US 10180412

I'll search for this patent's records and any 2026 litigation activity.

Summary of US 10,180,412 B2

Note on scope: I searched for the exact identifier 10180412 in the context of U.S. patents and CAFC 2026 dockets. Two hits returned by the second query were different, unrelated identifiers and must not be conflated with this patent: EP application 10180412/10180412.8 (VixS Systems, multimedia stream multiplexing — an EPO/Irish register number) and an EPO Global Index entry. I did not find any CAFC 2026 docket, litigation, IPR, or PTAB proceeding involving U.S. Patent 10,180,412.

Bibliographic data (from the patent text supplied)

Abstract (verbatim, as published): "Provided is a supercritical fluid device equipped with a back pressure regulator for creating a pressurized state in which a mobile phase in a separation/extraction unit of an analysis flow passage is kept in a supercritical fluid state. One end of a pipe is connected to an outlet side of the back pressure regulator, and the other end of the pipe is open to the atmosphere. A heating unit is provided on the pipe, and the heating unit includes a plurality of electrically independent heaters arranged on mutually different portions of the pile along the pipe. A power supply controller is connected to the heaters, and the power supply controller is configured to supply heating power to one or more heaters selected among the plurality of heaters, but to not supply heating power to the other heaters." (The word "pile" appears in the published abstract text; it is plainly a rendering error for "pipe." I have not corrected it in the quotation.)

(Note: the abstract text here differs slightly from the "Definitions"-section phrasing and from claim 1, which reads "portion of the pipe.")

Technical context (why the invention exists)

In SFC/SFE the mobile phase (liquefied CO₂, optionally with an organic modifier such as methanol) is held at ≥10 MPa by a back pressure regulator (BPR). Downstream of the BPR it depressurizes toward atmosphere, and CO₂ vaporizes at roughly 5 MPa, causing adiabatic-expansion/vaporization cooling that can freeze or clog the outlet pipe with dry ice. The patent's core insight is that the vaporization point (and thus the freezing location) is not fixed — it shifts with pipe inner diameter, CO₂ flow rate, and modifier ratio. Experiments reported in the patent (FIGS. 3–5) show the frozen zone moving toward the pipe outlet as flow increases (e.g., ~0–10 cm at 20 mL/min vs. ~1–2 m at 150 mL/min for a 0.8 mm i.d., 2 m pipe), and FIG. 5 shows that uniformly heating the whole pipe over-heats the outlet region while under-heating near the inlet.

Independent claim — plain-language overview

Claim 1 is the only independent claim. In plain terms, it covers a supercritical fluid system having four required elements:

1. A supercritical fluid analysis unit comprising (a) an analysis flow passage with a separation/extraction unit (e.g., a chromatography column or extraction vessel), (b) a fluid feeder with a pump upstream of that unit supplying a mobile phase that becomes supercritical, and (c) a back pressure regulator downstream of the separation/extraction unit that maintains the separation/extraction unit's mobile phase in a supercritical state.
2. A pipe whose one end connects to the outlet side of the BPR and whose other end opens to atmosphere.
3. A heating unit with a plurality of electrically independent heaters at mutually different positions along (i.e., distributed along the length of) the pipe.
4. A power supply controller connected to the heaters and configured to power one or more selected heaters while not powering the others.

The claim then adds a specific control architecture (this is the point of novelty relative to fixed-heating prior art):

• a positional information holder storing data indicating the pipe's freezing portion for multiple parameter sets, each including the pipe inner diameter and the liquefied-CO₂ flow rate in the mobile phase;
• input circuitry to enter a parameter during operation; and
• a control circuit that selectively powers the heater(s) for preventing pipe freezing based on the entered parameter and the stored positional information.

Practically, this claims "look up where the pipe will freeze for my conditions, then energize only that heater (or those heaters)." It is a control-architecture claim, not merely a "heated transfer line" claim, which is consistent with the specification's criticism of U.S. Pat. No. 5,224,510 (BPR heated itself; no outlet pipe heating), US 2011/0094604 (whole wound pipe constantly heated), and JP 2002-71534 (fixed cartridge/trim heater positions).

Dependent claims (2–5) — brief

• Claim 2: The power supply controller includes a switch and a control circuit for controlling power to each heater.
• Claim 3: That switch/control circuit is configured to set a current value (i.e., per-heater current/energization level).
• Claim 4: The heaters are arranged substantially over the entire length of the pipe (the spec defines this as the whole length except where hardware prevents heater placement, e.g., at end fittings).
• Claim 5: The heater is a film heater wound around the pipe (spec: commercially available polyimide film heaters; ~1–10 cm wide segments, spaced 1 mm–1 cm apart; heating controlled to ~10–30 °C, or at least above 0 °C).

Uncertainty / caveats

• I could not access the USPTO PatentCenter or PACER/CAFC docket systems directly; my searches returned no CAFC 2026 activity for this patent. If a 2026 appeal exists, it is not visible to me. The patent's term ended in 2023 for fee nonpayment, which makes 2026 appellate activity unlikely but I cannot rule it out.
• The record lists the "filing date" as 2015-03-19, which is the PCT international filing date (PCT/JP2015/058243); the U.S. national-stage (§371) entry is dated 2017-09-12 in the legal events. Any legal analysis of §102/§103 dates should use the 2015-03-19 priority date.
• Verify current ownership and status against USPTO PatentCenter/Assignment records rather than relying on this summary, since Google Patents' assignee and status fields are expressly stated to be assumptions.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 10,180,412.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Let me try more specific litigation database searches.

Litigation Search Results: US Patent No. 10,180,412

No litigation was found involving US Patent No. 10,180,412.

I searched for the specific patent number across general web sources, patent-litigation aggregators (including the Unified Patents litigation portal, CAFC opinion databases, and PTAB records), and Shimadzu-related court documents. None of the results returned any district court action, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appeal, ITC investigation, or PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR) referencing this patent number.

Please note the following caveats and grounding:

1. Interpretation of the ID is literal. I searched only for US 10,180,412 ("Supercritical fluid device," Shimadzu Corporation). Several searches surfaced unrelated hits that merely contain the string "10180412" (e.g., a UK Companies House incorporation number for "WEBSTAR TECH LTD," a Michigan/Wisconsin Court of Appeals docket, and an unrelated IEEE DOI 10.1109/ISMODE56940.2022.10180412). These are not the patent and I have excluded them. I did not substitute similar patent numbers.

2. What the patent record itself shows. The authoritative Google Patents record for US10180412B2 lists no litigation events in its "Legal Events" tab. Its recorded events are limited to prosecution/administrative matters:

   • 2018-01-25 – Assignment to Shimadzu Corporation
   • 2018-12-22 – Patent grant
   • 2022-09-05 – Maintenance fee reminder mailed
   • 2023-02-20 – Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees / patent expired (effective 2023-01-15)
   • Current legal status: "Expired – Fee Related"

3. No PTAB challenges found. I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition against US 10,180,412. The only post-grant-type citation is the "Cited By" entry US20180111058A1 (Waters Technologies Corporation, "Expansion regulation in carbon dioxide based chromatographic systems") — this is a patent application citation, not a litigation or validity challenge.

4. Why this is plausible. The patent is a narrow, field-specific mechanical/analytical-instrument patent (a heated transfer pipe downstream of a back-pressure regulator in SFC/SFE systems). Such patents rarely generate NPE-style infringement campaigns, and the patent lapsed in 2023 for non-payment of maintenance fees. The absence of litigation is consistent with that profile. Note, however, that the patent's family does include related members (JP6332550B2, CN107430099B, WO2016147379A1), and later-generation Shimadzu patents in this space exist (e.g., US12105065B2, "Mobile phase temperature control device for supercritical fluid apparatus"), but I found no litigation tied to this patent number.

Bottom line

• Plaintiff(s): None identified
• Defendant(s): None identified
• Jurisdiction / Court: None identified
• Case number: None identified
• Filing date: None identified
• Outcome / status: No litigation known

Confidence note: I have high confidence that no indexed litigation names this exact patent. However, because PACER is not fully text-searchable by patent number through public web search and some state/foreign proceedings may not be indexed, I cannot affirmatively rule out a filing that is absent from all public databases. If you require a definitive negative, a paid search of Docket Navigator, Lex Machina, or an RPX/Darts-IP litigation database, plus a direct PACER query, would be the appropriate next step. I did not fabricate any case details.

Recommendation if you need certainty: Verify directly in (a) Docket Navigator / Lex Machina for district court cases, (b) the Unified Patents litigation portal and RPX for NPE activity, and (c) USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and USPTO Patent Center for any post-grant proceedings — none of which I was able to query exhaustively within this search.

I'll verify the structured "no PTAB activity" default against the public record before finalizing.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings on file. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM involving US 10,180,412 as of the most recent ingest, and my independent web searches surfaced no PTAB petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent. The breakdown is therefore: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0 — a bare "no PTAB activity" posture, not a "the patent survived trial" posture. The critical practical point for a defendant is different from the usual PTAB story: this patent is already dead by operation of law, not by adjudication — the ODP record shows Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees entered 2023-02-20 with an effective date of 2023-01-15. Even without a single PTAB filing, claims 1–5 have no enforceable remaining term unless the lapse is petitionably revived.

⚠️ Caveat on the record source. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block is canonical for AIA trials only. It does not, and Google Patents' "Cited By"/"Citations" tables do not, capture ex parte reexamination (35 U.S.C. § 302) or reissue activity. I found no evidence of either for this patent, but I cannot state with high confidence that none exists — that data lives in the file wrapper, which my searches did not reach. Treat "no proceedings" as "no AIA trial proceedings, confirmed."

No proceedings to report

There is no IPR/PGR/CBM number to cite, no petitioner, no panel, no FWD, and no CAFC docket. I will not invent one. The Google Patents page for US10180412B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10180412/en) shows only a cited-by entry — US 2018/0111058 A1 to Waters Technologies Corp., Expansion regulation in carbon dioxide based chromatographic systems (priority 2016-10-25) — which is a later-published application citing this patent, not a validity challenge to it. Do not mistake that row for a PTAB proceeding.

Strategic summary

Claim status. All five claims (1–5) are UNTESTED at the PTAB. Nothing was canceled, nothing was sustained. Claim 1 is the only independent claim — it recites the combination of a supercritical fluid analysis unit with a back pressure regulator, an outlet pipe open to atmosphere, a heating unit of "a plurality of electrically independent heaters arranged on mutually different portions of the pipe along the pipe," and a power supply controller that selectively energizes only some heaters. Claim 1's characterizing feature is the power supply controller comprising a positional information holder holding freezing-portion position data keyed to "an inner diameter of the pipe and a flow rate of liquefied carbon dioxide in the mobile phase," input circuitry, and a control circuit that selectively powers the anti-freeze heater based on the input parameter and the stored positional information. Claims 2–3 add switch/control-circuit and current-value limitations; claim 4 recites heaters "substantially over an entire length of the pipe"; claim 5 recites a film heater wound around the pipe. Note that the originally-filed specification and Figs. 6–7 contemplate simpler manual/switch-based embodiments that are not claimed — the issued claim set is narrower than the disclosure, which is itself an IPR-shaped vulnerability (claim 1 could be attacked over the § 102/§ 103 art cited on the face of the patent, particularly US 4,484,061 (thin-film heater/sensor temperature control) and US 2011/0094606 A1 (Jasco pressure control apparatus for supercritical fluid), without needing the specification's manual-selection embodiments).

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel against anyone, because no IPR reached a final written decision. That cuts both ways: a defendant today faces no estoppel from a prior petitioner, and equally has no prior petitioner's work product to free-ride on. No prior-art ground has been "used up." If the patent were live, the full field of printed publications and patents would be available under §§ 102/103 in a fresh IPR (subject to the § 315(b) one-year bar from service of any complaint).

Pattern signals. No repeat-petitioner pattern, no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) in the chain, and no PTAB appeal history — because there is no proceeding at all. Shimadzu is the original and current assignee and a large-entity patent owner; this is an operating company's instrument patent, not a troll asset. The absence of PTAB activity is consistent with that: this patent appears never to have been asserted in a campaign that would attract a validity challenge, and it lapsed for non-payment before it could become one. The family equivalents — JP 6332550 B2 and CN 107430099 B — are likewise recorded as "Expired - Fee Related" / inactive in the ODP family table, suggesting a broad, deliberate abandonment of the family rather than a single missed annuity.

Recommended next steps

1. Lead with expiration, not with PTAB. The decisive fact for a defendant being asserted against today is that the ODP legal-status record shows the patent expired for failure to pay maintenance fees, with the lapse effective 2023-01-15 and the Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees event entered 2023-02-20 (final lapse event recorded 2023-03-14, effective 2023-01-15). A patent whose maintenance fee lapse is not petitionably cured under 35 U.S.C. § 41(c) / 37 C.F.R. § 1.378 cannot support an infringement claim for the post-lapse period. Verify the current fee/revival status in USPTO Patent Center (link from the Google Patents "USPTO PatentCenter" entry) before relying on it — revival is possible within the statutory window on a showing of unintentional delay, so confirm the window has closed and nothing was revived. (Anticipated statutory expiration had the fees been paid: 2035-03-19.)

2. If the demand letter cites claims 1–5, the response is not an IPR petition — it's the fee record. An IPR would be an expensive way to reach a conclusion the maintenance-fee lapse already supplies. Preserve the ODP legal-events screenshot and the Patent Center fee history as exhibits.

3. Confirm there is no ex parte reexamination or reissue. Because AIA-trial data does not cover these, pull the file wrapper / Patent Center "Transactions" tab for US 15/557,769 (and, for completeness, the PCT/JP2015/058243 international phase) before finalizing any opinion. If a reexam certificate issued, the claim numbering and scope may have shifted — the claims I analyzed above are the as-granted claims of US10180412B2.

4. Diarize the revival question, don't assume it away. If the § 1.378 window is still open (or the lapse is being contested), the risk calculus flips: a live, never-PTAB-tested claim 1 would then be a clean IPR target with no estoppel and no prior FWD to distinguish — and the on-face art (US 4,484,061; JP 2002-071534 A; US 2011/0094606 A1; US 2018/0111058 A1's family) is where I would start.

5. No trial-stage milestones exist to track. With zero institutions, there is no 1-year § 316(a)(11) FWD deadline, no oral hearing, and no PO response clock running on this patent.

Bottom line for a defendant: there is nothing on the PTAB docket for US 10,180,412 — no IPR, no PGR, no CBM, no appeal. The patent has not been "hardened" by surviving trial; it has simply never been tried. But it is the fee lapse, not PTAB, that is your best defense: claims 1–5 were never adjudicated invalid, yet the patent expired for non-payment of maintenance fees effective 2023-01-15. Confirm the revival window is closed in Patent Center, then treat any assertion of these claims as directed to an expired patent.

I'll verify the assignment record against the live sources before writing up.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 10,180,412 B2

Patent: US 10,180,412 B2 — "Supercritical fluid device"
App. No.: 15/557,769 (PCT/JP2015/058243, filed 2015-03-19; WO2016147379A1)
Priority/filing date: 2015-03-19 · Granted: 2019-01-15
Family: JP6332550B2, CN107430099B, WO2016147379A1

Sourcing note: USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) and the legacy Assignment Search (https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) are the authoritative sources. Direct live queries to those databases returned no retrievable records in this session, so the single recorded assignment below is grounded in the Google Patents legal-events block for this patent, which mirrors the Assignment Center data. The correspondent of record for reel 044727/0417 is not exposed in that source and would need to be pulled directly from the Assignment Center abstract page; I flag it as not determinable rather than guessing.

Inventors

Pattern check: No unusual departure pattern. All three inventors assigned to Shimadzu by the same instrument (reel 044727/0417), and the underlying technology is commercialized by Shimadzu (see below). There is no evidence of inventors leaving the original assignee, and no evidence of an inventor-held residual interest being separately monetized — which is the classic precursor to a portfolio fire-sale. Multiple U.S. patents in this family continue to issue to Shimadzu inventors, consistent with a captive corporate R&D group rather than a departing team.

Original assignee

Shimadzu Corporation (Kyoto, Japan) — named as original assignee on the face of the patent and confirmed by the 2018-01-25 recorded assignment abstract (reel 044727/0417).

• Primary business: Analytical and measuring instruments — HPLC/UHPLC, GC, LC-MS/MS, MALDI, and supercritical fluid systems. Shimadzu is a large-entity, publicly listed Japanese corporation (TSE: 7701), not a holding vehicle.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes, with high confidence. Shimadzu ships the Nexera UC analytical and Nexera UC Prep preparative supercritical fluid chromatograph / SFE-SFC systems, which include a back-pressure regulator (SFC-30A back-pressure control unit) feeding a transfer line to a fraction collector — precisely the pipe-downstream-of-BPR architecture the claims address. The claimed selective segmented heating of the BPR outlet line is a commercial implementation detail, not separately marketed, so this is an inference from the product class rather than from a product datasheet.
• Current status: Operating. The patent itself, however, is dead: maintenance fees were not paid, and the patent expired effective 2023-01-15 (USPTO STCH event 2023-02-20, "Patent expired due to nonpayment of maintenance fees under 37 CFR 1.362"). Google Patents status: "Expired – Fee Related."

Assignment timeline

Only one assignment is recorded against US 10,180,412 / application 15/557,769. There are no post-issuance transfers of any kind — no NPE acquisition, no security interest, no merger, no change of name, no release.

• 2017-07-05 (executed) / recorded 2018-01-25 — Reel 044727/0417
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Hiroomi Goto; Risa Kajiyama; Takahiro Mori (jointly, as inventors)
  • Assignee: Shimadzu Corporation (Japan)
  • Correspondent: Not disclosed in the available record set. Assignment Center lists a correspondent attorney/firm of record for every recording; that field was not retrievable here and should be pulled directly from the reel 044727/0417 abstract. Because this is the only link in the chain, the "repeat correspondent" tell is inapplicable by construction.
  • Context: Routine inventor-to-employer assignment — the standard conveyance perfecting Shimadzu's title to work made by its employees. Executed 2017-07-05, i.e. after the PCT national-stage entry and shortly before U.S. publication (US20180074026A1, 2018-03-15); the gap between execution and recording is ordinary corporate docketing lag, not a signal.

Change of name / reissue / correction events: none recorded. The Google Patents "reassignment" entry dated 2018-01-25 is the same reel 044727/0417 recording, not a separate transaction.

Post-grant events of note (not assignments):

• 2018-12-22 — patent grant recorded.
• 2023-02-20 — lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees; expiration effective 2023-01-15.
• 2023-03-14 — FP, lapsed due to failure to pay maintenance fee.

The patent is therefore in the public domain and has been since January 2023. Any downstream assertion against it would be legally foreclosed, which is relevant to the verdict.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10180412
    2015 : PCT application filed by Shimadzu
    2017 : Inventors assign to Shimadzu
    2018 : Assignment recorded reel 044727 0417
         : US application publishes
    2019 : US patent granted
    2023 : Patent expires for unpaid maintenance fee

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No transfer out of Shimadzu is recorded. The sole assignee is an operating Japanese instrumentation manufacturer, not an "IP / Holdings / Ventures" vehicle, and no registered-agent or single-member-LLC address appears anywhere in the chain (reel 044727/0417 is the only entry).

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither the assignor (three Shimadzu engineers) nor the assignee (Shimadzu Corporation) appears on any public NPE list. No Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, or Spangenberg entity appears at any point.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / inapplicable. The chain has exactly one recorded link (reel 044727/0417), and the correspondent field was not retrievable from the sources available in this session. Recurrence requires at least two appearances; one link cannot establish a pattern. This is a data gap, not a negative finding — the field should be read from the Assignment Center abstract before this signal is closed out.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Zero transfers in the 24 months following the inventor assignment, and zero transfers ever. The chain is one hop long.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No infringement suit naming US 10,180,412 has been identified in the sources consulted, and the only assignment predates grant; there is no transfer positioned within 6 months of a filing.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Shimadzu is not in Chapter 7 or 11 and has no SEC-registered U.S. parent filing indicating distress. The patent lapsed for nonpayment of a maintenance fee — a routine cost/benefit abandonment decision by a large portfolio holder, which is not a fire-sale and transferred nothing.

7. Privateering — not present. Shimadzu retained title throughout and transferred nothing to an assertion vehicle. There is no evidence of an NPE asserting on Shimadzu's behalf against competitors; the only downstream citations in the record (e.g., US20180111058A1, Waters Technologies) are ordinary patent citations, not assignments or assertions.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at Shimadzu, then terminates entirely (expiry, 2023-01-15).

Verdict

Insufficient data — by the letter of the category definition ("no records, or only the original assignment"): the only recorded conveyance is the 2017-07-05 inventor-to-employer assignment recorded at reel 044727/0417 on 2018-01-25, and there are no post-issuance assignments to analyze.

That said, the substantive ownership read is unambiguous and points the opposite direction from an NPE: title never left Shimadzu Corporation, a large operating instrumentation manufacturer that commercializes the underlying SFC architecture in its Nexera UC / Nexera UC Prep line, and the patent expired effective 2023-01-15 for nonpayment of maintenance fees (USPTO STCH, 2023-02-20). There is no shell transfer, no asserter, no cascading chain, no litigation-driven transfer, and no defensive aggregator. The one unresolved item is the correspondent of record for reel 044727/0417, which the sources consulted did not expose — that field is worth reading directly off the Assignment Center abstract to formally close signal #3, though with a single-link chain it cannot by itself elevate this to an NPE finding.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "10180412" or application "15/557,769") and https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10180412B2](/patent/US10180412B2)/en (Legal Events).

Caveat on confidence: live queries to the USPTO Assignment Center and legacy Assignment Search returned no retrievable records in this session, and web searches surfaced no assignment record beyond the one reflected in the Google Patents legal-events block. The single-assignment finding is grounded in that mirror of the Assignment Center data. If a marginal post-issuance recording exists that Google Patents has not ingested, it would not appear here; the correspondent field in particular should be confirmed at the primary source before relying on signal #3.

I'll research this systematically. Let me start by confirming the target patent and then examining each cited reference.

Now let me examine the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 10,180,412 B2

1. Target patent (confirmed)

Claim set (for the §102 mapping below)

• Claim 1 — SFC/SFE analysis unit (separation/extraction unit; pump-fed mobile phase; back-pressure regulator (BPR) maintaining supercritical state) + a pipe with one end on the BPR outlet and the other open to atmosphere + a heating unit of plural electrically independent heaters at mutually different positions along the pipe + a power-supply controller that powers only selected heater(s) and not the others, wherein the controller comprises (i) a positional information holder holding freezing-position information for plural parameter sets including pipe inner diameter and liquefied-CO₂ flow rate, (ii) input circuitry, and (iii) a control circuit that selectively powers the anti-freeze heater(s) based on that input and stored information.
• Claim 2 — controller has a switch and control circuit per heater.
• Claim 3 — switch/control circuit set a current value.
• Claim 4 — heaters arranged substantially over the entire pipe length.
• Claim 5 — heater is a film heater wound around the pipe.

Method note: Below I use the citation lists exactly as they appear on the granted patent ("Citations (7)" / "Patent Citations (10)") plus the three "Patent Documents" named in the specification. Where I could retrieve a reference's text I quote/paraphrase it; where I could only retrieve title + dates I say so. Under 35 U.S.C. §102 a single reference must disclose every element of the claim, so my §102 column states when a reference is really a §103 (obviousness) reference rather than an anticipatory one.

2. Examiner-cited prior art (10 references)

2.1 US 4,484,061 A — "Temperature control system for liquid chromatographic columns employing a thin film heater/sensor"

• Inventors/assignee: Richard J. Zelinka, Carl W. Sims / Sys-Tec, Inc. (Minneapolis, MN)
• Dates: filed 1982-05-13 (Ser. 6/377,627); granted 1984-11-20
• IPC: H05B 1/02, G01N 31/08, F16L 53/00, F24H 1/12
• Description (retrieved): A foil-patterned thin-film heater element (46) and sensor element (48) laminated between polyimide (Kapton®)/PTFE layers, spiral-wrapped onto a chromatographic column; pre- and post-column versions; FIG. 4c shows a multi-zoned embodiment with two heater elements (46a, 46b) and two sensors (48a, 48b), and the specification states power "would be applied in a stepped or time phased relationship relative to the individual heater elements… to provide for multiple or profiled heat zones and/or the delivery of time phased power thereto." Tubes cited "from 0.5 mm to 25.4 mm inside diameter and 75 to 500 mm in length."
• §102 assessment: This is the closest structural teaching of the segmented-heater concept (relevant to claims 1 [heating unit], 2, 4, 5), but it is an HPLC column heater — it discloses no supercritical mobile phase, no back-pressure regulator, no pipe open to atmosphere, and no positional-information holder keyed to pipe ID/CO₂ flow rate. It therefore does not anticipate claim 1–5; it is properly an obviousness (§103) reference against the heater-element features of claims 1, 4 and 5.

2.2 JP 2002-071534 A — "Method and apparatus for collecting a sample from a fluid stream"

• Applicant: Berger Instruments Inc.; filed/priority 2000-06-26; published 2002-03-08
• Description: Japanese publication of the Berger SFC rapid-collection family (see 2.3); concerns collecting sample fractions from an SFC fluid stream and handling the post-BPR effluent.
• §102 assessment: Relevant only to the preamble of claim 1 (SFC + BPR + collection path). No plural independently-controlled heaters on the pipe and no positional-information holder → does not anticipate any claim.

2.3 US 2002/0139752 A1 — "Rapid sample collection in supercritical fluid chromatography"

• Inventor: Terry A. Berger; filed 2000-06-26; published 2002-10-03
• Description: SFC rapid fraction collection; addresses handling/vaporization of the post-BPR effluent (US family counterpart of JP 2002-071534).
• §102 assessment: Same as 2.2 — not anticipatory; background only.

2.4 US 2008/0010956 A1 — "Process flowstream collection system"

• Inventor: Kimber D. Fogelman; filed 2006-07-17; published 2008-01-17
• Description: CO₂-based chromatography collection train downstream of the BPR, using a gas–liquid separator and a heat exchanger. The related EP family member (EP 2,344,873 B1) expressly claims a "heat exchanger (25) on the flow stream following the first back-pressure regulator (10)" — i.e. a single, fixed-position heater.
• §102 assessment: Discloses post-BPR heating of the effluent/collection line but at one fixed location; no plurality of independently selectable heaters and no positional-info-based selection → does not anticipate any claim (relevant to the problem statement).

2.5 JP 2009-544042 A — "Process flow stream collection system"

• Applicant: Thar Instruments, Inc. (サー インスツルメンツ); filed/priority 2006-07-17; published 2009-12-10
• Description: Japanese counterpart of 2.4/2.6.
• §102 assessment: Same as 2.4 — not anticipatory.

2.6 US 7,964,029 B2 — "Process flowstream collection system"

• Assignee: Thar Instrument, Inc.; filed 2006-07-17; granted 2011-06-21
• Description: Granted US version of the Fogelman/Thar collection system (gas–liquid separator + heat exchanger downstream of BPR).
• §102 assessment: Same as 2.4 — not anticipatory (single fixed heater; no selective multi-heater control).

2.7 US 8,965,187 B2 — "Electric heating system for a fluid line system"

• Assignee: Voss Automotive GmbH; filed 2009-03-20; granted 2015-02-24
• Description: Electrically heatable media line (automotive field, e.g. urea/SCR lines) with plural heating circuits/control of energization. (Title/assignee/date confirmed; full text not retrieved in this session — treat the internal detail as lower confidence.)
• §102 assessment: The disclosed concept of energizing selected segments of a fluid line with a controller is conceptually related to claim 1's "supply power to one or a plurality of heaters… but not to the other heaters," but the reference is in an unrelated art and lacks the SFC unit, BPR, and above all the positional-information holder keyed to pipe inner diameter + liquefied-CO₂ flow rate. Does not anticipate claim 1–5. Possibly a §103 secondary reference on the switching/control feature.

2.8 US 2011/0094606 A1 — "Pressure Control Apparatus For Supercritical Fluid"

• Inventors: Takeshi Kanomata, Kazuharu Okubo, Seiji Horioka; Assignee: Jasco Corporation
• Dates: US filing 2010-10-27; published 2011-04-28; priority JP 2009-247535 (2009-10-28); granted as US 8,915,261 B2 (2014-12-23)
• Description (retrieved): A BPR/pressure-control apparatus for SFC/SFE with variable valve-opening-rate control. Notably it discloses a heating member (100) comprising a tubular heat exchanger block (102) through which the post-BPR pipe (104, entrance 106/exit 108) is wound, a cartridge heater (110), cover (112) and temperature sensor (114) to a recovery container (122). It also discloses a table relating pressure, flow rate and composition of the supercritical fluid to gap length — but that table drives valve-opening control, not heater selection.
• §102 assessment: This is the reference the patent's own description calls "Patent Document 2" — the pipe-wound-around-a-heated-block, constantly/fixedly heated approach that the invention improves upon. Because the heating is at a single fixed location and the "table" governs valve stroke (not freezing position/heater choice), it does not anticipate claim 1–5. It is the key §103 reference for the problem being solved.

2.9 JP 2011-118880 A — "Pressure control apparatus for supercritical fluid"

• Applicant: Jasco Corp.; filed/priority 2009-10-28; published 2011-06-16
• Description: Japanese counterpart of 2.8.
• §102 assessment: Same as 2.8 — not anticipatory.

2.10 WO 2014/083839 A1 — "Light guide member" (パナソニック株式会社 / Panasonic)

• Dates: filed/priority 2012-11-30; published 2014-06-05
• Description: Title and apparent subject matter are optical (a light guide member) — facially unrelated to supercritical-fluid hardware.
• §102 assessment: On the face of the title, not anticipatory of any claim, and quite possibly miscited or cited for a narrow structural detail (e.g. a laminated film/layer construction). I cannot confirm its relevance from the material retrieved; flagging low confidence. (Note: this entry's appearance alongside genuinely unrelated numbering, plus the discrepancy noted in §3.2, suggests the citation table should be read with care.)

3. Prior art named in the specification ("Patent Documents 1–3")

3.1 Patent Document 1 — U.S. Pat. No. 5,224,510 — "Valve"

• Date: granted 1992 (high-pressure/counter-pressure control valve, piezo-driven, for SFC/extraction; discusses icing occurring only in a narrow region).
• Description per the patent: the BPR itself is heated with a heater to prevent its outlet opening being clogged/broken by dry ice; the specification notes "there is no description that the outlet side pipe of the back pressure regulator is heated."
• §102 assessment: Directed to heating the valve body, not plural selectable heaters on the downstream pipe → does not anticipate claim 1–5.

3.2 Patent Document 2 — "U.S. Patent Application Publication Specification No. 2011/0094604"

• ⚠️ Identifier discrepancy (reported, not corrected): Searched literally, US 2011/0094604 A1 is titled "Valve assembly for a two handle faucet" (a faucet-valve assembly, IPC F16K), which does not match the description given in US 10,180,412. The behavior described in US 10,180,412 ("a pipe connected to an outlet flow passage of a back pressure regulator is wound around a heat exchange block provided with a cartridge heater… the entire pipe wound around the heat exchange block is constantly heated") matches US 2011/0094606 A1 (Jasco) in §2.8 — i.e. the specification appears to contain an internal citation error (…4604 vs …4606). Per your standing rule I have not auto-corrected this; both readings are flagged.
• §102 assessment: Under the literal reading (faucet valve) there is no relevance at all. Under the intended reading (Jasco, §2.8), heating is fixed/single-location → does not anticipate any claim.

3.3 Patent Document 3 — JP 2002-071534 A

• Description per the patent: "a cartridge heater and a trim heater are provided between a back pressure regulator and a transfer pipe to a fraction collector to completely evaporate the liquefied carbon dioxide… to prevent ice formation on the outside of the transfer pipe… the portion to be heated… is fixed."
• Note: This is the same document as entry 2.2 (Berger Instruments).
• §102 assessment: Fixed heated portion → does not anticipate any claim.

4. Bottom line

No cited reference anticipates any of claims 1–5 under 35 U.S.C. §102. Anticipation requires a single reference disclosing every element, and none of the ten examiner citations (nor the three specification "Patent Documents") discloses the combination required by claim 1 — in particular the positional information holder that stores freezing-position information for parameter sets including pipe inner diameter and liquefied-CO₂ flow rate, together with input circuitry and a control circuit that selectively powers the anti-freeze heater(s).

Closest art, ranked, with the claims they actually bear on:

Confidence/caveats: Descriptions for US 4,484,061, US 2011/0094606 and the Thar/Jasco families are grounded in retrieved text (Google Patents / Justia / EPO–patentimages). Descriptions for US 8,965,187, WO 2014/083839 and the Japanese-language publications rely mainly on title/family data and are lower confidence — the internal disclosure of US 8,965,187 and WO 2014/083839 was not fully retrieved in this session. If you need claim-chart-level precision (e.g. paragraph-level pin-cites for a §102 rejection), the full texts of US 8,965,187, US 7,964,029 and US 2011/0094606 should be pulled from USPTO PatentCenter and read claim-by-claim.

Sources consulted: Google Patents (US10180412B2, US4484061A, US5224510A, US20110094606A1); Justia Patents (US 2011/0094606); patentimages.uspto storage PDFs (US 8,915,261; US 4,484,061; EP 2,344,873 B1); PatentLeaderboard (Shimadzu inventor data).

I'll ground the analysis by pulling details on the key prior-art references identified on the patent page.

Let me check two more references cited on the page that bear directly on the multi-zone heater concept.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,180,412 B2 ("Supercritical fluid device")

Assignee: Shimadzu Corporation | Inventors: Goto, Kajiyama, Mori | Priority/filing: 2015‑03‑19 | Granted: 2019‑01‑15 | Status: Expired – Fee Related (lapsed 2023‑01‑15 for non‑payment of maintenance fees under 37 CFR 1.362)

Sources used: the patent text at https://patents.google.com/patent/US10180412/en (authoritative), plus retrieval of the references cited on the face of that document.

1. Claim construction — where the novelty actually lives

Claim 1 is a combination claim with four structural blocks and one control block:

The specification's own characterization of the problem confirms that (e) is the intended point of novelty: "the position where freezing occurs cannot be determined only by the inner diameter, and varies depending on analysis conditions such as a mobile phase flow rate and a modifier mixing rate." The FIG. 3 data (freezing front at ~0–10 cm at 20 mL/min; 0–1 m at 50; 0.5–2 m at 100; 1–2 m at 150) is the asserted discovery, and FIG. 5 is the asserted demonstration that uniform whole‑pipe heating fails (inlet freezes while outlet overheats).

Critical observation: claim 1 recites no algorithm, no sensor feedback, no accuracy threshold, and no unexpected result. It recites storing a known physical relationship in a memory, accepting an input, and switching heaters accordingly. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), that is precisely the "predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions" that § 103 forbids.

2. The prior art on the face of the patent

3. Mapping each claim element to the art

Elements (a)–(b): Disclosed by PD1, PD2/PD3, and Thar (US 7,964,029 Fig. 9: pump 98, modifier pump 101, column 108, detector 112, BPR 114, transfer tubing 122, collection). Not in dispute.

Element (c) — plural heaters on different pipe portions: PD3 (cartridge + trim heater at fixed positions) and Thar ("one or more heaters, that may be mounted in series") get there structurally; US 4,484,061 supplies the multi‑zone, independently energized tube‑heater architecture verbatim ("additional heater elements 46 and/or associated sensor elements 48 might be formed along the length L"; "power would be applied in a stepped or time phased relationship relative to the individual heater elements 46").

Element (d) — selective energization: US 4,484,061 (stepped/time‑phased power to individual elements) and US 8,965,187 ("the heating output of the individual heating elements is separately controllable and/or adjustable … one electronic switch can be connected in parallel to each heating element").

Element (e) — the parameter‑driven selection block: This is the only contested element, and it is met by the combination of:

• US 2011/0094606 (Jasco): teaches a stored table relating flow rate and composition of the supercritical fluid to a control value, with automatic setting of that value from input parameters — i.e., the architecture of a positional information holder + input circuitry + control circuit in an SFC/SFE context.
• US 8,965,187 (Voss): teaches the same architecture applied to heaters — a stored characteristic diagram/table of parameters driving the selected/individualized heating output of plural heating elements.

Element (e) is therefore a straightforward substitution of the controlled variable (valve gap length → heater subset) within a control architecture that the SFC art already used and the heater art already used.

4. Concrete combinations, with motivation

Combination A (primary): PD3 + US 4,484,061

Replace PD3's fixed cartridge heater + trim heater with the zoned thin‑film heater array of US 4,484,061 wrapped along the BPR‑to‑fraction‑collector pipe, energizing only the zones at the freeze point.

Motivation: (i) Both references are in the same field (supercritical‑fluid / liquid chromatographic transfer‑tube temperature conditioning) and address the same problem — freezing at and downstream of the BPR. (ii) PD3's own fixed‑position heating is the recognized deficiency; the '412 specification states that upstream‑of‑freeze heating forces "a markedly raised temperature of the mobile phase at the location of the heating mechanism," and Thar states the same concern expressly: "Care must be taken … not to allow the actual temperature to rise … since this may cause damage to thermally unstable compounds of interest." (iii) US 4,484,061 supplies the known remedy — partitioning a flow tube into multiple independently powered heating zones — and its stated purpose ("profiled watt density… to ensure the solvent/sample is uniformly heated") is the same purpose. (iv) KSR rationale: using a known technique (zone‑wise tube heating) to improve a similar device (a heated BPR‑outlet pipe) in the same way, with a predictable result.

Combination B: PD2 (heat‑exchange‑block pipe) + PD3 + US 4,484,061

PD2 already discloses heating the pipe downstream of the BPR, i.e., the claimed physical situs. Adding segmentation per US 4,484,061 cures PD2's admitted "entire pipe is constantly heated" inefficiency — the exact deficiency the '412 patent recites.

Combination C (the "wherein" clause): any of A or B + US 2011/0094606 + US 8,965,187

Automate zone selection with a lookup of freezing position vs. pipe ID and CO₂ flow rate, per Jasco's table‑driven control and Voss's stored‑table/individually‑controlled‑heating teachings.

Motivation: (i) Thar expressly teaches that the required heat and the freeze locus are functions of operating conditions: "Higher organic modifier content reduces the severity of this problem, both by adding heat capacity and by dissolving the CO2" and "The degree of CO2 evaporation is a function of both the available heat transfer in this region and the downstream flow restriction." A skilled artisan reading Thar alongside the '412 specification's own FIG. 3 data would recognize the flow‑rate/ID dependence as a known physical relationship, not a discovery. (ii) Jasco demonstrates that SFC instruments routinely accept flow rate/pressure/composition as control inputs and look up setpoints from a stored table. (iii) Voss demonstrates that the same stored‑table approach is applied to select and individually control which heating elements are energized. (iv) The result — energizing the heater at the freeze point — is the predictable consequence of the elements' established functions. (v) The alternative motivations are strong: avoiding sample decomposition (Thar), avoiding energy waste (PD2's constant full‑pipe heating), and reducing dead volume (spec's own "Effects of the Invention").

Combination D (alternative primary): US 7,964,029 (Thar) + US 4,484,061 + US 8,965,187

Thar's Fig. 9 arrangement (BPR 114 → evaporator heater 116 → trim heater 120 → transfer tubing 122) is the claimed apparatus; Thar even recites a controller 101 receiving data from and controlling pumps, detector, heaters 36 and 40, valve 43 and collection container 48. Substituting Voss's individually controllable elements and stored‑table control for Thar's always‑on series heaters is an obvious automation.

5. Dependent claims

• Claim 2 (switch + control circuit per heater) — disclosed by US 4,484,061 ("redundant circuitry that samples and/or controls the temperature in shorter segments at a correspondingly faster rate") and US 8,965,187 (one switch per heating element). Strong obviousness; near‑anticipation.
• Claim 3 (configured to set a current value) — US 8,965,187 (series resistor, PWM control of effective operating voltage/current per element), US 4,484,061 (controller switches power to maintain a selected temperature). Strong.
• Claim 4 (heaters substantially over the entire pipe length) — US 4,484,061 (heater pattern spanning tube length L, profiled/uniform end‑to‑end); PD2 (entire wound pipe constantly heated). Strong.
• Claim 5 (film heater wound around the pipe) — US 4,484,061 is squarely on point: a thin‑film heater/sensor wrapped around a tube, polyimide (Kapton®) laminate, adaptable to 0.5–25.4 mm ID stainless tube, and explicitly "FIG. 4c shows a plan view of a multi‑zoned thin film heater." The '412 specification itself concedes the heaters are "commercially available polyimide heaters" spaced along the pipe. Closest to anticipation of any claim.

6. Anticipated counter‑arguments and their weaknesses

1. "The art teaches only fixed‑position heating; the freeze point moves with flow rate." This is the patentee's best argument, and it is not fully answered by PD1–PD3 alone. It fails, however, because (a) Thar expressly ties the required thermal conditioning to modifier content, flow velocity and downstream restriction; and (b) the "where the freeze occurs" relationship in FIG. 3 is ordinary Joule‑Thomson/pressure‑drop physics (CO₂ vaporizes where line pressure falls below ~5 MPa), i.e., a known engineering relationship, and the specification admits as much ("the vaporization point varies depending on the pipe inner diameter" is stated as a matter of principle, not as a discovery). Discovering a parameter that was always in the art is not inventive under In re Kao / KSR.
2. "Prior art teaches away because PD2/PD3 heat the whole pipe." Heating an entire pipe is not a teaching away from heating part of it; it is at most a sub‑optimal embodiment that the reference itself does not disclaim. In re Fulton — mere disclosure of one working embodiment does not teach away.
3. "No motivation to modify a chromatography heater (US 4,484,061) into an SFC post‑BPR line." Weak: US 4,484,061 contemplates post‑column heaters on the same instrument family, and both Thar and the examiner treated column/transfer‑line heating as the same art. KSR permits combination of references "designed to address the same problem."
4. Secondary considerations. None is presented in the patent. There is no comparative data beyond the FIG. 4/FIG. 5 photographs, no unexpected‑results data, and no evidence of copying, licensing or industry praise. The patent lapsed for non‑payment of maintenance fees effective 2023‑01‑15, which undercuts any commercial‑success narrative.

7. Bottom line

The single most useful reference on this patent's own face is US 4,484,061, which the examiner cited but apparently did not apply to the point of novelty; US 8,965,187 (stored characteristic‑diagram table + individually controllable heating elements) is the reference that most directly undermines claim 1's "positional information holder / input circuitry / control circuit" limitation.

8. Caveats and confidence limits

• I did not retrieve the full text of US 2011/0094604 or US 5,224,510 as the specification characterizes them. As noted in §2, the retrieved US 5,224,510 is titled "Valve" and does not, in the text I obtained, show an electric heater on the BPR; and US 2011/0094604 does not appear in the face‑of‑patent citation list, where US 2011/0094606 (Jasco) appears instead. I have deliberately not auto‑corrected these numbers. Any rejection should verify the correct document before relying on the specification's characterizations of PD1 and PD2.
• Two references cited on the face of the patent (WO 2014/083839 A1, "Light guide member," and possibly others) appear misclassified relative to the subject matter and should not be used.
• US 2018/0111058 A1 (Waters, "Expansion regulation in carbon dioxide based chromatographic systems") has a 2016‑10‑25 priority date and is therefore not prior art to the 2015‑03‑19 priority date; it is cited only as "Cited By."
• This is a technical § 103 analysis, not a legal opinion; obviousness is ultimately a question of law on the whole record, including objective indicia not present here.