US 10386184

I'll verify the patent's status and check for any litigation before summarizing.

US Patent 10,386,184 — Verification Summary

Source of record: Google Patents full text (fetched 2026-09-24) at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10386184](/patent/US10386184)/en, plus patent-family cross-references surfaced via USPTO/Google Patents listings. No contradictory data appeared in my searches.

---

Bibliographic Data

Abstract (verbatim): "A photogrammetry system includes a photogrammetry rig and a plurality of cameras. The photogrammetry rig includes a support frame and a plurality of support arms. The support frame includes a plurality of joint members and a plurality of struts each extending between two of the plurality of joint members to collectively form a spherical polyhedron shape having a center focal point. Each of the plurality of support arms extends through a different one of the plurality of joint members in a direction following a different radial ray from the center focal point. Each of the plurality of support arms is selectively, linearly slidable and securable relative to the different one of the joint members along the different radial ray between a position closest to the center focal point and a different position farthest away from the center focal point. Each camera of the plurality of cameras is secured to an end of a different one of the plurality of support arms nearest the center focal point within the spherical polyhedron shape."

---

Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

Claim 1 — The apparatus (photogrammetry rig + cameras).
A camera rig built as a ball-shaped lattice. The frame is made of straight struts joined at joint members to form a spherical polyhedron (e.g., geodesic) with a point at its center. Each joint member carries a support arm that runs radially inward/outward along a line through the center. These arms slide linearly and can be locked at any point between fully retracted (nearest the center) and fully extended (farthest from the center). A camera is mounted on the inner tip of each arm, inside the ball, aimed at the center. Net effect: one rig whose camera ring can be re-dimensioned for small or large objects without changing the angular layout.

Claim 18 — The apparatus, framed to the room.
Same core structure as claim 1, but claimed as a system "for use in space having a floor": the strut/joint frame approximates a closed shape about a center focal point positioned above the floor, with the same slidable, securable radial support arms and cameras at the inner ends.

• Note: claim 18's closing clause reads "within the spherical polyhedron shape" even though claim 18 itself recites approximating a "closed shape" rather than a spherical polyhedron. This appears to be leftover wording carried over from claim 1; treat it as a literal drafting artifact rather than an intended separate limitation.

Dependent claims worth noting: cl. 2–3 (joint member as open cylinder with selective gripping); cl. 5–8 (lights on struts facing the center, including both polarized and non-polarized arrays); cl. 12–14 (enlarged bottom opening with an object support passing through it, plus the combination with an object placed there); cl. 16–17 (at least three projectors mounted via projector support struts); cl. 19–22 (equal joint spacing, strut-mounted lights, polarized/non-polarized mix, object support through the bottom opening).

Sibling patent distinction: US 10,533,853 B2, from the same day's application 16/114,844, covers the method side (illuminating polarized-only, then non-polarized-only, capturing image sets, and comparing them to build the 3D representation) — i.e., material found primarily in the specification/FIG. 12 flow of the '184 patent rather than in its apparatus claims.

---

Litigation / Docket Check — No Findings

I searched for the specific number 10,386,184 against litigation and CAFC references. I found no evidence of any litigation, ITC proceeding, or Federal Circuit appeal involving this patent, and nothing on 2026 CAFC dockets. I cannot confirm a negative from my searches alone — I am not querying court dockets directly, and free-web search coverage of district court complaints and CAFC docket sheets is incomplete. If a litigation or appeal does exist, it would not be surfaced reliably by this method. Please treat "no litigation found" as absence of evidence, not a verified clean record.

Cited prior art of interest (from the front page): US 5,915,132 (Counts); US 6,343,184 B1 (Huebner); US 2004/0246333 A1; US 6,834,960 B2; US 8,462,206 B1 (Amazon Technologies); US 8,526,802 B1 (Google); US 2016/0202599 A1 (Orbitvu); US 2016/0381261 A1 (Twiin Media); US 2018/0234627 A1 (Kim); US 10,122,997 B1 (Lowe's); US 2018/0338129 A1 (Electronic Arts). Later-cited: RU 214,147 U1, US 11,627,385 B2 (Eizo), and US 12,382,190 B2 (Vasis Medical).

---

Uncertainties to Flag

• Fee/status detail: The record shows a 4th-year maintenance fee payment (large entity) but a current "Expired – Fee Related" status. I did not retrieve the specific lapse event or date, so I can't state exactly when or why it lapsed.
• Inventor/assignee assignment reel: One assignment record surfaced (Reel/Frame 046729/0361) naming Hart and Johnson; I did not independently verify the reel contents covering all three inventors.
• No patent number was auto-corrected in this analysis; all identifiers are reported as they appear in the source.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 10,386,184. Let me search multiple sources.

Initial searches returned mostly unrelated results. Let me refine with more targeted queries.

Let me search litigation databases and check whether Target (the assignee) asserted this patent.

Summary of Findings

No litigation specifically involving U.S. Patent No. 10,386,184 has been identified.

I searched for the exact patent number across general web sources, patent databases, litigation-oriented results, and Target/Brands-related dockets. To be transparent about the limits of my search, I did not get direct results from Docket Navigator, Unified Patents' litigation portal, PACER, or the CAFC docket for this specific number — the searches surfaced either the patent's own bibliographic record (Google Patents) or unrelated Target cases involving different patent numbers. On the available evidence, I cannot identify any filed lawsuit, IPR/PGR, ITC action, or CAFC appeal that asserts or challenges the '184 patent.

What the '184 patent is

• Patent: US 10,386,184 B2 — "Three-dimensional photogrammetry system and method"
• Assignee: Target Brands, Inc. (Minnesota)
• Inventors: Brian Matthew Hart; Kirby Brian Johnson; Aaron George Hoffmann
• Priority: 2017-08-29 (provisional 62/551,404); Filed: 2018-08-28; Granted: 2019-08-20
• Legal status (per Google Patents): Expired – Fee Related (anticipated expiration 2038-08-28)
• Family: Sibling patent US 10,533,853 B2 (from application US 16/114,844, filed same day)

The patent appears to be a portfolio/defensive asset supporting Target's in-house 3D product-imaging pipeline (the specification expressly discusses use on a retail website). It does not appear to have been asserted offensively, and I found no third-party challenge to it.

Cases I did find — but which do NOT involve patent 10,386,184

To avoid confusion, these Target-related matters involve other patents and are not '184 litigation:

None of these pleadings name U.S. 10,386,184.

Recommended next steps for a definitive answer

Because general web search is not a complete litigation database, to confirm a negative you should query authoritative docket sources directly:

1. Docket Navigator (patent-specific litigation database) — search "10,386,184".
2. Lex Machina — same.
3. USPTO PTAB (P-TACTS) — search for IPR/PGR/CBM petitions naming the '184 patent.
4. PACER — plaintiff "Target Brands, Inc." as patent plaintiff; also search the patent number in complaints.
5. ITC EDIS — Section 337 investigations.
6. CAFC docket — any appeal referencing the patent.

Bottom line / confidence

Based on the searches available to me, I have no evidence of any litigation involving US 10,386,184. If litigation exists, it is likely recent or in a database I could not query directly in this session. I cannot state this as a guaranteed negative — only that it was not found, and the patent's own record shows no litigation activity. The patent's status as "Expired – Fee Related" and its use as an internal retail-imaging tool are consistent with a never-asserted portfolio patent.

PTAB Proceedings on US 10,386,184

Bottom line up front: there are zero AIA trial proceedings on this patent. The canonical structured block supplied with this task — sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal — returns no AIA trials (IPR, PGR, or CBM) for US 10,386,184. My independent web checks (PTAB/PTACTS petition pages, Docket Alarm, CourtListener, and general searches for the patent number combined with "IPR," "PTAB," and the patent owner's name) surfaced nothing contrary. I found no petition, no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, and no Federal Circuit appeal touching this patent or its family sibling US 10,533,853.

---

Proceedings overview

Total proceedings on file: 0. Breakdown by status: 0 active, 0 with claims invalidated, 0 with claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials.

There is no defensive narrative to build from PTAB history here, because there is no PTAB history. All 22 claims of US 10,386,184 — independent claims 1 and 18 and every dependent claim — remain exactly as issued on 2019-08-20 and have never been tested at the Board. No petitioner has challenged them; no panel has construed a single term; no claim has been canceled.

The practical defensive posture is therefore not "the patent is hardened" and not "the claims are dead." It is: the claims are entirely untested, and that cuts both ways. A defendant gets no free invalidity finding handed to it, and it also has a fully open prior-art runway with zero § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaching from anyone.

{No proceeding exists}

Per instructions not to invent proceeding numbers, I am not fabricating docket entries. For completeness, the fields the template calls for would read: Type — n/a; Filed — n/a; Status — n/a; Judge panel — n/a; Petition grounds — n/a; Institution decision — n/a; Final Written Decision — n/a; Settlement / termination — n/a; Appeal — n/a. There is no PTAB E2E or CourtListener link to provide because there is no document to link to.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status across the patent. Every claim of US 10,386,184 is UNTESTED. Nothing is canceled; nothing is sustained; nothing has been narrowed by amendment or by the Board's construction. For a defendant, this means the full claim set as written in the patent text — claim 1's spherical-polyhedron frame with joint members, radially slidable and securable support arms, and cameras at the inner arm ends, plus claim 18's floor-relative variant — is live and unmodified. Note the drafting quirk already flagged in the earlier section: claim 18's closing clause recites "within the spherical polyhedron shape" even though the claim body says "approximating a closed shape." A court or the Board would likely read that as a carryover artifact from claim 1, but it is a real claim-construction hook for a defendant if this claim is ever asserted.

Estoppel landscape. This is the cleanest part of the picture. Because no IPR, PGR, or CBM has ever been instituted or decided on this patent, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel exists against anyone. Every potential defendant retains the complete universe of § 102 and § 103 prior art, including the references already cited on the face of the patent and any art a petitioner could locate. There is no risk that a co-defendant, a supplier, a customer, or a defensive aggregator has already burned a ground that would have been "reasonably could have been raised." A defendant weighing a petition today would be the first mover, which means it also bears the entire cost and carries no benefit from someone else's work product.

One caution for anyone contemplating a challenge: the patent is already Expired – Fee Related with an anticipated expiration of 2038-08-28, i.e., it lapsed for failure to pay a maintenance fee well before its natural term. The earlier section flagged that the specific lapse event and date were not retrieved. If the patent is in fact lapsed and not revived, that status matters more to a defendant's practical exposure than any IPR would — see the next section.

Pattern signals. None are present, and that itself is diagnostic. There is no repeat petitioner, no Unified Patents or similar defensive aggregator in the chain, and no history of the patent owner pursuing PTAB appeals, because the patent owner has never appeared as a patent owner in an AIA trial on this patent. The patent was filed 2018-08-28 by Target Brands, Inc., a large operating retailer, not by a patent assertion entity — Google Patents lists it as Expired – Fee Related after a 4th-year maintenance fee entry, consistent with a corporate portfolio decision rather than an assertion program. I found no evidence of Target asserting this patent against anyone. The litigation search incidentally returned a case in which Target was sued over an unrelated patent (US 7,277,572) concerning Target's AR/3D product-viewing features — the opposite posture from a patent owner running an assertion campaign. Treat that as context, not as evidence about the '184 patent. I did not verify the current status of that target-as-defendant litigation.

---

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant now. There is no FWD to cite and no canceled claim to point at — the honest answer is that no PTAB proceeding exists on US 10,386,184. Do not represent otherwise to a court or opposing counsel. What you should do first is verify the patent's legal status directly in USPTO Patent Center. The record shows it as Expired – Fee Related; if the lapse is real and no petition to revive or acceptance of a late payment under 35 U.S.C. § 41(c) has restored it, the enforceability question may resolve the dispute before validity ever comes up. Note that the sibling patent, US 10,533,853 B2 (application 16/114,844, same priority date), is listed as Active — if a demand letter or complaint cites the '184 patent, check whether the same theory is being run in parallel on the '853 patent, because that one has not lapsed.

If you are contemplating a petition. You would be filing on a clean slate. There is no § 315(b) one-year bar running from any prior proceeding, and no estoppel to worry about. The institution calculus, however, has shifted materially in recent months — Director Squires's October 2025 memorandum moved institution decisions to the Director for petitions in IPR and PGR, and the USPTO published proposed rules that would bar an IPR against a patent that has already survived a validity challenge and would require petitioners to stipulate away § 102/§ 103 arguments in other venues. Those proposed rules were not yet effective as of the reporting I reviewed and were open for comment; confirm current status before relying on either the memorandum's procedure or the proposed rules in your strategy. None of this changes the fact that this patent has never survived or lost a validity challenge — the proposed bar on challenging patents that have "already survived" would not apply here.

Timing note. Because there is no pending trial, there are no institution deadlines, no oral hearing dates, and no FWD due dates to track for this patent. The statutory one-year clock from institution under § 316(a)(11) never started.

Confidence and caveats. I state the zero-proceeding finding with high confidence for the period covered by the USPTO Open Data Portal ingest, and my web checks corroborate it. I cannot prove a negative from web search alone: free-web coverage of very recently filed petitions is incomplete, and the ODP may lag recent filings. If you need a court-grade confirmation, query PTAB E2E and the USPTO Patent Center trial-proceeding list directly for both the '184 and '853 patents, and run a PACER docket search to confirm whether either patent has been asserted in district court — assertion is the usual precursor to an IPR, and its absence is consistent with what I found but is not something I could verify exhaustively.

I'll research the assignment chain for US 10,386,184 before reconstructing the record.

Let me try additional targeted searches on the assignment records and ownership chain.

Sourcing note (applies throughout): I could not complete a direct query of USPTO Assignment Center / Patent Assignment Search in this session — targeted searches for the patent number and the reel identifier returned no assignment records, and my research budget was exhausted before I could pull the Assignment Center hit list. Where I cite a reel/frame below, it is carried over from the earlier-generated section of this analysis (which reported a single record, Reel 046729/0361) rather than freshly re-verified. Treat the record count as provisional. All other facts are from the authoritative full text supplied in the user message.

Inventors

Unusual patterns: None observed. There is no evidence of inventors leaving the assignee within 12 months of filing, no inventor-vs-assignee ownership dispute on this family, and no reissue/inventorship correction on record. The filing is a standard employee-invention capture: a provisional (US 62/551,404, 2017-08-29) followed by two non-provisional applications filed the same day (16/114,834 and 16/114,844) and assigned to the corporate employer on filing.

Flag (contradiction to resolve): the earlier-generated section reported that Reel 046729/0361 names Hart and Johnson only, whereas the Google Patents legal-event entry for the 2018-08-28 assignment lists all three assignors (Hart, Hoffmann, Johnson). Either (a) the prior read of the reel was incomplete, or (b) Hoffmann's undivided interest was recorded under a separate reel/frame. This is a title-completeness question worth confirming on Assignment Center; it is not, on its face, an NPE signal.

Original assignee

Target Brands, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota — the brand/IP-holding subsidiary of Target Corporation (NYSE: TGT). Primary line of business: mass-merchandise retail; Target Brands holds and manages the Target trademark and IP portfolio (per the patents-review assignee profile, ~951 granted patents and ~1,024 published applications as of 2026).

Does the assignee ship a product embodying the claims? Nuanced. The claimed subject matter is an internal photogrammetry rig — a capital tool, not a product sold to third parties. Target built it to generate the 3D product representations used on target.com (the specification expressly frames the output as "of sufficient quality for use on a retail website"). So the assignee's parent operates a commercial service the system supports, but the assignee does not sell the claimed system. That distinction matters for the verdict below: this is an operating company holding a tooling patent, not a licensing vehicle.

Current status: Operating. No acquisition, dissolution, or bankruptcy of Target Brands/Target Corporation surfaced. The patent itself is Expired – Fee Related (maintenance-fee lapse, anticipated expiration 2038-08-28), while its same-day sibling US 10,533,853 B2 (app. 16/114,844) remains Active. A fee lapse is a maintenance event, not a transfer; it does not affect the ownership chain.

Assignment timeline

Total recorded assignments found: 1.

• 2018-08-28 (executed) / recorded 2018-08-28 — Reel 046729/0361
  • Conveyance: Assignment (assignment of assignors' interest)
  • Assignor: Brian Matthew Hart; Kirby Brian Johnson (and, per the Google Patents legal-event listing, Aaron George Hoffmann)
  • Assignee: Target Brands, Inc.
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved. I could not obtain the attorney/agent of record for this recording in this session. I therefore can make no repeat-correspondent finding. (If you need this, the Assignment Center record for Reel 046729/0361 exposes it directly.)
  • Context: Initial chain-of-title — inventor-to-employer assignment made contemporaneously with filing. Not a post-issuance transfer, reorg, fire-sale, or securitization.

Plainly stated: beyond this original inventor→Target Brands assignment, I found no records of any subsequent assignment, security agreement, merger, change of name, license, or release for US 10,386,184. Google Patents' legal-events tab likewise shows only the 2018-08-28 Target Brands assignment, the grant, and the current expired status. If that holds on Assignment Center, it means Target Brands, Inc. still owns the patent outright — there has been no disposal to a third party.

Caveat: absence of a found record is not proof of absence of a record. I did not successfully query the registry directly, so a later record could exist that my searches missed.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10386184
    2017 : Provisional filed by the three inventors
    2018 : Non provisional filed
         : Inventors assign to Target Brands Inc
    2019 : Patent issued as US 10386184 B2
    2020 : Sibling patent US 10533853 B2 issues
    2026 : Status listed Expired Fee Related

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The only recorded conveyance is Reel 046729/0361 (2018-08-28) from the individual inventors to Target Brands, Inc. No assignment to any "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" entity appears anywhere in the chain. There is no post-issuance transfer at all.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. The sole assignee, Target Brands, Inc., is not Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp., or any Spangenberg entity, and it does not appear on the Unified Patents or RPX high-frequency-plaintiff rosters.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. I could not retrieve the correspondent of record for Reel 046729/0361, so I cannot test for recurrence. Note that with only one link in the chain, recurrence is structurally impossible within this patent; the check would only be meaningful if the same firm recurs across Target's portfolio or across an asserter family. No finding either way.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. One assignment, on the filing date. No chained LLCs, no secondary hops, no shared-correspondent pattern to trace.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No infringement suit, ITC action, or Federal Circuit appeal naming US 10,386,184 was found (consistent with the earlier-generated litigation check). With no suit, there is no pre-suit transfer window to analyze. (Target Brands appears in litigation as a defendant — e.g., the Rule 36 affirmance in Sgromo v. Target territory — not as an asserting plaintiff over this patent.)

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Target Corporation is a solvent, NYSE-listed operating company; no Chapter 7/11 proceeding involving Target Brands was surfaced that would put this patent into an estate sale.

7. Privateering — not present. No transfer of the patent to a third-party NPE asserting on Target's behalf was found, and no EFF / Patent Progress / SEC-filing coverage of such an arrangement surfaced. The assignee retained the asset.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, Allied Security Trust, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or Open Invention Network. It terminates at the original operating assignee.

Verdict

Insufficient data — in the strict sense the rubric defines ("only the original assignment"), since the sole recorded conveyance is the 2018-08-28 inventor→Target Brands assignment at Reel 046729/0361.

I want to be precise about what that label does and does not mean here: it is not an inconclusive "we can't tell if this is an NPE." Every affirmative NPE signal is not present, and the record shows the patent sitting with its original operating-company owner, Target Brands, Inc., with no downstream transfer of any kind. The "insufficient data" call reflects process, not ambiguity — I could not complete a direct Assignment Center query in this session, so I cannot certify that no later record exists (and I could not obtain the correspondent of record). If the single-assignment picture is confirmed on Assignment Center, this is best characterized as operating-company ownership, non-asserted — no NPE pattern and no defensive-aggregator neutralization.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (or the mirror at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html), searching patent number 10,386,184 to pull the Reel 046729/0361 image and its correspondent, and cross-checking sibling application 16/114,844 (US 10,533,853 B2), which sits in the same family and could reveal a transfer that bypassed the '184 record.

I'll research the cited references. Let me start with the front-page prior-art citations most likely to bear on the independent claims.

Now let me research the remaining front-page citations, prioritizing those with spherical/multi-camera rig structures.

Preliminary note on search method and scope

Patent verified. US 10,386,184 B2 exists as described: "Three-dimensional photogrammetry system and method," App. No. 16/114,834, filed 2018‑08‑28, priority 2017‑08‑29 (provisional 62/551,404), granted 2019‑08‑20, Target Brands, Inc., expiring 2038‑08‑28. This matches the earlier-generated summary in this analysis; I found no contradiction.

Method caveat — please read. I did not query a native USPTO API/PatentCenter in this pass. My checks ran against Google Patents (which mirrors USPTO bibliographic and citation data) and the open web. I also hit my tool-call ceiling partway through, so I confirmed the content of only five of the cited references by live search (US 8,462,206; US 8,526,802; US 2016/0202599; US 2018/0332234; US 2018/0234627). For the remaining cited references I rely on (a) the authoritative front-page citation table reproduced in the patent text and (b) background knowledge — these are flagged lower confidence below. The citation list, numbers, and dates themselves are taken literally from the patent and are reliable; the descriptions of the unverified items are not.

Because this is a post‑AIA patent (priority 2017), the governing provision is AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102. References published before 2017‑08‑29 fall under § 102(a)(1); references with an earlier effective filing date but later publication fall under § 102(a)(2). I flag each.

---

1. What the independent claims actually require

Before mapping art, the target must be precise. Claim 1 requires four things in combination:

1. a support frame of joint members + struts each between two joint members, forming a spherical polyhedron shape with a center focal point;
2. support arms each passing through a different joint member along a different radial ray;
3. each arm selectively, linearly slidable and securable along its ray between nearest and farthest positions; and
4. a camera on the inner end of each arm, inside the polyhedron.

Claim 18 is the same structure re-framed "for use in space having a floor," with the frame approximating a closed shape about a point above the floor (its closing clause still reads "within the spherical polyhedron shape" — a carry-over artifact flagged in the prior summary).

The novelty is the combination of a geodesic-type jointed lattice with per-joint radial slide-and-lock arms. That is a narrow combination, and it dictates my § 102 conclusions below.

---

2. Front-page prior-art citations (the "Citation" list)

Dates are as printed on the patent face (priority date — publication/issue date).

---

3. "Cited By" and family entries (NOT prior art against '184)

These post-date '184's priority/filing and merely cite it. They are not § 102 art: US 10,533,853 B2 (the '184 sibling), RU 214,147 U1 (2022), US 11,627,385 B2 (Eizo, 2023), US 2024/0305902 A1 and US 12,382,190 B2 (Vasis Medical, 2024). I list them only so they aren't mistaken for anticipatory art.

---

4. Bottom line: strongest § 102 candidates and honest limitations

Independent claim 1 — no cited reference anticipates it as a whole. The distinguishing feature is the combination of (a) a spherical-polyhedron frame of joint members and struts with (b) support arms that each pass through a joint and slide radially inward/outward and lock, (c) with cameras at the inner ends. Every cited reference misses at least the joint/strut-polyhedron + radial-through-joint-arm sub-combination:

• US 2018/0332234 A1 (Sony) — closest on the inward-facing 3D camera array, but no jointed strut lattice and no radial slide arms.
• US 2018/0234627 A1 (Kim) — closest on dispersed cameras with motorized position/direction adjustment, but a booth architecture, not radial through-joint arms.
• US 8,526,802 B1 (Google) — closest on the plain-language "slidably disposed … selectively operable to fix" and on polarizer/filter illumination, but a linear boom rig.

These three are the references to build a § 103 combination from, not § 102.

Independent claim 18 — same conclusion, with one caveat. Claim 18's broader "closed shape about a point above the floor" language is more exposed. US 2018/0332234 A1 (Sony) is a credible § 102(a)(2) candidate if the "closed shape about a center focal point" is read to cover any 3D frame defining an internal volume — but the radial slide-and-lock arm limitation still defeats literal anticipation.

Dependent claims — the realistic § 102 exposure lies here:

• Cl. 7, 8, 21 (polarized + non-polarized lights): US 8,526,802 B1 expressly recites an illumination source comprising at least one of a diffuser, polarizer, and filter — a § 102(a)(1) candidate for the polarization concept.
• Cl. 5, 6, 20 (light arrays on struts facing the center): US 2016/0202599 A1 (Orbitvu) discloses LED light sources distributed around the item inside the studio — relevant, though not strut-mounted.
• Cl. 10, 11 (adjustable-height stand): background studio/boom art (e.g., US 8,526,802 legs/feet; US 6,343,184 studio).
• Cl. 16 (projectors for projected noise): unverified potential in US 2016/0065798 A1 (Zaybu) if it projects a pattern for 3D mapping — I could not confirm this and it should not be relied upon without checking the reference.
• Cl. 15 (geodesic polyhedron): I found no cited reference teaching a geodesic jointed frame; this limitation appears to carry the novelty weight.

---

5. Uncertainties I want on the record

1. Twelve cited references were not content-verified (tool-call limit): items 1–5, 8, 10–14, 16, 18 above. Their citation details are reliable (from the patent face); their descriptions are title-level and marked accordingly.
2. The two references most likely to change this analysis if verified are US 2016/0381261 A1 (Twiin Media) and US 2016/0360184 A1 (Fraunhofer) — multi-view capture and arc-shaped supports respectively. If either discloses radial, joint-mounted camera arms, the § 102 picture for claim 1 could shift. I recommend retrieving their claims and figures before finalizing.
3. I did not execute a native USPTO database query; "USPTO search" here was satisfied via Google Patents' mirrored USPTO data. If you need a PatentCenter/assignment-verified pull (e.g., to confirm examiner-cited vs. applicant-cited references, or the IDS provenance), that requires a separate, targeted retrieval I could not complete in this session.
4. No patent number was auto-corrected. US 10,122,997, US 10,533,853, US 12,382,190, RU 214,147, etc. are reported exactly as they appear.

I'll research the prior-art references cited on the face of the patent to ground the obviousness analysis, then build the § 103 combinations.

Let me research additional key references, including the Twiin Media rig and Kim's 3D studio system.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,386,184 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Builds on the prior two sections (verification summary and litigation summary). Those established the bibliographic record, the two independent apparatus claims, and the absence of any found litigation. This section does not repeat that material; it assumes it.

Note on a contradiction in the inputs: the earlier sections were generated with a working date of 2026-09-30, while this task specifies 2026-04-26. This does not affect the analysis (the patent is expired as of the record either way), but I am flagging it per the cross-reference instruction rather than silently harmonizing the two.

---

1. Legal framework and the person of ordinary skill

Standard. Claim 1 is invalid under § 103 if "the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art." Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). Obviousness is a question of law with underlying factual findings: (1) scope and content of the prior art, (2) differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill, and (4) objective indicia. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (rejecting rigid TSM in favor of an "expansive and flexible" inquiry; motivation may be found in "any need or problem known in the field," in "design incentives," in "market forces," and in the "predictable variation" of a known device).

Level of ordinary skill. Based on the specification (a 12-ft geodesic frame carrying 90+ DSLRs, projector support struts, a light array, and photogrammetry software stitching), the POSA is a mechanical/photographic-systems engineer with ~2–4 years of experience in multi-camera photography, lightstage/studio rigging, and photogrammetry or computer-vision capture, or a bachelor's degree plus practical studio-capture experience. The POSA knows (a) geodesic/truncated-icosahedron lattices as structural forms; (b) that photogrammetry needs even angular coverage and known camera poses; (c) that polarizers, structured-light/projected-noise, and cross-polarization reduce specularity; and (d) that item-imaging rigs for e-commerce exist.

Effective filing date. 2017-08-29 (provisional 62/551,404). All references below predate it, and all cited references are § 102(a)/(b) / § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) art.

---

2. The point of novelty — what actually needs to be supplied by the art

Stripping claim 1 to its genuine limitations:

The invention's real contribution is not any single element but the substitution of a re-dimensionable radial boom array for the fixed-radius spherical camera arrays of the prior art, so one rig covers a wide object-size range. That is a scale/range problem, and § 103 analysis should ask whether the art already solved scale/range problems with radial slides.

---

3. Scope and content of the principal prior art

I verified the following by retrieving reference text; where I could not retrieve a reference's full text, I say so.

3.1 US 8,526,802 B1 — Google, "Collapsible image capture system" (front-page cited)

The strongest single reference for element (c). It discloses a frame of structural components adjustably connected together, transformed between a stored and a deployed configuration. Specific teachings:

• a primary boom with first and second boom components "slidably disposed relative to each other for adjusting a longitudinal dimension";
• legs likewise slidably disposed;
• "slide connectors" that slidably connect the components;
• "a fixing device associated with each of the boom slide connector, the first leg slide connector, and the second leg slide connector for selectively fixing the position of the first and second boom components relative to each other" — i.e., linearly slidable and securable, verbatim;
• multiple image capture devices removably mounted to opposing ends of first and second secondary booms;
• a polarizer, an SLR camera, an illumination device with diffuser/polarizer/filter, and a wireless trigger "for synchronizing the capture" of the multiple cameras.
  Source: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[8526802](/patent/8526802).html

Reads on: claim 1(c) (slidable + securable), and materially on claims 5–8 (lighting; and a polarizer/diffuser system anticipates the polarized/non-polarized teaching).

3.2 US 2016/0381261 A1 — Twiin Media, "Systems, methods, and apparatus for capturing multiple views of a subject" (front-page cited; issued as US 10,542,223)

• A central rotatable plate with at least three cameras mounted to respective vertical rods extending from the plate;
• "each of the horizontal rods and vertical rods is adjustable in length, and an angle between each horizontal rod and corresponding vertical rod can be manually or automatically adjusted between 0 and 180 degrees";
• cameras face inward on a subject at the center; "each set of multiple images is simultaneously captured";
• "one or more lights operable to illuminate an area adjacent to a respective camera."
  Sources: https://patents.justia.com/patent/[10542223](/patent/10542223) ; https://patents.justia.com/assignee/twiin-media-llc

Reads on: the convergent, simultaneously-fired, radially-arranged, length-adjustable camera-boom concept (1(b), 1(d)), plus lights at cameras.

3.3 Amazon Technologies, "Image acquisition system" — cited on the face as US 8,462,206 B1

I could not directly retrieve the U.S. text of US 8,462,206. However, the family disclosure (ES 2 656 159 T3, "artículos de representación de imágenes") describes an item-imaging apparatus with multiple lights fixed to a curved light mount providing "ángulos de luz variables" to an article on a rotatable platform, an imaging device mounted on a curved track (pista o vía curvada) to move between capture positions, and generation of three-dimensional wireframes and item representations for an electronic marketplace.
Source: http://www.oepm.es/pdf/ES/0000/000/02/65/61/ES-2656159_T3.pdf

Confidence flag: the technical content is verified; the attribution of that content to US 8,462,206 specifically is my inference from title/assignee, not a verified match. Treat the Amazon reference's exact disclosure as needing confirmation against the U.S. text.

Reads on: the problem context (multi-angle item imaging for e-commerce, 3D model generation), curved mounting of an array of lights and a camera facing the center — i.e., motivation.

3.4 US 2016/0202599 A1 — Orbitvu, "Portable studio for item photography" (front-page cited)

A closed cylindrical studio: a movable housing with an adjustable holder (7) for the photographic camera allowing a change in tilt angle of the camera within a limited range; light sources in sections distributed along the lateral height of the cylinder; a rotating table; the housing rotates so the camera can occupy many positions around the item.
Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160202599A1 ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/[9625794](/patent/9625794)

Reads on: a closed, light-lined, camera-around-the-subject capture chamber with adjustable camera orientation — the "enclosure fully surrounding the focal point" idea, in cylindrical (not spherical) form.

3.5 References cited on the face whose full text I did not retrieve in this session

These are listed for completeness, and I flag that I am relying on their titles/abstracts only: US 5,915,132 (Counts, "Modular still photography studio"); US 6,343,184 B1 (Huebner, "Controlled environment photo studio"); US 2004/0246333 A1 (Steuart, "Digital 3D/360 degree camera system"); US 6,834,960 B2 (Dbjay, VR photographing system); US 2012/0293632 A1 (Yukich, 3D image media); US 2016/0065798 A1 (Zaybu, 3D map construction); US 2016/0360184 A1 (Fraunhofer, object detection with circular-arc-shaped supporting elements); US 2016/0381257 A1 (Asustek, sphere panorama capture); US 2018/0002035 A1 (Neely, spherical camera assembly); US 2018/0234627 A1 (Kim, "Three-dimensional studio system"); US 10,122,997 B1 (Lowe's, matrix photo framing with range camera); US 2018/0338129 A1 (Electronic Arts, dual-camera capture). Their titles alone signal a dense, crowded field — multiple "3D studio" and "360/3D camera" systems existed before the priority date, which is itself probative that the general concept was known.

---

4. Ground 1 — Claim 1 obvious over Steuart in view of Google '802, further in view of Amazon

(Steuart = US 2004/0246333 A1; Google = US 8,526,802; Amazon = US 8,462,206)

Primary reference (Steuart). A "Digital 3D/360 degree camera system" is, by its title and field, a multi-camera arrangement distributed about a subject to capture a 3D/360 representation — i.e., a plurality of cameras pointing inward toward a common center (1(a) center focal point; 1(d) cameras aimed at center). I have not verified Steuart's frame construction and therefore present Steuart as supplying the inward-facing, common-center multi-camera arrangement, not necessarily the specific lattice.

Google '802 supplies element (c) directly. Claim 1 requires each arm "selectively, linearly slidable and securable relative to the different one of the joint members." Google '802 discloses boom and leg components slidably disposed with slide connectors and "fixing device[s] ... for selectively fixing the position." A POSA implementing a radial camera array who needs to handle objects of different sizes would apply this known slidable-and-lockable connector to the radial camera booms — this is the essence of KSR's "known technique to improve a similar device."

Amazon supplies the spherical-frame motivation and the e-commerce purpose. The item-imaging apparatus already mounts lights and a camera on curved mounts/tracks about a rotatable platform and generates 3D wireframes for an online marketplace. A POSA seeking (a) even angular coverage and (b) product images for an e-commerce catalog would naturally extend a curved mount into a closed spherical frame.

Where the "spherical polyhedron" comes from. The remaining gap is that the frame is specifically a spherical polyhedron of struts meeting at joint members. This is not a technical contribution — it is the selection of a well-known structural system. Geodesic domes (Fuller) and truncated-icosahedron lattices were decades old by 2017; a closed lattice of struts and joints approximating a sphere, with a node at every strut intersection, is exactly how such frames are built (and is why the '184 patent's own spec says the joints are simply the strut vertices, ¶ re: "ninety-one joint members"). Substituting a geodesic lattice for a curved boom/track to place cameras at a uniform radius is a predictable variation with no unexpected result — KSR. Indeed, the patent itself concedes that "struts 40 and joint members 42 are arranged as a tetrahedron, icosahedron, truncated icosahedron, dodecahedron, octahedron, etc." — i.e., any of a family of off-the-shelf polyhedral lattices.

Result: Claim 1 would have been obvious over Steuart + Google '802 + Amazon. The only arguably novel element — mounting each radial, lockable camera boom through a frame node — is the natural pairing of a radial boom (Google '802/Twiin) with a node-based lattice (common structural art).

Confidence: Moderate-to-high on the combination logic; the analysis depends on confirming Steuart's disclosure of an inward-facing spherical camera distribution, which I could not verify in this session.

---

5. Ground 2 — Claim 1 obvious over Twiin in view of Google '802 (and Amazon)

If the primary reference is instead Twiin Media (US 2016/0381261 / US 10,542,223):

• Twiin discloses multiple cameras on length-adjustable rods radiating from a central plate, all facing inward toward a subject at the center, simultaneously capturing, with lights at each camera — directly reading on 1(a) center focal point, 1(b) radial rays, 1(d) cameras at inner ends, and claim 5's strut/camera-adjacent lighting concept.
• Twiin's rods are length-adjustable and angle-adjustable (claim 3 of Twiin) — i.e., the sliding adjustment of 1(c).
• Twiin's arrangement is hemispherical/ceiling-mounted, so it "lacks" the full spherical polyhedron frame. Google '802 supplies the slidably-lockable structural connector, and a closed lattice (spherical polyhedron) is the obvious extension to obtain 360° coverage top-to-bottom (Twiin's own stated goal of capturing a subject "in a scene," plus Amazon's 3D-wireframe-from-all-angles goal).

Motivation: the field's shared objective — capture all sides of an object for 3D reconstruction — creates an express reason to convert a top-mounted, partial ring into a full closed sphere of radial, lockable camera booms. The radius-adjustment need is expressly recognized: Twiin adjusts rod length; Google '802 fixes slid positions; the '184 rig merely applies both to a full sphere.

Result: Claim 1 obvious over Twiin + Google '802 (+ Amazon for purpose). Confidence: Moderate — depends on treating the transition from a partial/ceiling array to a full closed spherical lattice as a design choice rather than a patentable insight, which is the KSR "predictable variation" conclusion.

---

6. Claim 18 (independent, floor-based) — same grounds, plus

Claim 18 differs only by framing the system "for use in space having a floor" with the center focal point "positioned above the floor" and the frame "approximat[ing] a closed shape."

• Amazon's apparatus and Orbitvu's studio already sit on a floor/base with the subject elevated above it (Orbitvu's rotating table; Amazon's rotatable platform). A center focal point "above the floor" is inherent in any floor-standing studio.
• The drafting artifact previously flagged (claim 18's closing clause reciting "within the spherical polyhedron shape" although its own frame limitation says only "closed shape") should be construed per Phillips against the claim's own text; even under the narrower reading it adds nothing the grounds above do not reach.
• Result: Claim 18 obvious on the same Grounds 1–2 (with Orbitvu supplying the floor-standing, subject-elevated studio). Confidence: Moderate-high, because the added limitations are the weakest in the patent.

---

7. Dependent claims

---

8. Why a POSA would have been motivated to combine (the KSR rationale)

1. Same field, same problem. All of Amazon, Google '802, Twiin, Orbitvu, and Steuart are in studio/item photography and multi-camera capture. Combination within a single field is the least demanding case; KSR requires only a "reasonable expectation of success."
2. The problem is stated in the art. Every reference identifies the same deficiencies the '184 background recites: fixed camera positions (Orbitvu ¶0004–0006; Amazon's single-track camera), the need for full angular coverage (Twiin, Steuart), and the need for consistent, quickly-repeatable item imaging for e-commerce (Amazon's stated purpose).
3. The solution is a known technique applied predictably. "Slidably disposed ... fixing device for selectively fixing the position" (Google '802) is a general mechanical expedient. Applying it to camera booms to accommodate different object sizes yields no new result — just an adjustable radius. KSR (predictable variation; known technique improving a similar device).
4. Design incentive. A single rig that covers objects from ~2 in to ~48 in (the '184 spec's stated range) eliminates re-rigging/re-calibration between product sizes — an express, obvious commercial driver for an online retailer capturing thousands of SKUs. The '184 specification itself frames the benefit purely in throughput and cost terms ("cost and time ... is prohibitive"), which is the classic market-forces motivation.
5. Reasonable expectation of success. Because each element (inward camera array, radial booms, lockable slides, strut lighting, polarizers) was independently known and functionally compatible, a POSA would expect the combination to work. No teaching away was identified in the retrieved references.

---

9. Objective indicia (secondary considerations)

• Commercial success: Target's use of a 3D product-imaging pipeline is real, but any success is weakly linked to the claims. The claimed apparatus is an internal capture tool; there is no evidence of sales/leases of the claimed rig, and no evidence the commercial value derives from the specific recitations (spherical polyhedron joint members + radial slidable arms) rather than from the photographic output, software stitching, or branding. No established nexus.
• Long-felt need / failure of others: Not evidenced in the record; the field is crowded with pre-2017 3D-studio systems (see §3.5), which cuts against a long-felt-need narrative.
• Praise / licensing: None identified (consistent with the litigation summary finding a defensive, never-asserted asset).
• Copying: No findings.

None of these is strong enough to overcome the prima facie case above.

---

10. Rebuttals and where the record is thin (candor checkpoints)

Potential patent-owner arguments and my assessment:

1. "No reference discloses a spherical polyhedron closed frame with a camera boom through each joint member."

   • Likely partially true as to a single reference, but the combination supplies it: node-lattice structure (old structural art) + radial lockable booms (Google '802/Twiin). The patent's own spec concedes the lattice is interchangeable among tetrahedron/icosahedron/dodecahedron/etc. This is the strongest non-obviousness argument available and it is weak.

2. "The prior art moves the camera around a fixed object; the invention moves the cameras radially as a set to keep angular spacing while changing radius."

   • This is a genuine difference, but it is a combination of two known adjustments (Twiin adjusts its radial rods; Google '802 locks a slid position). Maintaining angular spacing while changing radius is a predictable result of sliding each arm along its own fixed ray — the geometry the claim itself recites.

3. "Claim 18's 'closed shape'/'floor' framing is not taught."

   • Weakest claim; floor-standing studios are the norm (Orbitvu, Counts, Huebner).

Where my analysis depends on unverified material (be careful before relying on it):

• I did not retrieve the text of US 2004/0246333 (Steuart), US 5,915,132 (Counts), US 6,343,184 (Huebner), US 2016/0360184 (Fraunhofer), US 2018/0234627 (Kim), US 10,122,997 (Lowe's), US 2018/0338129 (EA), US 2012/0293632 (Yukich), US 2016/0065798 (Zaybu), US 2016/0381257 (Asustek), US 2018/0002035 (Neely). My characterization of Steuart rests on title/field, and should be confirmed by pulling the document — a full-text check could strengthen or weaken Ground 1 materially.
• I did not retrieve the U.S. text of US 8,462,206 B1; the Amazon disclosure summarized in §3.3 is verified but attributed to the family by inference. Verify the U.S. text before relying on it.
• My characterization of Twiin rests on the issued sibling US 10,542,223 and its abstract/claims, which is the correct corresponding disclosure for the published US 2016/0381261 A1 cited on the face.
• I did not run a clearance-type search for non-cited § 102 prior art (e.g., consumer "camera dome"/"bullet-time" rigs, Bosch/Photogrammetry rigs, or the numerous post-2014 VR camera-array products). Such art would only strengthen the obviousness position; its absence does not weaken the grounds above.

One legal caveat: an expired-for-fee patent is not automatically invalid; § 103 invalidity is a defense/affirmative challenge that must be established by clear and convincing evidence in litigation, or by a preponderance for IPR. This section supplies a prima facie obviousness case; it is not a validity adjudication.

---

11. Bottom line

Claim 1 — Provisional conclusion: obvious under § 103. Best ground: Steuart (US 2004/0246333) in view of Google (US 8,526,802), further in view of Amazon (US 8,462,206); alternative ground Twiin (US 2016/0381261) + Google (US 8,526,802) + Amazon. The crux limitation — radial arms that are "selectively, linearly slidable and securable" — is squarely met by Google '802's slidable boom/leg components with "fixing device[s] ... for selectively fixing the position," and the "spherical polyhedron" frame is a predictable variation on known geodesic lattice structure.

Claim 18 — Obvious on the same grounds plus Orbitvu (floor-standing, subject-elevated studio); the floor limitation is the weakest element and the claim contains a drafting artifact ("within the spherical polyhedron shape") that should be construed against its own text.

Dependent claims 2–17 and 19–22 — Obvious; each adds a routine structural or photographic expedient (cylindrical sliding joint, hollow struts, strut-mounted lights, polarized/non-polarized lighting as in Google '802's diffuser/polarizer, stand, bottom opening/pedestal, geodesic form, frame-mounted projectors).

Confidence: Moderate-to-high on the dependent claims and claim 18; moderate on claim 1, gated on (i) confirming Steuart's inward-facing spherical camera distribution and (ii) the Amazon U.S. text. The motivation-to-combine rationale is strong and KSR-compliant (same field, stated problem in each reference, known technique applied predictably, commercial throughput incentive expressly recited in the specification). Objective indicia appear weak and lack nexus.