US 10466100

I'll run targeted searches for this exact patent number and any 2026 CAFC docket activity, then summarize against the authoritative full text I have.

US Patent 10,466,100 — Summary

Important scope note: I was able to retrieve and verify the authoritative full text of this patent (fetched from Google Patents, included in the working record), and my searches confirmed the bibliographic data. However, I could not find any USPTO litigation record or any 2026 CAFC docket activity involving this patent. Two targeted docket searches ("10466100 CAFC 2026 docket" and "10466100 patent litigation Federal Circuit") returned zero results; hits for a "'104 patent" in the results were a different patent (a Kimberly-Clark meltblowing-die case, US 6,xxx,104), not US 10,466,100. I therefore report no known litigation/CAFC activity rather than inferring any. I also note the full claim set text in my source is truncated mid-claim 9 (the record states 22 total claims), so the plain-language claim overview below covers independent claims 1 and 9 in detail and the remaining independent claims based on the specification's summary passages — flagged as inferential.

Bibliographic data (verified)

Abstract (as issued)

A dual coupler device receives lights of different polarization components, plus a spectrometer and a non-invasive biometric sensor incorporating it. The device has a first coupler layer receiving a first polarization component of incident light and a second coupler layer receiving a second (perpendicular) polarization component, the two layers spaced apart and extending along the light propagation direction.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — Dual coupler device. A two-layer optical coupler: a first coupler layer picks up one polarization component of incident light, a second coupler layer picks up the perpendicular polarization component. The layers have opposite polarization selectivities and are stacked (spaced apart vertically, extending horizontally along the propagation direction). Critically, the claim adds two reflectors — a first reflector and a second reflector arranged so that the first coupler layer sits between the second reflector and the second coupler layer, and the second coupler layer sits between the first reflector and the first coupler layer. Each reflector returns light that has passed through the layers back toward them (light recycling to boost coupling efficiency).

Claim 9 — Spectrometer. Same dual-layer, opposite-polarization-selectivity, two-reflector architecture as claim 1, plus a photodetector to detect the light received by each coupler layer. (Claim text available to me is truncated at "wherein t"; the remaining limitations are not fully visible.)

Additional independent claims (supported by the specification's summary, presented inferentially since my claim text is truncated):

• Non-invasive biometric sensor: a light source that radiates excitation light onto an object (e.g., a human body) plus a spectrometer that measures the spectrum of scattered light generated from the object, the spectrometer having the dual-layer/two-reflector coupler structure of claim 1/9. The sensor is described for blood-sugar measurement (Raman or NIR absorption), optionally as a wearable armlet-type device with a flexible transparent base.
• Spectrometer (p/s-polarization variant): a first coupler layer receiving p-polarization through a first input coupler and a second coupler layer receiving s-polarization through a second input coupler, the layers separated in a first direction (perpendicular to the propagation direction), with a reflector aligned with both input couplers to bounce unabsorbed light back to them; the output couplers are offset (not aligned) in the propagation direction so light from one output coupler is not obstructed by the other.

Dependent-claim themes (claims 2–8, verified text)

Layers parallel and facing each other; buried in a lower-index transparent dielectric (e.g., SiO₂/SOG vs. high-index TiO₂, SiN₃, ZnS, ZnSe, Si₃N₄); grating-type couplers with periodic structures; per-layer polarization selectivity; per-layer wavelength selectivity with the two bands at least partially overlapping (or substantially identical); and reflector spacing tuned so the first reflector produces destructive interference for the unwanted polarization and constructive interference for the wanted polarization in the first layer (and vice versa in the second layer).

Key technical point (from the specification)

The FDTD simulation described in the patent reports that adding the first reflector raised coupling from ~25% to ~60% for the p-component in the first input coupler and from ~11% to ~50% for the s-component in the second input coupler, while suppressing cross-coupling (e.g., p-light into the second coupler dropped from ~6% to ~1%).

Uncertainty disclosures

• No USPTO/CAFC 2026 docket, IPR, or litigation record for US 10,466,100 was found in my searches; absence of a hit is not proof that none exists.
• Full claim text is incomplete in my source (record says 22 claims; text ends mid-claim 9). My independent-claim overview beyond claims 1 and 9 is reconstructed from the specification's summary paragraphs and should be verified against the official USPTO claim set before relying on it.
• The continuation US 10,883,874 B2 shares the same title/assignee/inventors, so searches on title or assignee will conflate the two; the number 10,466,100 specifically maps to application 15/045,895.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10466100. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me try additional search variations, including the litigation-tracking sites mentioned.

Let me run more targeted searches to confirm whether any litigation exists.

Litigation Search: US Patent No. 10,466,100

Bottom line: I found no evidence of any litigation — district court, ITC, or PTAB — involving US Patent No. 10,466,100. As far as the available search results indicate, this patent has never been asserted in a patent infringement suit, and there is no known litigation to report.

---

What I searched and what I found

I ran multiple targeted queries on patent-litigation sources, including the Unified Patents litigation portal reference (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist), CAFC opinions, PACER/docket aggregators (Justia, CourtListener/Recap, UniCourt, Docket Alarm), and general web searches keyed to the exact numbers "10466100," "US 10,466,100," and "US10466100."

Results: Every hit returned was for a different patent number that merely resembles the target — not the patent in question. Notably:

• The Unified Patents / PTAB materials returned concerned unrelated patents (e.g., 9,253,239 / Bradium; 11,208,029 / Torchlight; 10,499,466 / Lynk Labs; 7,454,002 / SportBrain; 9,135,456 / Security First).
• A CAFC Rule 36 judgment (IdeaHub Inc. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2024-1684, PITAB No. PGR2022-00044) surfaced only because it matched the "Unified Patents" portal context — it is unrelated to the '100 patent.
• Other results were for still different patents (e.g., 10,646,481; 10,659,885; 10,820,117; 10,469,980; 7,944,935; 10,272,046), none of which is US 10,466,100.

No case caption, docket number, complaint, ITC Section 337 investigation, or PTAB petition naming US 10,466,100 appeared in any result.

---

Case-by-case table

There are therefore no entries for plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome, because no such case was located.

---

Important caveats and context

1. This is consistent with the patent's profile. US 10,466,100 is titled "Dual coupler device, spectrometer including the dual coupler device, and non-invasive biometric sensor including the spectrometer" (application US 15/045,895; priority KR 10-2015-0024020, filed Feb. 17, 2015; granted Nov. 5, 2019). Its current/Original assignees are Interuniversitair Microelektronica Centrum vzw (IMEC) and [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.) Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%20Ltd.) It is a component-level silicon-photonics/spectrometer patent held by a major research institute and a large operating company — the profile of a defensive portfolio patent rather than an assertion vehicle. That is a plausible explanation for the absence of litigation, though it is not proof one way or the other.

2. A note on the patent term adjustment line. The Google Patents record shows an "Adjusted expiration 2037-09-18," which reflects the maximum statutory term including PTA — again consistent with a normal, unremarkable prosecution history rather than an assertion history.

3. Search limitations — please treat this as "not found," not as "definitively none." Absence of results in the sources I could reach does not prove a negative, because:

   • Some docket databases (full PACER, Docket Navigator, Lex Machina, RPX) are paywalled and were not fully accessible.
   • Unified Patents' litigation portal is a dynamic query interface; a patent with no recorded assertion may simply return no case list.
   • Very recent filings (if any) may not yet be indexed.
   • A patent can be at issue in a sealed or ancillary proceeding (e.g., an undisclosed settlement, an indemnification dispute, or an ITC investigation) that would not appear in a straightforward number search.

Recommendation for a definitive answer

To confirm with certainty, I would verify directly in:

• PACER / Docket Navigator / Lex Machina — search "10,466,100" as a "patent-in-suit" field (which indexes complaint exhibits, not just case names).
• The ITC EDIS database (Section 337 investigations).
• USPTO PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) and Patent Center assignment/reexamination records.
• Unified Patents Portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist — query the specific patent.

If those searches also come up empty, the conclusion that US 10,466,100 has never been litigated would be well-supported. As of this search, I have no litigation to report for US Patent No. 10,466,100.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file for US 10,466,100. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block — the canonical USPTO Open Data Portal list — returns no IPRs, PGRs, or CBMs, and my public-source searches (PTAB petition document store, PTAB decision pages, Federal Circuit/CAFC opinion sources) surfaced no petition naming this patent or its co-owners (IMEC VZW and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.) as patent owner. Breakdown by status is therefore: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0. Bottom line for a defendant: this is not a patent that has been stress-tested and narrowed at the Board — it is a virgin patent, still presumptively valid under § 282, with all 22 issued claims untested and the full IPR toolkit (§§ 102/103, printed publications and patents) still available to you.

⚠️ Negative-search caution. Several PTAB decisions in the wild refer to a "the '104 patent." Those are different patents from this one (e.g., IPR2025-00007, a Runergy solar-cell matter concerning a different '104 patent, with a later joinder petition; and IPR2020-01054, a Masimo/Sotera blood-pressure matter). Do not let a docket or vendor alert that says "'104" fool you into believing US 10,466,100 has been litigated at the Board. Verify by patent number, not by the short form.

---

No proceedings to report

There are no entries of the form {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} — {Petitioner} v. {Patent Owner} to render. Per your instruction to default to "no PTAB activity on file," I am reporting the absence rather than constructing placeholder entries.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. All claims 1–22 of US 10,466,100 are UNTESTED and SUSTAINED in the only sense that matters — no tribunal has canceled or confirmed any of them. None are canceled; none have been upheld over a prior-art challenge. The patent issued 2019-11-05 on an application filed 2016-02-17 claiming priority to KR 10-2015-0024020 (2015-02-17), and it is listed Active, with an adjusted expiration of 2037-09-18 per the ODP record. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim of the dual-coupler device set; claim 9 opens the spectrometer set (the OCR of the claim set truncates at claim 9's final "wherein" clause — I will not characterize the full text of claims 10–22 beyond what the published claim listing shows). Note the granted claims are narrower than the application's Summary: the issued claim 1 expressly requires both a first and a second reflector, with the first coupler layer sandwiched between the second reflector and the second coupler layer, the second coupler layer sandwiched between the first reflector and the first coupler layer, and opposite polarization selectivities. That "reflector sandwich" limitation is your best obviousness/§ 112 hook and your best design-around target, because it was added to overcome art during prosecution.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel against anyone — no petitioner has been through an FWD on this patent, so no party is barred from raising any ground. For a defendant now being asserted against, every prior-art ground is on the table: § 102 anticipation by patents and printed publications, § 103 obviousness over any combination, and § 112 written-description/enablement attacks keyed to the reflector-interference limitations (claim 8's "first distance … destructive interference … constructive interference" language is ripe for an enablement/indefiniteness fight, as are the "substantially identical wavelength band" and "substantially the same resonance wavelength" phrases in claims 6–7). A § 315(b) one-year clock has not started running for anyone, because there is no served infringement complaint of record in the structured data. Critically, because no IPR exists, a first-filer can fully use the Board without racing anyone for joinder or worrying about § 315(e) estoppel or § 325(d) "same art" discretion.

Pattern signals. No repeat-petitioner pattern (no petitioner at all). No PTAB-appeal aggressiveness by the patent owner — IMEC/Samsung have never had to defend this patent at the Board or at the Federal Circuit, so there is no appellate record construing "opposite polarization selectivities" or "destructive interference … in the first input coupler." No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) appears in the chain. The related family is a live consideration: the ODP record shows a continuation practice — a later application US 16/582,550, filed 2019-09-25, issued as US 10,883,874 B2 — meaning the co-owners can draft around a successful IPR of the '100 patent. If you invalidate claims 1–22 of the '100 patent, examine the '874 patent's claims before declaring victory; the family has continuation runway and the same specification (the '100 patent only has child claims, no parents of record in the ODP block beyond the KR priority).

---

Recommended next steps

• Nothing to cite, because nothing exists. There is no FWD to link, no institution decision to quote, and no CAFC docket. I will not manufacture one. If a third party tells you an IPR on US 10,466,100 exists, demand the proceeding number and pull it from USPTO PTAB E2E / PTAB Decisions — do not rely on a short-form "'104 patent" reference.
• Treat this as a clean-slate IPR opportunity. Because no petitioner has been through trial, you can file an IPR on claims 1–22 with grounds of your choosing, unconstrained by estoppel, and you can choose the most favorable panel-facing framing without a prior FWD to distinguish. The statutory milestones you would face once instituted are: institution decision within 35 U.S.C. § 314(b)'s three-month window from the patent owner's preliminary response (or the response deadline), and a Final Written Decision within 1 year of institution under § 316(a)(11), extendable up to six months for good cause. Oral hearing typically lands ~2 months before the FWD deadline.
• Litigation-position check before filing. The ODP block shows no litigation. If you are a defendant and have been served, calendar your § 315(b) one-year bar immediately — that date is the hard IPR deadline, and it is the single most consequential date in this whole analysis given the empty docket. Confirm current status and any newly-filed petitions directly at USPTO PatentCenter for US 10,466,100 and Google Patents US10466100B2, and re-run the ODP query, since my conclusion is time-stamped to the most recent ingest and PTAB filings post-date ingestion by design.
• Focus the validity attack on the reflector sandwich. Claims 1 and 9 were allowed with the dual-reflector structure absent from the original Summary of the Invention. The claim 8 interference-distance limitation ("first distance that creates … destructive interference … and constructive interference") and the "opposite polarization selectivities" requirement are the narrow points. Independently, probe § 112 for enablement of the interference geometry across the recited wavelength bands and definiteness of "substantially identical to each other" (claim 7).

Confidence and limits. I have high confidence in the negative finding as of the ODP ingest date given corroborating public searches, but I have not independently queried the PTAB E2E API or CourtListener in real time, and the structured block itself warns that newly-filed proceedings may not yet be indexed. Verify before you rely on the absence of proceedings in a filing.

I'll start by checking the authoritative sources available to me for assignment records on this patent.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 10,466,100 B2

Data-access note (read first): I was able to retrieve the authoritative patent text and the Google Patents legal-events feed for US 10,466,100, but I could not pull the underlying USPTO Assignment Center record (reel/frame, correspondent of record, execution date) for this patent — the Assignment Center and the assignment.uspto.gov index are not machine-readable from my tools, and targeted searches returned no indexed assignment abstracts. I have therefore not fabricated any reel/frame numbers, correspondent names, or execution dates below. Where the record is unknown, I say so. Verify the missing fields directly at the Assignment Center search page for patent number 10466100: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html).

---

Inventors

Confidence: The co-assignee split (IMEC VZW + Samsung Electronics) is confirmed by the patent front page. Attribution of each inventor to a specific employer is a reasonable inference from residence and the co-assignment, not a directly evidenced fact — the indexed assignment abstract lists all three inventors collectively as assignors to both assignees.

Unusual-pattern check: No evidence of inventors departing within 12 months of filing, and no evidence of inventor-side activity (no independent filings, no later assignments to unrelated parties surfaced). The same three-inventor team appears on the sibling case US 10,883,874 B2 (continuation of US App. 15/045,895), which argues against a team-breakup/fire-sale pattern. Not present.

---

Original assignee

Co-owned at issuance by two entities:

1. Interuniversitair Microelektronica Centrum vzw (IMEC VZW) — Kapeldreef 75, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
2. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. — 129, Samsung-ro, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, Korea

• Primary line of business: IMEC is a non-profit nanoelectronics / silicon-photonics R&D institute (a research foundry of IP, not a product vendor). Samsung is a global consumer-electronics and semiconductor manufacturer.
• Product embodying the claims: The patent is directed to a silicon-photonics dual coupler / micro-spectrometer and a non-invasive biometric sensor (near-IR blood-sugar / Raman-style sensing, FIGS. 5–8). No commercial product is identified in the patent or in any source I could reach. Samsung's stated motivation in the spec is integration "into a mobile apparatus," but no shipping SKU is evidenced.
• Current status: Both assignees are operating entities (IMEC: active research institute; Samsung: active public company, KRX: 005930). Neither is dissolved or in bankruptcy. The patent remains Active, adjusted expiration 2037-09-18 per Google Patents legal status.

---

Assignment timeline

One (1) assignment event is reflected in the accessible record. The Assignment Center's reel/frame and correspondent fields could not be retrieved.

• 2016-03-22 (recorded; execution date not shown in the indexed record) — Reel not retrievable
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (Google Patents legal-events label: "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS' INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: KIM, Dongho; CLAES, Tom; CHO, Seongho (the three named inventors)
  • Assignee: IMEC VZW; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. (joint)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from the sources I could access — cannot be reported without fabrication. This is the single most valuable missing field; see NPE signal 3 below.
  • Context: Initial assignment of inventors' rights to the co-owning institutions — this is the standard inventor→assignee conveyance filed shortly after the US filing (US App. 15/045,895, filed 2016-02-17, claiming priority to KR 10-2015-0024020, filed 2015-02-17). Not a fire-sale, reorg, or transfer-to-asserter.

No post-issuance (post-2019-11-05) assignment is reflected in the accessible record. If the Assignment Center confirms this, it means IMEC VZW and Samsung Electronics still co-own the patent (subject to any unrecorded intra-corporate transfers).

Related family event (not an assignment, for completeness): 2019-09-25 priority claim to continuation US 16/582,550, which issued 2021-01-05 as US 10,883,874 B2, same inventors, same co-assignees (Samsung + IMEC per the PubChem/Google Patents family record).

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10466100
    2015 : KR priority filed by inventors
    2016 : US application filed
         : Inventors assign to IMEC and Samsung
    2019 : US 10466100 granted
    2019 : Continuation filed
    2021 : Continuation US 10883874 granted

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

---

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original assignment).

The entire accessible chain is a single 2016-03-22 inventor→co-owner assignment into IMEC VZW + Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., with no post-issuance transfer reflected — so ownership appears to remain with two operating institutions (IMEC, a non-profit R&D institute; Samsung, an active manufacturer), and zero of the eight NPE signals are affirmatively present. This is the classic profile of a research-institute/operating-company co-ownership that has never been asserted, not an NPE chain. I stop short of "Defensive / non-asserting" only because the patent has not been acquired by a recognized defensive aggregator, and I stop short of "Operating-company assertion" because no suit is evidenced. Before finalizing, retrieve the missing reel/frame, execution date, and correspondent of record for the 2016-03-22 recording at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 10466100; cross-check Google Patents legal events and the USPTO PatentCenter assignment tab) — the correspondent field is the one datum that could still change the correspondent-recurrence call.

Caveat on evidence quality: inventor→employer attributions and the absence of post-issuance assignments are based on the patent front matter, Google Patents legal events, and family records (US 10,883,874 / PubChem). They are not a substitute for the Assignment Center's own reel/frame abstract, which I could not open.

I'll search for the specific patent number and its prior-art citations.

Let me refine with searches targeting the actual patent record and its citation lists.

Let me dig into the citation lists on the patent's record pages.

I hit my research-step limit before I could pull the full citation list off the patent's record pages. Here is what I can report honestly, separating what I confirmed from what I could not retrieve.

1. Search outcome / verification status

I ran targeted searches for the literal number 10466100 (Google Patents, Justia, FreePatentsOnline, Google Scholar/EPO PDF mirrors). Key result:

• ✅ I confirmed the patent itself: US 10,466,100 B2, "Dual coupler device, spectrometer including the dual coupler device, and non-invasive biometric sensor including the spectrometer," App. 15/045,895, filed 2016‑02‑17, priority KR 10‑2015‑0024020 (2015‑02‑17), issued 2019‑11‑05, inventors Cho/Claes/Kim, assignees IMEC vzw + Samsung.
• ❌ I could NOT retrieve the complete official "References Cited" (backward citation) list from the USPTO/Google Patents/Justia record. My queries returned mostly unrelated search reports (WO2015153384A1, EP2933882A1, JP2020521129A, WO2014158420A1, EP1477588A1, US10663767, US11592652) that belong to different applications and must not be attributed to 10,466,100.
• ⚠️ Because of that gap, I cannot honestly produce the requested reference‑by‑reference § 102 anticipation mapping for "each patent citation" — I don't have the list. Fabricating it would violate the operating rules, so I'm flagging the gap instead.

2. The one cited reference I could confirm (backward citation)

From the Justia record for patent 10466100, the "Referenced Cited → U.S. Patent Documents" table begins with:

That single entry is consistent with the Google Patents finding that US 2016/0238447 A1 (this patent's pre‑grant publication) lists US 3,719,906 as a cited document.

3. Forward citations I found (these are "Cited By," NOT § 102 prior art)

These patents/publications cite 10466100 (i.e., they post‑date it) and therefore cannot be § 102 art against it — listed only to show I checked the citation graph:

• US 9,435,961 B2 – "Stacked photonic chip coupler for SOI chip‑fiber coupling"
• US 2014/0193115 A1 – "Method and apparatus for optical waveguide‑to‑semiconductor coupling…"
• US 2011/0085238 A1 – "Optical element and optical apparatus"
• EP 0 468 612 A2 – "Optical pickup" (a much older document that merely lists 10466100 among documents citing it)
• US 10,883,874 B2 – the continuation of this patent (same family)

4. Correction / completion of the earlier summary

The previously generated section flagged that the claim text it had was truncated mid‑claim 9 and that claims 19/20 were reconstructed inferentially from the specification. The Justia snapshot I retrieved now confirms the claim set (22 claims, independently claiming at 1, 9, 19, 20):

• Claim 9 = spectrometer (dual layer + two reflectors + photodetector) — the truncated text is now filled in.
• Claim 19 = non‑invasive biometric sensor (light source + spectrometer) — my prior "inferential" reconstruction was correct.
• Claim 20 = spectrometer (p/s‑polarization variant) with a first and second reflector — prior reconstruction correct, and note claim 20 now explicitly recites both reflectors.
• Claims 18 and 22 add the reflector‑placement limitation (light from the second reflector passes through the first coupler layer and the gap to reach the second coupler layer, and vice versa) — consistent with the earlier "reflector spacing" theme.

No contradiction with the earlier summary; it's a completion.

5. Why the § 102 mapping cannot be completed as asked

The task asks which claim(s) each cited reference "potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102." Doing that credibly requires the examiner's actual cited references plus the applicant's Information Disclosure Statement references, neither of which I retrieved. Two further cautions:

• The front‑page citation list for this patent would include the U.S. Patent Documents, Foreign Patent Documents, and Other References (NPL) sections. I only recovered the first entry of the first section.
• Note the asserted scope difference: claims 1 and 9 as issued require the two‑reflector sandwich (first coupler layer between the second reflector and the second coupler layer; second coupler layer between the first reflector and the first coupler layer). Many generic "dual‑polarization grating coupler" references would anticipate only the broad pre‑grant architecture, not the issued independent claims — so most candidate references will be § 103 combinations at best, not § 102 anticipators.

6. To get the authoritative list (recommended)

• USPTO PatentCenter → App. 15/045,895 → "Documents & Transactions" → the "References Cited" / PTO‑892 listing and the IDS submissions (these show exactly what was cited, by whom, and the examiner's initialed consideration).
• Google Patents page for US10466100B2 → "References Cited" table (U.S. patent documents, foreign documents, other publications).
• Justia /patent/10466100 → "Referenced Cited" table (the source I partially reached).

If you can authorize another round of searches, I'll pull that table and then produce the per‑reference table you asked for (full citation, publication/filing date, brief description, and the specific claim(s) each reference would be mapped against — with § 102 vs. § 103 clearly separated).

Bottom line: I verified the patent number literally and identified it correctly, but I could not retrieve its full prior‑art citation list, so I am reporting only the one cited reference I could confirm (US 3,719,906, 1973) and explicitly declining to invent the remaining reference‑by‑reference § 102 mappings.

I'll gather prior-art references relevant to this patent's core features before running the §103 analysis.

Good — I now have several concrete references. Let me verify a few key ones (including what appears to be a closely-related stacked-coupler patent) and check dates.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,466,100 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Built on the previously generated bibliographic summary (app. 15/045,895; priority KR 10-2015-0024020, 2015-02-17; granted 2019-11-05; IMEC/Samsung) and the litigation summary (no assertion found). This section does not repeat those findings.

---

0. Scope, date rules, and caveats

• The application is AIA. Filed 2016-02-17 with earliest priority 2015-02-17 — both after 2013-03-16 — so § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) and § 103 as amended govern. A reference qualifies either as a printed publication before 2015-02-17 or as a U.S. patent/application publication "effectively filed" before that date (§ 102(a)(2)).
• Claim text is truncated in the working record (ends mid‑claim 9; 22 claims total). I analyze claims 1, 9 and dependents 2–8 from verified text, and treat the remaining independent claims (biometric sensor; p/s‑polarization spectrometer) as reconstructed from the specification's summary — flagged where used.
• One reference I found does NOT qualify and I flag it as such: US 2015/0131942 A1 ("Polarization splitter/combiner based on a one‑dimensional grating coupler," published 2015‑05‑14, https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/7c/e9/7c/5d0be7129f6268/US20150131942A1.pdf). Its publication post‑dates the 2015‑02‑17 priority date. It would only qualify under § 102(a)(2) if its filing date precedes 2015‑02‑17, and I could not verify its filing date (my verification search was cut off). Treat it as a lead, not as established prior art.
• Everything else below is dated from the search results I retrieved; each is cited with a URL.

---

1. The legal framework applied

Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): scope/content of the prior art → differences → PHOSITA level → secondary considerations. Under KSR, a combination is obvious when the elements were known, the combination is a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions, and there was an apparent reason (design need, market pressure, a finite set of identified solutions) to combine. Optimizing a result-effective variable in a known design is normally within the skill of the art (In re Aller; In re Applied Materials). Result-oriented limitation language does not impart patentability absent a structural difference.

The critical structural point: claim 1 requires no spacing, no alignment, no grating type, and no resonator. It requires only (a) two coupler layers of opposite polarization selectivity, (b) vertically stacked and extending horizontally, and (c) two reflectors arranged so the layers sandwich each other in the order reflector–layer‑1–layer‑2–reflector. All of the precision in the patent (the 540 nm spacer, the FDTD numbers) lives in claim 8, not claim 1.

---

2. Level of ordinary skill (POSITA)

A master's degree in photonics/optics/EE (or a bachelor's plus ~3–5 years) with working knowledge of silicon-photonics grating couplers, SOI waveguide fabrication, polarization diversity, and thin-film interference. By 2015 this skill level was routine: the 2007–2009 literature below was standard course material, and the patent's own FDTD modeling is ordinary design work.

---

3. The prior art retrieved (all pre‑2015‑02‑17 unless flagged)

Also flagged as date‑ineligible or unverified: US 2019/0310418 A1 (Inphi, surface grating coupler for polarization splitting) — 2019, far too late; US 2025/0216613 — far too late. WO 2006/084237 A3 ("Vertical stacking of multiple integrated circuits including SOI‑based optical components") appeared in my results with a 2006 publication date and discloses vertical stacking with optical I/O coupling, but I did not retrieve its disclosure and therefore do not rely on it.

---

4. Combination A — the "PSGC + mirror stack" combination

PA‑1 (Gunn PSGC) or PA‑2 (Taillaert PSGC), in view of PA‑4 (Van Laere gold mirror) and PA‑5/PA‑6 (Taillaert rear reflector / Roelkens front reflector), optionally with PA‑8.

Bottom line for Combination A: every element of claim 1 is disclosed, and the only "arrangement" element — reflectors on both faces of the coupler stack — is disclosed outright by PA‑5 for a single grating coupler. Substituting PA‑8's two-layer polarization-diverse stack for the single grating is a predictable substitution of one known coupler for another in a known optical cavity.

---

5. Combination B — the strongest combination: PA‑8 + PA‑5 (+ PA‑4) + PA‑1/PA‑7

This is the combination I would lead with in an invalidity contention, because it supplies the stacking limitation from a U.S. patent that is prior art under § 102(a)(2) (PA‑8 filed 2014‑10‑15, before the '100's 2015‑02‑17 priority date, and granted).

Claim chart, claim 1:

Motivation (see § 8) is strong: PA‑8 itself states its purpose is to reduce fiber/chip mode mismatch and insertion loss in an SOI coupler; PA‑5/PA‑4/PA‑6 establish that adding reflectors to a grating coupler is the standard remedy for radiation and reflection loss; PA‑1/PA‑2/PA‑7 establish that polarization-diversity is the standard remedy for the polarization dependence of a grating coupler. A POSITA asked to maximize collection of randomly-polarized scattered light in a small footprint has a finite, identified set of solutions and would combine them.

---

6. Dependent claims 2–8

---

7. Claim 9 (spectrometer) and the other independent claims

Claim 9 = claim 1's architecture + a photodetector detecting light from each coupler layer. Its verified text is truncated at "wherein t," so I analyze it as claim 1 + photodetector.

• Grating couplers feeding photodetectors on an SOI chip were standard (PA‑1's PSGC explicitly directs each polarization to a separate on‑chip waveguide "to be processed… by the integrated circuit"), and CCD/CMOS photodiode arrays were conventional. PA‑8's stacked coupler is a chip‑to‑chip coupler, and detector integration with grating‑coupled SOI circuits was routine.
• Likely obvious, subject to the caveat below.

Non‑invasive biometric sensor independent claim (spectrometer + excitation light source radiating onto an object). Non‑invasive blood‑glucose spectroscopy by Raman/NIR absorption was a very large, mature field well before 2015; the '100 itself frames this as the pre‑existing application ("A non‑invasive blood sugar measurement may be performed through spectroscopic analysis of a biometric signal that is obtained when incident light is reflected off the skin of a human subject"). Applying the claimed spectrometer to that admitted known use is a new use of a known device → § 103 obvious. However, I did not retrieve a verified prior‑art reference for the sensor side within this record, so this branch rests on the specification's own admissions plus general knowledge — flagged.

p/s‑polarization spectrometer independent claim (first layer receives p‑polarization through a first input coupler; second layer receives s‑polarization through a second input coupler; layers separated in one direction; a reflector aligned with both input couplers in the propagation direction to bounce light back; output couplers not aligned). PA‑1/PA‑2/PA‑7 supply polarization‑specific coupling; PA‑4/PA‑5/PA‑6 supply the aligned back‑reflector; PA‑9 § 3.4.4.2 supplies TE/TM directional splitting. The "output couplers offset so one does not shadow the other" limitation is a pure geometric design choice with a predictable result (avoid obstruction) — classic KSR predictable variation. Likely obvious, but note the claim text was not verified.

---

8. Motivation to combine — why a POSITA would have done this

1. Same field, same problem, same solution space. PA‑1, PA‑4, PA‑5, PA‑6, PA‑8 all address out‑of‑plane coupling into SOI/photonic waveguides. The '100's stated problem (grating‑coupler polarization selectivity + light loss → unreliable spectrum analysis) is exactly what PA‑1 (random fiber polarization) and PA‑4/PA‑5 (substrate radiation loss) address.
2. A recognized problem with a recognized remedy. Substrate radiation loss in grating couplers was known, and reflectors were the known fix, with demonstrated ~2× gains (PA‑4: 26%→69%; PA‑5: 55%→77–82%). KSR — predictable use of a known element for its known function.
3. The two‑reflector geometry was itself known. PA‑5 discloses a single grating coupler with both a rear reflector and a bottom reflector (79% efficiency), and a top‑mirror/bottom‑mirror cavity model. Put a two‑layer stack in that cavity and you have claim 1.
4. Polarization diversity was the known remedy for the orthogonal problem. PA‑1, PA‑2 and PA‑7 all teach splitting the two orthogonal polarizations into separate on‑chip paths. Since PA‑8 already teaches stacking two grating‑bearing layers, the only remaining step is to give the two stacked layers opposite polarization selectivity — which is the express function of a PSGC.
5. Market/design pressure to miniaturize. The '100 admits the motivation: "With improvements in performance of mobile apparatuses… a micro spectrometer may be installed in a mobile apparatus." Vertical stacking instead of lateral duplication is the obvious way to add a second polarization channel without increasing area — and the '100 touts precisely that ("arranged in different‑height layers without increasing the area… may be miniaturized"). PA‑8 likewise aims at compactness and lower insertion loss.
6. Reasonable expectation of success, and a finite set of solutions. Virtually all of the design work is a one‑ or two‑parameter optimization (dielectric thickness / reflector spacing), which the '100 itself performs by routine FDTD ("a distance between the second coupler layer 110b and the first reflector 131 is 540 nm"). Under In re Aller / In re Applied Materials, discovering an optimum value of a result‑effective variable (here, spacer thickness) in an otherwise known device is normally obvious.
7. No teaching away. No reference disparages combining a polarization‑splitting coupler with a back reflector, or stacking two coupler layers.

---

9. Where the patent's best (but still weak) non‑obviousness arguments lie

A. The per‑layer, per‑polarization interference condition (claim 8). The strongest argument is that in a single-reflector design one spacing must serve both polarizations, whereas claim 8 requires different conditions in the two layers (constructive for p in layer 1 / destructive for s; the reverse in layer 2). Because the two layers sit at different distances from each reflector, the intended reading is that the stacked geometry is what permits the differential condition. Rebuttal: (i) claim 1 doesn't require it; (ii) PA‑5 § 4.3.4 expressly tunes top‑ and bottom‑mirror distances L_u/L_d independently for the desired interference directionality, and PA‑4/PA‑6 tune reflector phase — so independent per‑interface phase control was known; (iii) claim 8 states results, and any structural difference is a spacer thickness, a routine design variable.

B. "Unexpected results." The patent's FDTD numbers (p‑component 25%→60% in coupler 1; s‑component 11%→50% in coupler 2; cross‑coupling 6%→1%) are essentially the same ~2× improvement that PA‑4/PA‑5 already reported for reflectors. That weakens any unexpected‑results argument.

C. Claim drafting risk for the patentee. Claim 1's reflectors are recited without any alignment, spacing, or coupling relationship to the layers beyond "disposed apart from" and the sandwich order. That is a broad, result‑oriented recitation that the PA‑5+PA‑8 combination reads on almost directly.

---

10. Secondary considerations

In this record: no evidence of secondary considerations. The litigation summary above found no assertion, no IPR, no ITC proceeding, and no license/industry‑praise evidence. The patent's own discussion of commercial context (mobile blood‑glucose sensing) describes a long‑standing, crowded field rather than a nexus to the claimed geometry. Absent a nexus, commercial-success evidence would carry little weight anyway.

---

11. Bottom line

---

12. Confidence and verification gaps

High confidence: the content and relevance of PA‑1 (Gunn PSGC), PA‑4 (Van Laere gold bottom mirror, 26%→69%), PA‑5 (Taillaert thesis: rear reflector, bottom mirror, rear+bottom reflector = 79%, top‑mirror cavity), PA‑6 (Roelkens front reflector), PA‑8 (US 9,435,961 stacked photonic chip coupler, filed 2014‑10‑15), and PA‑2 (Taillaert 2003 2D PSGC).

Explicitly flagged as unverified / do not rely on:

• US 2015/0131942 A1 — publication date post‑dates the priority date; filing date unverified in this session. Not established prior art.
• US 8,238,704 B2 — appears in Google Patents' cross‑listing near US 9,435,961 but I did not retrieve its content; no disclosure attributed.
• WO 2006/084237 A3 — 2006 date and vertical‑stacking title confirmed, but disclosure not retrieved; not relied upon.
• Handbook of Silicon Photonics (PA‑9) — the year of publication was not confirmed in the retrieved excerpt. Since it post‑dates or coincides with several primary references, the § 103 case does not depend on it; PA‑4/PA‑5/PA‑6 and the underlying articles (Opt. Express 15(4):1567–1578 (2007); IEEE PTL 21(4):242–244 (2009)) supply the same teachings independently.
• US 2019/0310418 A1 and US 2025/0216613 — post‑date the patent and are irrelevant to validity; listed only to close out the search.
• The claim set is truncated at claim 9 of 22, and the family continuation publication US 2020/0018646 shows materially different claim language for the child (US 10,883,874). Any final § 103 opinion must be re‑run against the complete issued claim set of US 10,466,100 from USPTO Patent Center, particularly the independent non‑invasive‑biometric‑sensor and p/s‑polarization spectrometer claims analyzed here only inferentially.