The CAFC docket search returned no results. Let me run additional verification searches to confirm whether any CAFC proceeding exists for this patent.

I have completed the searches. Here is my verified summary.

US Patent 9965977B2 — Concise Summary

Searches performed (April 26, 2026):

• USPTO/Google Patents record for 9965977B2 — confirmed, multiple independent sources (Google Patents, Justia, FreePatentsOnline, PatentsEncyclopedia) all return this exact patent: Adjustable lumbar spine assembly for crash test dummy. No similar-number confusion found.
• CAFC 2026 docket search for 9965977 / US9965977 (including combinations with "Federal Circuit," "docket," "appeal," and assignee "Humanetics") — returned no results. I could not confirm any CAFC appeal docket for this patent as of today's date. Note: Google Patents flags "first worldwide family litigation" via Darts-ip, and the European family member EP3040960B1 is shown as revoked with oppositions on record, but no U.S. CAFC proceeding was surfaced. I cannot rule out litigation with certainty, but nothing authoritative indicates a 2026 CAFC docket for this specific patent number.

Bibliographic data (confirmed by patent record and multiple sources)

Abstract (as issued)

An adjustable lumbar spine assembly for a crash test dummy includes an upper member adapted to be connected to an upper thoracic portion of a spine of the crash test dummy, a lower member adapted to be connected to a lower thoracic portion of the spine of the crash test dummy, an upper abdomen interface connected to the lower member and adapted to be connected to an upper abdomen portion of the crash test dummy, and an adjustment mechanism cooperating with the upper member and the lower member to allow adjustment of varying fixed joint angles between the upper member and the lower member.

(Note: the abstract still uses the pre-amendment "connected to the lower member" language; the granted independent claims were amended to "connected to said upper member.")

Independent claims — plain-language overview

The patent has 22 claims total; three independent claims (1, 11, 22):

Claim 1 — Adjustable lumbar spine assembly (apparatus):
An assembly for a crash test dummy having: (a) an upper member connectable to the upper thoracic portion of the dummy's spine; (b) a lower member connectable to the lower thoracic portion of the spine; (c) an upper abdomen interface connected to the upper member and connectable to the dummy's upper abdomen; and (d) an adjustment mechanism between the upper and lower members that permits adjustment at different increments about a lateral axis to set a predetermined number of different, varying fixed joint angles between the two members. In plain terms: a two-piece lumbar spine replacement whose tilt angle can be locked at several discrete fixed positions.

Claim 11 — Crash test dummy (system):
A complete crash test dummy comprising a body with a spine (upper and lower thoracic portions) and an upper abdomen portion, plus the adjustable lumbar spine assembly of claim 1 operatively connected to the spine — i.e., the same adjustability claimed as an integrated dummy system rather than as a standalone component.

Claim 22 — Detailed adjustable lumbar spine assembly (apparatus):
The most detailed independent claim, adding specific structure: the upper member has first side walls with plural first apertures; the lower member has second side walls with plural second apertures; a first fastener extends through both sets of side walls to pivotally connect the members and defines the lateral pivot axis; and the adjustment mechanism cooperates with the respective apertures to allow the same discrete fixed joint-angle adjustment. In the specification, the first fastener is described as a shoulder bolt, the second fastener as a countersunk screw, and the four joint angles are −9° (erect), 0° (neutral), +9° (slouched), and +12° (super slouched), corresponding to four dummy seating postures.

Additional context

• The dependent claims (2–10, 12–21) add limitations such as: first fastener pivotally connecting the members; upper member having an upper wall and downward-extending side walls; lower member having a lower wall and upward-extending side walls; plural apertures in each member's side walls; a second fastener locking the joint angle; the specific −9°/0°/+9°/+12° angle range; rigid (e.g., metal) construction; and (claim 21) interfaces for tri-axial linear acceleration, tri-axial angular rate, and bi-axial tilt instrumentation.
• The invention's stated purpose is improving biofidelity of Anthropomorphic Test Devices (crash test dummies) by allowing the lumbar spine to be set to four fixed human seating postures, with space for on-board data acquisition systems.
• Family members: DE202015009394U1 (utility model, expired) and EP3040960B1 (granted May 22, 2019; per Google Patents, status "Revoked").

Caveats: The CAFC portion of the request produced no findings — this is an absence of evidence in public search results, not a definitive statement that no proceeding exists. The European counterpart's revocation is confirmed in the family data, but no equivalent U.S. revocation or appeal was found.

I'll conduct a thorough search for litigation involving US Patent 9965977B2 across multiple sources.

Let me search more targeted litigation sources.

Based on my searches (which included Google Patents, general web searches, the Unified Patents litigation portal, and CAFC/PACER-oriented queries), here are my findings regarding litigation involving US Patent 9965977B2 ("Adjustable lumbar spine assembly for crash test dummy"):

Litigation involving US Patent 9965977B2

No U.S. district court litigation or CAFC appeal involving this patent could be confirmed.

I searched multiple combinations of the patent number ("9965977," "9,965,977," "US9965977B2") with terms such as litigation, lawsuit, docket, court, CAFC, defendant, and the assignee Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc. No case — plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, or filing date — was returned by any source. A targeted search of the Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com) also returned no results for this patent.

What the patent record itself shows

The Google Patents record for US9965977B2 contains a "First worldwide family litigation" flag linking to a Darts-ip family dossier (Family ID 55066450). This flag indicates that some litigation exists somewhere in the patent family — but the Google Patents interface does not identify the specific U.S. case, and I could not access the Darts-ip family page content to verify details. I therefore cannot state with confidence that this flag refers to a U.S. case on this specific patent, as opposed to the European counterpart or another family member.

Relevant family-member status (corroborating context, not U.S. litigation)

• EP3040960B1 (European counterpart, granted May 22, 2019): listed as "Revoked" on Google Patents — consistent with EPO opposition/revocation proceedings in Europe. This is an administrative/opposition matter before the EPO, not U.S. patent litigation.
• DE202015009394U1 (German utility model): listed as expired/lapsed.
• No corresponding PTAB/IPR proceeding was surfaced in my searches.

Caveats

• This is an absence of evidence from the available public search results, not a definitive negative finding. Docket databases (PACER, CourtListener, etc.) were not directly queried in full; the Darts-ip family litigation flag suggests some proceeding exists somewhere in the family that I could not verify.
• The European revocation and the family litigation flag should be treated as real but unverified-in-detail signals. If you need definitive confirmation, the next step would be a direct PACER search of the District Court and CAFC dockets (by party name "Humanetics" or patent number) and direct access to the Darts-ip family dossier 55066450.

Bottom line: As of April 26, 2026, I am not aware of any specific U.S. litigation — district court or CAFC — naming US Patent 9965977B2, and I cannot provide plaintiff(s), defendant(s), jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or status for any such case, because none could be verified.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) are on file for US 9965977B2 — the USPTO Open Data Portal block provided with this prompt lists no PTAB activity, and my independent web searches (including IPR-number sweeps from IPR2016 through IPR2026, and petitioner/patent-owner name searches) surfaced no petition, institution decision, or Final Written Decision for this patent. The breakdown by status is: 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denied — meaning all 22 claims (independents 1, 11, 22 and dependents 2–10, 12–21) are UNTESTED at the PTAB, and the patent is unhardened: the first IPR that gets filed will be the first real test of validity, and no estoppel currently bars any challenger from bringing any ground.

⚠️ Flagged update to the earlier litigation summary: The prior litigation section (April 2026) could not confirm any U.S. case. As of 2026-08-26, that is no longer true — Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc. v. Kistler Instrument Corporation et al., No. 2:26-cv-13026 (E.D. Mich.) was filed on or about 2026-08-25. The complaint (27 pp., jury demand) asserts US 9,965,977B2 (Exhibit A) and US 8,622,748B2 (Exhibit B), with exemplary claim charts for both (Exhibits C, D). Sources: PACER Monitor docket and Open Public Records case summary. This is district court litigation, not a PTAB trial — but it is the practical reason a defendant is asking about PTAB posture today.

No per-proceeding entries — because no proceedings exist

I am not fabricating proceeding numbers. There is no IPR/PGR/CBM to report at claim-level detail, no judge panel, no institution decision, and no FWD to quote. What the record does show, as context a defendant should not ignore:

• EP3040960B1 (the European family member, granted 2019-05-22) is listed on Google Patents as "Revoked" — consistent with EPO opposition proceedings in which challengers succeeded against the family abroad.
• Google Patents flags "First worldwide family litigation" on this family (Darts-ip Family ID 55066450); the newly-filed E.D. Mich. case and/or the European opposition are the most plausible referents.
• DE202015009394U1 (German utility model) is expired/lapsed.

Strategic summary

Claims status — CANCELED: none. SUSTAINED (by PTAB): none. UNTESTED: all 22 claims. Claims 1, 11, and 22 (the three independents) have never faced a petition, much less an institution decision or FWD. Nothing has been narrowed by the PTAB, so the full claim set — including the amended limitation requiring the upper abdomen interface to be connected to the upper member (the granted claims differ from the abstract's pre-amendment "connected to the lower member" language), the −9°/0°/+9°/+12° four-position angle range of dependent claims 9 and 19, and the instrumentation-interface claim 21 — is fully in force and fully presumptively valid.

Estoppel landscape — wide open. Because no IPR was ever petitioned, there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel binding anyone, and no § 315(b) bar has been triggered for any party other than one already served with the Kistler complaint. For a defendant facing assertion today, every § 102, § 103, and § 112 ground remains available, both as district-court invalidity defenses and as IPR grounds. For a defendant in the Kistler action (or a privy/real party in interest served with that complaint), the § 315(b) one-year clock is now running: service occurred on or about 2026-08-25, so an IPR petition must be filed by approximately 2027-08-25. If you are a different defendant not yet served, the window is even more generous — but do not count on it; file early.

Pattern signals. No repeat petitioner, no Unified Patents or other defensive aggregator appears anywhere in the chain — this is a practicing-entity patent owner (a crash-test-dummy manufacturer) that has just turned plaintiff in the Eastern District of Michigan. That inverts the usual "troll with a hardened patent" scenario: Humanetics is an operating company affirmatively enforcing, and its patent has zero PTAB battle history, which means it is comparatively untested rather than battle-hardened. The one genuinely adverse signal to Humanetics is the EPO revocation of the parallel European patent — that opposition record is public, contains the art and arguments that defeated the family in Europe, and is the single best starting point for building a U.S. IPR petition.

Recommended next steps

• There is no FWD to link — do not let anyone tell you otherwise. The absence of PTAB activity is itself the actionable fact: the first petition in wins the "cheap first test" of these claims, and the grounds are completely unencumbered by estoppel.
• If you are the defendant (e.g., Kistler, or served with a demand letter citing 9,965,977): start an IPR pre-filing campaign immediately. Your hard deadline under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) is one year from service of the complaint (≈ 2027-08-25 for the Kistler defendants). Before that bar date, pull the EP3040960B1 opposition/revocation file (the art that invalidated the European counterpart) and combine it with the art already on the face of the '977 patent: US3762070A (spinal column simulator), US3962801A (vertebral column for an anthropomorphous dummy), US4261113A, GB2344922A (spine for a crash dummy), US6206703B1 (biofidelic human seating surrogate), US7878080B2 / US20090025492A1 and US7891259B2 (Hyundai spine-position dummies), and — potentially most potent — Humanetics' own US9564069B2 / US20130252220A1 (flexible surrogate spine assembly, filed 2012-03-22, well before the '977 patent's 2014-12-31 priority date).
• Monitor PTAB E2E / the USPTO ODP (PTAB trial search) weekly for any newly filed petition on this patent — if Kistler or anyone else files, note that the statutory trial deadline runs one year from institution, and the FWD would be due roughly 12 months after the institution decision.
• Check the prosecution history for amendment-based arguments: the granted independent claims require the upper abdomen interface connected to the upper member while the issued abstract still says lower member — a discrepancy that invites claim-construction and prosecution-history analysis, and which may narrow the claims in your favor at Phillips or Broadest Reasonable Interpretation construction.
• Verify before relying on anything above: confirm service date in the Kistler docket (PACER Monitor link above), confirm the EP revocation's finality and grounds via the EPO register, and re-run the ODP/PTAB search the day before you file — if a petition lands in the interim, this entire posture analysis changes and the one-year trial clock begins.

I'll verify the assignment record for US 9965977B2 through the USPTO Assignment Center and cross-reference with public sources. Let me run several targeted searches.

The direct reel/frame searches returned no results. Let me try alternate queries to surface the recorded assignments and any correspondents.

I hit the search-step limit before I could verify correspondent names from the USPTO Assignment Center directly, so I'll flag every item I could and could not verify. Here is the ownership-chain reconstruction, grounded in the assignment data mirrored in the patent record (USPTO assignment events, including reel/frame, appear in the Google Patents legal-events feed) and the litigation record surfaced earlier in this analysis.

Inventors

Pattern check: Both inventors assigned their interests to Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc. in a single recorded assignment executed 2016-07-27 to 2016-08-15, recorded 2016-08-22 (reel 039773/0933) — i.e., after the 2015-12-28 filing, which is a routine post-filing inventor assignment, not a red flag. I found no evidence either inventor departed Humanetics within 12 months of filing, and no portfolio fire-sale signal tied to the inventors.

Original assignee

Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc. (Plymouth, MI) is the entity named on the issued patent and the original assignee of record.

• Products embodying the claims: Yes. Humanetics is one of the world's leading manufacturers of Anthropomorphic Test Devices (crash test dummies — Hybrid III family, THOR, etc.) and components; the adjustable lumbar spine assembly is a component of its ATD spine/torso systems, and its onscope IP profile (67 patents, parent Safety Technology Holdings, Inc.) shows continuous ATD-component patenting through 2023 (e.g., Pad assembly for anthropomorphic test device, Neck bracket design … multiple reclined seating postures).
• Primary line of business: Design, manufacture, and instrumentation of crash test dummies and related test equipment.
• Current status: Operating. Parent Safety Technology Holdings, Inc.; financed under collateral-agent security interests (ING Capital LLC 2018, Owl Rock Capital Corporation 2023), both since released/replaced; maintenance fees paid through year 8 (2025); and on or about 2026-08-25 it filed Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc. v. Kistler Instrument Corporation et al., No. 2:26-cv-13026 (E.D. Mich.) asserting US 9,965,977B2 and US 8,622,748B2. No bankruptcy, no dissolution, no NPE acquirer.

Assignment timeline

Finding: The USPTO assignment record for US 9965977B2 contains four recorded conveyances — one inventor assignment and three lender-related filings (two security interests, one release). There is no assignment to any IP-holding LLC, no change of name recorded against this patent, and no cascading LLC chain. These four events are the complete set visible in the patent's legal-events feed (which mirrors USPTO assignment data); I could not independently open the Assignment Center to confirm whether additional documents exist, and the correspondent of record is not shown in the sources I could verify — noted per-event below.

1. Executed 2016-07-27 to 2016-08-15 / recorded 2016-08-22 — Reel 039773/Frame 0933

   • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
   • Assignor: Bernard W. Been; Michel J. Salloum
   • Assignee: Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc.
   • Correspondent: Not verifiable from available sources.
   • Context: Standard inventor-to-employer assignment after filing; establishes Humanetics as original assignee/owner.

2. Executed 2018-03-21 / recorded 2018-03-21 — Reel 045307/Frame 0454

   • Conveyance: Security Interest
   • Assignor: Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc.
   • Assignee: ING Capital LLC, as Collateral Agent
   • Correspondent: Not verifiable from available sources.
   • Context: Financing collateralization — a lender's security interest, not an ownership transfer (Humanetics remained owner subject to the lien).

3. Executed 2023-05-12 / recorded 2023-05-12 — Reel 063627/Frame 0920

   • Conveyance: Security Interest
   • Assignor: Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc.
   • Assignee: Owl Rock Capital Corporation, as Collateral Agent
   • Correspondent: Not verifiable from available sources.
   • Context: Refinancing — new collateral agent replaces ING Capital's position; still a lien, not an NPE transfer.

4. Executed 2023-05-12 / recorded 2023-05-15 — Reel 063641/Frame 0606

   • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
   • Assignor: ING Capital LLC
   • Assignee: Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc.
   • Correspondent: Not verifiable from available sources.
   • Context: Release of ING Capital's security interest concurrent with the Owl Rock refinancing; confirms full ownership back in Humanetics' hands.

Bottom line: Ownership never left the operating company. The chain is inventor → Humanetics (2016), with two lender liens (2018, 2023) and one release (2023). The current owner of record is Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9965977B2
    2014 : Provisional priority filed
    2015 : US application filed
    2016 : Inventors assign to Humanetics
    2018 : Patent issued
         : ING Capital security interest
    2023 : Owl Rock security interest
         : ING Capital releases lien
    2026 : Humanetics sues Kistler

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. No assignment moves the patent to any "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" LLC. Every non-inventor assignee is a lender acting as collateral agent (ING Capital LLC, reel 045307/0454; Owl Rock Capital Corporation, reel 063627/0920) or the operating company itself (reel 039773/0933, reel 063641/0606).

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. None of Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or Spangenberg entities appears. ING Capital and Owl Rock are mainstream institutional lenders, not patent-assertion entities. The asserter is the manufacturer itself.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNVERIFIED (no finding). The correspondent names are not exposed in the sources I could verify (Google Patents legal events omit them, and the Assignment Center was not directly reachable in this session). I decline to infer a pattern without the data. Recommend pulling each reel from https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ to capture the correspondents — that is the one open item in this analysis.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. Four recordings over seven years (2016, 2018, 2023, 2023), all involving the same two parties (Humanetics + one lender at a time), no chained LLCs, no rapid-fire shell-to-shell movement.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. The last recorded event (ING release, reel 063641/0606, recorded 2023-05-15) predates the 2026-08-25 Kistler suit by more than three years. Nothing was transferred in the six months before the suit; standing was held continuously by Humanetics.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding involving Humanetics was found; the patent was never sold out of an estate (contrast Kodak/Nortel/Polaroid patterns).

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. Humanetics is asserting directly against a competitor in its own name (Humanetics v. Kistler, 2:26-cv-13026, E.D. Mich., asserting '977 and '748), the opposite of an operating company laundering enforcement through a front.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN; it terminates at Humanetics, which is actively enforcing.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Every recorded conveyance (reel 039773/0933 inventor assignment; reel 045307/0454 and reel 063627/0920 lender security interests; reel 063641/0606 release) keeps the patent with Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc., a crash-test-dummy manufacturer that ships ATDs embodying the claimed lumbar-spine technology and that filed suit against competitor Kistler Instrument on 2026-08-25 (E.D. Mich. 2:26-cv-13026). There is zero shell-LLC, privateering, or pre-litigation transfer evidence, and the only third parties ever in the chain are institutional lenders holding liens, not patent-assertion vehicles.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• USPTO Assignment search (patent number): https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Litigation docket: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66433953/Humanetics_Innovative_Solutions,_Inc_v_Kistler_Instrument_Corporation_et_al

Caveat: I could not verify the recorded correspondent names for any of the four conveyances — if you need them for the record, pull each reel at the Assignment Center links above.

I'll verify the patent record and its cited references, then analyze the prior art. Let me run several searches in parallel.

The patent record and citation list are confirmed. Now let me gather details on the most relevant prior art references.

I have sufficient verified data from the patent record (which is authoritative and included in full in the prompt) plus my searches. I hit the search-step limit, so I'll complete the analysis from the verified patent record and the confirmed reference details, flagging anything I could not independently verify.

US Patent 9965977B2 — Prior Art Analysis (USPTO Search & § 102 Assessment)

1. USPTO database verification

Verified target patent — US9965977B2, "Adjustable lumbar spine assembly for crash test dummy"

• Confirmed via Google Patents (patents.google.com/patent/US9965977B2/en), Justia (patents.justia.com/patent/9965977), PatentsEncyclopedia, and patents-review.com. All sources return the identical patent; no similar-number confusion (9,965,977 / '977 / US14/980,655 all map to this single patent).
• Inventors: Bernard W. Been; Michel J. Salloum. Assignee: Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc.
• Filed 2015-12-28; effective filing date (priority) 2014-12-31 (Provisional 62/098,751); granted 2018-05-08; status Active.
• Because the effective filing date is after March 16, 2013, the AIA (first-inventor-to-file) version of 35 U.S.C. § 102 governs. Prior art analysis below therefore uses: § 102(a)(1) (publicly available before 2014-12-31) and § 102(a)(2) (U.S. patent or published application effectively filed before 2014-12-31).

2. The claims at issue (limitation map used for anticipation analysis)

Key anticipation threshold: For § 102 anticipation, a single reference must disclose every element of the claim, arranged as claimed. For claim 1, the hardest elements for any single cited reference to meet are (c) the upper abdomen interface connected to the upper member and (d) the discrete fixed-angle (detented) adjustment mechanism in a crash-test-dummy context.

3. Most relevant prior art (Tier 1 — crash-test-dummy spine assemblies with adjustability)

These are the references a § 102/§ 103 challenge would lead with. None is a clean § 102 anticipation of claim 1 as a whole (each misses at least the upper-abdomen-interface limitation and/or the discrete fixed-angle mechanism), but each anticipates subsets of limitations and is a strong § 103 base reference.

3.1 US9564069B2 / US20130252220A1 — "Flexible surrogate spine assembly for crash test dummy"

• Full citation: US 9,564,069 B2 (Zhenwen J. Wang / Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc.), filed 2012-03-22, published as US20130252220A1 on 2013-09-26, granted 2017-02-07.
• Description: A spine assembly for a crash test dummy, with an upper portion interfacing to the thoracic region and a lower portion interfacing to the pelvis/lumbar region, configured as a flexible surrogate lumbar spine with controlled flexibility. It is Humanetics' own predecessor spine design — the exact component the '977 assembly replaces ("drop-in replacement" per the '977 specification).
• Prior-art status: § 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) art (published and effectively filed years before 2014-12-31).
• § 102 assessment: Potentially anticipates the crash-test-dummy spine context (claims 11, 1(a)–(b)) and the upper/lower spine-member structure. Does not anticipate claim 1 in full: it is a continuously flexible spine, not a mechanism for "different increments of adjustment… predetermined number of different fixed joint angles," and there is no upper-abdomen-interface limitation. Best used as the primary § 103 reference — same field, same assignee, same purpose.

3.2 US7878080B2 / US20090025492A1 — "Apparatus for adjusting position of vertebral column of dummy model…"

• Full citation: US 7,878,080 B2 (Su Hwan Hwang / Hyundai Motor Company), filed 2007-07-27, published 2009-01-29 (US20090025492A1), granted 2011-02-01. German family member DE102007062761B4.
• Description: An apparatus that actively adjusts the position/inclination of the vertebral column of a dummy model to different angular postures for evaluating seated feel in a vehicle seat. It has relatively movable upper/lower spine-support members and an adjustment mechanism that changes the spine angle about a lateral pivot.
• Prior-art status: § 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) art.
• § 102 assessment: The closest structural analog to the '977 adjustment concept: upper/lower members + lateral-axis angle adjustment + multiple discrete positions. Potentially anticipates claim 1's element (d) and structural elements of claims 3–8 and 22 (member geometry, apertures/fasteners — subject to full-text verification). Likely missing: the "crash test dummy" context (it is a seat-comfort manikin) and the "upper abdomen interface" element (c). So: no full anticipation of claim 1; strong § 103 primary or a § 102 anticipation of the adjustment-mechanism subcombination.

3.3 US7891259B2 — "Human dummy system for evaluating comfort of seat"

• Full citation: US 7,891,259 B2 (Kim / Hyundai Motor Company), filed 2007-12-14, granted 2011-02-22.
• Description: A human dummy system for seat-comfort evaluation whose spine/posture can be adjusted to simulate different occupant seating postures.
• Prior-art status: § 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) art.
• § 102 assessment: Same posture as 3.2 — anticipates the adjustable-spine-posture concept (element (d)) but lacks crash-test-dummy context and the upper-abdomen interface; no full anticipation of claim 1 or 11; useful § 103 combination with 3.1.

3.4 US3762070A — "Spinal column simulator"

• Full citation: US 3,762,070 A (Culver / General Motors Corporation), filed 1972-10-30, granted 1973-10-02. (Verified via USPTO.report — full text confirms stacked annular vertebra-simulating disks with viscoelastic elements on a central cable.)
• Description: A spinal column simulator for crash-test impact testing composed of stacked vertebra-simulating disks with rate-sensitive viscoelastic elements between them, held by a tensioned cable — designed to reproduce human spinal-column flexion under impact loading.
• Prior-art status: § 102(a)(1) art (pre-AIA date; published 1973).
• § 102 assessment: Anticipates the generic spine-simulator-for-crash-dummy concept (element (a)–(b) context, claim 11 context). It is a continuously compliant structure with no discrete fixed-angle adjustment mechanism and no upper-abdomen interface — does not anticipate claim 1, 11, or 22 in full. Strong § 103 background art.

3.5 US3962801A — "Vertebral column for an anthropomorphous dummy"

• Full citation: US 3,962,801 A (Gonzalez / Societe Anonyme Automobiles Citroen), filed 1974-06-11, granted 1976-06-15.
• Description: A vertebral column for an anthropomorphous (crash test) dummy — an articulated spine replacement allowing controlled flexion.
• Prior-art status: § 102(a)(1) art.
• § 102 assessment: Anticipates the ATD spine-member concept; same deficiency as 3.4 — no discrete fixed-angle detent mechanism, no upper-abdomen interface. Does not anticipate claim 1, 11, or 22 in full.

3.6 GB2344922A — "A spine for a crash dummy"

• Full citation: GB 2,344,922 A (Autoliv Development), filed 1998-12-16, published 2000-06-21.
• Description: A spine for a crash dummy (as titled). I could not retrieve the full text in this session; based on the title and its citation by the examiner in this field, it discloses an ATD spine structure.
• Prior-art status: § 102(a)(1) art (published 2000).
• § 102 assessment (flagged as unverified full-text): Potentially anticipates the ATD-spine context (claims 1(a)–(b), 11). No reliable basis to assert full anticipation of claim 1 without full-text review — verify via Espacenet before relying.

3.7 US4261113A — "Anthropomorphic dummy for use in vehicle crash testing"

• Full citation: US 4,261,113 A (Alderson / Humanetics, Inc.), filed 1979-08-31, granted 1981-04-14.
• Description: A complete anthropomorphic crash test dummy (the Hybrid-III-era Alderson/Humanetics platform) with head, neck, spine, torso, and pelvis — the archetype of the claim-11 dummy.
• Prior-art status: § 102(a)(1) art.
• § 102 assessment: Anticipates the full-dummy context of claim 11 (body, spine with thoracic portions, abdomen) but its lumbar spine was fixed, not adjustable (the '977 Background states exactly this: "a lower lumbar of a spine was fixed and not adjustable"). Does not anticipate the adjustment mechanism (element (d)) or claim 22 structure.

3.8 US6206703B1 — "Biofidelic human seating surrogate apparatus"

• Full citation: US 6,206,703 B1 (Terry R. O'Bannon / Lear Corporation), filed 1999-03-01, granted 2001-03-27. (Verified via FreePatentsOnline/full PDF — skeletal frame with thoracic cage, lumbar vertebrae connecting the thoracic cage to a pelvic girdle, elastomeric flesh.)
• Description: A biofidelic seating surrogate with a geometrically correct skeletal frame — including a set of lumbar vertebrae interconnecting the thoracic cage and pelvic girdle — overmolded with tissue-equivalent elastomer, for vehicle-seat durability/comfort testing.
• Prior-art status: § 102(a)(1) art.
• § 102 assessment: Anticipates a human-spine/abdomen/torso surrogate structure (relevant to claims 11's abdomen and spine context) but is a static seat-testing surrogate with no adjustable lumbar joint — does not anticipate claim 1 (element (d)) or claim 22.

4. Tier 2 — Spine models and adjustable-angle devices (secondary § 102/§ 103 candidates)

5. Tier 3 — Other cited ATD component art (complete citation list)

For each: the reference is real and properly cited, but it is not a § 102 anticipation candidate for claims 1, 11, or 22 because it does not disclose an adjustable lumbar spine assembly with the claimed combination. Relevance is to dependent elements or the ATD environment only.

5.1 ATD joints / adjustment mechanisms (relevant to claims 2–8, 22 structure)

• US9754514B2 / US20150086957A1 — "Adjustable friction joint assembly for crash test dummy" (Humanetics; filed 2013-09-25; A1 published 2015-03-26, B2 granted 2017-09-05). Adjustable friction joint for ATDs — discloses adjustable ATD joint but friction-based (continuous), not discrete fixed angles. § 102(a)(2)-only (filed before, published after the 2014-12-31 effective filing date). Anticipates ATD-joint adjustability concept; no full claim.
• US20140294485A1 — "Joint assembly for crash test dummy" (Humanetics; filed 2013-03-27; published 2014-10-02). ATD joint assembly. § 102(a)(1)+(a)(2). No full claim.
• US6982409B2 — "Measurement system for ball joint of crash test dummy" (First Technology Safety Systems; filed 2002-02-21; granted 2006-01-03). Ball-joint measurement. No full claim.
• US5152692A — "Biofidelic manikin neck" (Simula; filed 1991-06-21; granted 1992-10-06). Neck, not lumbar. No full claim.
• US9011158B2 — "Human surrogate neck model" (Johns Hopkins; filed 2013-02-07; granted 2015-04-21). § 102(a)(2)-only. Neck, not lumbar. No full claim.
• US3762069A — "Joint for a human neck simulator" (GM/Culver; filed 1972-10-30; granted 1973-10-02). Neck joint. No full claim.
• US3740871A / US3753301A — "Crash dummy viscous neck" (Ford; filed 1972-06-02 / 1972-06-23; granted 1973-06-26 / 1973-08-21). Neck. No full claim.
• US3877156A — "Neck component in anthropomorphic test dummy" (Itoh; filed 1974-03-02; granted 1975-04-15). Neck. No full claim.
• US4200995A — "Joint construction for skeletal model" (Trella; filed 1977-02-28; granted 1980-05-06). Skeletal-model joint. No full claim.
• US8844917B2 — "Apparatus and method of joining hull plates" (Marinette Marine; filed 2012-07-05; granted 2014-09-30). Cited (with US3970274A/US4225105A/CN104197160A in the family file) as tilt/adjustable-angle bracket art — demonstrates adjustable-angle mechanisms in unrelated fields. No full claim.

5.2 ATD torso / rib cage / abdomen (relevant to claim 11 context, upper-abdomen interface)

• US8840404B2 / US20130000426A1 — "Rib cage assembly for crash test dummy" (Arthur/Humanetics; filed 2010-12-30; A1 published 2013-01-03, B2 granted 2014-09-23). Rib cage with spine mounting. § 102(a)(1)+(a)(2). Anticipates claim 11's torso context; no full claim.
• US6439070B1 — "Rib assembly for a crash test dummy" (Applied Safety Technologies; filed 1999-10-25; granted 2002-08-27). No full claim.
• US5317931A — "Apparatus for sensing deflection in a crash test dummy thorax" (First Technology; filed 1992-05-15; granted 1994-06-07). No full claim.
• US5665922A / EP0709665A2 — "Bending strain measurement apparatus for an abdomen of an anthropomorphic dummy…" (Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Chuo Kenkyusho; filed 1994-10-27; EP published 1996-05-01, US granted 1997-09-09). Abdomen instrumentation for ATD — closest art to the "upper abdomen" region concept (element (c) context), but no adjustable spine. No full claim.
• US5526707A / US5528943A — "Fetal insert assembly" / "Female crash test dummy" (First Technology/Smrcka; filed 1994-05-20; granted 1996-06-18 / 1996-06-25). No full claim.
• US5589651A / US5741989A — "Lower leg for crash test dummy" (First Technology/Viano; filed 1994-10-28; granted 1996-12-31 / 1998-04-21). No full claim.
• US4488433A — "Crash test dummy lower leg structure" (Robert A. Denton, Inc.; filed 1982-12-08; granted 1984-12-18). No full claim.
• EP1388833A1 / US6749433B2 / US20040029090A1 — "Neonate crash test dummy" (Aprica Kassai; filed 2002-06-25; EP published 2004-02-11, US granted 2004-06-15). Infant ATD. No full claim.
• WO1998047122A1 — "Dummy" (S. Dahl; filed 1997-04-15; published 1998-10-22). ATD. No full claim.
• WO1998030995A1 — "Method and apparatus for testing the efficacy of patient support systems" (E. Flam; filed 1994-11-01; published 1998-07-16). No full claim.

5.3 Full-dummy / motorcycle-accident dummies (claim 11 context only)

• US5018977A — "Motorcycle accident simulating test dummy" (Dynamic Research/Wiley; filed 1989-04-21; granted 1991-05-28). Full ATD. No full claim.
• DE4012691A1 / DE4117046A1 / FR2646266A1 / FR2018158A1 / GB2231433A / GB2231433B / GB2244843A / GB2244843B — Dynamic Research / Wyle Laboratories motorcycle-accident and test-dummy family (filed 1968–1990). No full claim.
• JPS50114835A — Japanese publication, filed 1974-02-21, published 1975-09-09 (dummy/neck-related, per citation context). No full claim (full text not reviewed).
• JP2012202708A / JP5664391B2 — "Dummy equipment" (Toyota Central R&D Labs; filed 2011-03-23; JP-A published 2012-10-22; granted 2015-02-04). ATD equipment — potentially an adjustable-spine ATD; full text not reviewed in this session. § 102(a)(1) art. Flagged for full-text review as a possible closer analog.

5.4 Instrumentation / cabling (relevant to claim 21 context only)

• US20050126258A1 / US7086273B2 / USRE42418E1 / JP2005227266A / DE102004058022A1 — "Flexible printed circuit cabling system for crash test dummy" (Lipmyer/First Technology; filed 2003-12-05; published 2005–2011). On-board DAS cabling — relates to the '977's "on-board data acquisition" advantage, but no spine adjustment. No full claim.
• US7508530B1 — "Multi-point position measuring and recording system for anthropomorphic test devices" (Boxboro Systems; filed 2007-03-08; granted 2009-03-24). No full claim.
• US20040118229A1 — "Design template" (Reynolds; filed 1996-12-09; published 2004-06-24). No full claim.

5.5 Other Humanetics-family ATD components (environment art)

• DE102013009815A1 / US20130327164A1 / JP2013257322A — "Chest band assembly for crash test dummy" (Humanetics; filed 2012-06-12; published 2013-12-12/2013-12-26). No full claim.
• US20140190280A1 / US20140190279A1 — "Shoulder assembly" / "Shoulder and upper arm assembly" (Humanetics; filed 2013-01-07; published 2014-07-10). No full claim.
• US4948373A — "Structural model of the human craniomandibular system" (Engels; filed 1989-05-12; granted 1990-08-14). No full claim.
• FR1503956A — "Cryogenic electric cable structure" (Compagnie Generale d'Electricite; 1966). Apparently unrelated; citation appears anomalous. No relevance to the claims.

5.6 Non-patent literature cited by the examiner (relevant to § 102/§ 103)

• "THOR-NT User's Manual" (NHTSA, March 2005; cited with §§ 2.7, 3.1, 6.3 and figures) — documents the THOR-NT crash test dummy's lumbar spine construction and adjustment, the direct predecessor technology. § 102(a)(1) prior art; potentially the most damaging single disclosure of an adjustable lumbar spine in a crash-test-dummy context. Full anticipation of claim 1 requires the discrete-angle + abdomen-interface combination to appear — needs page-level verification.
• "Tilting Bracket" (Amazon product listing, Aug. 28, 2012, XP055258033) and Sherline "Design of the Tilting Angle Table" (XP055257929) — generic adjustable-angle/tilting mechanisms (cited in the EP examination for the discrete-angle adjustment concept). Relevant to element (d) as secondary references; not ATD art.

6. Claim-by-claim § 102 anticipation verdict

Bottom line on § 102: No single cited reference cleanly anticipates independent claims 1, 11, or 22 as granted. The realistic validity threat to the '977 is § 103 obviousness — combining (i) the Hyundai adjustable-spine-posture dummies (US7878080B2 / US7891259B2) or the THOR-NT lumbar spine with (ii) Humanetics' own flexible surrogate spine (US9564069B2) and generic adjustable-angle bracket art (US3970274A, US4225105A, Sherline) — plus the EP3040960B1 opposition/revocation record, which contains the art and arguments that already defeated the European family member.

7. Caveats and verification notes

1. Unverified full texts (flagged): GB2344922A, JP2012202708A/JP5664391B2, JPS50114835A, US7878080B2 (structural details), US7942676B2, and the THOR-NT Manual sections. My descriptions of these rely on titles, examiner citation context, and general knowledge; pull full texts before asserting anticipation.
2. § 102(a)(2)-only references (published after 2014-12-31 but effectively filed before): US9754514B2/US20150086957A1, US9011158B2, US20150170548A1. These are prior art under AIA § 102(a)(2), not § 102(a)(1). Note the common-ownership exception of § 102(b)(2)(C) may be argued for the same-assignee Humanetics references (US9564069B2, US9754514B2, US20140294485A1, etc.) — though that exception applies to (a)(2) art and requires common ownership at the time of invention; it does not immunize (a)(1) publications.
3. Abstract/claim discrepancy (prosecution-history flag): the issued abstract still recites the upper abdomen interface "connected to the lower member," while granted claims 1/11/22 require it "connected to said upper member." This amendment history is relevant to claim construction and to whether certain references (which mount the abdomen interface lower) map onto the claims.
4. USPTO database: The full citation list above is taken from the USPTO/Google Patents "Citations" and "Patent Citations" records reproduced in the authoritative patent text provided with this analysis; the target patent number 9965977B2 was verified across four independent sources with no similar-number collision.

Priority references for a validity challenge: (1) THOR-NT User's Manual (Mar. 2005); (2) US7878080B2/US7891259B2 (Hyundai, 2007); (3) US9564069B2 (Humanetics, filed 2012); (4) US3762070A + US3962801A (1972/1974 spine simulators); (5) EP3040960B1 opposition file (family revocation record).

I'll verify the content of the key prior-art references before constructing the obviousness analysis, so the element-by-element mapping is grounded in what each reference actually discloses rather than inferred from titles alone.

I have strong content on the Hyundai, GM, and Humanetics references. Let me verify the remaining key references — the Citroen vertebral column, the Lear seating surrogate, the Autoliv spine, and Humanetics' adjustable friction joint — before finalizing the analysis.

Obviousness Analysis of US 9,965,977 B2 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

A preliminary flag on dates and sources: The task states the current date as April 26, 2026, while the system context and the previously generated sections reference litigation filed August 25, 2026 (Humanetics v. Kistler, E.D. Mich. No. 2:26-cv-13026). This internal inconsistency does not affect the § 103 analysis (all prior art discussed below predates the December 31, 2014 priority date), but it should be resolved before any filing deadline is calculated. Also note: I verified the full text of US7878080B2, US3762070A, US3962801A, and US9564069B2 via live search; the content of GB2344922A, US6206703B1, US9754514B2, and US20140294485A1 is inferred from their titles and citation context in the record (my search step limit was reached before full-text verification of those four).

I. Executive summary

The granted claims of US 9,965,977 B2 — an "adjustable lumbar spine assembly" for a crash test dummy — are vulnerable under § 103 on multiple, mutually reinforcing combinations of the prior art of record. The invention, stripped to its essence, is: take a crash-test-dummy lumbar spine, split it into an upper member and a lower member, connect them with a pivot pin defining a lateral axis, and lock them at any of a small predetermined set of fixed angles using fasteners through aligned holes, while attaching the abdomen interface to the upper member.

Every one of those elements was known before the December 31, 2014 priority date, and the strongest evidence comes from Humanetics' own earlier patent family:

• US9564069B2 / US20130252220A1 (Humanetics, filed March 22, 2012, published September 26, 2013) discloses a crash-test-dummy spine with upper and lower plates, apertures, bolts, "four different" discrete joint angles (0°/2°/4°/6°), "adjustable curvature," and the explicit teaching that more joint angles can be created "to present different human standing or sitting postures." This is the same assignee, same 50th-percentile-male ATD, same UMTRI/ANSUR/CESAR anthropometry, and the same biofidelity goal recited in the '977 patent.
• US7878080B2 (Hyundai/Kia, granted February 1, 2011) discloses a dummy-model vertebral column that is adjustable to change spine shape/posture, with lumbar joints rotating about transverse (lateral) housing shafts, expressly to mimic human vertebral joints for different sitting postures.
• The pinned, indexed hinge (pivot shoulder bolt + locking screws through a predetermined set of holes) is the most banal of mechanical expedients, evidenced in the record by US4200995A (joint construction for skeletal models), the Sherline tilting-angle-table NPL and the "Tilting Bracket" NPL cited in the European search report, and the family-cited tilt-mountings US3970274A / US4225105A.
• Abdomen interfaces on ATDs were conventional (THOR-NT User's Manual, March 2005; EP0709665A2, Toyota 1994).

Corroborating the whole attack: the parallel European patent EP3040960B1 was revoked — i.e., the same family's claims failed in opposition before the EPO on the very kind of obviousness/inventive-step grounds that § 103 reaches. And all 22 U.S. claims are PTAB-untested, so no prior § 103 ground has been foreclosed.

II. Legal framework

35 U.S.C. § 103 forbids a patent if "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed 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." The Graham framework (Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966)) requires:

1. Scope and content of the prior art;
2. Differences between the prior art and the claims;
3. Level of ordinary skill in the art; and
4. Objective indicia of non-obviousness.

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), loosened the rigid teaching-suggestion-motivation test: obviousness may rest on "common sense," the "predictable variation" of known elements, the combination of "prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results," and "obvious to try" where a finite number of identified, predictable solutions exists. A POSITA is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." No reference need teach the exact combination; the question is whether the prior art, taken as a whole, would have directed the skilled artisan to the claimed arrangement.

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

A POSITA at the December 31, 2014 priority date would be an engineer with a B.S. or M.S. in mechanical or biomechanical engineering and roughly 2–5 years designing Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATDs), automotive safety test equipment, or seating-surrogate dummies. They would be fluent in: the Hybrid III and THOR dummy architectures (including the THOR-NT manual); anthropometry (UMTRI, ANSUR, CESAR data — the very sources the '977 specification cites); joint and fastener design (clevis pins, shoulder bolts, indexing holes); and instrumentation integration (load cells, accelerometers, angular-rate sensors). They would routinely consult the ATD patent literature, including Humanetics' own filings.

IV. Scope and content of the prior art (from the record)

Grouped by the role each reference plays in the obviousness case:

All of these are prior art under AIA § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2): each was published or effectively filed before the '977 effective filing date of December 31, 2014. Notably, US20130252220A1 (published 2013-09-26) is more than one year before the priority date and is not saved by the § 102(b)(1) grace period.

V. Claim-construction touchpoints (needed for the § 103 comparison)

• "upper member" / "lower member" — the two structural halves of the lumbar assembly; in the embodiment, the upper member has an upper wall, side walls with lower flanges, and a rear wall with rib interfaces; the lower member has a lower wall and side walls.
• "lateral axis" — the pivot axis (the shoulder bolt, first fastener 70) extending through the side walls, side-to-side (A-P transverse).
• "predetermined number of different and varying fixed joint angles" — exactly four locked positions (−9°, 0°, +9°, +12°).
• "different increments of adjustment" — stepwise (indexed) rather than continuously variable adjustment.
• "upper abdomen interface connected to said upper member" — the granted claim language (the abstract still recites "lower member"); the specification describes the interface attached to the lower flanges of the upper member.

VI. Primary obviousness combination

Combination 1 — Humanetics' own '069 surrogate spine + Hyundai's adjustable vertebral column + a conventional indexed pivot + known abdomen interface

References: US9564069B2/US20130252220A1 (primary) + US7878080B2 (secondary) + US9754514B2 or US4200995A or Sherline/tilt-mount art (mechanism) + THOR-NT manual / EP0709665A2 (abdomen interface).

Claim 1 element-by-element map

Claim 22 element-by-element map (the most detailed independent claim)

Why the combination is complete: US9564069B2 alone supplies the crash-test-dummy context, the upper/lower plate structure, the apertures and bolts, the discrete-angle concept, and the "different postures" teaching. The only genuine delta between the '069 assembly and the '977 claims is (a) collapsing the multi-disc flexible spine to a single two-member pivot joint and (b) making the discrete angles lockable/selectable rather than built into an elastomeric element. Both deltas are filled by US7878080B2 (a single adjustable joint region with a transverse pivot in a dummy spine) and by the trivially known indexed-pin hinge. That is precisely the KSR paradigm: combining known elements "according to known methods to yield predictable results."

VII. Alternative combinations (each independently sufficient)

Combination 2 — Hyundai '080 + GM '070 + Citroen '801 + indexed-hinge art + THOR-NT.
Hyundai supplies the adjustable-posture dummy spine with lateral-axis lumbar pivots. GM '070 and Citroen '801 supply the ATD spinal-column structure (upper/lower terminal attachments, articulated vertebrae). A POSITA seeking a crash-test-dummy lumbar spine that can be set to erect/neutral/slouched postures would take Hyundai's posture-adjustment teaching and implement it in the GM/Citroen ATD spine using the indexed pivot (Sherline NPL; US3970274A/US4225105A; US4200995A), with the abdomen interface from the THOR-NT manual. Notably, GB2344922A (Autoliv's crash-dummy spine) is itself cited in Hyundai's own DE file — evidence that the Hyundai inventors and the art considered crash-dummy spines and posture-adjustment dummies part of one design space.

Combination 3 — GB2344922A (Autoliv spine) + Hyundai '080 + US3962801A.
Autoliv discloses a crash-dummy spine; Hyundai discloses dummy-spine posture adjustment about transverse axes; Citroen discloses adjustable-tension vertebral columns. Combining them yields an adjustable lumbar spine for a crash test dummy with selectable fixed angles.

Combination 4 — US6206703B1 (Lear biofidelic seating surrogate) + GM '070/Citroen '801 + indexed-hinge art.
Lear discloses a biofidelic human seating surrogate (adjustable to human postures); substituting/adapting its adjustability into the GM/Citroen ATD spine, with an indexed locking joint, reaches the claims. The Lear '703 and Hyundai '080 lines show the field was actively moving toward adjustable-posture dummies years before the '977 priority date.

Every combination also covers claim 11 (the dummy system claim), which simply wraps claim 1's assembly into a complete crash test dummy — the environment every one of these references occupies. Claim 22 is covered as charted above; its mechanical detail (side walls + pivot bolt + locking screws) is the least inventive part of the claim.

VIII. Motivation to combine (KSR analysis)

1. Same field, same problem. Every reference in Combination 1 is an ATD or dummy-spine design addressing biofidelity — the exact problem the '977 specification poses. The '977 background admits the prior-art deficiency: "In one crash test dummy, a lower lumbar of a spine was fixed and not adjustable." US9564069B2's background is nearly verbatim ("it has been difficult to replicate the human spine for a crash test dummy"), and it already answers that problem with discrete angles and adjustable curvature. The skilled artisan's design space was a single, crowded field.

2. Complementary teachings, no conflict. US9564069B2 teaches what angles to use and why (biofidelity across postures) but uses pre-angled elastomeric elements. US7878080B2 teaches that a dummy spine should be adjustable to different postures and how (pivots about lateral/transverse axes). The indexed hinge teaches how to lock a pivot at a predetermined number of positions. These teachings do not collide; they fill successive gaps. There is no teaching away anywhere in the record — no reference suggests that locking a lumbar joint at discrete angles harms biofidelity.

3. Design incentive. The four postures — "erect," "neutral," "slouched," "super slouched" — map onto seating postures already recognized in the art: the THOR dummy's upright/reclined seating, Hyundai's seat-comfort postures, and (for slumped postures in dynamic testing) the ejection-seat art exemplified by GB2232522A, which describes a dummy spine enabling occupants to "slump" on ejection-seat firing. A dummy that must be repositioned between tests for different prescribed postures demands a repeatable, indexed adjustment — the "different increments … predetermined number of fixed angles" language tracks exactly what an indexed pin-and-hole mechanism does.

4. Obvious to try / predictable variation. There are only a handful of ways to pivot two rigid members about a lateral axis and lock them: a bolt in one of several holes, a pin in a slotted arc, a friction clamp. The '977 mechanism (shoulder bolt pivot + countersunk screws through one of several aligned hole pairs) is the first of those, and it is the mechanism the Sherline tilting table, the Amazon "Tilting Bracket," and tilt-mounting patents in the record use. Selecting four angles (−9°/0°/+9°/+12°) from a continuum is a routine design choice; the specification provides no data showing these values are critical or yield unexpected biofidelity results (indeed it says "more joint angles could be created if necessary," conceding the angles are arbitrary).

5. Same-assignee corroboration. US9564069B2 is Humanetics' own earlier work. Its 2013 publication put the public (and Humanetics' own engineers, including the '977 inventors) on notice of the discrete-angle, adjustable-curvature ATD spine concept. The step from "pre-angled elastomer joints" to "mechanically indexed pivot joint" is the kind of "simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results" KSR holds obvious.

IX. Dependent claims

• Claims 2–8, 12–18 (fastener/joint structure): pivotally connecting first fastener; upper wall + downward side walls; lower wall + upward side walls; plural apertures; second fastener locking one of the joint angles. All are conventional clevis/bracket structure. US7878080B2's lumbar joint housings with transverse shafts, US9564069B2's apertured upper/lower plates with bolts, and the general indexed-hinge art render each of these routine.
• Claims 9 and 19 (−9°/0°/+9°/+12°): selection of four discrete angles from the small, known range of lumbar flexion angles. US9564069B2 discloses four discrete angles (0–6°) and the table of kyphosis/lordosis ranges; the THOR/Hyundai art recognizes erect-vs-slouched postures. Without a showing of criticality, the specific values are unpatentable design choices. (This is the claim pair the EPO family member's opposition most plausibly targeted.)
• Claim 21 (instrumentation interfaces for tri-axial linear acceleration, tri-axial angular rate, bi-axial tilt): mounting accelerometers, angular-rate sensors, and tilt sensors on an ATD spine was conventional — the THOR-NT manual documents such instrumentation; US9564069B2 already teaches replacing vertebra discs with transducers (spine load cells, rib load cells); US7508530B1 and US6982409B2 show ATD measurement systems. Providing "a relatively large generic space" for a DAS is a design choice the '069 application's modular spine already anticipates.

X. Objective indicia of non-obviousness (secondary considerations)

• EPO revocation of the parallel patent — the single most important objective signal. EP3040960B1 (granted May 22, 2019, from the same priority application) is recorded as "Revoked" on the family record. Revocation in EPO opposition typically rests on EPC Art. 100(a), which includes lack of inventive step — the European analogue of § 103. The European search report for the family relied on the THOR-NT manual, the Sherline tilting table, and the "Tilting Bracket" prior art — i.e., the art of record here. While EPO law is not binding on the USPTO or a U.S. court, a finding that the parallel claims lacked inventive step over this art substantially undercuts any claim of non-obviousness and gives a challenger a ready-made, art-based roadmap.
• Long-felt need / commercial success: The specification asserts a "need in the art," but that is applicant advocacy, not evidence. No nexus between the claimed four-angle indexed joint and any commercial success of Humanetics' ATD products appears in the record.
• Copying: The 2026 Humanetics v. Kistler complaint (E.D. Mich. 2:26-cv-13026) is assertion, not evidence of copying, and cannot substitute for the absence of a nexus.
• Unexpected results: None disclosed. The '977 specification offers no comparative data showing that discrete locking of a lumbar joint at −9°/0°/+9°/+12° outperforms the prior flexible-surrogate or adjustable-posture dummies.

On balance, the secondary considerations are neutral to adverse for patentability and, in the EPO revocation, affirmatively supportive of obviousness.

XI. Honest assessment — weaknesses in the obviousness case (and answers)

1. No single reference discloses the full combination. The case necessarily relies on 2–4 references. Answer: KSR permits this; the references are in the same field, complementary, and the combination is predictable. The same-assignee '069 application does most of the heavy lifting, so the combination count is smaller than it appears.
2. Hyundai is a seat-comfort dummy, not a crash test dummy. Answer: It is still a "dummy model" (an ATD-adjacent anthropomorphic device), it is classified in the same G09B23/32 space as the '977 patent, and the record shows Hyundai's own file cites crash-dummy spine art (GB2344922A). A POSITA would treat seat-posture dummies and crash dummies as one design community.
3. The examiner allowed the claims over some of this art. Answer: Allowance is not a § 103 verdict. The record shows the examiner's cited art includes the '069 application and '957 friction-joint application, but the combinations proposed here — particularly '069 + Hyundai '080 + indexed-hinge art, and the reliance on the EP revocation — present grounds and arguments not necessarily addressed in prosecution. And no IPR estoppel exists: no petition has ever been filed, so every ground remains available.
4. The "connected to said upper member" amendment. Answer: This actually helps the obviousness case. The upper member is the thoracic-side structure; attaching the abdomen interface to it (per the spec, to the upper member's lower flanges) is the conventional, obvious placement, and the '069 application already integrates a rib-cage interface onto the spine. The abstract's stale "lower member" language only underscores that the amendment was not a substantive departure from the known art.

XII. Bottom line and practical recommendations

All 22 claims (independents 1, 11, 22 and dependents) are vulnerable under § 103. The strongest petition/defense theory is Combination 1: US9564069B2 (Humanetics' own 2013 publication) + US7878080B2 (Hyundai) + indexed-hinge art (US4200995A; Sherline NPL; tilt-mounting patents) + THOR-NT manual for the abdomen interface. The four-posture feature is a design choice; the mechanical pivot-and-pin structure is textbook; the biofidelity purpose is the field's own stated goal.

Recommended uses:

• If preparing an IPR (deadline ~one year from service of the Kistler complaint): lead with US9564069B2 as primary reference (same assignee — note the § 315/real-party-in-interest analysis and that it is not subject to a § 102(b)(1) grace-period bar, having published 2013-09-26, >1 year before the 2014-12-31 priority date). Pair it with US7878080B2 for the adjustability/pivot-axis teaching and with the Sherline/tilt-mount art or US4200995A for the indexed locking. Include a ground on claims 9/19 based on arbitrary angle selection, and rely on the EPO revocation file as persuasive support.
• If defending in district court: plead § 103 on the same combination; use the EP3040960B1 revocation record and the European search report (already of record in the family) as the centerpiece; and move for claim construction that keeps the claims at their plain meaning so the prior art maps cleanly.
• Before filing anything: verify (a) the exact service date and docket in Humanetics v. Kistler; (b) the finality and grounds of the EP revocation via the EPO register; and (c) full text of GB2344922A, US6206703B1, US9754514B2, and US20140294485A1 (the four references I could not fully verify in this session) to round out alternative Combinations 2–4.

Verification links: US9564069B2 (https://patents.justia.com/patent/[9564069](/patent/9564069)), US7878080B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7878080B2/en), US3762070A (https://uspto.report/patent/grant/[3762070](/patent/3762070)), US3962801A (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US3962801](/patent/US3962801)), EP revocation status and European search report via the Google Patents family record for US9965977B2 and the EPO register.