US 9952097

I'll verify this patent number against live sources before summarizing, since the instruction is to prioritize search results as ground truth.

Confirmed the patent's identity. Now let me check for any litigation or CAFC activity.

US 9,952,097 B1 — Verification Summary

Search scope note: I searched for the literal identifier 9952097. I found no district-court docket, PTAB proceeding, or CAFC appeal naming this patent. The only "litigation-adjacent" hit was a PlainSite portfolio listing for Institut National d'Optique that merely enumerates the patent number — that is a patent-holdings table, not a case record, and I am treating it as non-authoritative for litigation purposes. I cannot confirm any 2026 CAFC activity involving US 9,952,097, and I found none. If you require a definitive docket negative, that would need to come from PACER/Docket Alarm by party name (Institut National d'Optique) rather than by patent number.

---

Bibliographic Data (from Google Patents, Justia)

Note on the kind code: B1 means the patent issued without a pre-grant publication. The A1 publication (2018-04-26) appears two days after grant — an unusual ordering, but that is what the record shows (I am reporting it literally rather than reconciling it).

---

Abstract (verbatim)

"The infrared scene projector has a support structure having an airtight chamber; an image projector secured to the support structure; a conversion chip having a substrate secured to the support structure, and an array of conversion units received on a face of the substrate, the array of conversion units being enclosed inside the airtight chamber and being optically coupled to the image projector, each one of the conversion units having at least one supporting post secured to the face of the substrate and a suspended platform held spaced apart from the face of the substrate by the at least one supporting post, the conversion chip being adapted to convert at least one of visible and near-infrared light received from the image projector into infrared radiation; and an infrared beam path extending away from the array of conversion units."

---

Independent Claims — Plain Language

Claim 1 — the system ("infrared scene projector"). All of the following must be present:

• A support structure that includes an airtight chamber (the chamber can be the enclosure itself, or the substrate can be mounted in a chamber that is in turn mounted to the structure — "secured" is expressly defined to cover direct and indirect securing);
• An image projector secured to that support structure;
• A conversion chip: a substrate secured to the support structure with an array of conversion units on one face, where that array sits inside the airtight chamber and is optically coupled to the projector. Each conversion unit has at least one supporting post secured to the substrate face and a suspended platform spaced apart from the face by that post. The chip converts visible and/or near-infrared light from the projector into infrared radiation; and
• An infrared beam path extending away from the array.

Scope read: the claim is about the architectural combination of a visible/NIR projector + a thermally-isolated suspended-platform pixel array sealed in a controlled-atmosphere chamber. Notably, it does not positively recite projecting optics, focusing optics, or a blackbody emission requirement — those are in dependents.

Claim 11 — the component ("conversion chip"). A substrate plus an array of conversion units on a face, each unit having (a) at least one supporting post secured directly to the substrate face and (b) a suspended platform held apart by that post, each unit adapted to convert visible and/or near-infrared light into infrared radiation. The "directly" limitation in claim 11 is narrower than claim 1's "secured," which the specification defines to include indirect attachment.

---

Dependent Claims at a Glance

On claim 1: direct post-to-substrate contact (2); projecting optics secured to the support structure (3), with collimator + focusing optics variant (4); pressure control mechanism (5); permanent vacuum (6); substrate supported via at least one support having a heat transfer device (7); suspended platform connected to the post via a support arm (8); elevated support-arm arrangement with a second supporting post at the far end (9); and more conversion units than projector pixels (10).

On claim 11: absorber layer trimmed into per-unit portions (12); a Frequency Selective Surface layer (13), optionally per-unit (14); substrate transparent in visible/NIR (15) or in IR (16); monolithic structure of platform + post(s) + arm(s) (17); elevated support-arm/second-post arrangement (18).

---

Technical Overview

The invention is a transduction-based IR scene projector: rather than using electrically addressed emitter pixels (the classic resistor-array approach) or a Bly cell, it optically pumps a MEMS-style absorber array. A commercial visible/NIR projector images a scene onto the chip; each conversion unit absorbs a fraction of the incident light, heats up, and re-radiates a thermal IR (MWIR/LWIR) image that is then projected onto an IR camera under test.

Key disclosed parameters: pixel side 5–35 µm; platform thickness 250–1000 Å; 1–5 µm platform-to-substrate gap; unit-to-unit spacing 0.5–2 µm; time constant <1 ms to >30 ms; temperature rise from a fraction of a K to >100 K; chamber pressure adjustable from below 10⁻³ Torr to ~760 Torr to tune thermal conductance G without redesigning the array; substrate temperature controllable 77 K–325 K via thermo-electric or fluidic heat transfer devices. Materials: Si₃N₄, SiO₂; "Gold Black" absorber layer; Ge/ZnSe windows and dichroic elements; BK7/quartz input windows. Three optical configurations are described: backlit (FIG. 1/5), front-lit with in-chamber dichroic (FIG. 7), and front-lit with external dichroic (FIG. 8).

Cited prior art of record (12 references), including US 4,299,864 (Bly), US 5,838,015 (Burdick), US 7,084,405, US 2013/0048884 (Johns Hopkins, "Agile IR scene projector"), and two earlier Institut National d'Optique applications (US 2013/0306851, US 2014/0166882). Non-patent literature: Beasley et al. (2000), Bérisset et al. (SPIE 3697, 1999), Bryant et al. (SPIE 6207, 2006), and Wang et al. (SPIE 9300, 2014).

Forward citation of note: CN 112326045 B (Beijing Institute of Technology, "Infrared scene conversion chip with double-scale superstructure"), granted 2021-12-17.

---

Confidence and Caveats

• High confidence on all bibliographic fields, the abstract, and the claim text — these come directly from the patent document itself and are corroborated by Justia and FreePatentsOnline.
• High confidence that the patent is active and maintenance fees are current through the 8th year.
• Explicitly uncertain: any litigation or CAFC 2026 docket. My searches returned nothing linking 9952097 to a case. That is a negative search result, not affirmative proof of no litigation — absence of a hit in general web search is weaker evidence than a PACER docket query. I will not fabricate a case number or a CAFC appeal number.
• Unreconciled detail: the B1 kind code (no pre-grant publication) versus an A1 publication dated two days after the grant date. I report both as-is without correcting either.

I'll search for litigation involving US 9952097 across patent litigation sources.

The initial searches returned unrelated patents. Let me refine with targeted queries.

The results so far reference a different patent (9,961,097). Let me run more targeted searches on the exact number and assignee.

Summary of Findings

I was unable to identify any litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,952,097.

What I searched

• Google Patents / general web for 9952097, US9952097, 9,952,097
• Litigation-oriented phrasing (infringement complaint, lawsuit, defendant)
• Assignee-based queries (Institut National d'Optique)
• Unified Patents / PTAB-style petition language

What the searches actually returned

All of the "hits" referenced different patents, not U.S. 9,952,097. Specifically:

• Several results concerned U.S. Patent 9,961,097 ("System for Remote Access of a User Premises") — a completely different patent owned by a different party (e.g., the Portus Singapore / SEA actions). This is a classic look‑alike number to 9,952,097 and must not be conflated.
• Other results involved unrelated patents (e.g., the VoiceBox "’097 patent," Aptiv/Microchip patents 9,460,037 and 10,545,899, etc.).

None of these is U.S. 9,952,097.

Conclusion

Based on the available information, no litigation is known involving U.S. Patent No. 9,952,097. I could not find any plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome, because no case asserting or challenging this patent appeared in the sources searched.

Important caveats (per your strict rules)

• I am not auto-correcting any identifier. The results I found concern 9,961,097 and other numbers — these are not evidence of litigation on 9,952,097. I am treating 9,952,097 literally and returning no case rather than substituting a near-miss number.
• The patent's own Google Patents record (source of the full text provided) lists no litigation; the only "citing" document is CN112326045B ("Infrared scene conversion chip with double-scale superstructure," Beijing Institute of Technology), which is a citation, not litigation.
• Absence of results is not proof that no suit exists. Not all district court complaints, PTAB proceedings, or settlements are captured by open-web search. To be more definitive, the following would need to be checked directly:
  • Unified Patents litigation portal — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist
  • PACER / CourtListener RECAP (search "9,952,097" and "9952097")
  • USPTO PTAB (IPR/PGR/CBM) and PAIR / PatentCenter for reexamination/reissue
  • Docket Navigator or Lex Machina (paywalled but authoritative for party/case-level records)

If you can confirm one of these sources, or if you'd like me to re-run a narrower query (e.g., a specific court or a specific potential defendant), I can continue. As of now, on the evidence available, I must report no known litigation.

I'll verify the structured-data default against live sources before reporting.

Search results aren't surfacing proceedings. Let me run more targeted queries.

Let me do final confirmation checks on PTAB trackers and any litigation chain.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 9,952,097: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings — no active trials, no claims invalidated, no claims sustained, no settlements, and no institution denials, because no petition has ever been filed. The bottom-line defensive posture is therefore the absence of a proceeding, not a victory in one: the patent has never been stress-tested at the PTAB, all 18 claims stand unadjudicated, and a defendant has a completely clean slate — but also no ready-made invalidity ammunition from a prior FWD.

Structural cross-check: the Google Patents page for US9952097B1 (fetched 2026-09-24) lists the family (US 15/333,492; IL265899B2; PCT/CA2017/051125 → WO2018076101A1; CA2946474C) and a "Cited By" set consisting of one item — CN112326045B (Beijing Institute of Technology, "Infrared scene conversion chip with double-scale superstructure"), a foreign citation, not a PTAB filing. There is no "PTAB proceedings" section, no FWD, and no appeal listed.

No proceedings to report

There is no proceeding number to place at the top of this section. I will not invent one. What follows documents the negative finding and its verification basis.

• Type: N/A — no Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review has been filed against US 9,952,097.
• Filed: N/A
• Status: N/A (structured source: no AIA trial proceedings as of most recent ODP ingest)
• Verification performed (2026-09-29): Web searches for the patent number paired with "IPR," "PTAB," "inter partes review," "petition," and petitioner-side terms; searches on the assignee ("Institut National d'Optique") combined with IPR/trial terms; and searches on the patent title. No petition, institution decision, FWD, or appeal surfaced. Searches did return unrelated patents that coincidentally contain the string "097" — e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,097 B2 (Duesenfeld GmbH, battery recycling; IPR2024-00887 / IPR2024-00948) and U.S. Pat. No. 8,036,756/'314-patent-family matters (Medtronic v. Axonics). These are different patents with different owners and have nothing to do with US 9,952,097. Do not conflate them.
• Judge panel: None — no panel has been assigned.
• Petition grounds: None of record. No § 102, § 103, or § 112 grounds have been advanced in an AIA trial.
• Institution decision: None.
• Final Written Decision: None. No claim — independent or dependent — has been canceled or confirmed by the Board.
• Settlement / termination: None.
• Appeal: No FWD exists to appeal; no CAFC docket number is associated with this patent.
• Defensive value: A defendant gets no free ride. There is no estoppel shield (no prior petitioner to borrow § 315(e)(2) from), but there is also no Board-endorsed validity finding to overcome. Any IPR you file would be de novo on the merits — first-mover on art selection, with the usual § 314(a)/Fintiv discretion risks if you are already in district court.

Caveat on scope: The structured ODP feed covers AIA trials. It would not necessarily surface an ex parte reexamination or a pre-AIA inter partes reexamination. My searches surfaced no evidence of a reexam on this patent, but I could not exhaustively confirm that from a reexam-specific database in this session — treat "no reexam" as probable, not verified.

Strategic summary

Claim status. All 18 claims of US 9,952,097 are UNTESTED. Nothing is canceled; nothing is sustained. Independent claim 1 (infrared scene projector: support structure with airtight chamber + image projector + conversion chip with an array of post-supported, spaced-apart suspended platforms converting visible/near-IR to IR, plus an IR beam path) and independent claim 11 (the bare conversion chip) are the two lynchpins. There is no narrowing amendment and no certificate of correction narrowing the scope — the claims are exactly as granted on 2018-04-24.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estoppel is not triggered against anyone, because no petitioner has taken a ground to FWD. For a defendant currently asserted against, every prior-art ground remains available — both in an IPR and in district court. That cuts both ways: the art is unimpeded, but it has also never been vetted. Expect the patent owner to have been preparing for the day someone files; the specification itself cites the key field art (U.S. Pat. No. 4,299,864 to Bly, U.S. Pat. No. 5,838,015 to Burdick, and Wang et al., SPIE Vol. 9300, paper 930020 (2014)), and those are the obvious § 102/§ 103 starting points. The Bly-cell and gold-black absorber concepts — and the "bolometers running backward" thesis (Bryant et al., SPIE Vol. 6207, 62070J (2006), cited in the examiner's IDS list) — are the natural anticipation/obviousness backbone.

Pattern signals. There is no pattern, because the sample size is zero: no serial petitioner, no Unified Patents or other defensive aggregator in the chain, no PTAB appeal history, and no parallel district-court assertion surfaced in my searches. Institut National d'Optique is a research institute, not a serial enforcer — the absence of any IPR is consistent with a patent that has not been asserted against a well-funded defendant, rather than one that has survived attack. Well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs; this one has not been asserted hard enough to draw one.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not represent to a court or client that this patent has been "upheld" or "invalidated" by the PTAB. Neither is true. The honest statement is: no AIA trial proceeding has been filed as of the most recent USPTO ODP ingest (verified 2026-09-29).
2. Re-run the check at the filing deadline. The ODP feed and PTAB E2E can lag newly filed petitions. Before you rely on the negative finding for a discretionary-denial or stay argument, pull the patent's PTAB E2E page (patents.google.com/patent/US9952097B1/en → PTAB/Global Dossier links) and confirm no petition has posted since the last ingest.
3. Inventory the cited art now — it is a free roadmap. The granted patent's own references form your § 103 menu:
   • U.S. Pat. No. 4,299,864 (Bly) — visible-light-to-FIR transducer (membrane + optical black).
   • U.S. Pat. No. 5,838,015 (Burdick) — fiber-coupled IR scene projector.
   • Wang et al., SPIE Vol. 9300, 930020 (2014) — Bly-cell array projector.
   • US 2013/0048884 A1 (Johns Hopkins, "Agile IR scene projector") — the closest cited "scene projector" art.
   • US 2005/0218328 A1 (Suzuki, "Infrared sensor") and US 2003/0057372 A1 (Iida) — post-and-suspended-platform / solid-state imager structures.
     The strongest obviousness theory is likely a suspended-microplatform bolometer architecture (micromachined post + spaced-apart platform, well known in uncooled bolometer arrays) combined with a visible/NIR-to-IR scene projector conversion teaching (Bly/Burdick/Wang), with the "airtight chamber + vacuum pressure control" limitation addressed by ordinary bolometer packaging art.
4. If you are litigating, consider whether a first IPR is worth the § 315(b) one-year clock. With zero estoppel already on the books, filing creates estoppel against you and stakes out the art. Weigh a stay-and-file strategy (post-Apple v. Fintiv discretionary-denial risk, mitigated by a strong merits case and any district-court stipulation) against holding your art for summary judgment.
5. Nothing is pending, so there are no trial-stage milestones to calendar — no institution deadline, no oral hearing, no statutory § 316(a)(11) one-year FWD deadline. Monitor for a first petition instead.

Sources consulted (negative finding):

• USPTO Open Data Portal structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (canonical list — empty).
• Google Patents, US9952097B1 (family, citations, "Cited By," legal events; no PTAB/appeal entries).
• FreePatentsOnline, US 2018/0113023 A1 (specification text; no litigation/trial history).
• Docket Alarm PTAB search and PTAB E2E/P-TACTS document searches for the patent number — no matching AIA trial docket returned.

If you have an internal docket or a demand letter identifying a specific petitioner, give me the party name and I will re-run the E2E check against that petitioner specifically — a confidential or very recently filed petition is the one thing a generic search can miss.

I'll research the assignment record for US 9952097. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me search the USPTO assignment database directly and research the assignee and inventor.

Assignment Record Reconstruction — US 9,952,097

Source note / limitation. The authoritative record available to me is the Google Patents legal-events extract reproduced in the patent text provided. It shows the reel/frame, conveyance, parties, and dates, but it does not expose the "correspondent of record" (recording attorney/agent). I was unable to retrieve the raw USPTO Assignment Center page for this patent within this session, so I cannot state the correspondent name/firm from a primary record. I flag this rather than invent it. Verification links: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search patent number 9952097).

---

Inventors

• Bruno Tremblay — sole named inventor. Employer at time of filing: Institut National d'Optique (INO), Quebec City, Canada (the application was filed by INO as applicant, and Tremblay assigned his rights to INO by the recorded assignment below, effective 2016-12-14).

Unusual-pattern check: A single-inventor, sole-employee-assignment patent is the simplest possible ownership picture. There is no evidence of inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing, and no evidence of a subsequent portfolio sale. Not a finding — simply the absence of the "departure precedes fire-sale" pattern.

---

Original assignee

Institut National d'Optique (INO) — named on the issued patent and still the owner of record.

• Primary business: Canada's largest optics/photonics industrial R&D center (founded 1988; Quebec City HQ, plus Hamilton ON and Calgary AB). It performs contract R&D, prototyping, and low-volume production; ~200 employees and ~$34.6M operating budget around 2017.
• Does it ship products? Yes, in the infrared space. INO sells/supplies bolometric IR detectors and focal-plane arrays (e.g., IRM1024 FPA, 1024×768, 14 µm VOx microbolometer pixels), IR/THz camera cores (IRXCAM family), gold-black broadband absorber coatings with laser trimming, and MEMS packaging/foundry services. Whether a specific INO commercial product embodies the infrared scene projector claims of this patent is not determinable from the sources available; INO does list "simulation infrarouge" (infrared simulation) among its services, which is the relevant application space.
• Current status: Operating. One 2024 conference deck reports a planned/effected merger of INO with CRIM under the name "Luqia" (stated as 2026) — I flag this as reported, unverified; it does not create a recorded USPTO assignment in my data. INO/its successor remains the assignee of record.

---

Assignment timeline

Only one assignment is recorded in the chain.

• 2016-12-14 (executed) / recorded 2017-03-10 — Reel 041537 / 0920
  • Conveyance: Assignment (recorded as "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST")
  • Assignor: Tremblay, Bruno
  • Assignee: Institut National d'Optique (Canada)
  • Correspondent: not available in the retrieved record. (Google Patents legal events omit the recording correspondent; the Assignment Center page would show it. Not determined — not fabricated.)
  • Context: Employee-inventor assignment to employer. Standard original-ownership transaction at/near filing; not a transfer-to-asserter, fire-sale, securitization, or change of name.

No post-issuance assignments are recorded. There is no transfer to an LLC, no security agreement, no merger, no license of record. The only other legal events are:

• 2018-04-04 — Patent grant
• 2021-09-23 — Maintenance fee, 4th year (small entity)
• 2025-09-24 — Maintenance fee, 8th year (small entity)

The same family (WO2018076101A1 / PCT/CA2017/051125 and IL265899B2) is also held within INO. The only document citing this family is CN112326045B (Beijing Institute of Technology) — a citation, not an assignment or litigation.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9952097
    2016 : Application filed by INO
         : Tremblay assigns rights to INO
    2017 : Assignment recorded at USPTO
    2018 : Patent issued to INO
    2021 : Maintenance fee paid
    2025 : Maintenance fee paid

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The only recorded transfer is inventor → INO, an operating R&D/manufacturing center with real products (IR detectors, camera cores) and a physical HQ in Quebec City. No "IP/Holdings/Ventures" LLC appears anywhere in the chain. (Reel 041537/0920.)
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. No assignee matches Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Pendrell, Vringo, Round Rock, Spangenberg entities, or any Unified/RPX high-frequency plaintiff. Sole assignee is INO.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present / unclear. There is only one link, so recurrence cannot exist; and I could not retrieve the correspondent of record (see limitation note). No basis for a finding either way on a recurring filer.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Zero transfers after the original assignment; nothing to cascade.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. No litigation is known for this patent (per the litigation section), and no transfer within 6 months of any suit exists to cite.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No Chapter 7/11 of INO appears in any source; no sale-in-bankruptcy event.
7. Privateering — Not present. No operating-company → NPE transfer; nothing in SEC filings (INO is a private Canadian non-profit/RTO, not SEC-registered) or coverage indicates assertion on INO's behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN; it remains with INO.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data (the chain is only the original assignment).

Justification: The sole recorded transaction is the inventor-to-employer assignment of 2016-12-14, Reel 041537/0920 (Assignor Bruno Tremblay → Assignee Institut National d'Optique), and the patent has never left its original operating-company owner — it issued to INO on 2018-04-24 and INO has paid the 4th (2021) and 8th (2025) maintenance fees. There are no transfers to an LLC, no asserter in the chain, no cascading or pre-litigation assignments, and (per the litigation review) no known suits asserting this patent, so the NPE rubric cannot be scored beyond the baseline. The absence of any further record is itself the finding: the original assignee still owns the patent, and no NPE/troll pattern is supportable on the available evidence.

Verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search 9952097).

I'll research each cited reference to give you grounded descriptions. Let me start with the most technically relevant citations.

Let me research the remaining cited references.

Scope and method note

I ran the requested identifier literally — US 9,952,097 B1 — and worked from the patent's own USPTO-mirrored citation list (12 patent references + 4 non-patent references) as reproduced in the authoritative full text. I did not pull results for look-alike numbers. This matters because my earlier search confirmed that a superficially similar number, US 9,961,097 ("System for Remote Access of a User Premises"), is surfaced by naive queries and is a completely different patent — any result referencing 9,961,097, or any other number, is excluded here.

Two caveats on completeness: my live lookups for a handful of the weaker citations (US 2003/0113783, US 2005/0218328, US 2007/0242235, US 2004/0075464) were cut off by tool limits, so for those four I characterize them by title + assignee + the examiner's likely rationale and flag my confidence as medium/low. Everything else is grounded in retrieved documents.

---

The § 102 yardstick I applied

Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires a single reference disclosing every element of a claim, arranged as claimed. A reference that discloses only some elements is § 103 (obviousness) art, not § 102 art. Because every dependent claim incorporates its independent claim, a reference that does not anticipate claim 1 cannot anticipate claims 2–10, and likewise for claim 11 vs. 12–18.

So the operative test for this patent reduces to two independent-claim element sets:

Claim 1 (system): (1a) support structure having an airtight chamber; (1b) an image projector secured to the support structure; (1c) a conversion chip with a substrate secured to the support structure; (1d) an array of conversion units on a face of the substrate, enclosed in the chamber and optically coupled to the projector; (1e) each unit = ≥1 supporting post secured to the face + a suspended platform held spaced apart by the post; (1f) chip converts visible and/or NIR → IR; (1g) IR beam path extending away.

Claim 11 (component): (11a) substrate; (11b) array of conversion units on a face; (11c) each unit = ≥1 supporting post secured directly to the face + suspended platform spaced apart by the post; (11d) each unit converts visible/NIR → IR.

The single most distinctive structural element — the crux of patentability — is (1e)/(11c): a suspended micro-platform on a post, replicated as an array, optically pumped.

---

The 12 patent citations — citation, dates, description, § 102 assessment

Bottom line: on the record provided, not one of the twelve anticipates claim 1 or claim 11, and therefore none anticipates any dependent claim. They are best characterized as (a) § 103 art for the overall "optically pumped scene projector" architecture, and (b) § 103 art for the "suspended micro-platform pixel" structure — the two halves of the invention that the claims combine.

---

Per-reference § 102 analysis (element-by-element)

1. US 4,299,864 (Bly) — the closest thermal-conversion reference, but no array and no posts

The "Bly cell": a ~500 Å insulating film (cellulose nitrate, PVA, Parylene, etc.) coated with a metallic black (gold black, etc.), sealed in an evacuated cell between windows, with a cinema/video projector focusing a visible image onto it; absorbed light raises local temperature and re-radiates a far-IR image. This is essentially the physical principle claimed.

• Met: (1f), (1g), and loosely a "chamber."
• Missing: the invention's core — there is no array of conversion units (one continuous membrane), and no supporting post + suspended platform (1d/1e, 11b/11c).
• § 102: anticipates nothing. Closest claim = none (fails 1d/1e). This is the foundational § 103 reference, and the patent itself concedes it in the Background.

2. US 5,838,015 (Burdick, Navy) — closest system-level patent reference

Plurality of spaced-apart optical fibers each carrying light by total internal reflection to a selective absorber structure on the fiber end that absorbs, converts to heat, and emits at longer wavelengths (IR); fibers/absorbers are thermally isolated; a vacuum may be used; an IR image is projected to the device under test.

• Met: (1f), (1g); partial (1d)-style "array of thermally isolated pixels."
• Missing: no substrate-borne "conversion units"; the emitters are fiber tips with can/disc coatings, not a post + suspended platform (1e, 11c). Also fails (1b)/(1d)'s "image projector … optically coupled" framing, since it images an external object, not a synthesized projector image.
• § 102: anticipates nothing. Strong § 103 art (teaches the entire "thermal-conversion IR scene projector with isolated pixels in vacuum" concept).

3. US 2003/0213923 (Kongable) — different conversion physics

"Infrared scene generator using fluorescent conversion material." The conversion is photoluminescent/luminescent, not the thermal absorption→re-emission the claims require ("the absorption causing an increase of the body's temperature"). It also lacks the suspended-platform array.

• § 102: anticipates nothing. Background/§ 103 art showing an alternative projector approach.

4. US 2003/0057372 (Iida) — detector, not projector

Uncooled solid-state infrared imager (pn-junction / thermoelectric pixels, cavity + slitted support-leg pixel construction). It converts IR → electrical signal, the inverse of the claimed direction, and contains no image projector.

• § 102: anticipates nothing. § 103 relevance: its suspended-membrane/support-leg micro-pixel structure is art for the claim-11 conversion-unit structure (see § 103 discussion below).

5. US 2003/0113783 (Funaki) — sensor device (confidence: medium)

Titled "Sensor device," filed by Funaki; from the co-pending/sibling Toshiba IR-sensor family (cf. US 2002/0139933, US 6,573,504), this is an uncooled IR sensor pixel with a low-thermal-conductance support structure. Same analysis as Iida: a detector, not an optically pumped projector; no image projector; no post+suspended-platform conversion unit.

• § 102: anticipates nothing. § 103 art for pixel structure.

6. US 2004/0075464 (BTG International) — nanostructure fabrication (confidence: low/medium)

"Nanostructures and methods for manufacturing the same." A materials/fabrication reference (nanotubes/nanowires). No scene-projector or conversion-unit architecture.

• § 102: anticipates nothing. At most background/materials art.

7. US 7,084,405 (Air Force / Murrer) — visible→IR scene generator, single plate

A dynamic IR scene generator in which a visible image is pumped onto a planar semiconductor sample, and free-carrier absorption / non-equilibrium emission produces broadband IR. Explicitly "discrete-pixel-free."

• Met: (1b)-like (visible image input), (1f), (1g).
• Missing: no array of conversion units, no posts/suspended platform (it is deliberately pixel-free), and no airtight chamber architecture.
• § 102: anticipates nothing. § 103 art for the "project a visible image onto an absorber to synthesize an IR scene" concept.

8. US 2005/0218328 (Suzuki) — infrared sensor (confidence: medium)

"Sensor" title/assignee profile consistent with an uncooled IR detector pixel. Same as refs 4/5: detector, not projector.

• § 102: anticipates nothing. § 103 art for suspended pixel structure.

9. US 2007/0242235 (Funai Electric) — visible projector (confidence: medium)

Titled "Projector" — a consumer/stage visible-light projector. This supplies the (1b) "image projector" concept only; it has no IR conversion and no conversion chip.

• § 102: anticipates nothing. Background art for the projector element.

10. US 2013/0048884 (Johns Hopkins) — closest conceptual competitor

An agile IR scene projector: a light emitter (visible/near-IR) projects onto a vertically aligned carbon nanotube (VACN) array on a thermally conductive substrate; the VACN absorbs the visible light and converts it to blackbody-like IR.

• Met: (1b)-like, (1f), (1g), and "array on a substrate" (1c/1d-ish).
• Missing: the VACN elements are vertical fibers, not at least one supporting post supporting a suspended platform held spaced apart (1e, 11c); no airtight chamber. The mechanism also relies on axial CNT cooling rather than a discrete suspended platform.
• § 102: anticipates nothing. This is the single most pertinent patent reference for § 103, because it shares the same operational idea (optically pump an absorber array → IR scene) and the examiner flagged it (it is examiner-cited).

11. US 2013/0306851 (Institut National d'Optique) — applicant's own, detector-side

"Detection and correction of a loss of calibration of microbolometer thermal imaging radiometers" — i.e., the NUC (non-uniformity correction) subject matter the specification references in describing the computer 146. It is a detector/calibration reference, not a projector.

• § 102: anticipates nothing. § 103 relevance limited to the NUC/calibration feature mentioned in the description (not a claim limitation).

12. US 2014/0166882 (Institut National d'Optique) — applicant's own, detector-side

"Uncooled microbolometer detector and array" (THz). Discloses an array of suspended microbolometer pixels (membrane + support legs over a cavity).

• § 102: anticipates nothing (a detector; no image projector; converts IR→electrical).
• § 103 relevance: supplies the suspended-platform-on-support micro-pixel array structure that the claim-11 conversion unit mirrors.

---

The four non-patent references (relevant to the same inquiry)

• Bryant et al. (2006), "Bolometers Running Backward: The Synergy Between Uncooled IR Sensors & Dynamic IR Scene Projectors," SPIE 6207 (2006). Most relevant single piece of art overall. It expressly frames using uncooled bolometer (suspended micro-platform) pixels as IR scene projectors — i.e., it marries the suspended-pixel structure (missing from the projector patents) with scene projection (missing from the detector patents). This is the natural § 103 linchpin against claim 11's suspended platform.
• Wang et al. (2014), "One high performance technology of infrared scene projection," SPIE 9300. Bly-cell-array scene projector; cited and discussed in the patent's own Background.
• Bérisset et al. (1999), "Design of a Low-Cost Cooled Dynamic IR Scene Generator Including a Non-Uniformity Correction Device," SPIE 3697. INO-authored cooled DIRSP with NUC — closest to the applicant's own prior system architecture.
• Beasley et al. (2000), "Advancements in Dynamic Scene Projection Technologies at the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command." General survey of projector technologies.

These NPL references are § 102(b)-type printed publications (all pre-date the 2016-10-25 filing), so they are available as prior art.

---

"Most relevant prior art" — ranked, with the anticipation/obviousness logic

1. Bryant et al. 2006 (NPL) — bolometer pixels as projectors: the closest art to the claim-11 suspended-platform conversion unit in a project-orientation. § 103.
2. US 2013/0048884 (Johns Hopkins) — optically pumped absorber-array IR scene projector (VACN). § 103; examiner-cited.
3. US 5,838,015 (Burdick) — array of thermally isolated, vacuum-isolated absorber/emitter pixels for IR scene projection. § 103.
4. US 4,299,864 (Bly) — the underlying visible→IR thermal-conversion cell. § 103 (foundational).
5. US 7,084,405 (Air Force) — projected-visible-image→IR scene generation. § 103.
6. US 2014/0166882 / US 2013/0306851 (both INO) and US 2003/0057372 / 2003/0113783 / 2005/0218328 (Iida/Funaki/Suzuki) — the suspended micro-platform pixel array and support-leg structure. § 103 art for the conversion-unit structural limitation (1e/11c).
7. Wang 2014, Bérisset 1999, Beasley 2000 — system-level background.

The realistic invalidity theory is thus a § 103 combination, not § 102: take any of the "optically pumped scene projector" references (Burdick, Bly, JHU-VACN, Air Force, or Bryant) and combine it with a "suspended-platform microbolometer pixel array" reference (Iida, Funaki, Suzuki, or the two INO applications) to reach the claimed array of post-supported suspended platforms that convert visible/NIR to IR.

---

Honest confidence statement

• High confidence: the per-reference bibliographic data, the content of US 4,299,864, US 5,838,015, US 7,084,405, US 2013/0048884, US 2003/0057372, US 2013/0306851, US 2014/0166882, and the four NPL titles — all grounded in retrieved documents or the patent's own text.
• Medium/low confidence: my one-line characterizations of US 2003/0113783, US 2005/0218328, US 2007/0242235, and US 2004/0075464, where live retrieval was truncated; I described them from title/assignee/family context and flagged them accordingly. Confirm the full text of those four against the USPTO record before relying on them.
• Explicit limitation: I assessed anticipation (§ 102) only, per your instruction. I did not perform a full obviousness (§ 103) weighing, though I flagged where the § 103 theory lies. And to restate my prior caveat: this patent's Google Patents/USPTO record shows no litigation, and I found no § 102 reference that is a printed publication later than the 2016-10-25 filing — all cited art predates it.

I'll ground the reference contents before building the § 103 analysis. Let me verify the key prior-art references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,952,097 B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Patent: US 9,952,097 B1, Infrared scene projector and conversion chip therefore (Institut National d'Optique; inventor Bruno Tremblay; filed/priority 2016-10-25).
Scope of art surveyed: the 12 patent references and 4 non-patent references listed in the "Prior Art" / Citations sections of the Google Patents record (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9952097/en), which I verified against live sources where possible.

Methodology note. I treat the references in the record as the prior art of record and I have checked the key references against live sources. Where I could verify full text, I cite it. Where I could not verify a reference's full disclosure, I say so and downgrade the assertion. Per the governing rule, I interpret identifiers literally and do not auto-correct them.

---

A. Legal framework and level of ordinary skill

Claim 1 is obvious under § 103 if "the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art." Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a combination of known elements is obvious where it does no more than yield predictable results, where a known technique is applied to improve a similar device in the same way, or where the combination is "obvious to try" from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions. Motivation to combine may reside in the references themselves, in the nature of the problem, or in the ordinary creativity/background knowledge of the artisan.

PHOSITA (proposed): a person with a bachelor's degree in electrical or optical engineering or applied physics and 3–5 years of experience in infrared sensor design, uncooled microbolometer (MEMS) pixel fabrication, or IR scene-projection systems — or equivalent. This is the level reflected in the references themselves (SPIE Defense & Commercial Sensing literature, MEMS pixel design).

All asserted references pre-date the 2016-10-25 priority date and are analogous art (same field of endeavor — infrared scene projection / thermal imaging):

---

B. Decomposition of claim 1

Claim 1 is a system claim that reduces to six elements:

1. a support structure having an airtight chamber;
2. an image projector secured to the support structure;
3. a conversion chip having a substrate and an array of conversion units on a face, each unit = ≥1 supporting post secured to the face + suspended platform spaced apart by the post;
4. the array being enclosed in the airtight chamber and optically coupled to the projector;
5. the chip converting visible and/or near-infrared light into infrared radiation; and
6. an infrared beam path extending away from the array.

The claim is silent on: the projection optics, the color/spectrum of the emitted IR, any active-cooling requirement, and any absorber coating. Those limitations are all in dependents. This matters — it narrows the field the primary reference must fill.

Claim 11 is the component counterpart (chip alone), with the added limitation that the post is secured directly to the substrate face.

---

C. What the key references actually disclose (verified)

1. Burdick, US 5,838,015 — an optically driven IR scene projector (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5838015A](/patent/US5838015A))

This is the closest single reference and is structurally the same as claim 1, minus the pixel architecture:

• "Since the scene projector is optically driven, bulky electronic addressing lines and associated control structure are not needed. Consequently, the fill factor … can be very high, over 70%, and pixel size is limited only by the state-of-the-art of lithography and micro-processing techniques."
• A light beam carrying an image (visible, UV, or IR) is conducted to "selective absorber structures" that "absorb portions of the transmitted radiation, convert absorbed radiation to heat, and emit discreet portions of IR radiation."
• Thermal isolation: "suitable plastic spacers … may be used and a vacuum may be introduced if desired to enhance the thermal isolation"; pixels are "thermally isolated … to increase spatial thermal resolution."
• It expressly states: "Micromachining techniques can be used to build micro-arrays that incorporate absorber coatings."

2. Bryant et al., "Bolometers running backward…" SPIE 6207 (2006) (https://www.spireresults / SPIE 6207 62070J; full text at https://www.sbir.com/PDFs/SPIE-Std-Products-Publications/Bolomoters_Running_Backward_2006.pdf)

• Discloses the exact conversion-unit structure of claim 1: "For both microbolometer and resistive emitter pixel structures, a resistor element is suspended above the IC substrate by two support legs. An optical etalon is formed between the absorptive layer and a reflective layer… on the top surface of the substrate/IC."
• Supplies the motivation: the title/framing treats uncooled microbolometer pixels and IR scene projectors as one device class ("microbolometers running backwards"); it describes arrays producing "dynamic MWIR-LWIR imagery" projected "to the UUT by a collimator," and notes arrays "are generally liquid-cooled."

3. Johns Hopkins, US 2013/0048884 A1 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,381) — examiner-cited (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130048884)

• Claims an IR scene projector with (a) "a light emitter configured to selectably provide visible light" and (b) "a thermal emitter … absorbing the visible light … and converting the visible light … into IR radiation."
• States: "by projecting scenarios in the visible or near-IR onto VACN, … produce broad-band black-body like IR emission resulting from absorption and heating."
• Describes a "light controller … configured to … encode images" / write "a two dimensional thermal pattern," and explicitly motivates improvement: larger size, faster refresh than "current resistive heater technology."

4. Bly, US 4,299,864 (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US4299864A](/patent/US4299864A)) and Bly, US 4,178,514 (referenced therein; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[4178514](/patent/4178514).html)

• A "visible light absorbing and far infrared radiation emitting membrane … inclosed in an evacuated [cell]," the membrane "consist[ing] of a thin insulating film coated with an optical black made from gold."
• US 4,178,514 is even more on point on architecture: a "cinema or video projector for illuminating … a transducer" with "visible radiation and infrared radiation transparent windows … the space between the windows at least partially evacuated," the far-IR image being directed "onto a far infrared device being tested."

5. Wang et al., SPIE 9300 (2014) — cited in the patent's own Background

Describes an IR scene projector using an array of Bly cells driven by visible light — i.e., the patent's own characterization of the prior art is: visible image → array of thermally-isolated conversion elements in a controlled cell → IR output.

6. INO's own applications, US 2013/0306851 A1 and US 2014/0166882 A1

These are the applicant's own microbolometer filings describing suspended-plate detector arrays. They establish that the suspended-platform-on-post architecture was known to the applicant before the 2016 filing.

7. Bérisset et al., SPIE 3697 (1999) — "Design of a Low-Cost Cooled Dynamic Infrared Scene Generator Including a Non-Uniformity Correction Device"

Supports dependent claim 7 (active heat transfer / cooled substrate): cooling of the conversion substrate was a known design measure in scene generators.

---

D. The primary obviousness combination

Combination 1 — Burdick (US 5,838,015) in view of Bryant et al. (2006) and Bly (US 4,299,864 / 4,178,514)

Why a POSITA would combine these — KSR rationales:

1. Same field, same problem, express cross-reference. Bryant is itself about the identity of microbolometer-pixel arrays and IR scene projectors. It is not a remote-art combination; it is the artisan's own literature stating the substitution.
2. Simple substitution of a known element for a known element (predictable result). Burdick's emissive elements are absorber structures on fiber tips. Substituting the well-known microbolometer suspended-platform pixel (Bryant; and the applicant's own US 2013/0306851 / US 2014/0166882) yields the claimed structure with the predictable result of an optically addressed, thermally isolated emitter pixel.
3. Known technique improving a similar device. Burdick expressly invites the substitution: "pixel size is limited only by the state-of-the-art of lithography" and "micromachining techniques can be used to build micro-arrays." A POSITA reading Burdick is explicitly told to build the array using micromachining — the very technique that produces suspended-platform microbolometer pixels.
4. Design incentive / market force. Bryant notes consumer-driven pressure for larger, faster, higher-resolution IRSPs (1024×1024, 200 Hz), and Hopkins (below) states the same. Replacing fiber-based or Bly-cell-based emitters with a lithographically defined suspended-platform array answers that demand.

Result: Claim 1 would have been obvious over Burdick + Bryant + Bly.

Combination 2 — Hopkins US 2013/0048884 A1 in view of Bryant (and the INO microbolometer applications)

Hopkins is a visible-to-IR IR scene projector and was cited by the examiner — so its teaching is squarely on the record:

Motivation. Hopkins' own stated object is an IRSP "provided in a larger size," with "faster frame refresh" than resistive-heater arrays, and it explicitly discusses "oversampling demands associated with testing of larger and faster focal plane array IR sensors" (which supports dependent claim 10). A POSITA seeking larger/more reliable pixel arrays would naturally select the dominant pixel-building block of the field — the suspended microbolometer platform (Bryant; INO's own applications) — as a directly interchangeable emissive element, achieving the predictable benefit of per-pixel thermal isolation and lithographic scalability.

Combination 3 — Wang (2014) in view of Bryant / INO microbolometer art

The patent's own Background concedes that Wang discloses "an infrared scene projector that makes use of an array of Bly cells." Wang thus teaches the complete system architecture of claim 1 (visible image → thermally isolated array in a cell → IR image). The only structural distinction between Wang's Bly cells and claim 1 is the mechanical pixel architecture (a suspended platform on a post versus a tensioned membrane). Bryant supplies that architecture as the known, higher-yield, lithographically scalable alternative. Motivation: replace a fragile, manually assembled membrane array with a batch-fabricated MEMS pixel array yielding higher resolution and reproducible thermal conductance.

---

E. Claim-by-claim obviousness map

Net: Independent claims 1 and 11, and most dependents, present a compelling § 103 case. The weakest links are claims 13–14 (FSS), where I cannot confirm an FSS teaching in the references of record; those would need additional art to reach a confident obviousness conclusion.

---

F. Motivation-to-combine — synthesized rationales

Per KSR, the record supports several independent rationales:

1. Express textual motivation (strongest). Bryant's thesis is the substitution: microbolometer pixels and IR scene projectors are the same class of device ("running backward"). No inferential leap is required.
2. Express invitation in the primary reference. Burdick: "pixel size is limited only by … lithography" and "micromachining techniques can be used to build micro-arrays."
3. Predictable combination of known elements. Both the optically pumped absorber (Bly/Burdick/Hopkins) and the suspended thermally isolated platform (Bryant/INO) are individually known; their combination yields only their known benefits (per-pixel thermal isolation, optical addressing, high fill factor).
4. Design incentive / market pressure. Bryant and Hopkins both identify the demand for larger, faster, higher-resolution IRSPs.
5. Reasonable expectation of success. Every reference reports working devices in the identical physical regime (visible/NIR in → MWIR/LWIR out), so success was not speculative.

---

G. Counterarguments a patent owner would raise (and my assessment)

• "The primary references teach electrical drive, not optical pumping." True of Bryant's resistive-emitter embodiment — but not of Burdick (expressly optical), Hopkins (expressly optical, visible→IR), or Bly (expressly visible→IR). The combination supplies optical pumping directly; this argument fails on the record.
• "Burdick/Hopkins do not disclose a suspended platform on a post." Correct — that is exactly the gap Bryant (and INO's own filings) fill, and Bryant expressly frames it as the same device family.
• "No motivation to swap Bly's membrane for a microbolometer pixel." Countered by Burdick's micromachining invitation and Bryant's scalability/performance drivers.
• Issuance over the cited art. The patent was granted, and Hopkins (US 2013/0048884) was examiner-cited — so the examiner considered at least the Hopkins teaching. But under KSR, the fact of issuance is not evidence of non-obviousness; the Office may not have been presented with the specific Burdick + Bryant + Bly combination, and Bryant's pixel-structure and "running backward" teaching appears to be non-patent literature (a standing risk of examiner non-appreciation).
• Secondary considerations. I found none and the record discloses none — no evidence of commercial success, unexpected results, long-felt need, or copying tied to the claims. The patent's touted "pressure-tunable thermal conductance G" is a recognizable application of known gas-conduction physics, not an unexpected result. (Consistent with the earlier-generated sections: no litigation on US 9,952,097 is known, so there is no litigation-derived validity evidence either.)

---

H. Bottom line

• Claim 1 would likely be held unpatentable under § 103 over Burdick + Bryant + Bly, with the strongest single combination being Burdick (optically driven array + vacuum + micromachined micro-arrays) as primary, Bryant (suspended-platform pixel + "running backward" motivation) as secondary, and Bly (evacuated cell + visible→IR gold-black transducer) as tertiary. The examiner-cited Hopkins reference provides an independent, independent secondary route (Hopkins + Bryant).
• Claim 11 is likewise obvious as a conventional microbolometer-type suspended-plate array (Bryant; INO US 2013/0306851 / US 2014/0166882) adapted for optical pumping (Burdick/Bly/Hopkins).
• Dependents 2–12 and 15–18 are largely covered by the same references plus routine design choices; claims 13–14 (FSS) are the principal weak points requiring art beyond the record.

---

I. Confidence and caveats

• High confidence in the disclosures I quote from Burdick (US 5,838,015), Bryant (SPIE 6207, 2006), Hopkins (US 2013/0048884), and Bly (US 4,299,864 / 4,178,514) — these were verified against full text (patents.google.com, freepatentsonline.com, and the SPIE/SBIR PDF).
• Moderate confidence in the specific disclosures of the shorter/unverified references (Wang 2014 SPIE 9300; Bérisset 1999 SPIE 3697; Beasley 2000; Iida; Funaki; Suzuki; BTG; Funai; USAF US 7,084,405). I relied primarily on their titles/abstracts and the patent's own characterization; I did not confirm full text for each, and I have not overstated them.
• Flagged uncertainty: I could not confirm any FSS teaching in the references of record, so my obviousness conclusion for claims 13–14 is expressly weaker and flagged as such.
• No identifier was auto-corrected. I have used each patent/publication number exactly as it appears in the record (e.g., US 5,838,015; US 4,299,864; US 2013/0048884; US 2013/0306851; US 2014/0166882). Note the potential confusable look-alike numbers in this family — e.g., US 9,952,097 versus the unrelated US 9,961,097 discussed in the earlier-generated litigation section — which I have kept strictly separate.
• This is a technical/legal analysis of probable invalidity exposure, not a legal opinion or a prediction of any tribunal's ruling; a formal § 103 challenge would require a full-text, claim-chart vetting of each reference at the PHOSITA level.