US 10324024

I'll search for the patent and any associated litigation/docket records.

Let me check for any litigation, PTAB, or CAFC activity involving this patent specifically.

Summary: US Patent 10,324,024 (US10324024B2)

Search note / scope of confidence. I searched for this exact number and for related terms. The results returned only the patent's own Google Patents record (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10324024B2/en) plus unrelated documents that merely happen to contain the digit string "10324" (a Spanish geodetic "Línea 10324" record, a P&G appellate brief citing App. No. 14/933,024, and a '240 patent in an unrelated inflatable-pool IPR). I found no district-court docket, no PTAB proceeding, and no CAFC 2026 docket involving US10324024. I cannot treat the absence of hits as proof none exists — my search tools are not a live, complete PTAB/CAFC docket database — but there is no evidence of litigation, so I flag that as unverified rather than as "no litigation exists."

Almost everything below is taken from the authoritative full text of the patent supplied in this task; where that text is incomplete I say so.

Bibliographic data

Legend dates are as listed by the source and are stated there to be assumptions, not legal conclusions.

Abstract (verbatim from the record)

"Embodiments relate generally to methods, systems, devices and applications for use in relation to the detection of chemical vapours. A particular embodiment relates to a device for chemical vapour sensing. The device comprises a housing of a size to be manually portable, the housing defining a plurality of receptors adapted to receive a respective plurality of manually replaceable chemical vapour sensing components. The device further comprises at least one signal receiver to receive data signals from each chemical vapour sensing component when the chemical vapour sensing component is positioned in one of the receptors."

Plain-language overview

The invention is a portable, wearable chemical-vapour alarm. A hand-held (or body/headgear-mounted) housing holds a bank of eight user-swappable "sensor nodes" in receptors arranged radially around a central fan and plenum. Each node contains a colour-change (or fluorescence/resistance/capacitance-changing) substrate — e.g. doped filter paper or TLC plate — held in a double-reflection light path between an LED and a photodiode. The fan pushes an equal, one-directional air stream into each node so vapours reach the substrates without cross-contaminating neighbouring nodes. Each node carries an ID component (e.g. a resistor of unique value) so the device can auto-identify and auto-calibrate it. A processor tracks both the light-intensity signal and its rate of change (gradient) and triggers an audible/visual/tactile alarm only when both a threshold level and a threshold gradient are exceeded — this suppresses slow-drift false positives. When several nodes trip, a stored cross-reactivity lookup table is used to deconvolute which actual vapour was present. Nodes are consumables shipped in dark, controlled-atmosphere packaging.

Independent claims — plain language (with an important caveat)

⚠️ Caveat: the retrieved text of this patent contains a claim-style listing (rendered as a "Definitions" section) but the bodies of the independent claims are truncated in what was captured — the preambles and many element recitations are missing, and only the dependent-style refinements ("the housing may further define…", "the processor may be further configured to…") survive. I therefore cannot give verbatim claim language, exact claim numbering, or claim counts with confidence. The following characterises the four independent claims by their subject matter, reconstructed from the abstract, the surviving dependent language, and the specification (esp. FIGS. 1–20). Treat wording as my paraphrase, not as the claims.

1. Device claim (base) — A chemical-vapour sensing device: a housing sized to be manually portable; the housing defines a plurality of receptors each adapted to receive a respective manually replaceable chemical-vapour sensing component (a cartridge/node); and at least one signal receiver to receive data signals from each sensing component when it sits in a receptor. (This mirrors the abstract verbatim; the surviving dependent additions include the air-distribution plenum, a plenum filter for particulates, receptors arrayed radially around the plenum, substantially equal air distribution to each receptor, the fan/air-forcing mechanism run at <100% duty cycle, memory, processor, coated PCB carrying processor and receiver, threshold and rate-of-change alarm logic, alarm output and indication components, node-presence detection, node ID read and calibration, wireless communication component with low-power mode, environmental (temperature/humidity) sensor used for electronic filtering, sensing-component retention mechanism, power source/rechargeable battery, cover, and clothing/vehicle/structure attachment.)

2. Device claim (airflow/plenum variant) — A chemical-vapour sensing device as above, further comprising a mechanism for forcing air through the plenum so as to distribute air to each receptor. The surviving dependent text describes the fan/forcing mechanism driving air through the plenum to each receptor. (Distinguished from claim 1 principally by the active air-distribution element.)

3. Sensing-component (consumable node) claim — A replaceable sensing component for sensing chemical vapours: a housing defining an airflow path; a sensing element comprising a first substrate whose property (e.g. colour) changes on contact with a target vapour; a light-emitting component directing light at the substrate; a photo-sensitive/sensing element producing a signal from light received from the substrate; and a signal coupling portion (e.g. a set of electrical contacts) to output signals to a carrier device. Dependent features recorded include: a processor on the component; a PCB carrying the sensing element and coupling portion; an airflow diversion member / wall-like barrier to induce turbulence and reduce light crosstalk; identification circuitry (e.g. a component of predetermined value) for electronic identification; colour-change substrate; reflective and transmissive light-path arrangements; tuneable LED and/or tuneable photodiode (visible or non-visible); broad-spectrum or multiple light sources; <100% LED duty cycle; a second substrate (first and second substrates at 60–120°, preferably ~90°; LED to first substrate at 30–60°, preferably ~45°; second substrate to sensing element at 30–60°, preferably ~45°); a calibration element / feedback photodiode whose output controls LED brightness; hydrophilic/superhydrophilic (oxygen-plasma) or superhydrophobic surface treatments on optical components; substrate with structural layer saturated in dopant; sensing element as an array of sub-elements tuned to different wavelengths; substrate as an array of sections each reacting to a different vapour; human-readable target-vapour label; and a seal for the interface with the carrier device.

4. Method claim — A method of chemical-vapour sensing comprising receiving data signals indicative of a property of each of a plurality of substrates (each in a respective replaceable sensing component), monitoring the values and their rates of change, and determining an alarm condition when the value and/or its rate of change reach predetermined thresholds. Surviving dependent steps include: storing identification data for the substrate type that triggered; identifying when more than one substrate (and its rate of change) crosses its threshold; identifying the chemical vapour from the set of triggered substrates; and doing so by comparing the identified substrates against a predetermined data set / lookup table.

A kit claim (device + sensing component) is also indicated by the text ("kits comprising a device according to some embodiments and a sensing component according to some embodiments"), whose independence I cannot verify.

Key specification facts worth carrying forward

• Eight nodes per bank (ammonia, Cl₂, H₂S, SO₂, HCN, NO₂, PH₃, HCl in the illustrated embodiment); devices can be linked to expand coverage; deconvolution table example at FIG. 18.
• Example trigger tolerances: intensity change of ±5% and gradient change of ±0.05, with a moving 30-second window.
• Target device weight <500 g (may be <100–400 g); node weight 5–50 g (≈20 g).
• Fan: <20 L/min (0.1–10 L/min, ≈1.5 L/min), 5,000–30,000 rpm (≈15,000 rpm), duty cycle <100%.
• Response time <10 minutes; sampling 30 Hz down to once per 30 s (≈1 Hz).
• Processor example: Atmel AT91SAM7X256; 12-bit ADC oversampled to 16 bits; Nordic nRF240x / ShockBurst 2.4 GHz wireless at 1 Mbps; photodiodes Advanced Photonix PDB-C154SM (blue enhanced); multispectral option PixelTeq 8-band converter (component 102387277).
• Substrate chemistry examples: bromophenol blue/DMAc on silanised silica TLC for ammonia; lead(II) acetate on Whatman #1 for H₂S; sodium nitroprusside + sodium carbonate for SO₂; Congo Red for HCN.

Bottom line on the docket question

For US10324024 specifically: no PTAB petition, no district-court case, and no CAFC 2026 appeal surfaced in my searches. The only USPTO/assignment activity the record shows is routine: the 2017-07-17 reassignments splitting rights between The Commonwealth of Australia (Pavey, Fitzgerald) and Catapult Group International Pty Ltd (Huberts, Pahl, Stevens, Van de Griendt), and the 2019-06-18 grant. If you need a definitive litigation history, verify against the USPTO PatentCenter/PTAB and CAFC PACER-style dockets directly rather than relying on this summary.

Confidence statements: bibliographic data, abstract, and technical content — high (from the authoritative full text supplied). Independent-claim wording and numbering — low/moderate, because the captured claim text is incomplete; if verbatim claim language matters (e.g. for an infringement or validity question), obtain the granted claim set from the official USPTO record. Absence of litigation/CAFC activity — unverified.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10324024.

Answer: No known litigation involving US Patent 10,324,024

I searched for litigation specifically tied to US Patent No. 10,324,024 ("Methods and systems for chemical vapour sensing," app. No. 15/507,170, granted June 18, 2019, priority/filing date August 27, 2014). I found no district court complaints, CAFC appeals, or PTAB proceedings naming or asserting this patent.

What I checked and what came back

• Google Patents entry for US10324024B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10324024B2/en) — no "Litigation" or "Related litigation" data, and no listed district court, ITC, or PTAB cases.
• Unified Patents Portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com) — no caselist/PACER record for patent 10,324,024.
• PTAB / USPTO PTACTS — no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition challenging this patent.
• General web/court-record searches for the numbers and the assignees (Commonwealth of Australia; Catapult Group International Pty Ltd; inventors Pavey, Fitzpatrick, Stevens, Huberts, Pahl, van de Griendt) — nothing asserting this patent.

Important — a near-miss that should NOT be counted

A search surfaced Charles Smith Enterprises, LLC v. Catapult Group International Ltd. et al. (D. Del., Case No. 1:21-cv-01278-CFC, filed 9/8/2021). This case is not about US 10,324,024. Per the docket, the Complaint's Report to the Commissioner lists patent U.S. 6,877,010 B2, and the co-defendant is XOS Technologies, Inc. The only overlapping term is "Catapult Group International" as a party name; the asserted patent is different. I am flagging it solely to explain why it appeared in results and to avoid a false match. Its status is peripheral here and I have not verified its current disposition.

Caveats

• Absence of evidence is not proof of absence: I am relying on public litigation aggregators, which can lag or miss recently filed, sealed, or state-court actions, and I did not get a complete PACER docket pull for this patent number.
• I could not run an exhaustive PACER/Unified Patents query to completion within this session, so treat this as "no known litigation" rather than a certified negative.

Conclusion: Based on available public sources, there is no known litigation involving US Patent 10,324,024. If you need a certified negative clearance, I'd recommend a direct PACER docket search on the patent number plus a Docket Navigator/Unified Patents lookup, and I can help draft that query.

I'll verify the structured data against live sources before drafting.

PTAB Proceedings Report — U.S. Patent No. 10,324,024

Patent: US 10,324,024 B2 — "Methods and systems for chemical vapour sensing"
Application: US 15/507,170 · Priority/Filing: 2014-08-27 · Granted: 2019-06-18
Assignee of record: The Commonwealth of Australia (original); Catapult Group International Pty Ltd appears in the assignment chain
Anticipated expiration: 2034-08-27
Source of record for proceedings: USPTO Open Data Portal structured block ("PTAB proceedings on file")

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 10,324,024: zero (0). The USPTO ODP structured block returns no AIA trial proceedings — no IPRs, no PGRs, no CBMs, instituted or otherwise. The breakdown is therefore 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials. The defensive posture this gives a defendant is not "the patent is hardened by surviving PTAB scrutiny" — it is the simpler and different proposition that no challenger has ever tested these claims at the Board, so the patent carries no PTAB-established validity pedigree in either direction. Nothing about the claims has been canceled, narrowed, or confirmed by the PTAB. Equally, nothing has been estopped.

I ran independent web searches to catch proceedings the ODP ingest may have missed and found none attributable to this patent.

False-positive warning — do not be misled by "the '024 patent." PTAB and litigation documents refer to a great many unrelated patents as "the '024 patent." Hits that surface on a keyword search and do not concern US 10,324,024 include: US 8,669,240 (Spectrum Solutions v. Longhorn Vaccines, IPR2021-00854 and siblings — adverse judgment on claims 1–35); US 10,313,024 (optical subassembly art, Cambridge Industries USA); US 11,386,024 (memory-module art); US 10,629,024 (Light & Wonder v. Evolution Malta roulette patents); and US 9,689,024 (10X Genomics / Bio-Rad microfluidics, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1100). None of these is the patent at issue here. I flag this because a sloppy clearance search on "'024 PTAB" will produce a confident but wrong answer.

Proceedings detail

There are no proceedings to detail. No {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} — {Petitioner} v. {Patent Owner} sections follow, because none exist on the record.

Rather than fabricate entries, here is what is affirmatively absent from the record:

• No petition has ever been filed against US 10,324,024 at the Board, per the ODP structured data.
• No institution decision, Final Written Decision, termination, or appeal therefore exists for this patent number.
• No Federal Circuit appeal of any PTAB decision on this patent exists — there is no such decision to appeal. (Any CAFC hits for "10,324,024" would be coincidental docket-number matches, not patent references; I found none bearing on this patent.)

Strategic summary

Claim status: every claim is UNTESTED. US 10,324,024 issued with a claim set that (per the specification's summary of embodiments) spans a portable multi-receptor sensing device, replaceable sensing-node cartridges, substrate/optics arrangements, calibration, alarm logic, and deconvolution methods. Not one claim has been canceled, confirmed, disclaimed, or construed by the PTAB. There is no narrowing to point to. A defendant today faces the patent exactly as it emerged from prosecution, with all claims live and the ordinary statutory presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282 intact — but with no administrative adjudication on either side of the ledger.

Estoppel landscape: a blank slate. Because no IPR or PGR was ever instituted, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel is not triggered against anyone — not the patent owner, not any would-be petitioner, not any privy. Every prior-art ground that could have been raised remains available to a defendant or petitioner today, including art that a prior petitioner would have been estopped from re-running had a trial been instituted. Conversely, there is no petitioner-side record to borrow from: no institution decision's claim constructions, no FWD's obviousness rationale, and no expert record to cite in a § 282 challenge or a motion to stay. A defendant contemplating an IPR starts from scratch on § 102/§ 103, § 112, and any § 101 theory, with no § 325(d) baggage from earlier petitions and no risk of "same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously presented to the Office."

Pattern signals: none. No serial petitioner, no defensive aggregator, no patent-owner appeal campaign. This is a patent with an unusual owner profile — a sovereign (the Commonwealth of Australia) as original assignee, with Catapult Group International Pty Ltd in the assignment chain — which is a meaningful predictor of enforcement behavior: sovereign and government-linked owners often enforce through procurement leverage, government contracts, or targeted litigation rather than broad licensing campaigns, and are correspondingly less likely to attract the defensive-aggregator IPRs (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) that generate most "no-PTAB-activity" data points for high-volume assertion patents. There is likewise no evidence in my searches of an active district-court or ITC assertion campaign that would ordinarily pull IPR petitions in behind it.

Caveat on confidence. The absence of PTAB activity is stated with high confidence for the indexed record, but "no IPRs" is a negative finding, and negative findings from a search-based pipeline are weaker than positive ones. A recently filed petition that has not yet been indexed would not appear. I found no such petition, and I have flagged the search term collision ("'024 patent") that would make a missed filing easy to confuse with an unrelated one.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant and are being accused of infringement: there is no FWD to link to, no canceled claim to lean on, and no PTAB disposition to quote. Your invalidity case must be built independently. The upside is that no ground is barred by § 315(e)(2), and no § 325(d) discretion cuts against a first-filed petition.
• Run a fresh docket check before relying on this memo. Verify via PTAB E2E / PTAB Center (https://ptacts.uspto.gov) and Patent Public Search that no petition has posted since the ODP ingest date. A newly filed IPR will not show in the structured block until it is indexed.
• Time a petition deliberately. If you intend to file, note the § 315(b) one-year bar running from service of a complaint alleging infringement — and note that a PTAB trial carries a statutory one-year deadline from institution under § 316(a)(11) to reach FWD, which is the scheduling anchor for any stay motion.
• Investigate the enforcement posture before assuming this patent is dormant. "No PTAB activity" is a strong signal that the patent has not been broadly asserted, but confirm by checking district-court dockets (CourtListener RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=r&q=%2210%2C324%2C024%22) and any government-procurement disputes, given the Commonwealth of Australia / Catapult ownership chain.
• Do not cite the unrelated '024 patents identified above in any brief, demand letter, or clearance opinion. Confirm every "'024 patent" hit by patent number, owner, and subject matter before relying on it.

I'll research the assignment record for US 10,324,024 using the USPTO Assignment Center and related sources.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records and the assignee entities.

Let me try to locate the specific reel/frame records and correspondent data.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US Patent 10,324,024

Data-access caveat up front: I attempted to pull the reel/frame, correspondent-of-record, and exact execution dates from the USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) and its indexed mirror. My session was cut off before I could complete those lookups, and targeted web queries for the reel/frame returned no usable records. I therefore cannot report a verified reel/frame, recorded execution date, or correspondent attorney name for any assignment below. Everything I state is grounded either in the patent's own Google Patents legal‑events table (authoritative per the source text) or is explicitly flagged as unverified. I have not fabricated any reel/frame, correspondent, or date.

Inventors

Unusual pattern observed — but not the classic one. The filing-date split of inventor assignment (recorded 2017‑07‑17) shows a joint development between a sovereign government entity and a private operating company, not the "all inventors depart within 12 months" precursor to a fire-sale. Two inventors (Pavey, Fitzgerald) assigned to the Commonwealth; four (Huberts, Pahl, Stevens, Van de Griendt) assigned to Catapult; and Catapult simultaneously assigned its interest to the Commonwealth. The net result is co-ownership between the Commonwealth of Australia and Catapult Group International Pty Ltd, consistent with Google Patents' "Current Assignee" field listing both entities. I could not verify the underlying agreements (e.g., a research-collaboration or CRADA-style arrangement), so the reason for the cross-assignment is not established from evidence.

Original assignee

Per the patent header, the original assignee is the Australian Government (application filed 2014‑08‑27 by "Australian Government"). The current-assignee field names Catapult Group International Pty Ltd and the Australian Government jointly.

• Commonwealth of Australia / Australian Government — sovereign entity; likely the Defence science organisation. It is not a commercial shipper of the claimed device. Status: operating (government); not dissolved, not bankrupt.
• Catapult Group International Pty Ltd (ASX: CAT) — Melbourne-founded sports-performance analytics company (wearables, "Catapult Vector"; Pro Video platform). Per its own fact sheet it is operating and public (listed 2014), ~US$84M revenue FY23, 400+ employees. Important: Catapult's products embody athlete-tracking inertial/GPS technology, not chemical-vapour sensing. I found no Catapult product in commerce that embodies the claims of US 10,324,024, so the private co-owner is not an operating-company that practises this patent's claims.

Context flag: The prior litigation summary for this patent records no litigation on US 10,324,024, but notes that Catapult Group International was a defendant in Charles Smith Enterprises, LLC v. Catapult Group International Ltd. (D. Del. 1:21‑cv‑01278), which asserted a different patent (U.S. 6,877,010). That makes Catapult, if anything, an NPE target in unrelated sports-video tech — not an asserter here.

Assignment timeline

Chronological, as reflected in the patent's Google Patents legal-events table. No reel/frame numbers or correspondents could be verified — that data is missing, not absent.

• Executed date: not retrieved / recorded 2017‑07‑17 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment (per Google Patents "reassignment" event)
  • Assignor: Catapult Group International Pty Ltd
  • Assignee: The Commonwealth of Australia
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: internal reorg / collaboration unwind — Catapult assigned its interest to the government co-owner.

• Executed date: not retrieved / recorded 2017‑07‑17 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignors: Nicholas John Fitzgerald; Karl David Pavey (individuals)
  • Assignee: The Commonwealth of Australia
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: inventor-to-employer assignment — Commonwealth-side inventors perfecting title.

• Executed date: not retrieved / recorded 2017‑07‑17 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignors: John Thomas Huberts; Anthony Andrew Pahl; Craig Jason Stevens; Igor Henricus Van de Griendt (individuals)
  • Assignee: Catapult Group International Pty Ltd
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: inventor-to-employer assignment — Catapult-side inventors perfecting title.

• 2019‑06‑18 — Application granted (US 10,324,024 B2 published). No assignment event.

• 2034‑08‑27 — Anticipated expiration (20 years from filing). No assignment event.

There is no post-issuance transfer chain. After the three 2017‑07‑17 records, no further assignments appear. That means the patent has not been transferred to any third party since grant on the records I could reach.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10324024
    2014 : Application filed by Australian Government
    2017 : Pavey and Fitzgerald assign to Commonwealth
         : Catapult inventors assign to Catapult
         : Catapult assigns its interest to Commonwealth
    2019 : Patent granted
    2034 : Anticipated expiration

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. No "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" assignee appears. The two owners are a sovereign government and a public operating company (Catapult, ASX: CAT). No single-purpose Delaware/Texas LLC, no registered-agent-service address in the record I reached.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Neither owner matches any public NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, etc.). Catapult is a defendant, not an asserter, in the one nearby case.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / not assessable. I could not retrieve any correspondent-of-record name for the three 2017 records, so recurrence cannot be tested. This is a data gap, not a negative finding.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. All recorded transfers are concentrated on a single date (2017‑07‑17) and resolve into a stable two-party co-ownership; nothing chain-hops through successive LLCs.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. No infringement suit names US 10,324,024 (per the litigation summary), and the last recorded assignment (2017) predates grant (2019) by ~23 months, so no 6-month pre-suit transfer exists.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Neither the Commonwealth nor Catapult is in bankruptcy; Catapult remains listed and operating.
7. Privateering — Not present / unclear. No evidence the government transferred to an NPE to assert against Catapult's competitors. The 2017 flow actually consolidates interest toward the Commonwealth, which is the opposite of privateering.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN. (Note: co-ownership by a sovereign government can have a de facto non-assertion flavor, but that is not a defensive-aggregator transfer and I will not score it as one.)

Verdict

Insufficient data — the record contains only the founding 2017‑07‑17 inventor/employer assignments, with no post-issuance transfer chain and with reel/frame and correspondent data unretrieved.

The available evidence is affirmatively NPE-negative: ownership sits with the original collaborators (The Commonwealth of Australia and Catapult Group International Pty Ltd), no shell LLC, no known asserter, no cascading or pre-litigation transfers, and no bankruptcy sale appear in any record I could reach. Because I could not verify reel/frame or correspondent-of-record, and because the last event predates grant, I cannot responsibly call this anything other than insufficient data rather than a clean "operating-company" or "defensive/non-asserting" verdict — though nothing in the chain suggests an NPE pattern.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 10,324,024 / application 15/507,170); cross-check Google Patents legal events — https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10324024B2](/patent/US10324024B2)/en.

Recommended next steps I could not complete this session: (a) a direct Assignment Center query on reel/frame for the three 2017‑07‑17 records to capture the correspondent of record (the single highest-value missing datum — a lone repeat attorney across a phantom chain is the classic NPE tell, and here we simply don't know); (b) confirm the execution dates vs. the recording date; (c) pull the underlying Commonwealth–Catapult research agreement if public, to explain the cross-assignment.

I'll research the prior art citations for US Patent 10,324,024. Let me start with searches.

Let me get the specific citation data for this patent.

I found the patent PDF with the references-cited section. Let me pull the full reference list.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent No. 10,324,024 B2

Heads-up on a limitation of this pass: I was able to retrieve the grant front page and the references-cited block from the issued patent PDF, but I hit my tool-step limit before I could enumerate every entry in the (56) list. The front-page snippet I captured is elided (the fetched text literally contains "…" between entries), so the list below is partial. I am flagging every item I could verify and every item I could not, rather than filling gaps with recollection. A complete PACER-style negative is not what's offered here — this is a "best-available with explicit gaps" answer.

1. The patent under analysis (confirmed, not a similar number)

Sources: Google Patents — https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10324024B2](/patent/US10324024B2)/en ; grant PDF — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/58/ab/b3/8b12f588ba6904/US10324024.pdf

Note: I did not run a direct USPTO PatentCenter/PatFT query; the granted-patent front page (reproduced in the PDF above) is the USPTO record for the "References Cited" block, so that block is the authoritative source I used.

2. References cited on the face of US 10,324,024 (partial list — verified items)

The front page shows a "(56) References Cited" block containing at minimum:

U.S. Patent Documents

Foreign Patent Documents

Other Publications (cited on the front page — these are not prior art themselves, they are the PCT search materials)

• International Search Report, dated Jun. 19, 2015, for PCT/AU2014/000851, 7 pages.
• Written Opinion, dated Jun. 19, 2015, for PCT/AU2014/000851, 10 pages.

Gap disclosure: The list is visibly truncated between entries. There are almost certainly further U.S. and foreign references in the (56) block (and possibly further "Other Publications"). I could not retrieve them within this session, so I cannot state that the above is the complete list of citations. Treat any § 102 conclusion below as provisional pending a full pull of the front page.

3. § 102 analysis of the references I could verify

US 6,085,576 A — "Handheld sensing apparatus" (Sunshine et al.), Jul. 4, 2000

Citation: US 6,085,576 A, granted 7/2000, inventors Sunshine, Steinhall, Boehr, Nakayama. Also published as EP 1064530 A4 (2004) / EP 99912743. Google Patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6085576A](/patent/US6085576A)/en

Brief description (verbatim from the abstract surfaced in search, via CPC listing at patenthub.cn):

"A vapor sensing device that is sufficiently small and lightweight to be handheld, and also modular so as to allow the device to be conveniently adapted for use in sensing the presence and concentration of a wide variety of specified vapors. The device provides these benefits using a sensor module that incorporates a sample chamber and a plurality of sensors located on a chip releasably carried within or adjacent to the sample chamber. Optionally, the sensor module can be configured to be releasably plugged into a receptacle formed in the device. Vapors are directed to pass through the sample chamber, whereupon the sensors provide a distinct combination of electrical signals in response to each. The sensors of the sensor module can take the form of chemically sensitive resistors having resistances that vary according to the identity and concentration of an adjacent vapor. These chemically sensitive resistors can each be connected in series with a reference resistor, between a reference voltage and ground, such that an analog signal is established for each chemically sensitive resistor. The resulting analog signals are supplied to an analog-to-digital converter, to produce corresponding digital signals. These digital signals are appropriately analyzed for vapor identification."

Claims of US 10,324,024 it potentially anticipates (§ 102(b)/pre-AIA § 102(b), published 2000 — more than one year before the Aug. 27, 2014 effective date):

• Independent apparatus claim (claim 1-type): "a housing of a size to be manually portable, the housing defining a plurality of receptors adapted to receive a respective plurality of manually replaceable chemical vapour sensing components… at least one signal receiver to receive data signals from each chemical vapour sensing component when… positioned in one of the receptors." US 6,085,576 discloses the handheld, modular, receptacle-based architecture with releasably-pluggable sensor modules that output electrical data signals that are A/D converted and analysed. This is a strong § 102 candidate for the architectural/structural limitations. The main open question is whether Sunshine's single "sensor module… plugged into a receptacle" is read as teaching a plurality of receptors each receiving a respective replaceable component; the reference is written around a module-in-receptacle arrangement, so anticipate or obviousness (in view of combining multiple receptacles) is the live dispute.
• Claims reciting the signal receiver / communication of data signals to a processor: equally implicated, because Sunshine expressly teaches A/D conversion and digital analysis of the sensor signals.
• Claims reciting the chemistry/optics (colour-change substrate, light-emitting component, photo-sensitive element, double-reflection geometry, hydrophilic/superhydrophobic surface treatments, ID member): NOT anticipated by US 6,085,576 — its sensing modality is chemically sensitive resistors (resistive), not opto-electronic colour-change detection. Any § 102 attack on those dependent claims fails on this reference alone.

US 5,280,273 A — Goldstein, Jan. 1994

I captured only the identifier/date/inventor. I could not verify its subject matter, so I am explicitly not assigning it to any claim under § 102. If it is the vapour/optical-sensing document I suspect it may be, it would be relevant to the sensor-element and light-path claims — but I will not assert that without the text. Recommend retrieving this reference directly before relying on it.

WO 2005/119180 A2 — Dec. 2005

Same situation: identifier and date captured; subject matter not verified; no § 102 mapping offered. Flagged for direct retrieval.

4. Directional significance and caveats

• The strongest confirmed art is US 6,085,576 (Sunshine et al.). It is earlier than the Aug. 27, 2014 effective date by ~14 years and shares the core "handheld, modular, replaceable-sensor-in-receptacle" architecture that forms the independent-apparatus-claim backbone. Expect its principal exposure to be against the broadest structural claims, with the opto-electronic colour-change limitations as the likely point of novelty/differentiation.
• Two of the three captured patent references (Goldstein; WO 2005/119180) are unverified by me and are placeholders pending a full front-page pull. Do not treat this memo as a complete mapping of the (56) list.
• Forward citations are not prior art. Documents that cite US 10,324,024 (e.g., a Swinburne thesis that lists "Pavey, K. D. et al. (2014) 'Methods and systems for chemical vapour sensing', US10324024B2," and the US 6,085,576 family cross-reference table) are not § 102 art.
• No litigation significance here — consistent with the earlier section; nothing in these searches changes that.
• Recommended completion step: pull the full "(56) References Cited" block from the grant PDF (page 1–2 of https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/58/ab/b3/8b12f588ba6904/US10324024.pdf) or the USPTO PatentCenter record for 15/507,170, plus the Jun. 19, 2015 ISR/Written Opinion for PCT/AU2014/000851 (which lists the art the examiner considered). I can then complete a per-reference § 102 mapping, including the unverified items.

Bottom line: Of the citations I could confirm, US 6,085,576 A (Sunshine et al., 7/2000) is the most relevant prior art and the only one I can responsibly tie to a claim under § 102 — principally the portable-housing/multiple-receptor/replaceable-sensing-component/signal-receiver limitations of the independent apparatus claim. US 5,280,273 A (Goldstein, 1/1994) and WO 2005/119180 A2 (12/2005) are confirmed as cited references but their subject matter remains unverified, and the face-of-patent citation list I captured is incomplete.

I'll research prior art relevant to this patent's claim categories before building the obviousness analysis.

Good results. Let me dig into a few specific references and find the patent's own cited art.

§103 Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,324,024 B2

"Methods and systems for chemical vapour sensing"
Effective filing / priority date: 2014‑08‑27 · Granted: 2019‑06‑18 · Anticipated expiry: 2034‑08‑27

0. Scope, caveats, and what "prior art results" I am relying on

Two housekeeping points before the analysis, because they materially affect how much weight you can put on any of it.

(a) The supplied record contains no front-page prior-art list. The Google Patents text captured for US10324024B2 (fetched 2026‑09‑24) does not include a "References Cited," "Cited By," or "Similar Documents" block, and the section the page labels Definitions is not prior art — it is the patent's own summarised embodiment listing ("the housing may further define an air distribution plenum…", etc.). I therefore cannot tell you what the applicant itself cited or what the examiner applied. Everything below is art I identified independently via targeted searching in the relevant field (colorimetric vapour detection, portable cartridge readers, optical reflectance readout, multi-sensor arrays). URLs are given for each.

(b) The independent claim bodies are truncated in the captured text. As flagged in the previously generated Patent Summary section, the preambles and most element recitations of the independent claims do not survive in the record I was given; only the dependent-style refinements do. I therefore cannot give verbatim claim language, exact claim numbering, or claim counts. My analysis is organised around the four independent-claim categories reconstructed there (portable multi-receptor device; plenum/airflow variant; replaceable sensing-node consumable; sensing method). If you need a defensible opinion, pull the granted claim set from USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter first — every mapping below is only as good as the actual claim language.

Legal framework. Because the effective filing date is after 16 March 2013, AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102/§ 103 governs. Prior art is therefore (i) patents, printed publications, public use/on-sale activity before 2014‑08‑27, and (ii) applications effectively filed before that date. Obviousness asks whether the differences between the claims and the prior art would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art ("POSITA") at that date, with the KSR rationales available: express teaching, known design incentive, finite number of predictable solutions, and ordinary creativity. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).

Assumed POSITA. A bachelor's degree in chemistry, chemical, electrical or mechanical engineering (or equivalent) with ~2–3 years' experience in colour-change/optical chemical sensing or portable instrument design, conversant with LED/photodiode reflectance colorimetry, doped-indicator papers and TLC plates, microcontrollers and ADCs, cartridge/socket design, and plenum/manifold airflow distribution. I flag this because the patent is essentially a systems-integration disclosure; the assumed skill level is correspondingly high on integration and low on any single novel physical principle — which is a bad posture for non-obviousness.

An important threshold point. The patent's own background expressly admits the existence and drawbacks of (1) passive colour-change devices ("passive devices which generally work on the principle of colour change chemistry… lightweight and portable, requiring no power and very limited user training, but can be insensitive, slow to react, and may require user intervention… based upon good colour vision"), and (2) active portable electronic detectors (gas chromatographs, IMS, flame photometers, photoionization detectors, IR/Raman spectrometers). Under In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297 (CCPA 1982), and Riverwood Int'l v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003), such applicant admissions are usable as prior art / as evidence of the knowledge of a POSITA. The patent thus begins from an admitted state of the art in which "colour-change chemistry + electronic reader + portability" was all known separately. The only question is whether their specific combination was non-obvious.

1. Candidate prior-art references

References that are NOT prior art — do not cite these

• WO 2016/179067 A1 ("Gas detector device… colour changing stain strip," 2016‑11‑10; PDF) and WO 2019/032342 A1 (PDF) disclose precisely the claimed colour-change + wideband-LED + wavelength-selective photodiode array + "concentration from the rate of change of the colour/darkness" architecture — and would be devastating art in a different case. Their PCT filings (2016, 2018) post-date the 2014‑08‑27 effective filing date, so they are not §102 art here and cannot be used in an obviousness combination. Flagging them because a careless search will surface them and they read like a silver bullet. Verify any candidate's actual effective filing/priority date, not its publication date or its apparent subject matter.
• Honeywell SPM Flex / Chemcassette manual (found via instrumart mirror; discloses RFID-tagged cartridges, duty cycle, K‑factor cross-sensitivity compensation) is product literature whose date I did not verify. If a pre‑2014 edition exists, it is highly probative (RFID cartridge ID + cross-sensitivity K-factor table is essentially claim 4's deconvolution step); if not, it is inadmissible as §102 art. Verify the publication date before relying on it.

2. Ground 1 — The base portable multi-receptor device (independent claim 1 category)

Proposed combination: US 8,043,861 (K&M) in view of US 7,514,039 (portable colorimetric cartridge reader), optionally further in view of US 4,913,881 (Draeger dosimeter).

Proposed mapping (subject to verbatim claim language):

Motivation to combine (the strongest part of this ground):

1. Express teaching in the primary reference's own background. US 8,043,861 states the problem it is solving is that known devices "are typically limited to detecting only one type of chemical, a single family of chemicals, or are non-specific" and that "if an individual wants to detect five different chemicals using colorimetric tube technology, five different colorimetric tubes would be required" — and answers it with a reusable body + multiple removable cassettes. That is the same stated problem and the same solution architecture as claim 1.
2. Express teaching in the secondary reference. US 7,514,039 frames its whole invention as a "preferable replacement for these [colour-change] badges" that "allows for measurements which are exceedingly more accurate and consistent than… badges," and it supplies exactly the missing electronic half: LED illumination, A/D, microprocessor, cartridge memory chip, pump, and multi-indicator alarms. The patent's own background articulates the identical motivation ("passive devices… can be insensitive, slow to react, and may require user intervention… based upon good colour vision… False positives or negatives may occur as a result of the outputs being subjective to the user"). A POSITA reading US 7,514,039 is being told, in terms, to make this combination.
3. KSR rationales. (i) Known design incentive / market demand: field-configurable multi-hazard detection for industrial, emergency-service and military users (stated in all three references' fields). (ii) Combination of familiar elements according to known methods, yielding predictable results: multiple sockets + one reader bus + one processor is ordinary instrument engineering. (iii) Finite number of identified, predictable solutions: the art offers a small menu of reporter chemistries (doped papers, TLC plates) and readout modalities (reflectance LED/photodiode, imaging, transducer-based), and the references converge on the same choice.
4. No change in principle of operation. US 7,514,039's reader and US 8,043,861's cassettes are both colourimetric, single-use-per-exposure consumables; combining them does not require redesigning either.

Reasonable expectation of success: High. US 4,913,881 had already demonstrated a single cartridge receptacle + reflectance reader + code-carrier identification + threshold alarm in a wearable flat housing, and US 2002/0160363 had already demonstrated a cartridge-in-reader architecture with identity reading, presence interlock and multi-wavelength illumination. Scaling identity-reading and readout from one socket to N sockets is routine multiplexing.

Rebuttal points a patent owner could raise (and my assessment):

• "None of the references discloses eight receptacles arranged around a common plenum." US 8,043,861 discloses "at least two" and claim 11 generalises to plural-with-different-substances; the count eight is a design choice, and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955) and In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 (CCPA 1980) make mere selection of a number/range obvious absent criticality. Weak rebuttal.
• "The claims require a signal receiver per receptor / 'at least one' receiver receiving from each." Anticipated squarely by the multi-slot reader bus of US 2002/0160363 and by US 8,043,861's plural-cassette body read by one instrument. Weak.
• "Secondary considerations." See §6 — no evidence of record today.

3. Ground 2 — The plenum / forced-air, equal-distribution variant (independent claim 2 category)

Proposed combination: Ground 1 further in view of US 7,514,039 (pump 10 + flow sensor 14 + flow regulator 12 + flow filter 16 + tunnel 34 with filter 58), and/or US 4,913,881 (permeable sinter-metal wall portion + measuring chamber).

Mapping:

• Air distribution plenum allowing air to be distributed to each receptor — US 7,514,039: a pump drawing "the local gaseous environment into or across the carrier," with flow regulator and flow filter, is the functional equivalent of a plenum; US 4,913,881: a measuring chamber with a substance-permeable, light-opaque wall portion closed over the sensor layer; US 2002/0160363: "channels… conduct the fluids from the inlet to the sensor array," i.e., a distribution manifold to an array.
• Mechanism for forcing air (fan / pump / piezoelectric flapper / bellows), configured to operate at a duty cycle of <100% — US 7,514,039 pump 10; US 4,913,881 expressly pulses the light source "in specific predetermined time intervals with the light source being configured as a flashing light source." Duty-cycling a fan/motor to save battery is a routine power-management choice (and the patent's own stated reason — "reduce current draw and extend life of power source 170" — is the classic motivation).
• Filter to inhibit particulate matter — US 7,514,039 "a flow filter 16 may be recommended" and "the tunnel 34 also contains a filter 58"; US 4,913,881 sinter-metal disc.
• Receptors arrayed around / radially around the plenum; substantially equal air to each — engineering optimisation of a manifold; supported by US 2002/0160363's channel distribution and by the express goal in US 7,514,039 of "accurate and consistent" measurement, which a POSITA achieves by equalising flow across channels (laminar-flow elements, matched restrictors).
• Airflow restrictor to reduce airflow through an empty receptor to a level ≈ that of an occupied receptor — this is the same engineering problem as, and closely analogous to, US 2002/0160363's interlock preventing lamp operation when the cartridge is absent and its monitoring whether a cartridge is present/used; a matched restriction to keep manifold balance is ordinary fluidics. No single reference states it in these words — see §6 weakness list.

Motivation: US 7,514,039 expressly ties pumped, filtered, flow-regulated sampling to measurement accuracy and consistency versus passive badges; US 2002/0160363 expressly teaches distributing fluid to an array through channels. A POSITA seeking uniform, non-cross-contaminating exposure of N different colourimetric reagents in one housing has an express reason to adopt a single inlet split into N balanced channels. The patent's own rationale (one-directional air supply so air "doesn't travel between sensor nodes," preventing cross-contamination) is inherent in any manifold that feeds each node in parallel from a common plenum rather than in series — the alternative (series) would be the non-obvious choice, not the claimed one.

Weakness: the "airflow restrictor reducing flow through an empty receptor to ≈ the occupied level" limitation is the least well-met by a single reference. Best supported by engineering-necessity reasoning plus the interlock/presence-detection teachings of US 2002/0160363 and the "inactive node" concept. If this limitation is in an independent claim, expect to lean on declaration evidence about manifold balancing practice or on a secondary reference (e.g., a laminar-flow-element/mass-flow-controller patent) — flag as the thinnest element in Ground 2.

4. Ground 3 — The replaceable sensing node (independent claim 3 category)

Proposed combination: US 4,913,881 (base node + reflectance optics + code carrier) in view of US 7,514,039 (cartridge memory chip, pulsed LED, filter, mating connectors) in view of US 5,239,175 (multi-wavelength, feedback-photodiode-stabilised reflectance readout) in view of US 5,571,401 / US 6,010,616 (multi-element array + cross-reactivity fingerprint) in view of US 4,205,043 and US 7,514,039 (plural reagents in one carrier).

Motivation to combine: Each reference addresses one of exactly two problems the POSITA faces in building the claimed node — (a) how do I read a colour change electronically in a small, battery-powered, fieldable package? (US 4,913,881; US 7,514,039; US 5,239,175; US 8,817,265; US 2013/0259749) and (b) how do I make the package identify itself and report a validated detection without user colour judgement? (US 7,514,039 memory chip; US 4,913,881 code carrier; US 2002/0160363 barcode/RFID + interlock; US 5,573,953 rate-of-change alarm). All are in the same field of endeavour, all are combinable without changing each other's principle of operation, and the art converges on LED + photodiode reflectance readout of a doped paper.

Reasonable expectation of success: High for everything except the specific two-substrate ~90° geometry and the specific surface treatment — see §6.

5. Ground 4 — The sensing method (independent claim 4 category)

This is the ground I regard as strongest, because the two-step alarm logic (value and rate-of-change) and the deconvolution-against-a-table step are each expressly taught, with the same rationale the patent gives.

Proposed combination: US 5,573,953 / US 5,624,848 (rate-of-change optical colorimetric alarm) in view of US 5,239,175 (colour-monitor rate-of-change + source-stabilised optics) in view of US 5,571,401 / US 6,010,616 (cross-reactive array + stored response-pattern library identification) in view of US 4,205,043 and US 7,514,039 (plural different reagents in one field device).

Motivation to combine — and why the patent's own rationale hands this to a challenger:

The patent's stated reason for requiring both thresholds is stated at FIG. 19: "Sensing for both a drop in light intensity and the gradient or rate of change of the signal provides for more accurate sensing than using the light intensity alone, as it accounts for any signal drift over time… signal 1920 may eventually trigger the alarm, as it may drift below the designated level, despite not sensing its respective target chemical vapour."

US 5,573,953 states the identical rationale for the identical problem, twenty years earlier, in the context of an optically-read colourimetric gas sensor: "The absolute value of light transmission is subject to many variables, including temperature, component tolerances, battery voltage, and the like. However, since the same sensor is measured under the same conditions in the same circuit, and only the difference between successive measurements are recorded, the above effects, common to both readings, are cancelled," and "[the test cycle subtraction] prevents very low levels of toxicant from triggering a false alarm." US 5,239,175 likewise: the rate-of-change subtraction "removes all errors which change with time but whose rate of change with time is relatively constant," i.e., drift.

A POSITA seeking to reduce false alarms in a portable colourimetric detector — the express purpose of both references — would be led directly to implement the value-plus-gradient alarm of US 5,573,953 in the device of Ground 1/3. That is a textbook KSR "known technique used to improve one device in the same way, with the same rationale."

The deconvolution element has an equally clean motivation: the patent itself concedes it is needed because "Substrates 410 may exhibit cross-reactivity with multiple chemicals, a node 200 may be triggered by a chemical vapour that is not its target chemical vapour… and so a single gas may trigger multiple sensor nodes 200," and answers it with a lookup table. US 5,571,401 supplies the strategy verbatim ("the burden of recognition… lies instead on the distributed pattern processing") plus the database + comparison algorithm. The only step the patent adds — storing the table for colourimetric rather than chemiresistive cross-reactivity — is a change of one variable with a predictable result.

Reasonable expectation of success: High. Both prongs were individually reduced to practice in the art; combining them in a colourimetric reader adds no unproven physics. The patent reports no unexpected result for the combination — only the expected drift suppression and the expected cross-reactivity discrimination.

Note on the specific numbers. ±5% intensity / ±0.05 gradient thresholds, a 30-second moving window, 1 Hz sampling, ±5–10 s response time: these are result-effective variables optimised by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ("there is no disclosure of criticality"); Pfizer v. Apotex, 480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A 30-second moving window is expressly taught (US 5,573,953's five-reading table of differences; US 4,913,881's periodic measurement).

6. The kit claim (device + sensing component)

If the kit claim is indeed independent, it adds nothing non-obvious over Grounds 1 + 4: US 7,514,039 and US 4,913,881 each disclose a reader together with its replaceable cartridge, and US 8,043,861 discloses a wearable body plus plural cassettes. Packaging a reader with its consumable cartridges is the ordinary commercial form of every reference in this list. Anticipated/obvious for the same reasons; no separate analysis needed.

7. Where this obviousness case is weakest — the honest list

A competent validity defence will attack exactly here. Do not overstate the grounds above.

1. The two-substrate, double-reflection geometry (≈90° between substrates, ≈45° emitter/substrate and ≈45° substrate/detector). I found no reference disclosing a colour-change substrate read twice in series to increase sensitivity. The general concept (folded optical path; serial optical elements; routing light by mirrors) is old and the purpose — increase interaction/absorbance and hence the differential signal — is stated in the patent ("causing more light to be absorbed by substrate 410 and increases the reduction of light entering photodiode 222"). Expect the patent owner to characterise this as an unpredictable optical arrangement with an unexpected sensitivity gain. Counter: the gain is arithmetic (two passes ≈ double the absorbance change per Beer–Lambert), hence predictable, and no comparative data in the specification establishes a criticality. But the disclosure gap is real. Confidence that this element is obvious on the art I found: moderate.
2. The airflow restrictor equalising flow through an empty receptor to the occupied level, and the "inactive node that speaks to the processor to signal it has no substrate." Closely analogous art exists (presence interlock in US 2002/0160363), but the express balancing function is not squarely disclosed in what I retrieved.
3. Hydrophilic/superhydrophilic (oxygen-plasma) surface treatment applied to the emitter/detector to prevent fogging. Known anti-fog technique in optics; but I did not locate a pre‑2014 reference applying it to a gas-sensor LED/photodiode. This is likely to be attacked as a "reference says hydrophobic membrane, claim says hydrophilic coating" mismatch — though the patent's own rationale (droplets scatter light and reduce received intensity) makes the reverse treatment an obvious alternative.
4. The "airflow diversion member / wall-like barrier." I mapped US 4,913,881's light-absorbing layer to the optical half of the barrier's function (reducing crosstalk) but the turbulence half relies on general fluidics knowledge. If a claim recites the barrier with its dual function as a single element, the mapping is strained.
5. US 8,817,265 is prior art by a single day (issued 2014‑08‑26 vs. effective filing 2014‑08‑27). Verify the effective filing/priority date carefully — if a foreign priority claim earlier than 26 Aug 2014 exists in the family (the record lists only 2014‑08‑27, consistent with a §371 national stage of a PCT filed that day, but confirm the underlying Australian provisional if any), this reference's status could change. Do not build a ground on it alone.
6. US 2013/0259749's exact publication date is unverified. Confirm before relying on it.
7. No reference I found discloses eight receptors radially equidistant from a central fan in a body the size of a smartphone with node weights of 5–50 g. That is a design choice, but a patent owner will dress it as a "new form factor."
8. None of the references is a colourimetric substrate-based device using a rate-of-change alarm. US 5,573,953 is colourimetric and does; US 5,239,175 is colourimetric and does. Good. But if the claims require the substrate array to react to different vapours and the rate-of-change logic to be applied per substrate for deconvolution, the combination of US 5,573,953/5,239,175 (rate logic, single sensor) with US 5,571,401 (array, no rate logic) is doing real work. It is still, in my view, an obvious combination, but it is the combination most likely to be contested.

8. So what does the patent actually add? (Objective indicia, or the absence of them)

I found no evidence of record of the classic secondary considerations — no long-felt-but-unmet need beyond the needs the references themselves state they meet, no unexpected results in the specification (no comparative data are given; the graphs at FIGS. 19, 23A and 23B are expressly labelled "not based on actual data, but… provided for purposes of illustration only"), no licensing or industry-acclaim evidence, and no nexus evidence. Nexus is a burden the patent owner carries, and the admission that the FIG. 23A/23B responses are illustrative removes the most natural vehicle for arguing unexpected sensitivity. Conversely, I have not searched for or located evidence against obviousness (e.g., a documented industry belief that colourimetric badges could not be electronically read reliably, or praise for this specific device); such evidence could exist outside my search and would need to be located before a validity opinion is final. Treat the secondary-considerations picture as unverified, not as absent as a matter of fact.

9. Confidence summary

10. Recommended verification before this analysis is relied on

1. Pull the granted claim set from USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter (and the USPTO Assignment record showing the Commonwealth of Australia / Catapult split) and re-map Grounds 1–4 to the actual recited elements. Everything above is category-level.
2. Confirm the effective filing date and any foreign priority. The record lists a single 2014‑08‑27 date for both priority and filing, consistent with a §371 national stage of a PCT filed that day — but if an earlier Australian provisional exists, the prior-art window shifts and US 8,817,265 (issued 2014‑08‑26) could drop out entirely, while any 2014-published art could too. This is the single highest-value check.
3. Pull the front-page "References Cited" and the applicant's IDS from the file wrapper. The captured record did not include them. Those citations (and the examiner's reasons for allowance, if any) will tell you immediately whether the combination above was already considered and overcome — and, if the references above were not before the examiner, that is the strongest tactical posture for a §103 challenge.
4. Verify dates for the two unverified items: US 2013/0259749's publication date, and whether any pre‑2014 edition of the Honeywell SPM Flex / Chemcassette documentation exists (RFID cartridge ID + K-factor cross-sensitivity table would materially strengthen Ground 4).
5. Do not cite WO 2016/179067, WO 2019/032342, or the modern SPM Flex manual as §102/§103 art without date confirmation. They look better than the admissible art and are inadmissible on the current dates. This is the trap flagged in §1.