US 10724876

I'll search for the specific patent number as requested.

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

US Patent 10,724,876 B2 — Verification Summary

I searched for the exact number "10724876" and "10,724,876." Results confirm the US patent as identified below. Note: the same numeric string also appears in unrelated records — JP10724876A (a 1976 Japanese semiconductor-electrode application, JPS5333056A) and EP10724876A (an EP application number in a 2010 Camurus PCT filing). These are not the patent at issue and I have excluded them.

Bibliographic Data

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10724876/en ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/10724876

Abstract (verbatim, abridged)

"A linear-displacement sensor includes a base element arranged with a sensor coil and an excitation coil in such a manner that an AC voltage is induced in the sensor coil upon application of an AC voltage to the excitation coil. An at least partly electrically conductive sliding element is configured to be shifted relative to the base element in a direction along the measurement path. The sliding element has a variable geometry along the measurement path to inductively couple partial turns of the sensor coil with the excitation coil. A correction coil is arranged above a geometry of the sliding element so that an inductive coupling of the correction coil and hence an amplitude of an AC voltage induced in the correction coil is dependent on a lateral offset of the sliding element in relation to the base element."

Independent Claim 1 — Plain-Language Overview

Claim 1 is the sole independent claim. In ordinary terms, it covers an inductive (coupled-coil / eddy-current-style) linear position sensor with built-in lateral-offset correction. Its elements:

1. Base element — the stationary body (e.g., a printed circuit board with planar coils).
2. Sliding element — at least partly electrically conductive, movable relative to the base element along a measurement path. Critically, its material body defines two distinct geometries: a first geometry that varies along the measurement path (e.g., an oblique groove), and a second geometry that stays constant along the measurement path (e.g., a parallel groove or a lateral edge).
3. Excitation coil arranged above the measurement path.
4. Sensor coil with two opposite-sense partial turns, positioned so that (a) applying an AC voltage to the excitation coil induces a first AC voltage in the sensor coil, and (b) because of the sliding element's variable geometry, the inductive coupling — and thus the induced amplitude — depends on the relative position of the slider along the measurement path. This is the position-measuring channel.
5. Correction coil arranged relative to the constant geometry so that its inductive coupling (and induced voltage amplitude) depends on the lateral offset of the slider orthogonal to the measurement path, but is independent of position along the measurement path. This is the separate error-sensing channel used to compensate measurement error caused by lateral offset/tolerances.

The two-part geometric requirement (variable vs. constant geometry) and the explicit "dependent on lateral offset / independent of position along the measurement path" functional language are the core limitations that distinguish claim 1.

Dependent Claims (brief)

Claims 2–14 add: correction coil with two or four opposite-sense partial turns (2, 4); side-by-side partial-turn arrangement (3); two correction coils, optionally on opposite sides of the variable geometry and/or single-turn each (5–7); series connection of correction coils and/or correction coil with sensor coil (8); shared excitation coil and/or encircling excitation coil (9); a dedicated additional excitation coil for the correction coil (10); sensor-coil partial turns side-by-side and/or equal-area (11); two side-by-side sensor coils each with two opposite-sense partial turns (12); variable geometry as an oblique groove and constant geometry as a parallel groove or lateral edge (13); planar coils in a printed circuit board (14).

Prior Art Cited on the Face

• DE 4239635 A1 (Mannesmann AG)
• DE 10 2004 033 083 A1 (Robert Bosch GmbH — eddy-current sensor)
• US 2007/0001666 A1 / WO 2007/000653 A1 (Lee Joong K / KSR Technologies — linear and rotational inductive position sensor)
• Non-patent: International Search Report for PCT/EP2016/075019, dated December 20, 2016

Regarding CAFC 2026 Dockets / Litigation

I found no CAFC 2026 docket, appeal, IPR, or district-court litigation involving US 10,724,876. My searches for the patent plus "CAFC 2026 docket," "IPR," and "Federal Circuit" returned only unrelated Bosch matters (e.g., Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., the Costco windshield-wiper IPRs, and Bosch Automotive Service Solutions v. …), none of which involve this patent number. Google Patents' legal-events tab for US 10,724,876 shows only routine prosecution and maintenance-fee entries (4th-year fee paid January 19, 2024).

Uncertainty note: My check was based on public web search, not a direct query of PACER, the CAFC docket system, or Docket Navigator. I can confirm the absence of findable public litigation records, but I cannot authoritatively certify that no proceeding exists. Also, per its own disclaimer, Google Patents' "Active / expires 2036-11-30" status is an assumption and not a legal conclusion; sibling family members have divergent statuses (EP3390970B1 active; JP6538984B2 expired–fee related; DE102015225221A1 withdrawn; WO2017102137A1 ceased), which matters if you need a jurisdiction-specific enforceability position.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10724876 across litigation-tracking sources.

Let me narrow the search to avoid the noise from other patents that share a trailing "076" shorthand.

Let me try more targeted queries, including litigation databases and the patent's specific title and assignee.

Findings: Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,724,876

No litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,724,876 was found.

I searched for district-court complaints, ITC actions, PTAB proceedings, and Federal Circuit appeals naming this specific patent. I found no case—active, settled, or terminated—in which U.S. 10,724,876 has been asserted or challenged.

What I searched

• Queries combining the exact numbers 10724876 / 10,724,876 with "litigation," "lawsuit," "infringement," "case," "docket," and "Unified Patents."
• Queries combining the patent's distinguishing attributes (title "Linear displacement sensor" / "Linear movement sensor"; assignee Robert Bosch GmbH; a linear/inductive position sensor) with litigation terms.
• The Unified Patents litigation portal could not be directly retrieved (the query returned no usable results), and I could not confirm any PACER or CAFC docket entry for this patent.

Important disambiguation caution

My searches surfaced several results referring to "the '076 patent," but none of them involve U.S. 10,724,876 — they use the "'076" shorthand for different patents. Do not attribute these to this patent:

• A pharmaceutical case (Nivagen / Sun) referencing a " '076 patent" with 20 claims — U.S. 10,724,876 has 14 claims and is a Bosch inductive sensor, so this is a different patent.
• A semiconductor case (Patent Owner v. TSMC / UMC, E.D. Tex.) referencing a " '076 patent" with 20 claims — likewise a different patent.

These confirm that "'076" is a heavily reused shorthand and that search results must be matched by full number and subject matter, not the suffix.

Corroborating source (patent record itself)

The Google Patents record for US10724876B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10724876](/patent/US10724876)/en) does not list any litigation, and its "Cited By" / "Families Citing this family" sections contain only forward patent citations (e.g., US11525702B2; WO2019224586A1 / EP3803277B1; various Schaeffler, Yamaha, Continental, and Proterial filings) — no litigation events. The confirmed family members are US20180328759A1, EP3390970B1, JP6538984B2, DE102015225221A1, and WO2017102137A1; none of these surfaced in any litigation context.

Outcome / status

Not applicable — no case to report. There is no plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or status to provide because no litigation asserting or challenging U.S. 10,724,876 was identified.

Caveats and confidence

• Confidence: moderate-to-high that no litigation exists as of the search date, but this is a negative finding. It is inherently limited by the tools available in this session (general web search); I could not query PACER, Docket Navigator, Lex Machina, RPX/Unified Patents' full case lists, or the CAFC docket directly.
• Because U.S. 10,724,876 issued only on 2020-07-28 and is a Bosch component sensor (used, e.g., in vehicle/transmission applications per its specification), non-assertion is plausible — Bosch is an operating component supplier rather than a frequent patent plaintiff asserting such patents against competitors.
• To achieve certainty, the following should be checked directly: PACER/Docket Alarm for "10,724,876" full-text docket search; Unified Patents Portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) case list; PTAB (IPR/PGR) for the patent number; and the CAFC docket for appeals.

If you'd like, I can run additional targeted searches (e.g., specific Bosch v. competitor cases, or the EP/JP family members) to try to surface any enforcement activity that a U.S.-centric query might have missed.

I'll verify the structured block's "no proceedings" signal against live sources before drafting.

No hits so far. Let me run a couple more targeted checks.

One more check for any district-court assertion of this patent that could have spawned an IPR.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings on file — the USPTO Open Data Portal structured block returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for US 10,724,876, and my independent searches (PTAB petition/decision indices, Federal Circuit docket text, CourtListener) surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or appeal naming this patent. All 14 claims are therefore untested at the Board: nothing is canceled, nothing is sustained, and nothing is estoppel-barred. The defensive posture this gives a defendant is not "the patent is hardened" and not "the claims are dead" — it is "clean slate, full invalidity toolkit, no petitioner estoppel, but no free head start either."

A caveat on the negative finding: PTAB filings occasionally lag public indexing by a few weeks, and the ODP ingest date is not the filing date. Treat "no proceedings" as accurate as of 2026-09-29 based on the sources canvassed, not as a permanent guarantee.

No proceedings to report

There is no {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} to format. The structured block is the canonical list and it is empty, so I will not manufacture proceeding numbers, panels, or dispositions to fill this section. For the record, what I checked and what I did not find:

• IPR — no petition challenging any of claims 1–14 on the PTAB docket or petition archive.
• PGR — none filed. Note that the window has now closed regardless: the application was filed 2016-10-19 (PCT/EP2016/075019) and granted 2020-07-28, so the 35 U.S.C. § 321(c) nine-month post-grant window expired on or about 2021-04-28. PGR is no longer an available vehicle against this patent.
• CBM — none filed, and none now available. CBM review required claims directed to a financial product or service, and the AIA transitional program sunset for newly filed petitions on 2020-09-16. This is an inductive displacement sensor; CBM was never a fit.

IPR remains fully available to a defendant subject only to the § 315 bars discussed below.

Strategic summary

Claim status. US 10,724,876 B2 issued 2020-07-28 with 14 claims: independent claim 1, plus dependent claims 2–14. Because no AIA trial has ever been instituted, all 14 claims stand unamended and unadjudicated. There are no canceled claims, no surviving-but-narrowed claims, and no claim constructions from any PTAB panel. Claim 1 recites the core combination of a conductive sliding element having a variable geometry along the measurement path (sensed by an excitation/sensor coil pair with two opposite-sense partial turns) plus a constant geometry along the measurement path sensed by a correction coil whose induced amplitude is position-independent and lateral-offset-dependent. That "correction coil over constant geometry" element is the asserted point of novelty over the two references the Applicant distinguished during prosecution — DE 10 2004 033 083 A1 (the eddy-current sensor of the Background) and WO 2007/000653 A1 (the coupled-coil linear-displacement sensor, which the specification itself acknowledges suffers "a higher measuring error in the case of a lateral offset"). The intrinsic record hands you an express admission that the lateral-offset failure mode was known, which is useful framing for a § 103 motivation-to-combine argument but is not itself prior art.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel against anyone, because estoppel attaches only to a petitioner that obtains a Final Written Decision. No petitioner has done so; indeed no petitioner exists. Every invalidity ground — § 102, § 103, and, to the extent raised in a civil action, § 112 — is available to a current defendant without restriction. The flip side: your adversary cannot be estopped either, and Bosch has never been forced to defend these claims, so the patent has had zero pressure-testing at the Board. Whatever invalidity case you build will be the first one anyone has built. There is no PTAB record to mine for the examiner's or the panel's view of the claim terms ("variable geometry," "constant along the measurement path," "correction coil," "lateral offset").

Pattern signals. No repeated-petitioner pattern exists for this patent because there has been no petitioner at all. No defensive aggregator — Unified Patents or otherwise — appears in the chain. This is consistent with the patent owner's profile: Robert Bosch GmbH is a large operating company, not an NPE, and this patent is a component-level sensor arising from Bosch's own vehicle-sensor R&D (DE 10 2015 225 221.3, priority 2015-12-15; inventors Herrmann, Utermoehlen, Merz, and Leidich). Bosch's history is that of a defendant-side repeat player as much as an assertion-side one — it litigated six wiper-blade patents against Costco through IPR and appeal (see Robert Bosch LLC v. Iancu, Nos. 2018-1499 et al., Fed. Cir. 2019-07-03, nonprecedential) — so if this patent is ever asserted, expect a well-resourced, patent-holder-side operation rather than a quick settlement play. The family is also being actively prosecuted and layered: the same disclosure line includes WO 2017/153074 / US 11,118,940 B2 ("Tilt-tolerant displacement sensor") and WO 2017/198468 ("Tilt-tolerant linear displacement sensor"), and the patent cites itself into the family of US 2020/0030331-type sensor filings. Practically, that means a design-around or invalidity theory aimed at just this patent may meet sibling claims.

Term and value note. The patent is active with an adjusted expiration of 2036-11-30. That is a long runway — roughly a decade of remaining life as of today — which raises the expected value of an invalidity investment relative to a patent in its sunset years, and correspondingly raises the stakes if you are a defendant.

Recommended next steps

• No PTAB activity exists — say that plainly. The absence is mildly unusual for a patent that has been in force since 2020-07-28 and belongs to a company with Bosch's assertion history, and it is a real signal: it means the claims have never been construed by the Board, no petitioner has been estopped, and any IPR you file will be the first. Treat the absence as an invitation, not as evidence of strength.
• IPR is your live vehicle. § 315(b) gives you one year from service of a complaint alleging infringement of this patent to file; § 315(a)(1) bars an IPR filed by a party that previously filed a civil action challenging validity. Calendar the § 315(b) date the moment you are served. The statutory clock from institution to Final Written Decision is one year under § 316(a)(11), extendable to eighteen months for good cause.
• Prior art leads worth developing now, before any § 315(b) clock starts:
  • DE 10 2004 033 083 A1 (Robert Bosch, published 2006-01-26) — cited on the face of the patent as the eddy-current background; useful for the excitation/sensor-coil architecture.
  • WO 2007/000653 A1 / US 2007/0001666 A1 (Lee, KSR Technologies) — the coupled-coil linear/rotational inductive position sensor, also cited on the face. This is the closest art on the two-opposite-sense-partial-turns sensor coil, and the specification's own admission that coupled-coil designs fail under lateral offset is a § 103 hook.
  • DE 10 2013 226 203 A1 (Bosch, 2015) — "Offsetkompensierte Positionsmessvorrichtung," which discloses a compensation coil (Kompensationsspule) series-connected to a receiver coil with its own dedicated transmitter coil and not associated with the measurement graduation. This is materially close to claim 1's correction-coil concept and to claim 10's additional-excitation-coil dependent claim; it is worth running down as § 102/§ 103 art.
  • DE 10 2016 208 644 A1 (Bosch, published 2017-11-23) and its ES 2 760 574 T3 counterpart — a linear-displacement sensor with a correction sensor element whose correction coil has constant overlap with a correction track along the measurement path. Post-dates the 2015-12-15 priority date on its face, so likely usable only as § 102(a)(2)/§ 103 background if a pre-priority effective date can be shown — verify inventorship dates and any earlier priority before relying on it.
• Consider the parallel administrative channels. Ex parte reexamination has no § 315(b)-style time bar and no estoppel, and may be worth pairing with (or preferring over) an IPR if your art is patent-only and the client wants deniability about litigation positions. Note that the EP counterpart EP 3390970 B1 is active (granted 2019-12-11), so an EPO opposition may already have run and closed — I have not verified whether any opposition was filed, and you should not assume either way; the national counterparts show mixed status (DE 102015225221 A1 withdrawn, JP 6538984 B2 expired – fee related, WO 2017102137 A1 ceased), which tells you the family was pruned outside the US and EP.
• Do not cite a Final Written Decision — there isn't one. I have deliberately not linked to a PTAB decision or CAFC opinion for this patent, because none exists. For docket monitoring going forward, use USPTO PTAB E2E / PTAB Center for filings and CourtListener plus the Federal Circuit docket for any appeal. The authoritative family record is the Google Patents page for US10724876B2.

Bottom line for a defendant: nothing has been invalidated and nothing has been estoppel-barred; you have the entire invalidity toolkit and a first-mover advantage at the Board, but you also have no PTAB roadmap and a patent with roughly ten years of term left. Build the prior-art case early and watch the § 315(b) calendar.

I'll research the assignment record for this patent. Let me run several searches.

I was cut off before completing all lookups, so I'll compile findings from what the sources returned. Note upfront: the authoritative full patent text (legal events) contains the recorded-assignment data, and my web searches confirmed but did not extend it.

Inventors

Employer determination: All four are prolific Bosch sensor inventors. Andreas Merz's Patent Leaderboard profile shows 16 issued patents, 13 assigned to Robert Bosch GmbH, with continuation filings through 2022 (e.g., US 11,268,832; US 11,143,681; US 11,193,796). Stefan Leidich, Fabian Utermoehlen and Ingo Herrmann likewise appear as co-inventors on numerous later Bosch applications (e.g., US 10,895,475; US 10,751,477; US 2019/0011285; EP 3,455,592).

Unusual patterns: None. This is the opposite of the departure/fire-sale precursor. All four inventors continued inventing for Bosch well past the December 2015 priority date, and no inventor appears to have left the original assignee within 12 months of filing. Their long Bosch tenure is a stability signal, not a distress signal.

Original assignee

Robert Bosch GmbH (Stuttgart/ Gerlingen-Schillerhöhe, Germany) — named as original and current assignee on the face of the patent.

• Primary line of business: Diversified industrial/automotive supplier — mobility (chassis, powertrain, sensors), industrial technology, consumer goods (power tools), and energy/building technology. Bosch SensorTec is a core business unit.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes, plausibly. The specification expressly targets the vehicle surround field ("car, truck, motorcycle, commercial vehicles"), including spring-compression depth measurement for two-wheeled vehicles and gear-position detection in automatic transmissions (Abstract/Summary; per the authoritative full text). This is a commercially deployed Bosch sensor category, not a paper patent.
• Current status: Operating. Robert Bosch GmbH is privately held (≈92% by Robert Bosch Stiftung), not publicly traded, not in bankruptcy, not acquired. No dissolution/acquisition events apply.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO registers one recorded assignment for US 10,724,876 (application 15/775,981). Details:

• 2018-05-18 to 2018-05-24 (executed — signing dates) / recorded 2018-06-19 — Reel 046133/0144
  • Conveyance: Assignment — "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST"
  • Assignor: HERRMANN, INGO; UTERMOEHLEN, FABIAN; MERZ, ANDREAS; AND OTHERS (i.e., the individual inventors)
  • Assignee: ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, Germany
  • Correspondent: Not recoverable from the sources I was able to retrieve. The Google Patents legal-events record exposes the reel/frame and conveyance but not the recording correspondent. I did not obtain a PACER/Assignment-Center correspondent field, so I will not name an attorney or firm here — doing so would be fabrication. (This is the one field the task asks for that I could not ground.)
  • Context: Inventor-to-employer title perfection. This is a routine obligation assignment required to perfect Bosch's ownership on US national-stage entry (§371 of PCT/EP2016/075019). It is not a transfer between companies, not an acquisition, not a securitization, not transfer-to-asserter.

Important structural note on timing (not a red flag): The application was filed as PCT/EP2016/075019 on 2016-10-19 and entered the US national stage in 2018 (application 15/775,981; pre-grant pub US 2018/0328759 A1 on 2018-11-15). The single assignment was recorded 2018-06-19, i.e., during national-stage entry, consistent entirely with normal employment-assignment practice. There is no post-issuance assignment, no security interest, no license record, no merger, and no change of name on this patent.

No later records exist. Google Patents' legal-events tab shows only the 2018-06-19 assignment plus routine prosecution and a 4th-year maintenance fee paid 2024-01-19. There is no second link in the chain to analyze.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10724876
    2015 : Priority DE application filed
    2016 : PCT filed by Robert Bosch
    2018 : Inventors assign to Robert Bosch
         : Reel 046133 frame 0144 recorded
         : US national stage entry
    2020 : US patent issued to Robert Bosch
    2024 : Fourth year maintenance fee paid

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The only recorded assignment (Reel 046133/0144, rec. 2018-06-19) moves rights from individual inventors to the operating company Robert Bosch GmbH. No "IP/Patents/Licensing/Holdings/Ventures" entity appears; no LLC; no registered-agent address; no single-purpose entity.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. The sole assignee is Robert Bosch GmbH, an operating manufacturer. Bosch matches none of the listed asserters (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, Spangenberg entities, etc.). No entity surfaced by Unified Patents or RPX appears anywhere in the chain.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present / unclear. There is only one link in the chain, so "recurrence" cannot exist. Moreover, I could not retrieve the correspondent name for that single recording (Reel 046133/0144). One appearance would in any event not satisfy this signal, which by definition requires recurrence.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. A single assignment, executed/recorded in 2018, with no subsequent transfers over the following ~8 years. No chained LLCs, no shared correspondent, no common principals across links because there are no multiple links.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The only assignment predates the 2020 grant by two years and is an inventor-to-employer perfection, not a transfer arranged within 6 months before a suit. No infringement suit naming this patent was found in the prior analysis (and the previous section's litigation check found no CAFC/IPR/district-court activity).

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Bosch is solvent, privately held, and unaffected by any Chapter 7/11 proceeding. The patent passed through no insolvency estate.

7. Privateering — Not present. No transfer out of Bosch to any third party, NPE or otherwise. The patent remains with the original operating company; there is no assertion vehicle to point at.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It simply terminates at Bosch, the original operating owner. (Inverse implication holds: the patent is not "neutralized" by an aggregator — it is simply retained.)

Additional observation: Google Patents flags the "Active / expires 2036-11-30" status as an assumption, not a legal conclusion, and sibling family members diverge (EP3390970B1 active; JP6538984B2 expired–fee-related; DE102015225221A1 withdrawn; WO2017102137A1 ceased). None of the family members show any evidence of an NPE transfer either. (Cited from the previous section; consistent with the records here.)

Verdict

Insufficient data — defined precisely as "no records, or only the original assignment."

Justification: The only recorded assignment is the inventor-to-employer perfection dated 2018-05-18/24 and recorded 2018-06-19 at Reel 046133/0144, moving title from Herrmann, Utermoehlen, Merz and Leidich to Robert Bosch GmbH. There is no post-issuance assignment, no shell LLC, no repeat correspondent and no litigation-timed transfer to evaluate, so there is no NPE chain to classify. All affirmative evidence (single operating-company assignee; all four inventors continuing to file Bosch applications years later; Bosch solvent and shipping the covered sensor types) points away from an NPE/troll pattern — but the strict verdict category that fits a chain consisting solely of the original assignment is "Insufficient data," with the clear note that this reflects an operating-company-retained patent, not an evidentiary gap about an unknown owner.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search?q=[10724876](/patent/10724876) (search by patent number; the single entry should read Reel 046133 / Frame 0144, Assignment of Assignors' Interest, Robert Bosch GmbH). Google Patents legal events mirror: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10724876/en

Caveats I want to be explicit about: (a) I could not retrieve the correspondent of record for Reel 046133/0144 from any source I reached, so that field is intentionally left blank rather than guessed; (b) my checks were via public web search and the patent's own register data, not a direct authenticated PACER/Docket Navigator/Assignment-Center API query, so I cannot authoritatively certify the absence of every proceeding — only that none is findable in public records; (c) the deadline cut my searches short, so a direct Assignment Center lookup by patent number is the recommended confirmation step for the correspondent field.

I'll verify the patent on USPTO and examine each cited reference.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,724,876 B2 ("Linear displacement sensor")

1. USPTO record confirmation (exact number, no substitutions)

Searching for the literal string 10724876 returns the following record, which matches the authoritative full text supplied in this session. I did not include look-alike numbers that share the suffix or prefix (e.g., JP S53-33056/JPS5135874-type Japanese records, EP 10724876, US 10,724,879, US 11,724,876, etc.). Those were observed in the search index and are excluded.

The patent's own face (the authoritative text) lists exactly four patent citations plus one non-patent citation. These are the references this analysis addresses. Google Patents also lists two "Family Cites Families" documents (JP S51-35874 B1; JP 6044050 B2) — these are family-level citations, not citations to the '876 patent itself, and are addressed briefly at the end.

2. The four cited prior-art references

Reference A — DE 4239635 A1 (Mannesmann AG)

• Full citation: DE 4239635 A1, "Verfahren und Einrichtung zur Wegerfassung von Ventilstangenbewegungen elektropneumatischer Stellungsregler" (Method and device for detecting the movement of a valve rod in electro-pneumatic positioners). Later granted as DE 4239635 C2.

• Dates: Priority/filing 1992-11-23; published 1994-05-26.

• Description: Displacement measurement of a valve stem using an eddy-current / HF-oscillation principle: a ferrite core and coil form an LC resonant circuit; a metallic carrier moved by the valve stem damps the oscillation, and the demodulated oscillation amplitude is a measure of distance to the conductive object. It uses two sensors offset by 180° that measure against an oblique (inclined) surface — i.e., a differential read-out referenced to a sloped target geometry. It explicitly distinguishes itself from potentiometric, capacitive and LVDT approaches and from simple inductive proximity switches.

• § 102 relevance — potential anticipates: None as a standalone anticipatory reference. It discloses general elements of the claim-1 preamble (a stationary sensing structure and a relatively movable conductive object sensed along a path via eddy currents), but it discloses no excitation coil inducing an AC voltage in a separate sensor coil, no sensor coil with two opposite-sense partial turns, and no correction coil at all. Claim 1 — and therefore every dependent claim — is not anticipated by DE 4239635 A1. It is properly a § 103 background reference (general state of the art of inductive/eddy-current linear position sensing), and its oblique-surface, 180°-offset-sensor arrangement is only loosely analogous to the '876 "variable geometry."

Reference B — DE 10 2004 033 083 A1 (Robert Bosch GmbH)

• Full citation: DE 10 2004 033 083 A1, "Wirbelstromsensoranordnung" (Eddy-current sensor arrangement for path/angle measurement). Cited on the '876 face and also referenced in the '876 Background.

• Dates: Filed 2004-07-08; published 2006-01-26.

• Description: An eddy-current sensor with at least one coil (2, 3) generating eddy currents in a conductive transmitter/encoder (4) that moves relative to the sensor. The encoder has a conductive track (5) configured so that the complex impedance of the coil changes continuously as the track is scanned along the direction of movement — enabling time-continuous displacement or angle measurement. The track may vary in effective area, conductivity, doping, or conductive/non-conductive ratio along the movement direction.

• § 102 relevance — potential anticipates: None. This is the reference the '876 specification itself cites (in the Background) as an example of the eddy-current-principle alternative. It discloses a variable-geometry conductive track (conceptually close to claim 1's "first geometry that is variable along the measurement path") scanned to give continuous position. But it (i) measures the self-impedance change of a single coil rather than a mutual-inductance-induced voltage in a separate sensor coil; (ii) has no two-opposite-sense-partial-turn sensor coil; and (iii) has no correction coil / lateral-offset channel. No claim of the '876 patent is anticipated. Properly a § 103 reference against the variable-geometry aspect of claim 1 (and against claim 13(i)).

Reference C — US 2007/0001666 A1 (Lee, Joong K. — KSR Technologies)

• Full citation: US 2007/0001666 A1, "Linear and rotational inductive position sensor," Lee, Joong K.; assignee KSR Technologies Co. (application Ser. No. 11/474,685; priority to U.S. Provisional 60/694,384).

• Dates: Priority 2005-06-27; filed 2006-06-26; published 2007-01-04.

• Description — the single most relevant cited reference. It discloses an inductive linear/rotational position sensor comprising:

  • an exciter coil energized by an AC source;
  • a receiver coil ("linear modulator," LM) having two sections wound in opposite directions so that the inductive coupling tends to induce opposed voltages in the two sections (a differential structure that cancels in the absence of the coupler);
  • a movable, electrically conductive coupler element (eddy plate/U-shaped structure) that modifies the inductive coupling with position, so the receiver signal tracks part position;
  • a distance modulator (DM) / reference coil that is deliberately configured so that its output is "substantially independent of the position of the coupler element" while being affected by the gap/offset between coupler and coil — used in ratiometric / common-mode correction of the position signal;
  • all coils optionally formed as planar metal tracks on a printed circuit board, with the processing electronics on the same board; and multiple LMs for longer travel.

• § 102 relevance — potential anticipates: This is the closest prior art, and it maps onto several limitations of independent claim 1:

  • excitation coil inducing an induced AC voltage in a sensor coil → disclosed;
  • sensor coil with two opposite-sense sections/partial turns → disclosed (claim 11's feature);
  • conductive movable element along a measurement path → disclosed (coupler element);
  • a correction-type coil whose signal is position-independent but offset/gap-dependent → disclosed (the DM/reference coil), though Lee frames this in terms of gap (perpendicular/axial separation) rather than the '876 in-plane "lateral offset" (x-direction).

  However, Lee does not disclose the claim-1 structural requirement that the sliding element's material body defines both (i) a first geometry variable along the measurement path and (ii) a second geometry constant along the measurement path, with the correction coil placed over the constant geometry. In Lee, the position-varying structure is in the coil windings, not in a dual-geometry sliding element. Because claim 1 requires this and every other claim depends from it, no claim of the '876 patent is squarely anticipated under § 102 by US 2007/0001666 A1. Its strongest role is as a § 103 primary reference (combined with, e.g., Reference B for the variable-geometry slider), and it overlaps most directly with the subject matter of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14.

Reference D — WO 2007/000653 A1 (KSR Technologies Co.)

• Full citation: WO 2007/000653 A1, "Linear and rotational inductive position sensor," KSR Technologies Co. (PCT/IB2006/001765). This is the PCT publication of the same invention as Reference C (the '876 face cites both; EP 1902277 B1 is the corresponding European grant).

• Dates: Priority 2005-06-27; filed 2006-06-27; published 2007-01-04.

• Description: Substantively identical disclosure to Reference C — exciter coil; oppositely-wound differential receiver coil (LM); movable conductive coupler; a distance-modulator/reference coil substantially independent of coupler position but responsive to gap/common mode; planar coils on a PCB; multi-pole LMs for extended travel; ratiometric correction via phase-sensitive and non-phase-sensitive rectification.

• § 102 relevance — potential anticipates: Same analysis as Reference C — it is the WO counterpart of the same disclosure, so it adds nothing beyond US 2007/0001666 A1 as prior art. It does not anticipate any claim of the '876 patent for the same reason (no dual-geometry sliding element). It corroborates the § 103 case and overlaps with claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14. (Note: the '876 patent's own Background cites WO 2007/000653 A1 for the statement that coupled sensor coils have greater robustness to spacing/tilt changes but higher error under lateral offset — the very problem the '876 correction coil solves.)

Non-patent citation

• International Search Report for PCT/EP2016/075019, dated 2016-12-20 (German/English). This is the search report on the '876 application itself, not prior art; it identifies the examiner-cited references above.

Family-level citations (for completeness, not direct citations to the '876 patent)

• JP S51-35874 B1 (family citation) and JP 6044050 B2 (2012-09-04 / 2016-12-14, Kyushu University — "Angle detector") appear only under Google Patents' "Family Cites Families" heading. They are not citations on the '876 face and were not relied on by the examiner of record.

3. Bottom line

1. Exact-number confirmation: The record retrieved for 10724876 is US 10,724,876 B2, Robert Bosch GmbH, "Linear displacement sensor" — matching the authoritative text in this session. No substitute numbers were used.
2. Most relevant prior art: US 2007/0001666 A1 (Lee / KSR Technologies) and its WO 2007/000653 A1 counterpart are by far the most relevant. They disclose the excitation-coil / differential-opposite-sense receiver-coil combination and a position-independent-but-offset/gap-sensitive reference ("distance modulator") coil — the functional core of the '876 correction concept.
3. § 102 assessment: Based on the references cited on the '876 face, no single reference appears to anticipate any claim of US 10,724,876 under § 102, because none discloses the claim-1 requirement of a sliding element whose material body defines a first geometry variable along the measurement path and a second geometry constant along the measurement path, with the correction coil sensing over the constant geometry for in-plane lateral offset. The cited references are properly § 103 material — References C/D as the primary reference and Reference B (variable conductive track) as a secondary reference against the variable-geometry limitation; Reference A is background only.

Caveats: This analysis is grounded in the patent text provided plus public database records (Google Patents / Justia / EPO publication server) retrieved this session; I did not run a separate USPTO full-text citation API query, so I rely on the citation list shown on the '876 face, which the authoritative text confirms as the four references above. § 102/§ 103 characterizations are technical-analyst opinions, not legal conclusions, and any formal anticipation/invalidity position would require claim-charting each reference against claim 1 element-by-element.

I'll research the prior art references cited on the face of US 10,724,876 to ground the § 103 analysis in what each reference actually teaches.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,724,876 B2

"Linear displacement sensor" (Robert Bosch GmbH; priority 2015-12-15; issued 2020-07-28)

Scope note: This builds on the earlier-generated bibliographic and litigation sections and does not repeat them. The prior-art references analyzed are those of record, plus closely-related material the record itself points to. A minor internal inconsistency to flag: the two prompt headers state different "current dates" (2026-09-29 vs. April 26, 2026). It does not affect the analysis below, but it is a literal contradiction.

I. Governing Framework

A § 103 challenge here is governed by Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (scope/content of claims; differences over prior art; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations) and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (expansive rationales; "predictable variations," "known technique to improve similar devices," design incentives). Under MPEP § 2143, a prima facie case needs (1) all claim elements in the prior art and (2) a reason the PHOSITA would combine them with a reasonable expectation of success. Importantly, all three patent references cited on the face (DE 4239635, DE 10 2004 033 083, and the Lee/KSR WO 2007/000653) were before the examiner, and the same art was considered in the EP grant of EP3390970B1 — so the § 282 presumption of validity is at its strongest, and any challenge must be "clear and convincing," especially if it rests on art of record.

Level of ordinary skill: a B.S. in electrical/mechanical engineering (or equivalent) with ~2–4 years of experience in inductive/eddy-current position-sensor design, including coupled-coil (transmitter/receiver) sensing and ratiometric signal conditioning. The field is mature and predictable; the references are all in the same art (non-contacting inductive/eddy-current displacement and angle sensing). This low level of ordinary skill favors obviousness.

II. Claim 1, Element by Element

The single most important finding: Lee already discloses a dedicated correction/reference coil whose output is position-independent but sensitive to a geometric misalignment, used to correct the position signal. That is the conceptual core of the '876 correction coil.

III. The Primary Combination and Why It Is Motivated

Ground 1 — Lee (WO 2007/000653) + Bosch DE 10 2004 033 083 (+ DE 4239635 as secondary)

Lee supplies: the coupled-coil architecture (excitation + opposite-sense sensor coil + conductive sliding element + position-sensitive coupling) and the position-independent reference/correction coil used to null common-mode geometry errors. Lee even teaches the error signal being an offset orthogonal to the gap, and provides a "tilt compensating linear modulator" (FIG. 4) that "eliminates the effects of tilt of the coupler element."

Bosch DE 10 2004 033 083 supplies: the missing element — a moving conductive body with a geometrically variable track that produces a travel-dependent signal. This is exactly the "first geometry variable along the measurement path" of claim 1, and its obverse (a non-varying track/edge) is the "second geometry."

DE 4239635 (Mannesmann) supplies the further context that inductive/eddy-current principles are already used for continuous linear travel measurement of a rod (valve-stem) with amplitude-based evaluation and microcontroller correction — i.e., the application field and the "correction of environmental effects" mindset.

Motivations (KSR rationales (A), (C), (D), (F)):

1. Same field / same problem. All references address non-contacting inductive linear displacement sensing. The '876 specification itself frames the invention as an improvement on WO 2007/000653, whose known drawback it admits: "Coupled sensor coils can exhibit a distinctly greater robustness… but may entail a higher measuring error in the case of a lateral offset" — an applicant admission that the problem was known, so only the solution is at issue.
2. Known technique to improve a similar device (KSR (C)). Lee already uses a position-independent auxiliary coil to correct geometry-induced error (gap/tilt/orthogonal offset). Applying that same, known correction technique to the lateral offset of a coupled-coil linear sensor is the routine use of a known technique to improve a similar device.
3. Predictable result (KSR (A)). Combining (i) a conductive track whose effective area varies with travel and (ii) a position-independent reference coil yields a sensor with a position channel and a correction channel — a predictable aggregation of known elements, and the '876 spec confirms it works ("higher installation tolerances are possible… mounting technology can be made cost-effective").
4. Finite, predictable solutions / obvious to try (KSR (E)). The PHOSITA seeking to correct lateral offset in a coupled-coil sensor faces a small set of known options (add a reference coil, as Lee teaches; arrange it over a constant-geometry feature). The '876 result is one of them.
5. Design incentive (KSR (F)). Cost/tolerance pressures in automotive position sensing (the stated field: spring-compression depth, gear position) directly motivate correcting installation tolerance.

Ground 2 — Lee + Lee (US 7,276,897 / US 2007/0001666) + Bosch

The Lee family collectively teaches the reference coil "substantially independent of the coupler element position" used in ratiometric processing (division/subtraction) to cancel common-mode factors. Combined with Bosch's variable-area track, this again reaches claim 1. This ground avoids relying on a non-Lee reference for the "correction coil" concept.

IV. Dependent Claims 2–14

These are, on the cited record, more clearly obvious than claim 1 — most limitations are directly disclosed by Lee or are design choices with predictable effect:

Claims 9, 11, 12, 14 in particular are squarely met by Lee alone (loaded onto claim 1's correction-coil requirement), making them individually weak.

V. The Best Non-Obviousness Counterarguments (Candor Check)

A rigorous analyst must acknowledge that the § 103 case on claim 1 is strong but not airtight, and a patentee/defendant forum could go either way:

1. The "constant geometry of the sliding element" limitation. Lee's DM is made position-independent by where the coil sits relative to the exciter and a uniform coupler — not by placing a coil over a dedicated constant-geometry track/edge of the sliding element. No cited reference expressly teaches the claimed architecture (correction coil referenced to a constant-geometry feature, e.g., a parallel groove or lateral edge). This is the genuine point of novelty and the strongest non-obviousness hook.
2. Lateral (x) vs. gap (z) offset. Lee's DM is primarily a gap/tilt sensor. The '876 patent emphasizes lateral offset (shift orthogonal to the measurement path). Lee does contemplate "offset … along an orthogonal direction to the gap," but whether that squarely reads on "lateral offset" is a claim-construction dispute the patentee will press.
3. Presumption of validity / art of record. The three references were before the US examiner (and the EPO granted EP3390970B1 over them). A challenge built on the same art, without a new combination theory, faces a heightened hurdle; the strongest attack is the new combination (Lee + Bosch) that the examiner may not have articulated.
4. No secondary considerations found. There is no litigation or known commercial-success/unexpected-results evidence on this patent (per the earlier litigation section). Absent nexus evidence, there is no objective rebuttal — which cuts against the patentee, not for.

Net assessment on claim 1: ~60–65% likely obvious over Lee + Bosch (with DE 4239635), given the applicant's own admission of the problem and Lee's express teaching of a position-independent correction coil sensing an orthogonal offset. The residual uncertainty is the "correction coil over a constant geometry of the sliding element, keyed to lateral offset" limitation, which no single reference states in haec verba. Independent claim 1 is the only independent claim (14 total), so the validity of the patent rises and falls with it; the dependent claims would fall with or before it.

VI. Combination Summary

Key sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10724876/en • https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070001666A1/en • https://patents.google.com/patent/AU2006263524A1/en (WO 2007/000653 text) • https://patents.google.com/patent/DE4239635A1/en • https://patents.google.com/patent/DE102004033083A1/en

Caveats: This is an analytical § 103 assessment, not a legal opinion or an invalidity prediction. It relies on the full text of US 10,724,876 and on web-retrieved content of the cited references (the WO/AU equivalent was used for the Lee text). I did not retrieve the native US 7,276,897 or the full specification of DE 4239635 in German beyond the excerpts above; the Lee mappings are nonetheless corroborated across multiple sources. Two references appearing in the patent's "Similar Documents" list — US 10,760,928 B1 / CN113424025B ("Planar linear inductive position sensor having edge effect compensation") and US 11,118,940 ("Tilt-tolerant displacement sensor") / US 2019/0316938 A1 — describe near-identical concepts (variable measurement track + constant correction tracks + correction coils) but appear to be post-priority Bosch-family filings; they are not prior art here and should not be cited against claim 1, though they are useful evidence of what a PHOSITA would find routine.