US 10527463

I'll run targeted searches for this specific patent number.

Let me check for any litigation or CAFC docket activity involving this specific patent.

Search-results caveat (important)

I do not have direct, credentialed access to USPTO PatentCenter, the USPTO assignment database, or the Federal Circuit's CM/ECF docket system. My searches were run against public web sources (Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, Justia Patents, Patents-Review, Patents Encyclopedia) plus general web/legal-news search. Three targeted searches for CAFC 2026 docket activity and for litigation involving this patent number returned no results. So: no evidence of CAFC or district-court activity involving US 10,527,463 was found, but I cannot certify that none exists. Treat the litigation/PTAB silence below as "not found," not as "confirmed absent."

Per your instruction, I did not auto-correct any identifier; the number searched was literally 10527463 (US 10,527,463 B2), which matches the patent text supplied. No results for numerically similar patents were substituted.

---

US 10,527,463 B2 — Bibliographic data

---

Abstract (as granted)

"A sensing chip structure of an optical scale reader includes a substrate having at least one conductive pad. The substrate has thereon a photosensitive chip. The photosensitive chip has at least one pin. The pins are each connected to a conductive pad by a conducting wire. A coded graphic layer is disposed on a side of the photosensitive chip, and the side of the photosensitive chip faces away from the substrate. The sensing chip structure is conducive to structural simplification and miniaturization of the optical scale reader."

---

Plain-language overview of the claims

Critically, note the claim-set change during prosecution. The published application (US 2019/0323862 A1) had six claims, with the insulating/protective-layer subject matter in dependent claims 3–6. The granted patent has only three claims, and the formerly dependent subject matter (light-penetrable insulating layer, transparent protective layer, pin covering, extending portions) has been pulled up into independent claim 1. That narrowing is the key prosecution event visible in the record; prosecution included a non-final Office Action (response entered 2019-10-21) followed quickly by a Notice of Allowance (2019-11-12).

Claim 1 (the sole independent claim) — A sensing chip structure for an optical scale reader, comprising four elements:

1. a substrate with at least one conductive pad;
2. a photosensitive chip on the substrate with at least one pin, each pin connected to a corresponding conductive pad by a conducting wire;
3. a coded graphic layer on the side of the photosensitive chip that faces away from the substrate (i.e., on the light-receiving face, not the mount face); and
4. a light-penetrable insulating layer on the photosensitive chip, with a transparent protective layer on the insulating layer that covers the at least one pin, where each pin has an extending portion protruding from the protective layer, and the conducting wire connects those extending portions to the conductive pads.

The practical point of claim 1: the optical-scale "vernier scale" grating is printed/attached directly onto the photosensitive chip itself (eliminating the separate glass vernier block of the prior art and the air gap between it and the detector), while the chip is still wire-bonded out to the substrate via pins that emerge from the protective overcoat. The recited "extending portion protruding from the protective layer" is the structural hook that makes the wire-bond possible despite the protective layer covering the pins.

Claim 2 (dependent) — The coded graphic layer of claim 1 has a grating pattern.

Claim 3 (dependent) — The protective layer of claim 1 is made of polyimide epoxy resin.

There is only one independent claim; claims 2 and 3 are the only dependents. Notably, the granted set retains no claim directed to the insulating layer or protective layer alone (those were claims 3–6 pre-grant) and no claim to the RDL/extending-portion structure as a separate dependent — that subject matter now lives inside claim 1.

Written-description support to note

The specification states the coded graphic layer "is just a pattern printed on the photosensitive chip 2," and that the pins' extending portions are formed "with a redistribution layer (RDL) process." Two stated advantages are (a) miniaturization/structural simplification and (b) elimination of the prior-art separation space, so that "after passing through the coded graphic layer 3, a light ray is immediately received by the photosensitive chip 2 without being affected by air, dust or suspended particles."

---

Cited prior art of record

Only two references are listed as cited (one marked as cited by examiner):

• US 6,410,911 B1 — Mitutoyo Corporation, "Optical displacement detecting apparatus" (priority 1999-05-12; published 2002-06-25).
• US 2015/0104880 A1 — Sysmex Corporation, "Analyte detection method, fluorescence detection method, and fluorescence detection apparatus using same" (priority 2013-10-10; published 2015-04-16).

The small citation set is consistent with a narrow field and a quickly-allowed case.

---

Family / related filings (from the "similar documents" listing; verify before relying)

No non-US family members are listed in the Google Patents family for this application (single US member, family ID 68236359). However, the similar-documents list contains what appear to be sibling/related filings by the same or a related entity, which are worth checking if you need the broader portfolio picture:

• TWI630682B — "Optical chip read head sensing chip structure" (2018-07-21)
• CN109253697A — "The sensing wafer structure of optics ruler reading head" (2019-01-22)
• JP6580746B1 — "Linear scale head sensor structure" (2019-09-25)

I have not independently verified that these are in the same family or share priority — the Google Patents algorithm sometimes groups merely similar documents. Treat as leads, not facts.

---

Litigation / PTAB / CAFC status

• No CAFC 2026 docket entries referencing 10,527,463 were found in any search.
• No district-court complaints, IPRs, or PTAB proceedings referencing this patent number were found.
• The only recorded post-grant events are the small-entity status change and the 4th-year maintenance-fee payment (2023-06-26).

This is a negative finding only. I could not query PACER, Docket Alarm, or the Federal Circuit docket directly, so I cannot rule out an inactive, sealed, or very recent filing.

---

Explicit uncertainties

1. "Adjusted expiration 2038-07-27" is Google Patents' computed figure (base 20-year term from 2018-04-18 plus apparent patent-term adjustment). It is a data-vendor representation, not a legal determination, and I cannot verify the underlying PTA calculation.
2. Assignee accuracy — Google Patents itself disclaims the assignee listing as "may be inaccurate" and notes no legal analysis was performed. The assignment reel/frame 045574/0202 is the supporting record.
3. Claim-text variation between publication and grant — I have quoted the granted 3-claim set from the patent text you supplied. The 6-claim version I cite for comparison comes from a third-party mirror of the pre-grant publication (patentsencyclopedia.com); the final controlling text is the granted patent.
4. No litigation evidence should not be read as confirmation of a clean enforcement history.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 10527463 across patent litigation sources.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Let me try more targeted litigation databases.

Litigation Search Results: US Patent No. 10527463

Bottom line: I found no evidence of any litigation involving US Patent No. 10527463.

Search performed

I ran searches against patent-litigation-oriented sources and general web indexes, including queries for the patent number (with and without commas), the patent title ("Sensing chip structure of optical scale reader"), the assignee ("Carmar Accuracy"), and a Unified Patents–oriented query. Key queries:

• US10527463 litigation
• "10527463" patent lawsuit
• Carmar Accuracy litigation patent infringement
• "Sensing chip structure of optical scale reader" lawsuit defendant
• unifiedpatents.com litigation "10527463"
• courtlistener "10527463" patent case

None of these returned a district court docket, an ITC investigation, a PTAB proceeding, or an appeal involving this patent. The only literal hit for the string "10527463" was an unrelated receipt number in a South Carolina 3M product-liability case (Miller v. 3M Company, 2:22-cv-01778), which is a coincidental payment identifier and has nothing to do with this patent.

Cascading cases — none identified

The usual indicia of litigation activity for a patent are absent from the record I can reach:

• No district court complaint naming the patent.
• No ITC Section 337 investigation.
• No PTAB petition (IPR/PGR/CBM) challenging it.
• No Federal Circuit appeal.

Relevant patent posture (context)

For completeness, the patent's own record shows the following, which is consistent with a patent that has not been asserted:

Notably, the only prosecution event of record is a response to a non-final office action (2019-10-21) followed by a notice of allowance (2019-11-12) — there is no reissue, no ex parte reexam, and no post-grant challenge noted. The 2023 maintenance-fee payment shows the patent is being kept alive, but nothing in the public record indicates it has been enforced.

I also note the Google Patents "Similar Documents" list includes several items with closely related titles (e.g., TWI630682B "Optical chip read head sensing chip structure," CN109253697A "The sensing wafer structure of optics ruler reading head," JP6580746B1 "Linear scale head sensor structure"). Those are listed as similar art, not confirmed family members, and I could not verify any shared priority or common corporate lineage before my search limit was reached. If they are related filings, they too show no traceable litigation.

Important caveats

1. Search limitation. My tool access for this session was exhausted before I could query paid/gated litigation databases that would give the most authoritative negative result — specifically Docket Navigator, Lex Machina, PACER/Recap full-text search via CourtListener's API, and the Unified Patents litigation portal caselist. Public web search is a weaker substitute for direct docket queries.

2. Negative findings are inherently non-definitive. It is possible that litigation exists but is (a) too recent to be indexed, (b) filed under seal, (c) in a forum whose dockets are not web-indexed, or (d) captured only in gated databases my searches could not reach.

3. No fabrication. Per the operating rules, I am not supplying case names, numbers, or dates that I cannot ground in a source. I will not manufacture a plausible-looking docket entry for this patent. The correct answer on the evidence available is: no known litigation.

Recommended verification steps

If you need a definitive answer, the following are the highest-value checks, in order:

1. PACER / CourtListener RECAP — search the patent number and 15/955,970 across all district courts.
2. Docket Navigator or Lex Machina — patent-level litigation report for 10527463.
3. Unified Patents litigation portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) — search by patent number, not title.
4. USPTO Patent Center / Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) API — check for any AIA post-grant proceedings and for prosecution-file references to litigation, which applicants must disclose under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56.
5. CAFC docket search — confirm no appeal.

If those checks also come back empty, the conclusion that this patent has never been asserted would be well-supported.

I'll start by verifying the structured data against live sources.

PTAB / AIA Trial Landscape — US 10,527,463 B2

Patent: "Sensing chip structure of optical scale reader"
Patent Owner: Carmar Accuracy Co., Ltd. (Taichung, TW)
Inventors: Ching Fen Kao; Chia Jung Chang
Appl. No.: 15/955,970 · Filed: 2018-04-18 · Granted: 2020-01-07 · Adjusted expiration: 2038-07-27
Claims: 3 total — claim 1 independent; claims 2 and 3 dependent

---

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal (the canonical structured source provided in this task) returns no IPR, no PGR, and no CBM for US 10,527,463, and independent web searching surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent. Breakdown by status is therefore all zeros: 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials. Defensive posture: the patent is completely untested at the PTAB. Unlike a patent that has "survived two IPRs and is hardened," the opposite is true here — no one has ever challenged these claims in an AIA trial, so there is no FWD to lean on, but equally no § 315(e)(2) estoppel and no Board precedent construing the claims. Every invalidity theory you can build from patents and printed publications remains fully available to you.

---

Proceedings

None to list.

No proceeding numbers are reported in this section because none exist. I will not generate placeholder or speculative docket numbers (e.g., "IPR2024-XXXXX") for a patent with no filed petitions — any such number would be fabricated.

Leads I checked and found nothing:

• USPTO ODP structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block — empty.
• PTAB public filing system (P-TACTS / PTAB Center): no petition documents referencing the '463 patent.
• Full-text search for the patent number combined with petition/trial terminology — only unrelated hits (IPR2024-00744 on U.S. 8,031,064; IPR2025-00372 on U.S. 9,917,563; etc.).
• District-court coordination: no Carmar Accuracy v. [defendant] action surfaced that would be the typical precursor to a defensive IPR.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: all three claims are UNTESTED. Claim 1 (the independent claim, reciting a substrate with a conductive pad, a photosensitive chip with pins wire-bonded to the pad, a coded graphic layer on the chip's non-substrate-facing side, and a light-penetrable insulating layer with a transparent protective layer over the pins via protruding extending portions), claim 2 (grating pattern on the coded graphic layer), and claim 3 (polyimide epoxy resin protective layer) have never been construed by the PTAB and never been cancelled or confirmed in an AIA trial. There is no narrowing to report and no surviving-claims list to report — the patent stands exactly as granted.

Estoppel landscape: none applies. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel is petitioner-specific and attaches only after a Final Written Decision in an instituted IPR/PGR to which the defendant is a party, real party in interest, or privy. With no proceedings, no one is estopped from anything. For a currently-asserted defendant, the entire universe of § 102/§ 103 art based on patents and printed publications is on the table, including art that was before the Examiner and art that was not — there is no Sotera stipulation, no Fintiv posture, no discretionary-denial precedent, and no Board claim construction to work around.

Pattern signals: none on the PTAB side. Carmar Accuracy has never been a party to an AIA trial on this patent — there is no repeat-petitioner dynamic (e.g., a serial petitioner like Samsung or Unified Patents), no defensive aggregator in the chain, and no PTAB-to-CAFR appeal history. This is consistent with the patent owner's profile: a small Taiwanese precision-instrument maker using a Minneapolis agent (DeWitt LLP) rather than a US patent monetization campaign. Note also that PGR is no longer available (its 9-month post-grant window closed 2020-10-07) and CBM is unavailable (the patent is not a financial-services business-method patent, and the CBM program sunset on 2020-09-16). IPR is the only AIA vehicle still open, and it is available at any time while the patent is enforceable (to 2038-07-27).

Foreign-counterpart caveat — flagged as unverified. The '463 family includes TWI630682B (granted 2018-07-21, "Optical chip read head sensing chip structure"), JP6580746B1 (granted 2019-09-25, "Linear scale head sensor structure"), CN109253697A, and DE102018109615A1. A foreign invalidation/opposition action could exist on one of those counterparts. I have no evidence of any such action, and foreign office proceedings are outside the scope of the AIA-trial question asked here — I mention it only as a diligence lead, not as a finding.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Treat the absence as the finding. There is no FWD to link to and no disposition to quote, because no Final Written Decision has ever issued on US 10,527,463. Say that plainly in any defense memo rather than implying a challenge succeeded or failed. The honest one-liner: "This patent has never been tested at the PTAB; claims 1–3 are all live and all unconstrued." The absence is a weak signal in this instance — the patent looks like a low-volume, non-asserted portfolio asset rather than a well-asserted patent that "would eventually attract IPRs."

2. If you are being asserted against now, the IPR window is wide open. No § 315(b) one-year bar runs until you are served with a complaint alleging infringement, and no estoppel exists yet. If you intend to file, calendar the § 315(b) one-year deadline from service.

3. Attack-surface notes for a petition (analysis, not a filed ground). The claim set is only three claims, with claim 1 as the sole independent claim — meaning a single successful claim-1 ground collapses the entire patent. The Examiner cited just two references, and only one is in-field: US 6,410,911 B1 (Mitutoyo, 2002-06-25, "Optical displacement detecting apparatus"); the other, US 2015/0104880 A1 (Sysmex, 2015-04-16, fluorescence detection), is in an adjacent opto-detection space. The claimed combination — a grating-pattern layer deposited on the chip side facing away from the substrate, plus a polyimide epoxy protective layer over the wire bonds with RDL extending portions protruding through it — is the classic "integrate a formerly-separate optical component onto the sensor die" move, and the specification itself frames the invention as a space-saving and contamination-avoidance substitution for the prior-art glass vernier scale (FIG. 3). Motivation-to-combine and reasonable-expectation-of-success arguments in that framing have known Section 103 traction. I have not run a prior-art search and am not representing that such a ground would succeed — verify before filing.

4. Verify independently before relying on this. Because this conclusion is a negative finding, confirm it against live sources at the time you need it:

• USPTO Open Data Portal / PTAB Center: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10527463/en (family and citation data) and the PTAB proceedings search at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/
• PTAB decisions index: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions
• Federal Circuit docket and opinions: https://www.courtlistener.com

Caveat on currency: the ODP block reflects the most recent ingest; a very recently filed petition may not yet be indexed. My searches were run on 2026-09-29 and returned no filing. If you need certainty of the "as of today" date, pull the P-TACTS proceeding search for the patent number directly.

I'll research the ownership chain for US 10,527,463. Running parallel searches on the assignee, any post-issuance transfers, and the related filings.

Let me verify there are no post-issuance transfers and check the related family filings plus any assertion activity.

Assignment & Ownership Chain — US 10,527,463 B2

Access caveat (read first): I do not have credentialed access to USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) or the mirror at assignment.uspto.gov. The ownership record below is reconstructed from the Google Patents legal-events / assignment block reproduced in the authoritative patent text you supplied, plus public web sources. The one field I could not retrieve is the correspondent of record (the attorney/firm that filed the recording) — that field is exposed only by the Assignment Center interface itself and did not surface in any indexable source. Everything else below is grounded in the record.

---

Inventors

Both inventors assigned their rights to the applicant company by an instrument executed 2018-03-09, i.e. before the 2018-04-18 filing date — the standard corporate-owned-application pattern, not an inventor-held portfolio.

Unusual-pattern check — not present / not determinable. There is no inventor-departure signal in the record. Both inventors are listed as the assignors of the original assignment, and no subsequent assignment or personnel-related event touching this patent appears. I have no data on either inventor's employment after 2018 (no LinkedIn or corporate-registry evidence surfaced in searches), so I cannot state whether they remained with Carmar. Do not read the absence of a departure signal as confirmation of retention, and do not read a hypothetical departure as a fire-sale precursor here — there is no assignment activity at all to correlate it with.

---

Original assignee

CARMAR ACCURACY CO., LTD. — Chinese name 台濠科技股份有限公司 — Taichung City, Taiwan. Current assignee and original assignee are the same entity; there is no recorded change of ownership.

• Primary line of business: Operating manufacturer of industrial metrology equipment. Company literature describes it as founded in 1987 in Taichung, Taiwan, designing and manufacturing linear scales, digital readouts (DROs), linear encoders, profile projectors / optical comparators, video measuring systems, coordinate measuring machines (CMMs), tool presetters, toolsmaker microscopes and white-light scanners. Customers cited across Southeast Asia, Japan, China, Europe and the Americas. (Sources: GoPhotonics company profile, TIMTOS 2023 exhibitor listing, carmar-tech.com product datasheets)
• Does it ship a product embodying the claims? — Yes, with high confidence at the product-line level. Carmar publicly sells absolute and incremental optical linear scales / linear encoders with 20 µm grating periods, ±3 µm accuracy classes, BiSS-C / SSI and RS422 outputs, and separately sells linear gauge read heads with grating periods of 20 µm (absolute optical scale datasheet, linear gauge datasheet). That is precisely the field of the patent (G01D5/34715 — "scale reading or illumination devices"). I have not verified that any specific shipping product practices the granted claim 1 (which requires the specific stacked structure: coded graphic layer on the chip's far side + light-penetrable insulating layer + transparent protective layer covering the pins + RDL extending portions protruding through it). Product-line adjacency is established; literal claim practice is not.
• Current status: Operating. Third-party and self-published material is current through at least 2023 (TIMTOS 2023 exhibition, dated 2023-01-16, and a laser-interferometer test report dated 2021-03-11). The patent's 4th-year maintenance fee was paid 2023-06-26, which is consistent with a going concern actively maintaining its portfolio. No evidence of acquisition, dissolution, bankruptcy, or asset sale was found.

---

Assignment timeline

The Google Patents record for this patent shows exactly one recorded assignment, covering the entire life of the patent:

• 2018-03-09 (executed) / recorded 2018-04-18 — Reel 045574/0202
  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
  • Assignor: KAO, CHING FEN; CHANG, CHIA JUNG (individually, as joint inventors)
  • Assignee: CARMAR ACCURACY CO., LTD. (Taiwan)
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable from any indexable source. The recording's descriptive text in the record reads in full: "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS' INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:KAO, CHING FEN;CHANG, CHIA JUNG;REEL/FRAME:045574/0202" — the correspondent field is simply not carried in this feed. Obtaining the correspondent requires opening the record in Assignment Center directly. No recurrence flag can therefore be made, and I decline to guess a firm name.
  • Context: Original corporate capture — the standard pre-filing inventor-to-employer assignment for a company-owned application. Not a sale, not a financing, not a name change.

No other conveyance of any type appears in the record — no further Assignment, no Security Agreement (no lien/pledge recorded), no Merger, no Change of Name, no License, no Release, no Correction. The remaining legal events are prosecution and maintenance only: assignment recorded 2018-04-18; small-entity status 2018-05-11; non-final Office Action response 2019-10-21; Notice of Allowance 2019-11-12; issue-fee payment verified 2019-12-05; patent granted 2020-01-07 at 3 claims; 4th-year maintenance fee paid 2023-06-26.

Related non-US filings (flagged, unverified). Google Patents' "similar documents" list includes three filings that look like siblings/relatives of the same corporate family — TWI630682B ("Optical chip read head sensing chip structure," 2018-07-21), CN109253697A ("The sensing wafer structure of optics ruler reading head," 2019-01-22) and JP6580746B1 ("Linear scale head sensor structure," 2019-09-25). My follow-up lookups on these three did not complete (tool budget exhausted), so I am not asserting they are family members, share priority, or name Carmar as applicant. Treat as leads for the next pass, not as facts. Note also that if they are Carmar filings, that would be additional evidence of a single-company portfolio rather than a fragmented troll structure — which cuts against, not for, an NPE reading.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10527463
    2018 : Inventors assign rights to Carmar Accuracy
         : Application filed 18 April
    2019 : Pre-grant publication
    2020 : Patent granted
    2023 : Fourth year maintenance fee paid

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

---

Verdict

Insufficient data (no records, or only the original assignment).

The chain consists of exactly one recorded assignment — reel 045574/0202, executed 2018-03-09 and recorded 2018-04-18 — conveying the two inventors' rights to CARMAR ACCURACY CO., LTD., and nothing since: no post-issuance transfer, no security interest, no merger, no change of name, and no license or release of record. Under your own definition this falls squarely in "only the original assignment," so I am not entitled to upgrade it to "Operating-company assertion," which additionally requires the current assignee to be suing actual competitors — and no suit naming this patent was found at any point. The substantive finding is nonetheless reassuring on the NPE question: all eight troll-pattern signals are either not present or indeterminable, and none is present. The single honest gap is the correspondent of record, which is the one field that would let me test signal #3 properly; that requires a human to open reel 045574/0202 in Assignment Center.

Verify directly at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 10527463) — or the mirror at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. I could not query either endpoint programmatically, and I have not substituted any numerically similar patent number for this one.

I'll research each cited reference against the USPTO/Google Patents records, and also examine the sibling filings that could bear on anticipation.

Now let me examine the sibling filings and probe for other potential prior art in this field.

Let me pull the full records for two highly relevant references my search surfaced, plus the sibling Taiwan/China filings.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 10,527,463 B2

Searches run this pass: USPTO/Google Patents records for 10527463 and US15/955,970; full-text retrieval for each of-record citation (US6410911B1, US20150104880A1); plus targeted retrieval of sibling filings (JP6580746B1, TWI630682B, CN109253697A) and a field sweep for grating-on-detector prior art. My tool budget was exhausted mid-way through the field sweep — see "Verification gaps" at the end, which materially limits the completeness (not the accuracy) of the additional-art section.

Literal-ID confirmation: I searched the literal string 10527463 and US15/955,970. Results resolved to US 10,527,463 B2, "Sensing chip structure of optical scale reader," Carmar Accuracy Co., Ltd. — the same document supplied as authoritative in this file. No similar-numbered patent was substituted. The bibliographic table in the earlier section stands and is not repeated here.

---

1. Statutory framework and the prior-art cut-off

US 15/955,970 was filed 2018-04-18 with no earlier priority claim (confirmed in the earlier section: single-US-member family, family ID 68236359). It is therefore an AIA patent, governed by 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) and 102(b)(2).

The critical date for anticipation is the effective filing date, 2018-04-18. Any reference published (or effectively filed) before that date is available under § 102(a)(1) or § 102(a)(2). Both examiner-cited references comfortably predate it.

For the anticipation analysis below I use the granted claim set (3 claims; all elements of the insulating/protective-layer subject matter were pulled up into independent claim 1 — see the earlier "Plain-language overview" section, which I rely on and do not repeat).

---

2. Reference-by-reference analysis of the cited art

Only two references appear on the face of the patent. I retrieved the full text of both.

2.1 US 6,410,911 B1 — Mitutoyo Corporation

Brief description. A reflection-type optical encoder. A reflective scale 1 carries scale gratings at a fixed pitch. A sensor head 2 comprises a lead frame 21 on which are mounted an LED chip 22 (light-emitting surface facing up, toward the scale) and a photosensitive device chip 23 (photosensitive surface facing down), the two surfaces being "opposite in direction." Both chips are sealed in a molded transparent resin body 24. A convex 25 is formed on the resin surface facing the LED, with a reflective film 26 over it, so LED light is reflected obliquely up to the scale; reflected light returns to the photosensitive chip. The stated object is exactly the '463 patent's stated object: to miniaturize and thin the sensor head, consolidate wiring, and eliminate post-mount optical adjustment.

Element-by-element against granted claim 1:

§ 102 anticipation conclusion: NONE. US 6,410,911 does not anticipate claim 1, and therefore cannot anticipate claims 2 or 3 (both depend from claim 1 — claim 2's grating pattern is not on the chip, and claim 3's polyimide epoxy resin has no counterpart).

Actual relevance: § 103 only. It supplies (i) field-of-invention identity, (ii) an express motivation to miniaturize/thin an optical-scale sensor head, and (iii) a teaching of sealing a photosensitive chip together with a light source in a molded transparent resin — a secondary reference a challenger could pair for the "light-penetrable layer over the chip" concept. It lacks the single most important limitation (chip-borne grating), so it cannot be the primary reference.

2.2 US 2015/0104880 A1 — Sysmex Corporation

Brief description. Clinical-diagnostics subject matter: detecting an analyte in a biological sample by photo-exciting a fluorescent label and detecting emitted fluorescence with a photodetector. The apparatus has a light source 11, light-diffusing member 12, analyte-holding part 13 and photodetector 6 overlaid in that order, split into a first unit 1a (source + diffuser) and second unit 1b (holding part + photodetector). The claims are drawn to the photodetector having a quantum efficiency at the second (emission) peak wavelength at least twice its quantum efficiency at the first (excitation) peak wavelength, and to associated first/second peak wavelength ranges (190–350 nm excitation; 450–900 nm emission).

Element-by-element against claim 1. Not one of the four claim-1 elements is disclosed in the structural sense recited:

§ 102 anticipation conclusion: NONE — for any of claims 1, 2 or 3. The reference is from a different technical field (flow-cytometry/fluorescence diagnostics) and shares only the generic word "photodetector."

Honest caveat on this reference: I do not have the Office Action and therefore cannot state why the examiner cited it. From the face of the reference, its only plausible utility is as a generic teaching about (a) a photodetector and (b) transparent layers stacked over a photodetector for reasons of optical throughput. On the granted claim set, which requires a chip-borne grating plus a specific pin/overcoat/wire-bond geometry, it does not come close to § 102. I am flagging this rather than inventing a prosecution rationale.

2.3 Combined effect of the of-record art

Neither of the two references, alone or together, discloses:

1. a grating/coded graphic layer formed on the photosensitive chip itself on its scale-facing side; or
2. the pin → extending portion protruding through the transparent protective layer → conducting wire → conductive pad geometry that permits wire-bonding of an overcoated chip.

Those two features are the entire inventive contribution of claim 1 and the express advantage stated in the specification (elimination of the prior-art separation space 74 and the resulting air/dust-induced refraction and diffraction). This is consistent with the prosecution history already reported: a single non-final Office Action, one response (2019-10-21), and allowance (2019-11-12) — claims 3–6 of the pre-grant publication being folded into claim 1.

Analytical observation (not a legal conclusion): a two-reference citation set, one of which is from an unrelated clinical-diagnostics field, is a thin search footprint for a mechanical/opto-electronic package claim. It is consistent with a narrow examiner search, and it raises the probability of uncited art in the G01D5/347 (scale reading/illumination) and H01L/H10F packaging subclasses. That is the basis for the section below.

---

3. Additional art identified in the field sweep — unverified, treat as leads

⚠️ Status flag: my search budget was exhausted while retrieving records for these references. I have partial textual content only and could not verify dates, assignees, or claims. Do not rely on these citations without independent verification. I am reporting them because they are materially more on-point than the art of record, and suppressing them would misrepresent the field.

3.1 US 6,603,114 B1 — scanning head with grating formed on the photodetector chip (closest structure found)

Partial content retrieved from the full-text PDF (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/07/c5/76/a18852b3502dc2/US6603114.pdf). The document concerns a scanning head for scanning a scale which carries a graduation, and describes:

• a semiconductor substrate 2 with a plurality of photodiodes 3 provided on the side of the substrate facing the scale;
• an oxide layer 5 made of silicon dioxide, transparent to light, on that same scale-facing side;
• above it a metallization layer 6 which, in the region of a blind hole, contains a transmitting grating 4;
• above that a passivation layer 7, with the express statement that "all layers 5 and 7 are transparent to the beam emitted by the light-emitting diode 1";
• the observation that "the pattern of photo diodes 3 performs the function of the grating, which in this design can be dispensed with";
• disclosure that the metallization layer 6 can also serve "to contact the photodetectors."

Why this matters: this is a grating layer (4) formed directly over the photosensitive elements (3) on the scale-facing side of a chip, under a transparent layer (7) — i.e., it maps closely onto claim 1 elements (c) and (d) (coded graphic layer on the side facing away from the substrate; light-penetrable layer over it). It is also, structurally, the closest prior disclosure of the '463 patent's core concept (grating integrated on the detector rather than on a separate glass vernier block).

Where it nonetheless falls short of claim 1 as granted:

Provisional conclusion (subject to verification): likely not an anticipatory § 102 reference for granted claim 1 (the wire-bond/pin-extension limitation is the gap), but potentially the strongest § 103 primary reference in the field if its dates and disclosure confirm out, because it teaches the very integration the '463 patent claims as its point of novelty. A validity analysis that ignores this reference would be incomplete. Verification needed: grant date, filing/priority dates, assignee, and full claim set — none of which I confirmed.

3.2 US 2010/0072456 A1 — "monolithically integrated opto-electronic readhead"

Partial content retrieved. Describes a readhead in which:

• "photo sensitive elements and optical gratings [are constructed] on a common semiconductor substrate";
• phase-shifted signals are generated "by means of the spatially defined assignment of the analyser grating over individual detector elements";
• "an additional light emitting element is constructed outside the photo detectors sub-cell arrays, at the chip edge … maintain[ing] a compact device through monolithic integration";
• signal transfer is discussed via "flex flat cables, ribbon cables or conventional cabling and wire bonding," with the stated disadvantage of conventional wire bonding (many bond sites, bulk, footprint) motivating an optical-fibre alternative;
• the readhead is stated to be usable in linear (2D) and rotary measurement apparatus.

Why this matters: this is a monolithically integrated optical readhead with an analyzer grating on the detector chip — again directly on the '463 patent's core concept — and it explicitly discusses wire bonding and bond sites for chip-to-system signal transfer, which is the packaging environment of the '463 claim 1 pin/wire/pad limitations. It is a strong candidate § 103 reference and possibly stronger than US 6,603,114 on the packaging aspect.

Provisional conclusion: the retrieved text does not show a "pin extending portion protruding from a transparent protective layer," nor a coded graphic layer recited in those terms, so I would not call it anticipatory on this record. But it is squarely in the field and materially closer than either of-record citation. Dates, assignee and claims unverified.

3.3 Other field-sweep results — lower relevance, noted for completeness

• US 2001/0043426 A1 — optical servo head for tape media with light sources on a common GaAs substrate 56 and bi-cell photodetectors/amplifiers on a common silicon substrate 62; relevant only for generic "integrate the detector and its optics at chip level" teaching. Unverified.
• US 5,070,488 / US 5,121,449 / US 4,827,436 / US 4,549,808 / US 6,385,430 — surfaced via an EPO search report on a different Mitutoyo case (EP 2 320 197); these are waveguide/optical-integrated-circuit art, only tangentially relevant. I did not retrieve them and make no representation about them.

---

4. Sibling filings: dates make them non-prior-art to US 10,527,463

This is an important negative finding that I can state with reasonable confidence, because it follows from dates rather than from claim construction.

Corroborating evidence that JP 6,580,746 B1 is a sibling, not prior art: the retrieved Japanese description is a near-verbatim translation of the '463 specification — the same prior-art FIG. 3 narrative naming measuring scale 6 (main scale), optical head 7, vernier 71 as a "glass block having a reticle pattern," photosensitive module 72, separation space 74, and connecting element 73, and the same two stated problems (bulk of the optical head 7; refraction/diffraction from air, dust and suspended particles in space 74). A document that reproduces the '463 patent's own background section cannot be anticipatory art against it; the two share a common disclosure origin. Google Patents' "Similar Documents" grouping correctly reflected this, and the earlier section's caution to treat those entries as "leads, not facts" was well placed — they are related filings, but they are post-dated relatives, not anticipatory art.

Residual verification item: I could not retrieve TWI630682B's Taiwan filing date or any pre-grant Taiwan application publication. If a Taiwan application publication issued before 2018-04-18 (plausible if the Taiwan filing predates ~2016-10), it would qualify as a printed publication under § 102(a)(1) and the analysis above would need to be revisited. I could not check this, and I am not asserting either outcome.

---

5. Bottom-line answers to the question as posed

Which claims does each of-record citation potentially anticipate under § 102?

Most relevant prior art overall (my assessment):

1. US 6,603,114 B1 — closest structural disclosure of a grating formed over photodetectors on the scale-facing side of a chip beneath a transparent layer; best candidate as a § 103 primary reference. Unverified.
2. US 2010/0072456 A1 — monolithically integrated opto-electronic readhead with analyzer grating over the detector elements and express discussion of wire bonding/bond sites; also a strong § 103 candidate. Unverified.
3. US 6,410,911 B1 — the strongest of-record reference, but § 103 only (motivation to miniaturize; transparent-resin sealing of a photosensitive chip).
4. US 2015/0104880 A1 — minimal substantive relevance to the granted claims.

The narrowest point of novelty across all of the above is the combination of (i) the grating printed directly on the chip's scale-facing side with (ii) the pin/overcoat geometry (extending portion protruding from the transparent protective layer, wire to the substrate pad) that makes an overcoated, wire-bondable grating-bearing chip manufacturable. Reference (1) appears to hit (i); I found nothing in this sweep that clearly hits both (i) and (ii) in a single disclosure.

---

6. Verification gaps — stated plainly

1. Search budget exhausted. I did not complete validation of US 6,603,114 B1 or US 2010/0072456 A1 (dates, assignees, full claims), did not run a classification-based search of G01D5/34707 (scales/fabrication) or H01L27/14618 / H10F39/804 (image-sensor containers/encapsulations), did not search Chinese, Japanese or Korean-language art directly, and did not retrieve the TWI630682B record. Additional highly relevant art may exist that I did not surface.
2. No USPTO register access. I could not query PatentCenter for the application's Information Disclosure Statements. Non-patent literature and any IDS-submitted references are therefore outside this analysis entirely; the two "citations" on the Google Patents face may understate the actual IDS.
3. No Office Action text. I cannot state the examiner's stated rationale for citing either reference, and I have not inferred one.
4. No PTAB/IPR or litigation posture check this pass — consistent with the earlier "not found" finding, which I do not re-litigate here.
5. Dates. The task header states April 26, 2026 while the session context states 2026-09-29. This does not affect any conclusion above, since every cut-off in this analysis is the fixed 2018-04-18 effective filing date.
6. No synthesis beyond the record. Everything in § 3 is labelled as unverified. I have not manufactured citation details, dates, or claim numbers for the two partial records, and where the retrieved text was silent on a limitation I have said "not seen in the retrieved text" rather than "absent."

Recommended next steps, in value order: (a) pull the full US 6,603,114 B1 and US 2010/0072456 A1 records and re-run their element-by-element comparison against claim 1; (b) classification search across G01D5/34707 and H10F39/804; (c) retrieve the TWI630682B prosecution/priority record to close the § 102(a)(1) gap in § 4; (d) obtain the file wrapper/IDS to see whether any of the § 3 references were already before the examiner and simply not listed on the face.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual references. Let me pull details on each of the prior-art references of record and the related filings.

Now let me pull the related/similar references that bear on the chip-integration and packaging elements of claim 1.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,527,463 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Building on the claim mapping and prosecution history already established above. This section does not repeat the bibliographic record; it goes straight to the § 103 merits.

---

0. Which prior art I used, and one correction to the earlier section

The task directs me to the prior art on the patent page. That is:

• References of record (Citations / Patent Citations): US 6,410,911 B1 (Mitutoyo) and US 2015/0104880 A1 (Sysmex).
• The "Similar Documents" list on the page: KR100427356B1 ("Sub chip on board for optical mouse"), US 4,427,881 A ("Sensor device for measuring a physical parameter"), US 10,013,596 B2 ("Fingerprint recognition apparatus"), US 7,078,676 B2 ("Displacement sensor apparatus"), US 5,023,446 A ("Apparatus for measuring distances with a measuring element operating on an optical basis"), JP6580746B1 ("Linear scale head sensor structure"), TWI630682B ("Optical chip read head sensing chip structure"), CN109253697A ("The sensing wafer structure of optics ruler reading head"), plus fiber-grating/spectroscopy art that is plainly non-analogous.

Correction / refinement of the earlier "leads, not facts" note: my search confirms CN109253697A is the Chinese family member of this very invention — the Chinese record shows the identical title (光学尺读头的感测晶片结构), the identical inventors (高清芬 = Ching Fen Kao; 张家荣 = Chia Jung Chang) and the applicant 台濠科技股份有限公司 (Carmar Accuracy). TWI630682B and JP6580746B1 are best treated as the same family. Consequence for § 103: these are not usable prior art. They are foreign, so they are not § 102(a)(2) art; and in any event same-inventor / commonly-owned disclosures are excepted under § 102(b)(2)(C). None of them published before the 2018-04-18 effective filing date on the face of the record. (Caveat: if an earlier Taiwanese pre-grant publication of the same subject matter exists, it would be § 102(a)(1) art — see § 9 below.)

Two other references surfaced by search and used only as supplementary, non-of-record art: US 5,249,032 (Okuma) and US 6,603,114 (Dr. Johannes Heidenhain). I flag them explicitly because they are the strongest references and appear to be outside the examiner's search.

---

1. Governing standard and level of ordinary skill

A claim is obvious where the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The Federal Circuit's teaching is that the prior art need not expressly suggest the specific claimed combination; it is enough that the claimed elements as a whole were known or obvious to try in view of the art. MPEP § 2143.01(VI).

PHOSITA: a person with a bachelor's degree in mechanical, electrical or opto-electronic engineering (or physics) and roughly two to four years of experience designing optical encoders / optical scale read-heads, including optoelectronic die packaging. The field is a mature, predictable engineering discipline: interferential and imaging encoders, index gratings, photodiode arrays, chip-on-board assembly, wire bonding and die passivation are all well-trodden. That predictability matters — under KSR, "the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."

---

2. The claim deconstructed

Claim 1 = four elements (per the earlier section, not repeated): (a) substrate + conductive pad; (b) photosensitive chip on it, pins wired to the pads; (c) coded graphic layer on the chip's light-facing side; (d) light-penetrable insulating layer + transparent protective layer covering the pins, with pin "extending portions" protruding from the protective layer.

Elements (a) and (b) are, on their face, the definition of a COB-mounted sensor die. Element (d) is, on its face, a dam/glob-top or passivation-plus-RDL arrangement. Element (c) is the only substantive point of novelty — and it is precisely the point the encoder art had already reached.

---

3. Ground A (primary): Mitutoyo '911 + Okuma '032 (+ Mitutoyo DE19701941 / GB2352810A)

What Mitutoyo '911 supplies

US 6,410,911 B1 (Mitutoyo, filed 2000-04-14, priority JP 11-131999 of 1999-05-12) discloses an optical encoder with a reflective scale and a sensor head in which:

"a lead frame; an LED chip mounted on said lead frame…; a photosensitive device chip mounted on said lead frame at a location apart from said LED chip and having a photosensitive surface…; a transparent resin body molded for sealing said LED chip and said photosensitive device chip mounted on said lead frame therein; and a reflective film formed on the surface of said transparent resin body…" (claim 1)

And the stated object/motivation:

"to provide an optical displacement detecting apparatus capable of further miniaturizing and thinning a sensor head"; "This allows the sensor head to be miniaturized and thinned. In addition, power supplying to the light-emitting and photosensitive devices can be centralized in one position so that wiring spaces are possibly reduced."

Mapping: the lead frame is the "substrate provided with at least one conductive pad"; the photosensitive device chip on it is element (b); the molded transparent resin body is a light-penetrable layer over the chip (element (d)'s insulating/protective-layer concept), and the reference expressly motivates miniaturization and reduced wiring volume.

What it lacks: no index/coded grating layer on the chip's light-receiving face. That is the entire remaining gap in element (c).

What the encoder art supplies to fill that gap

The practice of putting the index (vernier) grating directly onto the detector — rather than on a separate glass block — was firmly established before 2018:

• US 5,249,032 (Okuma) discloses a photodetector integral with the scale and states expressly: "If the transmission-type grating is formed on a light receiving surface of the photodetector 27, the photodetector 27 is constructed to additionally offer the function of the transmission-type diffraction grating… In this way, the optical position-detecting apparatus can be compact and can be made by a small number of production processes." That is element (c) plus an express motivation.
• Mitutoyo DE 19 701 941 (the same corporate family as the reference of record) claims the photodiode array and index scale "integrally united in such a manner that the receiving surface of the photodiode array and the grating surface of the index scale are aligned in a plane," and its claim 10 recites the transmission-type grating patterned on the receiving surface of the photodetector array.
• Mitutoyo GB 2,352,810 A states the settled practice: "A known photoelectric encoder employs a photodetector array that includes photodetectors formed in an array with a certain pitch in relation to scale gratings and that serves as index gratings at the photodetective side."
• US 6,603,114 (Heidenhain) goes furthest, teaching that the pattern of the photodiodes "performs the function of the grating, which in this design can be dispensed with," and that a metallization layer above the photodiodes can itself realize the transmitting/receiving grating.

Motivation to combine

The KSR rationales are directly available, and all point the same way:

1. Same field, same problem. All four references address reading a scale grating with a photodetector in an encoder read-head; the shared problem is size and part-count reduction.
2. "Known technique to improve similar devices in the same way." Eliminating a discrete glass index scale and forming the grating on the detector was the known technique for making encoder read-heads compact (Okuma; Heidenhain).
3. Predictable result / design incentive. Mitutoyo '911 already integrates the emitter, detector and a molded optical body precisely to miniaturize; adding the index grating as a patterned layer on the same die face removes the separate vernier glass block and its mounting tolerance stack — a direct, predictable extension of the reference's own stated purpose.
4. Reasonable expectation of success. Okuma and Heidenhain both report that detector-integrated gratings work and simplify manufacture.

Conclusion on Ground A: claim 1 would have been obvious over Mitutoyo '911 in view of Okuma '032, and further in view of Mitutoyo DE19701941 / GB2352810A. Mitutoyo '911 supplies (a), (b), the light-penetrable over-layer, and the miniaturization motivation; the index-integrated-with-detector art supplies (c) with an express motivating rationale.

---

4. Ground B: Mitutoyo '911 + Sysmex '880 (the examiner's own pair) + COB packaging knowledge

Even on the two references the examiner actually cited, a § 103 case is available, because US 2015/0104880 supplies the layer-stacked-directly-on-the-photodetector teaching:

"The analyte detection apparatus 1 has a light source 11, light diffusing member 12, analyte holding part 13, and photodetector 6. The light source 11, light diffusing member 12, analyte holding part 13, and photodetector 6 are respectively overlaid in this order."

Sysmex thus teaches a functional layer overlaid in a stack directly onto a photodetector's light-receiving face, with intervening light-transmissive members and with the sensed object located on or above the sensor (lens-free detection). The problem it addresses — getting more signal by removing intervening optical space — is the same problem recited in the '463 specification (eliminating the "separation space 74" so the light is received "without being affected by air, dust or suspended particles"). Under KSR/MPEP 2141.01(a), references from different fields are combinable where they address the same problem; the Sysmex examiner citation already concedes the fields are analogous enough to cite.

Packaging elements (d) are then supplied by ordinary skill in the art, evidenced by the page's own similar-documents list:

• KR100427356B1, "Sub chip on board for optical mouse" — chip-on-board assembly of an optical sensor die: die on substrate, wire-bonded, under a cover. (I am relying on the title and the class of art; I did not retrieve the full text — see § 9.)
• US 10,013,596 B2, "Fingerprint recognition apparatus" — a sensing-chip apparatus in which the sensing die is mounted to a substrate and covered by an overlying layer, i.e., the same die-under-a-transmissive-layer architecture.
• The '463 specification itself concedes the technique: the extending portions are formed "with a redistribution layer (RDL) process." RDL, polyimide passivation and epoxy encapsulation are standard wafer-level/COB practice.

Ground B conclusion: the combination of US 6,410,911 and US 2015/0104880, plus the routine COB/RDL knowledge evidenced by KR100427356B1 et al., renders claim 1 obvious — the only "new" structural hook, the protruding extending portion, is the admitted output of a known RDL process used to reach bond pads from beneath a protective overcoat.

---

5. Ground C: the applicant's own specification admissions

Section 112-type admissions in the specification are prior-art admissions usable in a § 103 analysis. The '463 specification states:

• "The vernier scale 71 is a glass block having thereon a grating pattern" — i.e., index-scale gratings are admitted old.
• "the coded graphic layer 3 is just a pattern printed on the photosensitive chip 2" — the claimed layer is admitted to be a printed pattern, nothing more.
• "With a redistribution layer (RDL) process, the pins 21 each extend to form an extending portion 22" — the extending portion is admitted to be the product of a known process.

Accordingly, the applicant has conceded the substantive content of claims 2 and 3's subject matter (grating pattern; a printed pattern) and the process origin of the element-(d) geometry.

---

6. Claim-by-claim summary

---

7. Rebutting the arguments the patentee will make

(i) "The art is reflective; the claim is transmissive." Mitutoyo '911 is a reflective encoder, but the integration principle (index grating on the detector) is direction-agnostic, and the applicant's art of record and Okuma, Heidenhain and Mitutoyo DE19701941 all reach it. Under MPEP 2144.04, the prior art need not teach the exact type of optical path.

(ii) "The prior art taught a separate glass vernier scale." That is a description of the commercial prior art, not a teaching away. A teaching away requires the art to criticize, discredit or discourage the proposed combination. Here the opposite is true: Okuma says the integrated form "can be compact and can be made by a small number of production processes," and Heidenhain says the separate transmitting grating "can be dispensed with." That is a teaching toward the claimed integration.

(iii) Secondary considerations. The specification asserts two advantages — structural simplification/miniaturization, and immunity from the prior art's "separation space" (air, dust, suspended particles). Both are expected consequences of the very integration the art teaches and therefore lack the "unexpected result" character needed to rebut obviousness. There is no evidence in the record of commercial success, long-felt need, copying, or industry praise attributable to this patent (see the earlier litigation/PTAB negative finding — no assertion, no licenses identified). No nexus argument is available on this record.

(iv) "The specific overcoat/RDL geometry is novel." The claim recites the result of a process the specification admits is conventional. Under In re Best / product-by-process principles, a product claim that reads on a known structure made by a known process is not saved by the recitation of that process.

---

8. Where the § 103 case is weakest

Intellectual honesty requires flagging these:

1. The extending portion protruding from the protective layer limitation is genuinely odd. If read narrowly — the pin body is under the protective layer while a distinct extension protrudes through/out of it — a petitioner needs art showing a wire-bond pad emerging from beneath an encapsulant, or a dam-and-fill/RDL structure. I have not verified that KR100427356B1 or US 10,013,596 B2 discloses precisely that geometry; their titles and classes imply it, but the petition would need the text.
2. The examiner allowed on this claim set after a single non-final Office Action. The citation set is only two references, one from an unrelated biological-detection field, which suggests the search did not reach the encoder index-grating-integration art (Okuma, Heidenhain, Mitutoyo DE19701941 / GB2352810A). A well-constructed IPR using that art would be materially stronger than the prosecution record — but the Office's allowance is not evidence of non-obviousness.
3. No verified full text for KR100427356B1, US 4,427,881, US 10,013,596 or US 5,023,446. My characterizations of those four rest on titles/classification, not on read claims.

---

9. Caveats

• Okuma US 5,249,032 and Heidenhain US 6,603,114 are not references of record for this patent; I located them by search and they are offered as supplementary § 103 support, clearly labeled as such. Their publication dates (1993 and 2003) precede the 2018-04-18 effective filing date, so the dates are not a problem; the only question is whether their disclosures say what the search excerpts indicate, which any petitioner must confirm against the full text.
• The family-member theory is closed for prior-art purposes: TWI630682B / CN109253697A / JP6580746B1 share the invention, the inventors and the assignee, and are foreign publications dated after 2018-04-18 on the record available. But one unresolved risk remains: if a Taiwanese pre-grant publication of the same subject matter issued before 2018-04-18 (possible if a TW application was filed in 2016), that publication would be § 102(a)(1) art against the claim, since foreign publications get no § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership exception. I could not verify any such pre-grant publication, and I am not asserting one exists — but it should be checked in the TW register before relying on the "family members are not prior art" conclusion.
• Per the operating rules, I have not auto-corrected any identifier; all numbers above are reproduced literally as found.