US 10705038

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent, including any litigation/docket activity.

Let me run additional targeted searches for docket and USPTO records.

US Patent 10,705,038 B2 — Analyst Summary

Sourcing note: The authoritative source for this summary is the full text of the patent as published on Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10705038B2](/patent/US10705038B2)/en), which was provided and cross-checked against Justia (https://patents.justia.com/patent/10705038). My searches for litigation and CAFC dockets returned no evidence of any court proceeding involving this patent, so any litigation-related statement below is a statement of absence of findings, not a verified negative.

⚠️ Number/identity caution (per your strict rule): The number 10705038 is correct as given. Note that two different patents share this title, and they are easy to conflate:

• US 10,197,488 B2 — different patent, also "Systems and methods for detecting chips in fluid of aircraft engine" (published as US 2018/0364141 A1; uses multiple excitation currents).
• US 10,317,354 B2 — the parent of the patent at issue here (application 15/357,282).
• US 10,705,038 B2 (application 16/398,492) is the continuation of US 15/357,282.

I did not find any results for those other numbers in my queries, so I have not substituted them for 10705038.

---

Bibliographic data

Assignee/inventor corroboration: Google Patents legal events show an assignment recorded 2019-04-30 to Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (reel/frame 049031/0704, effective 2017-01-31). A third-party aggregator (patentleaderboard.com) lists inventor "Simon S. Lam" with this title at an unrelated company ("Nortel Networks Limited") — that attribution appears to be an aggregator error and conflicts with the patent's face; I treat the Google Patents/USPTO record as authoritative.

Family: US 10,317,354 B2 (parent), EP 3279650 B1, CA 2972716 C, PL 3279650 T3.

---

Abstract (as published)

There is described herein methods and systems for detecting of metallic chips in a fluid system of an aircraft engine. A resistance value is measured across a magnetic chip detector mounted to a fluid system of the aircraft engine. The resistance value is transmitted to an engine computer of the aircraft engine. In the engine computer, The resistance value is compared to a first threshold and a first warning indicative of a chip in the fluid is issued when the resistance value exceeds the first threshold.

(The awkward capitalization "In the engine computer, The resistance value" is reproduced verbatim from the granted abstract.)

---

Plain-language overview of each independent claim

Claim 1 — Method (dynamic threshold tied to engine configuration)
Broadly: (a) dynamically set a first threshold in the engine computer, where the threshold is set as a function of a configuration of the aircraft engine; (b) measure a resistance value across a first magnetic chip detector mounted at a first location in the engine fluid system and transmit it to the engine computer; (c) compare the resistance value to the threshold in the engine computer; (d) issue a first warning (chip present) when the resistance value exceeds the threshold.
Key limiting features: the threshold is dynamic and configuration-dependent (not a fixed hardware-set value), and the detector is at a stated location.

Claim 8 — Method (multi-detector, independently tunable thresholds)
Covers the claim-1-style flow for a first detector, plus: dynamically set a second threshold that is independently tunable from the first; measure a resistance value at a second magnetic chip detector at a second location; compare to the second threshold; and issue a second warning when that value exceeds the second threshold. The independent tunability of the two thresholds is the distinguishing aspect (allows, e.g., tighter alarm limits at a critical location than at a less critical one).

Claim 9 — System (parallel resistance circuit + fault detection)
A chip detection system comprising: a magnetic chip detector at a first location in the engine fluid system; a resistance measurement circuit comprising a circuit connected in parallel with the detector, measuring the resistance across the detector; and an engine computer configured to (i) dynamically set a first threshold, (ii) receive the resistance value, (iii) compare it to the threshold, (iv) issue a first warning when the threshold is exceeded, and (v) issue a second warning indicative of a circuit malfunction when the resistance value is above a resistance limit value. The parallel resistor both allows current flow regardless of chip bridging and enables open-circuit/broken-wire fault detection.

Claim 16 — Method (parallel circuit + fault detection)
The method counterpart: dynamically set a first threshold; measure resistance across a circuit connected in parallel with a first magnetic chip detector and transmit to the engine computer; compare to threshold; issue a first (chip) warning when exceeded; and issue a second (circuit-malfunction) warning when the resistance is above a resistance limit value.

Dependent-claim themes (for context, not independent scope)

• Converting resistance to chip size via a resistance-to-size correlation and comparing chip size to the threshold (claims 2, 10, 17).
• Displaying chip size on an aircraft display (claims 3, 11, 18).
• Measuring across a parallel circuit (claim 4); resistance measured over time / trending (claims 7, 14, 19).
• Continuous operation while the engine runs (claim 6); threshold based on engine condition and/or flight mission (claim 12) or on engine configuration (claim 13); a second detector at a second location with an independently tunable threshold in the system claim (claim 15).

Specification highlights that inform claim construction

• Exemplary threshold = 1000 ohms; exemplary threshold = 0.010 inch chip size; lookup-table examples (e.g., ≤300 Ω ⇒ chip size ≥0.020 in; 500 Ω ⇒ 0.020 in; ≥20,000 Ω ⇒ ≤0.004 in).
• Chip size is described as varying inversely proportionally to resistance (FIG. 3).
• Detects gradual accumulation (normal wear/"fuzz") vs. sudden drop in resistance (large chip / major failure).
• Fault detection: a parallel resistor gives a resistance limit value R_LIM when no chip bridges the gap; R above R_LIM ⇒ open circuit (broken conductor/wire).
• An excitation source may be used to overcome "Branly's Effect" (small chips ceasing to conduct at low current).
• Optional multi-threshold cockpit display (green/yellow/red for small/medium/critical).
• FIG. 7 embodiment: networked detectors (702, 706) with independently tunable thresholds and either dedicated or switch-shared resistance measurement circuits.

---

Litigation / CAFC docket search — result: none found

I searched for "10705038" + CAFC / Federal Circuit / 2026 docket, for "10,705,038" + infringement / litigation, and for Pratt & Whitney Canada + chip detector + Federal Circuit 2026. All returned no docket records, complaints, or appeal activity for this patent number. One search returned zero results outright.

Therefore:

• I have no authoritative evidence of any US District Court case, ITC investigation, or Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appeal (2026 or otherwise) involving US 10,705,038.
• I cannot verify from the tool results that the patent is litigated or unrestored — the "Active" status and the 2023 maintenance-fee payment are the only status signals I could confirm.
• Uncertainty flag: docket searches are inherently incomplete (not all filings are indexed on the open web; PTAB and district-court dockets live in separate systems such as PACER, PTAB-API, and Docket Navigator). This is a negative finding from limited tooling, not a certification that no case exists. For a definitive answer you would need to query PACER/PTAB directly for US 16/398,492 and US 10,705,038.

Note on the "2026" framing: the only 2026-dated item I encountered in the record is the anticipated expiration 2036-11-21 (a future date) and a Google Patents "cited by" entry for US 12,535,446 B2 with a 2026 publication date — neither is a docket event. I found nothing dated 2026 relating to this patent in a litigation context.

I'll search litigation databases for US patent 10705038.

Let me refine with more targeted searches on litigation databases.

Let me check court dockets and litigation-specific databases directly.

Summary of Findings

No litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,705,038 ("the '038 patent") was found.

Based on my searches of patent litigation sources, I found no district court complaints, ITC actions, declaratory judgment actions, or PTAB post-grant proceedings (IPR/PGR) asserting or challenging the '038 patent.

What I searched and what I found

The closest web hits were false positives on similar digits, which I am explicitly NOT reporting as results for the '038 patent, per your instruction:

• Discussion of a different patent, U.S. 11,389,038 ("the '038 Patent" in the Willow Technologies / Fintiv briefing) — different number.
• Discussion of U.S. 11,038,709 in the Willow Technologies Delaware litigation — different number.
• U.S. 10,751,029 ('029 patent) in University of British Columbia v. Caption Health — different number.

Verification against the patent record

The authoritative Google Patents record for US10705038B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10705038](/patent/US10705038)/en, fetched 2026-09-24) is consistent with a patent that has never been litigated:

• Owner: Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (original assignee and current assignee) — a large operating company, not a patent-assertion entity.
• Family: U.S. 15/357,282 (now US 10,317,354), U.S. App. 16/398,492, EP3279650B1, CA2972716C, PL3279650T3. Note that a sibling patent, US 10,197,488, appears in the "Similar Documents" list — again a different number, not asserted here.
• Legal events listed: assignment, fee payments, and prosecution events only — no litigation events.
• Citations/citing references: prior art and forward citations reflect patent prosecution activity, not litigation.

Important caveats and limitations

1. I could not directly query PACER or CourtListener. My attempts to reach docket-specific databases (CourtListener, Docket Alarm) were truncated, so I cannot claim a comprehensive, exhaustive PACER-level search. My conclusion rests on the aggregated patent pages (Google Patents, Justia), which typically surface U.S. district court litigation, and on targeted web searches.
2. Litigation "Not Known" vs. "Does Not Exist": I can state with reasonable confidence that no litigation is publicly known/indexed, but a recently filed, low-profile, or sealed action could escape these sources.
3. PTAB proceedings are distinct from litigation but are relevant; I found none for the '038 patent either. (The Google Patents page shows no IPR/PGR challenges.)
4. This is an enforcement-history inference, not legal advice. A definitive litigation clearance check would require a paid database (LexisNexis, Docket Navigator, RPX/Unified portal deep-dive) and/or direct PACER retrieval.

Bottom line

I find no known litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,705,038. If you need a court-admissible litigation history, I recommend running a Docket Navigator or LexisNexis Litigation Profile search on the number 10705038, plus a PTAB (IPR/PGR) check and a review of the related sibling patents (US 10,317,354; US 10,197,488) in case the enforcement activity you are thinking of involves a different-but-related asset.

PTAB Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,705,038

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. No IPRs, no PGRs, and no CBM reviews have ever been filed against U.S. Patent No. 10,705,038 — so the breakdown is trivially zero active / zero claims invalidated / zero claims sustained / zero settled / zero institution denials, which means the patent stands completely un-narrowed by the Board: claims 1–19 remain exactly as issued on 2020-07-07, and a defendant cannot point to a single canceled claim or an FWD that undercuts Pratt & Whitney Canada's infringement theory. That is a worse-than-neutral defensive posture — you would be the first challenger, with no free ride from prior Board work.

---

Proceedings overview (structured source)

The canonical structured block supplied with this task ("PTAB proceedings on file," sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal / ODP API) returned no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest.

I independently searched for proceedings the ODP might not have indexed, and also found none:

No proceeding entries to report. I am not going to manufacture proceeding numbers to fill this section — none exist on the record I can reach.

False-positive warning (do not confuse these with the '038 patent)

While searching I repeatedly surfaced results for different patent numbers that are easy to conflate with 10,705,038:

• U.S. 11,038,709 — asserted by Willow Technologies; subject of IPR petitions filed 2022-11-15 (Petitioner Willow; Delaware litigation 1:21-cv-01796-MN; Texas litigation 2:22-cv-00243-JRG-RSP). Different patent.
• U.S. 10,621,228, U.S. 11,017,020, U.S. 10,423,658 — Unified Patents IPR/PGR targets. Different patents.
• U.S. 11,389,038 and U.S. 10,751,029 — referenced in your earlier litigation summary as digit-collision false positives. Different patents.

None of these involve the '038 patent, and none of their outcomes tell you anything about it.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is UNTESTED. Claims 1–19 of the '038 patent have never been before the Board. Given the claim set, the independent claims are 1 (method — dynamically setting a first threshold as a function of a configuration of the aircraft engine), 8 (method — dynamic first threshold plus an independently tunable second threshold for a second detector at a second location), 9 (system — parallel resistance circuit, first warning, plus second warning for circuit malfunction when R > R_LIM), and 16 (method — parallel circuit plus the second-warning circuit-malfunction branch). Dependent claims 2/10/17 add the resistance→chip-size conversion; 3/11/18 add the aircraft display; 4 adds the parallel circuit; 5 adds the circuit-malfunction warning; 6 adds continuous operation; 7/14/19 add measurement over time; 12–13 add the dynamic-threshold bases (current engine condition / flight mission, engine configuration); 15 adds a second detector with an independently tunable threshold. Because no tribunal has construed a single term, all claim-construction work is yours to do — there is no FWD claim construction to inherit or attack.

Estoppel landscape: wide open. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel is petitioner-specific. Since no IPR or PGR has been instituted against this patent, no petitioner and no privy is estopped as to any ground. Every § 102/§ 103 ground built on the 14 references cited on the face of the patent (or on art outside it) remains available, including the references that were before the examiner: US 2,878,342 (Lisle), US 4,100,491 (Southwest Research), US 4,323,843 (Batham), US 4,731,578 (Aeroquip), US 5,782,141 (Allison), US 6,445,177 (Vibro-Meter), US 7,106,075 (Hu), US 8,018,237 (NTN), US 8,184,290 (Airbus), US 7,886,875 (UTC), US 9,316,630 (Sikorsky), US 10,254,210 (Eaton), US 2014/0347032 (Caterpillar), and US 10,180,075 (Rolls-Royce). Note that US 10,180,075 (Rolls-Royce, "On-wing component wear analysis with fluid quality sensing," priority 2017-08-25) post-dates the '038 priority date of 2016-08-01 and is therefore not prior art to it — it appears only as a citation, not a § 102(b) reference.

Pattern signals: none in either direction. No repeat petitioner (there are no petitioners). Pratt & Whitney Canada has never had to defend these claims at the Board, so there is no track record of aggressive PTAB appeal practice on this asset — its enforcement posture in this family has been quiet. There is no Unified Patents or other defensive aggregator involvement in this patent's chain.

Portfolio context worth knowing before you rely on "no PTAB activity." The Google Patents record shows the '038 patent sitting inside a live, expanding Pratt & Whitney Canada chip-detection portfolio, with forward citations to later P&W Canada filings that are not in this patent's family (Family ID 59416565) but share the technology:

• US 12,241,884 (2025-03-04, "Chip detection system for an engine fluid system")
• US 12,535,446 (2026-01-27, "Capacitive chip detector") — appears in the record with a 2026-01-27 date
• US 12,196,548 (2025-01-14, "Method and system for sizing a chip in engine fluid")

And the true family members are US 15/357,282 (now US 10,317,354), the instant US 16/398,492, EP 3279650B1, CA 2972716C, and PL 3279650T3. Also note US 10,197,488 (P&W Canada, same title, priority 2017-06-15), which appears under "Similar Documents" — a separate patent, not a member of this family, but a likely co-traveler in any assertion campaign. If you are evaluating exposure to "the Pratt & Whitney chip-detection patents," IPR'ing only the '038 patent would be an incomplete strategy.

---

Recommended next steps

1. There is no PTAB record to leverage — say so plainly, in writing, to your client. The absence of proceedings is itself a signal, and it cuts against a cheap defense: patents that are actively asserted in U.S. litigation eventually attract IPRs (the "'038 patent has never been litigated" conclusion from the earlier litigation section and the zero-IPR finding here are mutually consistent and reinforce each other). This patent appears to be a dormant, never-challenged asset — possibly held defensively, or asserted only via licensing/partnerships rather than court filings.

2. Because no FWD exists, do not quote one. Nothing in this report should be cited as a Board disposition of any claim of the '038 patent. If a demand letter arrives citing claims 1–19, you have no "cancelled claim" argument available — all 19 claims are live and presumptively valid.

3. Build your own invalidity case from scratch. The productive attack surface, on the face of the claims, is the "dynamically setting… a first threshold" and "as a function of a configuration of the aircraft engine" limitations of claim 1, and the resistance→chip-size conversion limitations of claims 2/10/17. The two strongest face-of-patent references for adaptive/threshold-based debris detection in an engine controller are US 7,886,875 (United Technologies, "Systems and methods for monitoring gas turbine engines," 2011-02-15) and US 4,731,578 (Aeroquip, "Electrical sensing system for measuring ferrous particles within a fluid," 1988-03-15). Neither was applied in an AIA trial, so § 315(e) estoppel is not in play against either.

4. If you file, remember the statutory clock. A petition must be filed within 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)'s one-year bar of service of an infringement complaint. Once instituted, the Board's final written decision is due within one year of institution (§ 316(a)(11)), extendable by up to six months for good cause. There are no existing trial-stage milestones to track here — you would be setting the schedule.

5. Check the siblings before you spend. USPTO PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and the PTAB E2E docket for US 10,317,354 (the parent, 15/357,282) and US 10,197,488 are the places to look next. A petition against a sibling tells you a lot about how a panel reads the shared specification, without spending your own institution budget. For any Board or court opinion you ultimately rely on, link the public copy at USPTO PTAB Decisions / PTAB E2E or CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/).

6. Caveat on completeness (same as your litigation section). I could not directly exhaustively query PTAB E2E's API or PACER in this session, and the ODP ingest may lag. I state with reasonable confidence that no publicly indexed AIA trial proceeding exists for US 10,705,038; a recently-filed (post-ingest) petition could escape these sources. The Google Patents record's Legal Events list — which contains no PTAB or litigation entries — corroborates the finding.

Bottom line: Zero AIA trials. Claims 1–19 all live and untested. No estoppel beneficiaries. No Board guidance to inherit — a full-cost validity challenge is the only path, and the clock starts the day you are served.

I'll verify the assignment record against the live sources before building the ownership chain.

Both queries returned empty. Let me try alternates.

Ownership Chain Analysis — US 10,705,038 B2

Sourcing note. The authoritative records available to me are (a) the full Google Patents text/legal-events record supplied for this analysis, (b) the Justia patent page (https://patents.justia.com/patent/[10705038](/patent/10705038)), and (c) Justia's P&WC assignee listings. My direct queries against the USPTO Assignment Center returned no rendered record page for this patent — the searches returned general Assignment-Center/EPAS background material and third-party chain-of-title exhibits, not the record for application 16/398,492. Consequently, one field the task specifically asks for — the recorded correspondent (attorney/agent) on the assignment — could not be retrieved, and I will not invent it. Everything below is sourced to the Google Patents legal-events block unless stated otherwise. This builds on, and does not repeat, the earlier patent-summary and litigation sections.

---

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check — not present. The red flag to look for is all inventors departing the original assignee within ~12 months of filing (a classic precursor to a portfolio sale). Here the opposite is evidenced: Jarvo remains a P&WC inventor on patents filed years after this family's 2016 priority date. For Ricci and Lam I have no post-2017 employment data either way; that is an information gap, not a finding.

On the "Simon S. Lam" aggregator entry. As flagged in the earlier summary, one aggregator attributed this inventor to "Nortel Networks Limited." The assignment record contradicts that: the assignor named is "LAM, SIMON SAI-MING," conveying to Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. The Nortel attribution is best explained by conflation with a different person of a similar name (a well-known academic of that name exists in computer science — moderate confidence, unverified here). I treat the USPTO-recorded name and assignee as controlling.

---

Original assignee

Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (assignee of record on the issued face; address of record in the family's CA/EP filings: 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Québec J4G 1A1, Canada).

• Primary line of business: Design and manufacture of aircraft turbine engines (turboprop, turboshaft, and small turbofan powerplants — e.g., the PT6 and PW100 families) and engine control/health-monitoring systems. P&WC is a Canadian subsidiary within Pratt & Whitney, which is a business unit of RTX Corporation (formerly Raytheon Technologies / United Technologies). RTX is SEC-registered and files 10-K/8-K; P&WC is not itself an SEC registrant, and I found no SEC filing that specifically discloses this patent or its claims.
• Product embodying the claims: The specification is written to a fielded architecture — an engine computer (ECU/EEC/FADEC) comparing a measured resistance across a magnetic chip detector to a dynamically set threshold. That is a commercial engine-health-monitoring feature of exactly the type P&WC ships with its engines. I can state this as high-likelihood but not documented by a product datasheet I verified here.
• Current status: Operating. No evidence of acquisition, dissolution, or bankruptcy affecting P&WC. Google Patents shows ongoing maintenance-fee payment (4th year, 2023-12-20) and an active legal status, and the family continues to expand (see below).

Confirmation that this is not a divested asset — the portfolio is still growing around it. P&WC's chip-detection family has continued to accrue patents after this one issued: US 11,499,890 B2 and US 11,549,933 B2 ("Magnetic chip detector and method of use," filed 2020-02-24), US 11,448,636 B2 ("Magnetic chip detector," 2020-09-29), US 12,196,548 B2 ("Method and system for sizing a chip in engine fluid," 2021-08-17), US 12,241,884 B2 ("Chip detection system for an engine fluid system," 2023-04-20), and US 12,535,446 B2 ("Capacitive chip detector," 2023-05-24) — all P&WC. An assignee that intended to exit the technology does not keep filing continuations and new detector architectures around it.

---

Assignment timeline

Chronological list of every recorded assignment located for US 10,705,038:

• 2017-01-31 (executed) / recorded 2019-04-30 — Reel 049031/0704
  • Conveyance: Assignment — "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS' INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)" (per Google Patents legal events, code AS)
  • Assignors: RICCI, THOMAS TREVOR; LAM, SIMON SAI-MING; JARVO, JAMES ROBERT (all three, jointly)
  • Assignee: PRATT & WHITNEY CANADA CORP., Longueuil, Québec, Canada
  • Correspondent: ⚠️ Not retrievable from the sources I could access. The Assignment Center record page for this patent did not render in my queries, so I cannot supply the attorney/firm of record or assess recurrence. I am not substituting the prosecution attorney of record for the assignment correspondent — those are different fields and different filings.
  • Context: Internal corporate acquisition of employee-inventor rights — the ordinary "hereby assign to the company" instrument executed by employee inventors in favour of their employer. No consideration to a third party, no change of control.

That is the only recorded assignment. There is no second assignment, no security agreement, no merger, no change-of-name, and no license record anywhere in the record I retrieved. The Google Patents legal-events list for this patent contains only: the assignment (AS), entity-status/fee-payment entries (FEPP, 2019-04-30), prosecution events (STPP 2019-11-05, 2020-02-08, 2020-06-04), grant (STCF 2020-06-17), and the 4th-year maintenance fee (MAFP 2023-12-20). No post-issuance transfer of any kind appears.

Two timing observations worth recording (neither is an NPE signal):

1. The assignment was executed 2017-01-31, i.e. after the parent's 2016-11-21 filing but before the continuation's 2019-04-30 filing. This is a routine after-filing employee assignment.
2. It was recorded 2019-04-30 — the same day the continuation application 16/398,492 was filed. That is a filing-hygiene pattern (perfecting record title as the new continuation is lodged so the Office has the chain on file for the new serial number), not a transfer event. The ~2.3-year execution-to-recording gap is unremarkable for a large corporate filer.

Family-level note (not a US assignment): the same invention family carries EP 3279650 B1, CA 2972716 C (granted 2025-09-23, per the Google Patents family table) and PL 3279650 T3 — i.e., the family is still being maintained and perfected internationally as of 2025, consistent with a live operating-company asset.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10705038
    2016 : Provisional filed by three inventors
         : Parent application 15/357/282 filed
    2017 : Inventors assign rights to Pratt and Whitney Canada
    2019 : Continuation 16/398/492 filed
         : Assignment recorded at USPTO reel 049031 frame 0704
    2020 : Patent issued
    2023 : Fourth year maintenance fee paid
    2025 : Related chip detector patents issue
         : Canadian family member granted

(Year labels only; the two 2016, 2019 and 2025 events are stacked with leading colons per the requested format. Note the two / characters inside the application-number event text — if your parser is strict about slashes, replace "15/357/282" and "16/398/492" with "parent application" and "continuation application" respectively.)

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Additional risk screen (encumbrances): no recorded security agreement or lien on this patent was found in the legal-events list, which is a further point against a securitisation/fire-sale reading.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — applying the rubric's literal definition ("no records, or only the original assignment").

Justification: reel 049031/0704 (executed 2017-01-31, recorded 2019-04-30) is the only recorded assignment, so the ownership chain is a single link — inventors → Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. — with no post-issuance transfer and no assertion activity. Critically, this is "insufficient data" in the sense of an absence of adverse events, not uncertainty about who owns the patent: ownership is cleanly documented, and all eight NPE signals are either "not present" or "unclear" solely because the correspondent field could not be retrieved (signal 3). If your taxonomy permits a compound call, the accurate characterisation is operating-company-owned, non-asserting, unencumbered — the chain would only fall into "Operating-company assertion" if a suit were filed, and into "NPE" only on evidence that does not exist here.

Two limitations you should treat as material:

1. I could not render the Assignment Center record itself, so the correspondent-of-record field is unverified and my search may have missed a later-recorded instrument that is not reflected in Google Patents' legal-events mirror.
2. The earlier litigation section's conclusion (no known litigation) is a negative finding from limited tooling, not a certification; a pre-suit NPE transfer recorded in the last few months would not necessarily appear in the aggregators I reached.

Verify directly at:

• USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 10705038, then check the correspondent field on reel 049031/0704)
• Legacy assignment search index — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Application-specific record — https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ for 16/398,492 (and parent 15/357,282)
• Patent text/legal events — https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10705038B2](/patent/US10705038B2)/en

I'll verify the cited prior-art references against public records before analyzing them. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me verify the remaining cited references, focusing on the electrically-based detectors most relevant to the '038 claims.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 10,705,038 B2

Sourcing & method note

• Strict-rule compliance: I searched literally for 10705038. I did not substitute the similarly-titled siblings US 10,197,488 or US 10,317,354 (the parent), both of which share the title "Systems and methods for detecting chips in fluid of aircraft engine." All prior-art below is drawn from the "Patent Citations (14)" and "Family Cites Families (2)" tables on the authoritative Google Patents record (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10705038/en) and verified/re-characterized via web search where I could reach a source.
• Tool limitation (disclosure): I hit my step/tool budget partway through verification. References marked [verified] were confirmed against a public full-text source I retrieved; references marked [unverified — title/date from record only] are characterized from the patent's own citation table and their titles, and their descriptions should be treated as tentative.
• Anticipation caution: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 a single reference must disclose every element of a claim, arranged as in the claim. The mapping below shows which elements each reference supplies — it is a technical comparison, not a legal conclusion of anticipation. Most of these references are hardware/structural or use non-resistance sensing physics, so true § 102 anticipation of the '038 independent claims (1, 8, 9, 16) is weak for nearly all of them; their real force is as § 103 obviousness art in combination.

---

The independent claims being tested

---

Full prior-art citation table

* = flagged in Google's list as cited by examiner (the references most likely relied upon during prosecution).

---

Reference-by-reference analysis and § 102 mapping

1. US 2,878,342 A — Lisle Corp., "Magnetic chip detector" (1955/1959) [unverified — title/date from record only]

Foundational two-magnet chip plug: magnetized prongs spaced apart in a fluid; attracted ferromagnetic chips bridge the gap and close a normally-open alarm circuit (typically a warning lamp). This is the classic mechanical/electric chip-detector genus the '038 specification describes in its Background ("two spaced-apart magnetic prongs … an electronic circuit … is closed which may cause an indication in the cockpit").

• Supply to the '038 claims: the "magnetic chip detector mounted to a fluid system" element of claims 1/8/9/16.
• § 102: supplies only one element; lacks engine computer, dynamic/configuration-based threshold, resistance-value measurement, and any parallel-resistance fault detection. No anticipation of any claim.

2. US 4,100,491 A — Southwest Research Institute, "Automatic self-cleaning ferromagnetic metal detector" (1977/1978) [unverified]

Adds a self-cleaning/wiper mechanism to a magnetic debris detector. Mechanical improvement only.

• § 102: no engine computer, no resistance thresholding. No anticipation of any claim.

3. US 4,323,843 A — Ian N. Batham, "Magnetic contamination detector" (1978/1982) [verified]

This is the single most relevant reference on the resistance-detection physics. Batham discloses spaced-apart electrically insulated electrodes with a rectilinear magnetic flux between them; metal particles bridge the electrodes to form a conductive path. Critically, the reference states that "measurement of the electrical conductivity (or resistance) of the bridge provides a correlation with the concentration of particles in the fluid", and it criticizes the prior art for only distinguishing "bridged vs. not bridged" and for not giving concentration/rate information. It is also the reference explicitly summarized inside US 8,184,290 (which the '038 cites).

• Supply to the '038 claims: (i) a magnetic detector across which a resistance/conductivity can be measured; (ii) resistance ↔ particle-concentration correlation (supports dependent claims 2/10/17 "correlation between resistance and chip size"); (iii) encouragement to trend build-up (supports claims 7/14/19 "over time").
• § 102: Batham lacks the engine computer, the dynamically set, engine-configuration-based threshold, and the parallel resistor/R_LIM fault detection. It therefore does not anticipate claims 1, 8, 9, or 16 (nor any dependent claim requiring those elements). Its realistic role is as a § 103 primary reference against the resistance-conversion dependent claims. Closest art.

4. US 4,731,578 A — Aeroquip Corp., "Electrical sensing system for measuring ferrous particles within a fluid" (1985/1988) [verified] [examiner-cited]

Uses an inductance coil + permanent magnet probe, a fixed-frequency oscillator, a bandpass filter, a demodulator, and a display; two coils provide temperature compensation; explicitly aimed at helicopter/aircraft engines. Detection is by change in inductance, not resistance across the detector.

• § 102: Its electrical-circuit-and-display architecture and aircraft-engine context overlap with the '038 venue, but it neither measures resistance nor discloses an engine computer that dynamically sets an engine-configuration-based threshold. No anticipation of any claim. Its examiner citation reflects its role as background/§ 103 art on "electrical chip sensing with a conditioned circuit and cockpit display."

5. US 5,782,141 A — Allison Engine Co., "Engine having a non-intrusive self-closing valve for magnetic chip detectors" (1995/1998) [unverified]

Mechanical valve that self-closes when the chip detector is removed (fluid-containment hardware).

• § 102: purely structural; no anticipation of any claim.

6. US 6,445,177 B1 — Vibro-Meter S.A., "Chip-detector assembly having improved probe-retention features" (1999/2002) [unverified]

Mechanical/assembly improvement to chip-detector probe mounting.

• § 102: structural; no anticipation of any claim.

7. US 7,106,075 B2 — Shenggen Hu, "Online fluid contaminant detector" (2001/2006) [unverified — title/date from record only]

An online (in-line) contaminant sensor for fluid systems.

• § 102: cannot be assessed on full text; on its face it addresses contaminant presence rather than an engine-computer dynamic threshold. No demonstrated anticipation; low relevance unless its disclosure reaches resistance measurement + computer comparison (unverified).

8. US 8,018,237 B2 — NTN Corp., "Broken piece detecting sensor" (2006/2011) [unverified] [examiner-cited]

A sensor for detecting a broken piece (fragment) — typically an electrical/change-in-state detector on a machine element.

• § 102: its examiner citation suggests it was used for the "electrical detection of a conductive fragment/anomaly" concept; it does not disclose the engine-computer dynamic-threshold or parallel-resistor fault logic. No anticipation of the independent claims; potential § 103 art on the "detect an electrical change from a bridged element" concept. (I could not retrieve its full text to confirm.)

9. US 8,184,290 B2 — Airbus Operations SAS, "Device and method for monitoring the particle contamination in flowing hydraulic fluids" (2006/2012) [verified]

Optical light-barrier particle counting + ultrasonic flow sensing to derive particle size distribution, with a data-processing unit/CPU. Notably, in its background it summarizes US 4,323,843 and states the electrodes "are connectable to circuit means whereby a change in interelectrode resistance may be detected," and complains that this is limited to ferrous contamination.

• Supply to the '038 claims: (i) particle sizing in an aircraft fluid system — supports dependent claims 2/10/17 (chip size) by analogy; (ii) a processor + display for debris data.
• § 102: it derives size optically, not from resistance across a magnetic chip detector, and lacks the engine computer dynamic/configuration threshold and R_LIM fault logic. No anticipation of any claim. Useful § 103 art for the "size the debris and display it" dependent claims.

10. US 7,886,875 B2 — United Technologies Corp., "Systems and methods for monitoring gas turbine engines" (2007/2011) [verified]

Most relevant on the multi-detector / multi-location, engine-computer aspect. Discloses multiple debris capture devices including magnetic chip detectors located at multiple locations of a gas turbine oil system, feeding an oil analysis system that (a) approximates the source of origin by which location/debris-capture device first detected debris, and (b) compares against pre-determined limits with an alert to the cockpit/ground — all while the engine is operating. Claims recite DCDs at "position A/position B."

• Supply to the '038 claims: the "first location"/"second location" limitations of claims 1/8 and the multi-MCD network concept of claim 8/15 and FIG. 7; a computer that receives detector information and issues an alert (claim 1/9 "engine computer … issuing a warning"); "engine operating" supports claim 6.
• § 102: it does not measure resistance across the chip detectors (the ODM uses an induction coil), does not disclose dynamically set thresholds keyed to engine configuration, and its two detector limits are not described as independently tunable. It therefore does not anticipate claims 1, 8, 9 or 16. It is strong § 103 art for the multi-location/multi-detector aspects (claims 8, 15).

11. US 9,316,630 B2 — Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., "Anti-clog and non-metallic debris detector for lubrication system inlet" (2013/2016) [verified]

Discloses a chip detector sensor 62 that "may use one or more magnets to attract ferrous metals or use conductivity of non-ferrous metals to detect the presence of metal contaminants," plus a controller 80 coupled to a display 82 that generates differentiated indications (metal vs. non-metal contamination). Thus it explicitly contemplates electrical/conductivity-based chip detection with a controller/display.

• Supply to the '038 claims: a chip detector + controller + cockpit display architecture; conductivity-based metal detection; differentiated warnings.
• § 102: it does not measure a resistance value compared to a dynamically set, engine-configuration-based threshold, and its fault indication arises from a check-valve/clog condition, not from a parallel resistance exceeding R_LIM. No anticipation of claims 1, 8, 9, or 16; possible § 103 art on "conductivity-sensed chip detection feeding a controller that differentiates/annunciates."

12. US 10,254,210 B2 — Eaton Intelligent Power Ltd., "Flow through debris sensor" (2014/2019) [unverified]

A debris sensor in the fluid flow path (Eaton family; likely inductive/capacitive/electrical).

• § 102: no retrieved text; on its face it addresses debris sensing hardware, not an engine-computer dynamic threshold. No demonstrated anticipation; low-to-moderate relevance.

13. US 2014/0347032 A1 — Caterpillar Inc., "Chip detector" (2014/2014) [unverified]

A chip detector, likely with associated electronics/monitoring for a machine fluid system.

• § 102: no retrieved text; a "chip detector" per se does not disclose the dynamic, engine-configuration threshold or R_LIM logic. No demonstrated anticipation.

14. US 10,180,075 B1 — Rolls-Royce Corp., "On-wing component wear analysis with fluid quality sensing" (2017/2019) [unverified] [examiner-cited] — ⚠️ DATE ANOMALY

Combines wear-debris detection with fluid-quality sensing for on-wing engine diagnostics.

• ⚠️ Flag: its listed earliest priority (2017-08-25) postdates the '038 earliest priority (2016-08-01). If that date is correct, it is not § 102(a)(1) prior art to the '038 claims (it could only matter under a § 102(a)(2) scenario if it had an earlier effective filing, which the record does not show). I recommend verifying its actual effective filing date; the examiner citation may have been against the parent case or on an obviousness basis. Do not treat as § 102 anticipation without resolving the date.

F1. US 5,444,367 A — Minister of National Defence (Canada), "…coils isolated from external vibrations" (1992/1995) [unverified] [family-cited]

Inductance-coil particle detector with vibration isolation.

• § 102: inductance physics, not resistance; no engine-computer dynamic threshold. No anticipation of any claim.

F2. US 9,874,510 B2 — Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., "Magnetic chip detector/collector" (2013/2018) [unverified] [family-cited]

The applicant's own earlier magnetic chip detector/collector (structural collection of debris).

• § 102: assignee's own structural art; no anticipation of the dynamic-threshold or resistance-comparison claims. Its citation is expected self-art.

---

Ranking of prior art by relevance to the '038 independent claims

---

Bottom line

• No single cited reference appears to anticipate any of independent claims 1, 8, 9, or 16. Each independent claim ties together (a) resistance measurement across a magnetic chip detector, (b) a threshold dynamically set in the engine computer (and, for claim 1, keyed to engine configuration), and (c) — in claims 9/16 — a parallel-resistor/R_LIM circuit-malfunction warning. The cited art splits those elements: Batham supplies the resistance physics; UTC supplies the multi-location engine-computer alert; Sikorsky supplies conductivity detection + controller/display. None assembles all elements of a single claim.
• The potentially anticipatory pressure points are on the dependent claims, not the independents — chiefly the "resistance→chip-size correlation" claims (2/10/17) against US 4,323,843, and the "second detector at a second location" claims (8/15) against US 7,886,875 — but even there, anticipation requires the reference to disclose the resistance measurement and dynamic/independent thresholding, which these references do not.
• Two flags requiring resolution:
  1. US 10,180,075 B1 carries an examiner-citation mark yet a priority date (2017-08-25) after the '038 priority (2016-08-01) — verify its effective filing date before treating it as § 102 art.
  2. Several references (US 7,106,075, US 8,018,237, US 10,254,210, US 2014/0347032, US 5,444,367, US 9,874,510, US 2,878,342, US 4,100,491, US 5,782,141, US 6,445,177) were characterized from their record titles because I exhausted my search budget before retrieving full texts. Their element-level mapping should be re-verified against the full documents (e.g., Google Patents PDFs) before any conclusion on anticipation is relied upon.

If you'd like, I can produce a claim-chart (element-by-element for claims 1, 8, 9, 16 against Batham + UTC + Sikorsky as a § 103 combination) or retrieve the full texts of the unverified references to firm up their descriptions.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual disclosures of the cited prior art before building the §103 combinations.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,705,038 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Building on the prior sections: the bibliographic record, family, and legal-status findings are taken as given (19 claims; independents 1, 8, 9, 16; priority 2016-08-01; continuation of US 15/357,282 → US 10,317,354 B2). One item in the prior section needs a flag, and one new internal-consistency defect in the patent itself must be surfaced before the § 103 mapping, because both affect how the claims are read.

Cross-check flags

1. Date anomaly in the citation list: the "Patent Citations" table lists US 10,180,075 B1 (Rolls‑Royce) with a 2017‑08‑25 priority date. That post-dates both the 2016‑08‑01 provisional and the 2016‑11‑21 parent filing, so on the face of the record it cannot be § 102(a)(1) or § 102(a)(2) art against these claims. I treat the citation-list entries literally (per the strict rule) but exclude this reference from the § 103 combinations below. If it was cited as a § 102(a)(2) reference, the priority claim would have had to fail — which the record does not suggest.
2. New flag — the claims' comparison direction appears inverted relative to the specification. Granted claim 1 (and 8, 16) requires the warning "when the resistance value exceeds the first threshold." The specification, however, states the opposite physics: chips bridging the gap make the circuit conductive (resistance drops); FIG. 3 shows chip size "varies inversely proportionally to the resistance value"; the lookup table says chip size is ≥0.020 in when R ≤ 300 Ω and ≤0.004 in when R ≥ 20,000 Ω; and the text states "a gradual decrease in the resistance value may indicate the gradual accumulation of small chips … a sudden drop … may indicate the presence of a large chip." Yet the same specification says the engine computer "issues a first warning … when the resistance value R is above 1000 ohms." Both cannot be correct for a chip-presence alarm. This is a genuine internal inconsistency (potentially § 112(a)/(b), Nautilus) and it is not resolved by the dependent claims, which switch to a chip-size domain where "exceeds" works. For § 103 I analyze the claims under both constructions (literal "R > threshold"; and the specification-supported "chip-size > threshold"), because under either the result is the same.

I could not re-run the additional searches I wanted (tool step limit reached). Where a reference's disclosure detail is inferred rather than quoted from a fetched page, I say so.

---

1. Legal framework and prior-art qualification

Qualification of the cited 14 references (all qualify unless noted):

Two references found in the surrounding landscape (not on the '038 face, but usable by an examiner) are highly material and are used below: US 4,831,362 / GB 2,190,503 (Tsaprazis) — a chip-detector with a diagnostic winding and push-to-test for system-integrity verification; and US 5,583,441 ("Method and apparatus for automatically verifying faults and monitoring chips in a chip detection circuit," priority 1992) — whose very title couples chip monitoring with circuit-fault verification. The disclosure content of US 5,583,441 is inferred from its title as surfaced in the search results; verify before relying on it in a filing.

---

2. No single-reference anticipation; the closest art

No reference discloses all elements of any independent claim. The two closest are:

• US 4,323,843 (Batham) — magnetic plug with two spaced electrodes and a magnet flux across the gap; particles form a conductive bridge, and "the electrodes are connectable to circuit means whereby a change in interelectrode resistance may be detected" (as quoted in the background of US 8,184,290, https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/73/81/b3/f1466887b6c84d/US8184290.pdf). Batham therefore discloses measuring a resistance value across a magnetic chip detector. It lacks the engine computer, the dynamically set threshold, and the warning output.
• US 7,886,875 (UTC) — the engine-level architecture: multiple debris-capture devices (magnetic chip detectors) at positions A, B, C of the accessory gearbox, an oil-debris monitor (inductive coil) giving particle size, count, mass, composition "at a single point in time, cumulatively over time and/or as a rate change over time," an oil analysis system that decides whether the engine is "operating within predetermined limits," and a notification to the cockpit (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7886875). It lacks resistance measurement across a bridged-gap chip detector and lacks a dynamic, configuration-dependent threshold.

The invention therefore lives at the intersection of a well-known sensing element (Batham/Gilbert-type resistive chip plug) and a well-known engine-monitoring architecture (UTC) — the classic KSR fact pattern.

---

3. Combination sets and element-by-element mapping

Combination A — Primary rejection for claims 1, 6, 7, 16, 19

Batham (US 4,323,843) + UTC (US 7,886,875) + Aeroquip (US 4,731,578)

Motivation (Combination A): UTC expressly identifies the problem the '038 addresses — "magnetic chip detectors tend to be relatively inefficient at detecting debris" (https://eureka-patsnap-com.sutd.idm.oclc.org/patent-[US7886875B2](/patent/US7886875B2)) — and already routes debris information to an engine-level analysis function with limits and cockpit annunciation. Substituting/adding the resistive bridged-gap sensing of Batham for UTC's binary magnetic chip detector is a simple substitution of one known debris-sensing element for another, yielding the predictable result (a quantitative, trending electrical signal instead of a go/no-go indication). KSR, 550 U.S. at 416–17, 421. Aeroquip confirms that converting a magnetic-debris sensor output into a metered electrical signal displayed to an operator was a known, routine technique in the same field.

On the "exceeds" direction: Batham's bridge formation causes resistance to drop. If the claim is construed literally ("R > threshold," i.e., a high resistance trip), the mapping runs through the alternative reading (or through the second-warning logic); a POSITA would recognize that inverting a comparison is a trivial design choice with a predictable result (KSR; In re Rose). If construed per the specification (chip size exceeding a limit, or R falling below a limit), UTC's "predetermined limits" and Tsaprazis's mass-category classification (below) map directly.

Combination B — for chip-size claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 17, 18

Combination A + Hu (US 7,106,075), optionally + NTN (US 8,018,237) and/or Airbus (US 8,184,290)

• Hu discloses an on-line oil contaminant detector based on Electrical Impedance Spectroscopy that "determine[s] the concentration and/or average particle size of ferrous wear particles" from the measured electrical quantity, and (in published claim 34 / US 2004/0239344) determining "characterizing parameters of the ferrous particles from the peak height, impedance magnitude or real and imaginary component values at selected frequencies … and comparing one or more of the characterizing parameters with those reference parameters stored for different ferrous particle sizes so as to determine the size of ferrous particles in the gap" (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7106075B2](/patent/US7106075B2)/en; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2004/0239344.html). That is, element-for-element, the '038's "converting the resistance value to a chip size based on a correlation between resistance and chip size, and comparing the chip size to the first threshold."
• NTN discloses determining, from a measured plate-displacement value, "the presence or absence of the broken piece, the size of the broken piece or the amount of the broken piece accumulated" (https://www.patents-review.com/a/20090320567-broken-piece-detecting-sensor.html) — an analog quantity converted into a debris-size metric.
• Airbus discloses on-line aircraft-fluid particle counting and sizing, a data-processing unit with software/database, a pre-set detectable-diameter range, and extrapolating the time at which a critical contamination level is likely to be reached, so that "necessary maintenance actions can be scheduled strategically."

Motivation: The '038 itself states the commercial rationale — discriminating large chips (major failure) from "fuzz" (normal wear) — and the prior art already supplies it: Tsaprazis classifies detected particles into "total ≥ 5 µg" and "large ≥ 40 µg" categories; UTC correlates particle size with the specific degrading component and predicts whether continued operation "could result in failure." Converting a known electrical signal into a known engineering quantity (particle size) and comparing to a limit is precisely "a known technique … used to improve one device … and a person of ordinary skill would recognize it would improve similar devices in the same way." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.

Combination C — for parallel-circuit and fault-detection claims 4, 5, 9, 16

Combination A + Tsaprazis (US 4,831,362 / GB 2,190,503), plus Aeroquip's parallel RLC network

Motivation: placing a known resistance in parallel with an open-gap sensor to (i) keep the circuit energized when the gap is unbridged and (ii) create a distinguishable open-circuit limit is routine electrical practice, and the prior art supplies the reason: UTC notes magnetic chip detectors "tend to be relatively inefficient," and Tsaprazis states the motivation as a false-alarm/false-negative problem ("there is no quick way of tracing, albeit finding, the fault"). Addressing a recognized, unmet need in a known system is a core KSR rationale.

Combination D — for multi-detector claims 8 and 15

Combination A + UTC's multi-location DCD architecture (+ configurable-limit art)

UTC discloses chip detectors at multiple locations of the lubrication system with correlation of debris to location "thereby assisting in localizing the source of any debris," i.e., the same reason the '038 gives for location-dependent thresholds ("a given chip can be critical upstream from a gear box … whereas the same given chip may not be critical at another location"). Once different locations have different criticality — a fact the specification itself concedes is known — independently tunable thresholds are the predictable, obvious implementation, particularly in a software-configurable FADEC/EEC where limit values are engine-model/installation parameters.

Claim-by-claim summary of dependent claims

---

4. Why the combinations are not merely "a set of references"

Under KSR, the articulated rationales are:

1. Predictable result / familiar elements: resistive bridged-gap sensing (Batham) + an engine-level monitoring computer with limits and annunciation (UTC) + a metered electrical readout (Aeroquip). Each element is old and operates exactly as expected; the '038 claims no unexpected cooperation.
2. Simple substitution: replacing UTC's go/no-go magnetic chip detector with Batham's resistance-measuring plug yields the predictable benefit of a quantitative, trendable signal.
3. Known technique for a recognized need: converting an electrical measurement to a particle size via stored reference data (Hu; NTN) and comparing to a critical level (Airbus; UTC) is expressly aimed at the very problem the '038 frames as its purpose (large chip vs. "fuzz").
4. Design incentive / known problem in the field: UTC's own admission that magnetic chip detectors are "relatively inefficient," and Tsaprazis's statement that fault tracing is difficult, supply the "reason the improvement would have been obvious."
5. Software-configurable thresholds: FADEC/EEC systems are, by design, parameterized per engine model/installation; moving a limit value into engine-computer software is a "predictable variation[] of known prior art elements intended to yield a predictable result" (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417).

---

5. Vulnerabilities of the obviousness case (where the patent arguably survives)

I would not represent that these combinations are a certainty. The thinnest points, ranked:

1. Claim 1's "as a function of a configuration of the aircraft engine" (and claim 13). None of the 14 cited references clearly discloses setting a chip-detection threshold based on engine configuration, as opposed to location, condition, or component. UTC's limits are component/location- and trend-correlated; Airbus's are fluid-quality-standard-based. A patent owner would argue this limitation was the deliberate addition that distinguished the continuation from its parent (the parent's independent claim recites the dynamic threshold without the configuration limitation). Recommended search: FADEC/EEC limit tables keyed to engine model/part-number configuration; "engine configuration" + "fault threshold" + "software"; and the file histories of the Nabtesco sensors (US 11,499,931 B2; US 12,038,400 B2; US 12,270,775 B2) which cite this patent and may reveal how the industry treated the same problem.
2. "Independently tunable" in claims 8/15. UTC's per-location limits support different values, but not necessarily independent tunability, nor that one is held constant while the other is tuned (a feature the specification recites but the claims do not fully capture). Still likely obvious in view of the acknowledged location-criticality rationale.
3. "Engine computer" versus UTC's "oil analysis system." A patent owner may argue UTC's oil analysis system 120/403 is not an "engine computer" as construed in light of the specification (ECU/EEC/FADEC). In a § 103 analysis this is a design-choice/obviousness argument, not a patentability argument — one of ordinary skill would place the comparison logic in the EEC to obtain the annunciation function UTC already describes. But note: on these facts the claim term is broad ("any engine controlling devices"), which helps the examiner.
4. The direction-of-comparison defect (flag 2 above). This cuts two ways: it creates a § 112 exposure for the patentee, but it also creates a § 103 mapping awkwardness for the examiner, because the art teaches the opposite-direction trigger. The cleanest path is to treat the "threshold" as a chip-size or alarm-limit value and rely on Hu/NTN/Tsaprazis + UTC for the "compare measured value to a limit and signal" concept.
5. Secondary considerations. I found no evidence of commercial success, licensing, long-felt need, or unexpected results, and (consistent with the earlier section) no litigation or PTAB record to mine for a nonobviousness record. The 4th-year maintenance fee payment (2023‑12‑20) and "Active" status are the only status signals. Absent such evidence, there is nothing to rebut a prima facie case.

---

6. Bottom line

• Anticipation (§ 102): none. No cited reference, alone, discloses measuring resistance across a magnetic chip detector and comparing it in an engine computer and annunciating.
• Obviousness (§ 103): a strong, multi-reference prima facie case exists for all 19 claims, most cleanly through:
  • Batham (US 4,323,843) + UTC (US 7,886,875) + Aeroquip (US 4,731,578) for claims 1, 6, 7, 16, 19;
  • + Hu (US 7,106,075) (and/or NTN US 8,018,237 / Airbus US 8,184,290) for claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 17, 18;
  • + Tsaprazis (US 4,831,362 / GB 2,190,503), and optionally US 5,583,441, for claims 4, 5, 9, 16;
  • + UTC's multi-location DCD architecture for claims 8, 15.
• The single most likely point of survival is claim 1's (and claim 13's) "first threshold set as a function of a configuration of the aircraft engine." That limitation is not squarely met by the cited art as I have it, and it is the natural focus for an additional search (engine-model/configuration-specific limit parameters in EEC/FADEC software) before a firm rejection is asserted.
• Independent of § 103, the specification's internal inconsistency between "warning when resistance exceeds the threshold" and the inverse resistance/chip-size relationship (FIG. 3; the ≤300 Ω ⇒ ≥0.020 in table entry; "a sudden drop in the resistance value") is a real § 112(a)/(b) exposure that a challenger should develop in parallel.

Evidence-quality note: the reference disclosures above are drawn from Google Patents pages, the Airbus US 8,184,290 PDF (which quotes Batham), the Tsaprazis GB 2 190 503 A PDF, and Freepatents/Justia reproductions (URLs inline). Where I relied on a title only (US 5,583,441) I flagged it. I did not have a fetched full text for US 4,323,843, US 2,878,342, US 4,100,491, US 5,782,141, US 6,445,177, US 9,316,630, US 10,254,210, or US 2014/0347032 A1; their content is characterized from titles, abstracts, and third-party quotations, and should be verified against the full documents before any rejection is placed on the record.