — introducing an acceleration command and measuring the torque differential required to maintain it — and the '751/Laitram/belt-weigher art supplies the matched-speed infeed conveyor and the velocity-commanded closed-loop servo architecture. The "linearly increasing → constant acceleration" refinement is textbook and admitted to be "straightforward."
• Claim 20 is the closest to anticipation, given the '727's express "accelerate then decelerate … gathering data in the meantime" teaching and the '214's own "deceleration first" remark.
• Dependents 6/8/16 and 7/9/17 are obvious over the '727's impulse model in view of Itoh Denki ('179) and routine timestamping/control logic — with an added priority-date challenge that may also expose intervening art.
• The single most important defensive nuance: the '751 is the least reliable reference because of the § 102(b)(1)(A) grace-period and common-ownership exceptions (published <1 yr before priority, same inventor). Build the § 103 case on **US 7,687,727** (issued 2010, >1 yr before priority, expressly incorporated as prior art by the '214 itself) as the primary reference, and use the '751, Laitram, Itoh Denki, and belt-weigher art as supporting/alternative references whose availability is confirmed against the priority analysis.

Verification note: reference contents above were confirmed against the Google Patents full text provided (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9857214](/patent/US9857214)/en) and live sources — US 7,687,727 (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7687727B2](/patent/US7687727B2)/en; app publication text at https://www.patents-review.com/a/20090071728-weigh-fly.html), US 2012/0285751 A1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120285751), US 2009/0008218 A1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20090008218), and Itoh Denki US 2015/0225179 A1 / US 9,321,598 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20150225179A1/en). Nothing in this analysis depends on the "Expired – Fee Related" legal status, which affects enforceability windows rather than § 103.