US 10908002

I'll search for litigation and docket information on this specific patent number.

Let me check for any district court or Federal Circuit proceedings involving this patent.

Let me do one final targeted check for litigation/appeal activity.

US 10,908,002 B2 — Sensor airflow apparatus

Litigation / docket check (result): I searched for district-court complaints, PTAB proceedings (IPR/PGR), and Federal Circuit 2026 docket activity tied to this specific patent number. No litigation, IPR/PGR, or CAFC appeal involving US 10,908,002 was found. The only third-party citations located are later patent documents that cite it as prior art (e.g., Denso US 11,378,425 B2; Ford US 2022/0397645 A1 / US 12,429,561 B2; Apple EP 4418032 A1) — these are prosecution citations, not court proceedings. If you need a docket-of-record confirmation, that would require a direct PACER / USPTO PatentCenter or PTAB API query, which I could not execute here.

Bibliographic data (from the patent text)

Primary classifications: B60R 11/00; B60S 1/56; G01D 11/245; G01S 7/4813; G02B 27/0006; H04N 23/51; H04N 23/55; G01S 17/931; G01S 2007/4977 (sensor obstruction by dirt/ice coating, including means to prevent or remove the obstruction).

Abstract (verbatim)

"An apparatus includes a housing defining a chamber and including a panel including an aperture, a sensor fixed inside the chamber and having a field of view through a lens and the aperture, and an annular disc attached to the sensor concentrically around the lens and including a radially outer edge contactlessly exposed to the chamber. An annular slot is defined by the disc. The slot extends at least 180° around the lens."

Independent claims — plain-language overview

Claim 1 — the base apparatus. Four elements:

1. A housing that defines a chamber and has a panel with an aperture (a hole) in it.
2. A sensor mounted fixed inside the chamber, aimed so its field of view passes through a lens and out through the aperture.
3. An annular (ring-shaped) disc attached to the sensor, concentric around the lens, whose radially outer edge is "contactlessly exposed" to the chamber — i.e., the outer rim sits in the chamber volume without touching any solid structure. The disc defines an annular slot extending at least 180° around the lens.
4. The disc has a radially inner surface where it is fastened to the sensor.

In short: a ring around a camera/LIDAR lens, floating free at its outer edge inside a chamber, with a partial-annulus gap that lets pressurized air in the chamber escape as a curtain over the lens.

Claim 18 — the ≥270° variant. Contains the identical preamble and core elements of claim 1, but replaces the "radially inner surface" element with the requirement that the slot extends at least 270° around the lens. Functionally, a wider wrap of the air curtain.

Claim 19 — the projection variant. Again the same preamble and core elements, but requires that the disc includes a projection that contacts the panel. Per the specification and dependent claim 20, the slot plus the projection together span 360° around the lens, and the projection is shaped to block airflow through the aperture except via the slot — i.e., it seals off the "gap" left by the partial slot so all escaping air is forced into the curtain.

Claim 20 (dependent on 19): the slot and projection collectively extend 360° around the lens.

How the apparatus works (as described)

A pressure source (blower) in a second chamber draws ambient air, filters it, and pressurizes the first chamber above atmospheric. The excess pressure forces air through the slot; the sloped, frustoconical front face of the disc (~45° from the axis) directs that flow into a thin air curtain across the whole lens, removing and repelling debris and shielding the sensor from wind-induced vibration. The claimed 180°+ angular extent is what allows the curtain to converge at the lens center and project outward, so debris blocking occurs away from the lens surface. The panel conceals all optics except the lens for a clean exterior.

Analyst notes / uncertainty

• Claim-drafting observation (not a legal conclusion): Claim 1 recites the slot as "defined by the disc," while the specification repeatedly states the slot "is constituted by the panel 38, the front surface 84 of the disc 46, and possibly a projection 88." Whether "defined by the disc" captures an arrangement requiring cooperation of the panel is the kind of scope question a court or the PTAB would resolve on the intrinsic record. Similarly, claim 17 refers to the second slot extending "at least 180° around the lens" rather than "the second lens" — an antecedent-reference phrasing quirk inherited from the specification.
• Confidence: Bibliographic data, abstract, claim text, and family/status information are taken from the authoritative full patent text supplied to me and are high-confidence. The negative litigation finding is based on targeted web searches; I cannot guarantee it is exhaustive, since PACER and the USPTO PTAB/PatentCenter APIs were not directly queried. The pre-grant publication date, issue date, and 2039-02-14 adjusted expiration are per the patent record and are assumptions as to legal status, per the source's own disclaimer.
• I made no corrections to the patent number: it was treated literally as 10908002 / US 10,908,002 B2 throughout, and no similar-number results were substituted.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10908002.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Let me check additional litigation databases and PTAB records.

Litigation Search Results: US Patent 10,908,002

Bottom line

No litigation involving US Patent 10,908,002 was found. Based on searches of litigation-oriented sources (docket aggregators, Unified Patents-style case listings surfaced via search, RPX/litigation databases, and Ford-related case records), I could not identify any federal district court action, ITC investigation, CAFC appeal, or PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR) in which US 10,908,002 was asserted or challenged.

Because I found no case, I cannot populate the requested fields (plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, outcome) for this patent — there is nothing to report.

What I did find (and why it is NOT responsive)

Several results mentioned "Ford Global Technologies" and patents, but none involved US 10,908,002:

• New World International / Ford design-patent litigation — e.g., Ford Global Technologies, LLC v. New World International, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-10394 (E.D. Mich.), and N.D. Tex. cases. These concern Ford design patents (D489,299; D493,552; D496,890; etc.) for aftermarket body parts — not the '002 utility patent.
• Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC v. Ford Motor Company, No. 1:19-cv-00196 (D. Del.) — asserted U.S. Patents 8,069,839; 9,255,519; 9,810,166; 10,138,826 — not the '002 patent.
• Neo Wireless, LLC v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:22-cv-11402 (E.D. Mich.) — asserted wireless/communications patents ('908, '941, '450, '302 families) — not the '002 patent.
• AutoNavigare LLC v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:26-cv-00079 (E.D. Tex.) and FMReps Consulting v. Ford — unrelated patents (navigation/infotainment; abstract workflow software).
• Unified Patents PTAB materials — surfaced listings referenced other patents entirely; nothing on the '002 patent.

Patent context (per the authoritative patent text)

• US 10,908,002 B2, "Sensor airflow apparatus," filed/priority Nov 14, 2018; granted Feb 2, 2021; assignee Ford Global Technologies, LLC; inventors Robertson, Krishnan, Patil, Phinisee; application 16/190,807; publication US20200149933A1; status Active, adjusted expiration 2039-02-14.
• The Google Patents page lists "Cited By" documents (e.g., US11378425B2/Denso; US20220397645A1/Ford; EP4418032A1/Apple) but "Cited By" reflects later patent/application citation, not litigation.
• The Citations (24) list and Families Citing this family (13) list (e.g., Waymo, Valeo, Kautex, Uber) are prior-art and citation-family relationships — again not litigation against or involving US 10,908,002.

Caveats

• My searches reached a step limit before I could query every dedicated litigation platform directly (e.g., the Unified Patents litigation caselist, PACER/CAFC dockets, Docket Navigator). Litigation databases also often lag in indexing.
• I did not find an IPR/PGR petition challenging the '002 patent, but I could not complete a full PTAB docket check.
• To be definitive for litigation coverage, a direct PACER/Docket Navigator and PTAB (PTAB Center / Unified Patents portal) query using the exact number 10,908,002 is recommended.

Conclusion: As of the sources searched, there is no known litigation involving US Patent 10,908,002.

I'll verify the structured data with targeted searches before writing anything.

Let me run a few more targeted checks to make sure nothing is missed.

Let me do a final round of targeted checks before concluding.

PTAB proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 10,908,002: 0. The structured ODP block is the canonical list and it is empty — no Inter Partes Review, no Post-Grant Review, and no Covered Business Method review has ever been instituted, instituted-then-terminated, denied, or settled against this patent. Breakdown by status is therefore all zeroes (0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied). The bottom-line defensive posture is that this is an untouched patent: no claim of US 10,908,002 has been tested at the PTAB, no claim has been canceled, and no petitioner (or its privies) is carrying any § 315(e)(2) estoppel that would help you. Whatever invalidity case exists is still fully available to the first challenger — and no one has spent the money to build it yet.

No proceedings to report

The task template calls for a per-proceeding entry (number, petitioner, panel, grounds, institution decision, FWD, appeal). There is nothing to populate it with. I am not going to invent an IPR number or infer a "likely" challenge. What follows is the negative finding, its evidentiary basis, and what the absence means.

What I checked:

1. USPTO Open Data Portal / structured block — returns no AIA trial proceedings for US 10,908,002. This is the authoritative source per the prompt.
2. Web searches for US10908002 Inter Partes Review PTAB, "10908002" IPR petition Ford, "IPR2023"/"IPR2024"/"IPR2025" "10,908,002", and litigation-oriented queries. No petition, institution decision, FWD, or Board document naming US 10,908,002 surfaced. Hits for "Ford Global Technologies" + PTAB related to other patents (Neo Wireless, MIT/Ethanol Boosting) — not this one.
3. Patent record on Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10908002/en) — the "Cited By" and "Similar Documents" lists are patent-to-patent citations (Denso US11378425B2; Apple EP4418032A1; Ford's own US20220397645A1 / US12429561B2 "Sensor assembly"), not adversarial proceedings against the '002 patent.

Caveats, stated plainly:

• I did not directly query PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) or CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/) case-by-case; I relied on the ODP block plus web search. A recently filed, not-yet-indexed petition (filed within roughly the last few weeks) could theoretically exist. If that matters for a real engagement, run a PTAB E2E party search on Ford Global Technologies and a patent-number search on 10,908,002 before filing anything.
• I also saw no reissue or ex parte reexamination certificate on the face of the patent record, but I did not separately confirm reexam history through the USPTO reexam database. Treat "no post-grant activity of any kind" as a strong finding, not a certified one.

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is UNTESTED. Claims 1–20 of US 10,908,002 stand exactly as granted 2021-02-02. Nothing is canceled, nothing has been amended by certificate, nothing has been construed by the Board. For a defendant, that is a mixed signal: there is no free kill-shot in the form of a prior FWD holding claim 1 unpatentable, and no Federal Circuit affirmance to cite in a Rule 12 motion or an early summary-judgment brief. You would be the first challenger, which means you also get to define the record — but you bear the full cost of building it.

Estoppel landscape: wide open. Because no IPR was ever filed, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to anyone. There is no petitioner, no privy, and no "grounds raised or reasonably could have been raised" bar operating against any defendant. Every invalidity theory remains on the table in district court: § 102 and § 103 over patents and printed publications, and system/device prior art (which IPR estoppel famously does not reach anyway), plus § 112 written-description, enablement, and indefiniteness attacks that an IPR petition cannot even raise. The only constraints on a new IPR petition are the ordinary ones: the § 315(b) one-year clock from service of a complaint alleging infringement, § 325(d) discretion where the same art was before the examiner, and § 314(a) Fintiv-type discretionary denial in view of parallel litigation.

Procedural posture of the patent itself. US 10,908,002 is an AIA patent — filed and granted on a single 2018-11-14 filing date with no earlier priority claim in the record, so the § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) critical date is 2018-11-14 and any art published before that date is fair game. It was filed as US16/190,807, published as US20200149933A1 on 2020-05-14, and granted 2021-02-02; the PGR window closed nine months later, on 2021-11-02, so IPR is now the only available AIA trial vehicle (CBM is unavailable — this is a vehicle sensor housing, not a financial-services business method, and CBM sunset on 2020-09-16 regardless). The patent is held by Ford Global Technologies, LLC, the automaker's IP holding arm — not an NPE. Maintenance fee for year 4 was paid 2024-07-11; adjusted expiration is 2039-02-14, so roughly 13 years of term remain. This is a well-funded, litigation-experienced owner, not a demand-letter shop.

Pattern signals. No petitioner has filed on this patent at all, let alone repeatedly, and there is no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) visible in the chain — which, if this patent were being assertively monetized, would be unusual, since aggregators tend to target patents that are actually in assertion campaigns. Meanwhile Ford itself is an active PTAB petitioner on other patents (e.g., Ford's IPRs against Neo Wireless and MIT/Ethanol Boosting), so the absence of a challenge here reflects the absence of a target, not Ford's inability to litigate. Note also that Ford has a cluster of related "sensor airflow / sensor assembly" filings (e.g., US11148609B2, US11247616B2, US20220397645A1, US12429561B2) — clearing the '002 patent does not automatically clear its siblings, each of which has its own claims and its own validity posture. Do not assume a win on the '002 carries over.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant being asserted against: there is no FWD to link. Build the invalidity case from scratch and preserve the option to file an IPR. Prioritize the § 315(b) calendar — your petition is time-barred one year after service of the complaint — and decide early whether you want the IPR (with its estoppel downside) or to keep everything in district court. Given no estoppel exists today, filing an IPR would create estoppel against you, so weigh that deliberately.
• If you are evaluating licensing exposure: the patent has never been adjudicated, so any written opinion on validity has no PTAB or CAFC backstop. The strongest leverage points are the § 102/§ 103 critical date of 2018-11-14 and the "contactlessly exposed to the chamber" / "radially inner surface" limitations in claim 1 — the latter appearing as a wherein clause in an otherwise pure apparatus claim, which is the kind of language that often signals prosecution-stage amendment over art. I flag that as an inference from the claim text, not a confirmed fact — read the file history in Patent Center before relying on it for prosecution-history estoppel.
• If no PTAB activity exists, say so plainly in any client memo — and treat the absence as a signal. A patent granted in 2021, held by a major OEM, with 13 years of term left, that has attracted zero IPR petitions in over four and a half years, is most likely a patent that has not been asserted against a deep-pocketed target. If a demand letter citing US 10,908,002 has landed on your desk, that is new information relative to the public record, and it is worth confirming whether parallel litigation or ITC activity exists before you price the risk.

Sources cited: ODP structured block (canonical, empty); Google Patents record at https://patents.google.com/patent/US10908002/en. For independent verification of the negative finding, run PTAB E2E at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/ and search CourtListener at https://www.courtlistener.com/ for 10,908,002 and for Ford Global Technologies + sensor airflow.

No proceeding numbers, panels, FWDs, or appeal dockets are reported because none exist in the record I could verify. If a proceeding surfaces in PTAB E2E that the ODP ingest has not yet indexed, it should be treated as new and analyzed on its own papers.

I'll verify the assignment record using the tools available before assembling the report.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 10,908,002 B2

Scoping note: The assignment data below is drawn from the Google Patents legal-events record supplied in the authoritative patent text (which mirrors USPTO assignment data) plus targeted searching. I was not able to pull a live reel/frame-level result set from the USPTO Assignment Center search UI through the available tools, and the indexed copies I retrieved (Justia, uspto.report, patents-review.com, Google Patents) do not surface reel/frame numbers or correspondent-of-record data for this patent. I have therefore not invented reel/frame numbers or correspondent names. Where a field is unknown, it is marked as such.

Inventors

• All four inventors list Michigan addresses within commuting distance of Ford's Dearborn / Dearborn-area engineering campuses — consistent with salaried Ford employees rather than outside assignors.
• The patent is a member of Ford's sensor-cleaning / sensor-pod family (see "Similar Documents" and "Families Citing this family" in the record): US 11,247,616 (Sensor airflow apparatus), US 11,408,984 (Sensor-drainage apparatus), US 11,478,827 (Sensor assembly with cleaning), US 10,747,735 (Pressurized sensor seal), etc. — all Ford Global Technologies filings.
• No unusual inventor-departure pattern is observable. There is no assignment record, PEDS contemporaneous document, or third-party reporting indicating any of the four inventors assigned away from, or left, Ford within 12 months of the 2018-11-14 filing. Note this is a negative finding: the record set I could retrieve contains no inventor-side transaction of any kind.

Original assignee

• Ford Global Technologies, LLC (FGTL), Dearborn, Michigan — named on the face of the issued patent and as original assignee in the record.
• Relationship to the operating company: FGTL is Ford Motor Company's wholly owned IP-holding subsidiary. This is a routine, decades-old internal structure for a major automaker — it is not a licensing-only shell. Ford's patents are routinely held in FGTL and enforced by FGTL (e.g., Automotive Body Parts Ass'n v. Ford Global Technologies, LLC, and the related New World International actions over Ford F-150 design patents D489,299 / D501,685).
• Primary line of business: automotive design, engineering, and manufacturing, with FGTL acting as the group's patent holding and licensing vehicle.
• Does Ford ship a product embodying the claims? The patent discloses an air-curtain / annular-slot sensor housing for a vehicle roof-mounted sensor pod, with a blower pressurizing a chamber (see claim 9–10 and the FIG. 4 / FIG. 11 description). This is a component-level, vehicle-integrated apparatus; it is not sold as a standalone product, but it reads on the sensor-pod architecture Ford has deployed on its vehicles and engineering mules. Direct documentary proof of a shipping commercial embodiment that practices the claims was not located — treat "ships a product embodying the claims" as probable but not proven from the record I retrieved.
• Current status: Operating. Ford Motor Company is a live NYSE-listed issuer (F), FGTL is an active assignee of record, US 10,908,002 is Active with an adjusted expiration of 2039-02-14, and the 4th-year maintenance fee was paid 2024-07-11 (large entity). A 2024 fee payment on a 2021 patent is inconsistent with abandonment, fire-sale, or shell-entity dormancy.

Assignment timeline

The record contains only one assignment entry, and it is the original inventor-to-assignee conveyance. Because the record is this thin, I am reporting it and stopping the chain here, per the constraint on not fabricating links.

• 2018-11-14 (executed) / recorded 2018-11-14 — Reel/frame: not available in the retrieved record
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (original employment/assignment instrument)
  • Assignor: Krishnan, Venkatesh; Patil, Sunil; Phinisee, Rashaun; Robertson, Michael, Jr. (all four joint inventors)
  • Assignee: FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
  • Correspondent: Not available. The Google Patents legal-events entry records only the conveyance type and the assignor/assignee names. No attorney, firm, or correspondent address is exposed in the record I was able to retrieve. (Flagging rather than guessing: a correspondent name is the single most useful NPE tell, and its absence here is a data gap, not a finding.)
  • Context: Original assignment at filing — the standard pre-filing instrument by which employee inventors assign to Ford's IP holding subsidiary. This is not an acquisition, fire-sale, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter event.

No post-issuance assignments, security agreements, mergers, name changes, licenses, or releases are recorded on this patent. There is no second link in the chain to analyze — no reassignment to an IP/Patents/Licensing/Holdings/Ventures LLC, no security interest, no release.

Downstream corroboration that the patent stayed in the Ford family: both US application 16/190,807 and the later Ford continuation filings in the same family (e.g., US 2020/0247329 A1, "Sensor airflow apparatus," vanes variant; CN 111186385 A; DE 10 2019 130 662 A1) remain in Ford Global Technologies' name. Foreign counterparts CN 111186385 A (filed 2019-11-12) and DE 10 2019 130 662 A1 (filed 2019-11-13) claim priority to this US filing and are likewise Ford-owned.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10908002
    2018 : Filed by four Ford inventors
         : Assigned to Ford Global Technologies
    2019 : CN and DE counterparts filed by Ford
    2020 : Application published as US 2020 0149933
    2021 : Patent granted
    2024 : Fourth year maintenance fee paid
    2039 : Adjusted expiration

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Insufficient data — this is the taxonomy's designated outcome for a patent whose record shows only the original assignment, and that is precisely the situation here: a single 2018-11-14 inventor-to-Ford Global Technologies, LLC conveyance, with no recorded reassignment, security interest, or name change thereafter.

That verdict should be read as "clean chain, nothing to escalate," not as "unknown owner." The affirmative findings are that (a) every inventor is a Michigan-resident Ford engineer, (b) the sole assignee is Ford's wholly owned operating-company IP subsidiary, (c) the patent remains Active to 2039-02-14 with the 4th-year fee paid 2024-07-11, and (d) none of the eight NPE signals is present. No NPE or troll-pattern signal is supported by any evidence in this record, and the one genuine data gap — the correspondent of record and reel/frame for the 2018-11-14 filing — should be closed by pulling the assignment document image directly.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center (search by patent number 10908002): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Legacy Assignment Search (same underlying records): https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events (source for the single recorded assignment): https://patents.google.com/patent/US10908002/en
• Justia patent record (assignee/inventor confirmation): https://patents.justia.com/patent/10908002

Caveats on precision. I did not fabricate any reel/frame, correspondent, execution date, or recording date beyond the single 2018-11-14 assignment entry that appears in the supplied authoritative record. Should the Assignment Center return additional hits when queried directly (for example, a Confirmatory Assignment or a Name Change recorded by Ford's in-house IP operations), the timeline and the correspondent analysis must be updated — but nothing in the family-level evidence (CN/DE counterparts still Ford-owned, active 2024 fee payment, Ford continuation filings in 2020) suggests such a record would point away from Ford.

I'll build on the prior sections rather than repeat them. Let me first ground a few of the key references with targeted searches before ranking them for § 102 relevance.

Good grounding. Let me verify the remaining potentially closest airflow/nozzle references and the Daimler/Valeo items.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent 10,908,002 B2 ("Sensor airflow apparatus")

Scope note / method. Per your instruction, I searched specifically for 10908002 and did not substitute or auto-correct any identifier. The authoritative reference set is the 24 references listed under "Citations" on the patent record itself (the Google Patents copy supplied as the full patent text at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10908002](/patent/US10908002)/en). A few searches were run against patent-full-text sources to confirm what the closest references actually disclose; a handful of secondary checks were cut off by a tool limit, so I flag those as lower-confidence. I did not complete a live USPTO PatentCenter/PTAB docket pull, so the reference list below is taken from the patent's own citation record rather than re-derived from the examiner's file wrapper.

Legend (as marked on the patent record): * = cited by examiner; others = applicant/other citation.

1. Complete list of the 24 cited references

(Third-party "Cited By" documents — Denso US 11,378,425 B2; Ford US 2022/0397645 A1 / US 12,429,561 B2; Apple EP 4418032 A1 — postdate the '002 priority date and are therefore not prior art to this patent; they were already addressed in the earlier summary and are excluded here.)

2. Reference-by-reference § 102 assessment

Critical framing for § 102: Anticipation requires a single reference to disclose every element of a claim arranged as claimed. Independent claims 1, 18, and 19 all require the core structure: an annular disc attached to the sensor, concentric around the lens, with a radially outer edge contactlessly exposed to the chamber, defining an annular slot extending at least 180° around the lens. None of the 24 cited references appears to disclose that specific disc/slot/floating-rim geometry, so no cited reference squarely anticipates claims 1, 18, or 19. Several references, however, disclose individual elements and are strong § 103 candidates or potential anticipators of narrower claim scopes. I flag each accordingly.

Tier 1 — Closest references (gas-curtain / pressurized-enclosure concept)

US 7,138,640 B1 — Kla-Tencor (2006-11-21; filed 2003-10-16). Citation #5.

• Discloses: a housing (60), a pressurized gas source (62), and a cover (64) with orifices that emit gas to "block contaminants from reaching the optical surfaces" and "transport contaminants away" — i.e., a gas curtain/purge across an optical surface in an enclosed, pressurized environment.
• Claim mapping: This is the single closest teaching of the functional core of the patent. It bears directly on claim 9 (pressure source raising chamber pressure above atmospheric), claim 10 (blower — the Kla-Tencor "pressurized gas source" is the analog), and claim 11 (gas flow directed across the lens as a contaminant-blocking curtain). The patent's own stated benefit ("prevent debris from contacting the lens 44 and can remove debris") is the same stated benefit as Kla-Tencor.
• § 102 assessment: Strong element-level showing against the airflow/pressure claims (9–11). Does not anticipate claim 1/18/19 — no annular disc attached to the sensor, no contactlessly-exposed radially outer edge, no ≥180° annular slot; its cover is a transparent plate with orifices, not a free-floating annulus around a convex lens. Best characterized as a § 103 primary reference for claims 9–11 if combined with a vehicle-camera housing.

US 2018/0015908 A1 — Uber (2018-01-18; filed 2016-07-18). Citation #(applicant). Family members US 2018/0015907 A1 and US 10,220,817 B2.

• Discloses: AV sensor cleaning with a gas subsystem (compressor → accumulator → regulator → solenoids) delivering gas to individual sensor-cleaning devices. The family's US 10,220,817 B2 abstract recites a platform with channels and a raised lip/structure around the perimeter, with openings that move air toward a center of the platform — i.e., an annular geometry directing air inward.
• Claim mapping: Relevant to claim 9/10 (pressurized gas source), and to the annular air-curtain concept of claim 11 and the geometry of claim 1/18. The inward-flowing annular arrangement is the closest cited teaching to the patent's "air curtain comes together at a center of the lens" effect.
• § 102 assessment: Potential § 102(a)(2) relevance on the air-delivery claims (9–11) because it was effectively filed (2016-07-18) before the '002 filing date. It does not disclose the claimed sensor-attached annular disc with a contactlessly-exposed outer edge and a ≥180° slot, so it does not anticipate independent claims 1/18/19.

US 10,514,303 B2 — Ford / Krishnan et al. (2019-12-24; filed 2017-06-29). Citation #14. (Same inventor family as the '002 — Krishnan is a named '002 inventor.)

• Discloses: a roof sensor pod defining a cavity enclosing cameras and LIDAR behind transparent windows 62, with fluid nozzles 58/60 and "air brush" nozzles directed at the windows, and a vented headliner allowing air exchange into the cavity.
• Claim mapping: Relevant to claim 1's "housing defining a chamber… panel including an aperture" (pod shell + windows), and to claim 11 (air directed across the sensor window). The pod's pressurized/vented air supply touches claim 9.
• § 102 assessment: Common-ownership / § 102(a)(2) artifact — likely its own § 103 concern (or a § 102(b) issue if it published before). It does not disclose the annular disc/slot structure, so no anticipation of 1/18/19.

Tier 2 — Relevant to specific dependent claims (framing, enclosure, cleaning)

US 10,099,630 B1 — Ford, "Vehicle sensor mount" (2018-10-16; filed 2017-06-29). Citation #13.

• Discloses a vehicle sensor mount. Relevant to the "sensor fixed inside the chamber"/"fixedly attached directly or indirectly to the housing" limitation of claim 1. No airflow. § 103 accent only.

US 2019/0310470 A1 — Visteon, "System to maintain a clear lens on a camera" (2019-10-10; filed 2018-04-10). Citation #15.

• Discloses a system for keeping a camera lens clear (air/fluid clearing of the lens). Filed 2018-04-10 — before the '002 effective filing date, so § 102(a)(2) eligible.
• Claim mapping: relevant to claim 11 (airflow across the lens) and claim 9/10. § 102 assessment: potentially anticipatory only of a very broad "clear the lens with air/fluid" concept; not of claims 1/18/19 (no annular disc, no ≥180° slot). (I could not complete a full-text pull of this reference within the tool budget — treat the disclosed geometry as lower-confidence.)

US 9,746,666 B2 — Agricam AB (2017-08-29; priority 2012-07-02). Citation #(applicant).

• Self-cleaning camera housing/module with fluid-assisted cleaning about the lens. Relevant to claim 1's enclosed housing + lens aperture and to claim 11. Does not disclose the annular-disc/slot. § 103 accent.

US 2012/0162428 A1 — Jay Young Wee (2012-06-28; filed 2010-12-27). Citation #8.

• Housing for exterior imaging device of a vehicle — enclosing optics with an aperture; supports the "panel including an aperture"/"keeps components concealed behind the panel" concept of claim 1 (and claim 14, cylindrical panel). No airflow. § 103 accent.

DE 10 2013 012 522 A1 — Daimler (2015-01-29). Citation #(applicant).

• Vehicle image-capture device with cleaning. Background for the vehicle-camera-cleaning field. (Not independently verified — lower confidence.)

US 2017/0259789 A1 — Kautex Textron (2017-09-14; priority 2014-11-24). Citation #10.

• Integrated on-board vision + cleaning system for vehicle sensors (washer/air cleaning). Background to claims 9–11; no annular disc geometry.

US 5,406,324 A / US 2002/0113875 A1 / US 7,697,028 B1 / US 4,815,757 A / US 3,349,679 A — surveillance/360° vehicle cameras. Citations #1–4, #6.

• These show vehicle-mounted cameras in protective housings (and, for Mazzilli, multiple cameras for 360° coverage). Relevant to the multiple-sensor dependent claims 15–17 (360° camera ring, overlapping fields of view) and to the general "housing + lens + aperture" preamble of claim 1. They do not teach any airflow, pressure source, disc, or slot, so no § 102 anticipation; they are § 103 background only.

Tier 3 — Cleaning by other mechanisms / low relevance to the claimed structure

• US 7,810,511 B2 — Sony Ericsson, "Lens cleaner" (2010-10-12). Citation #7. Sliding cover + mechanical/electrical lens cleaner. Different cleaning modality; at most background for claim 1's "lens."
• US 9,083,864 B2 — Ford, "Self-cleaning camera lens" (2015-07-14). Citation #9. Vibration + electrostatic charge to repel debris. Same assignee; relevant to the general "keep the lens clean" problem but categorically different mechanism (no air curtain) → no anticipation of any air-related claim.
• US 9,217,864 B2 — Richard Bell, "Automatic camera lens cleaning system" (2015-12-22). Citation #(applicant). Automated lens cleaning; background.
• US 9,625,714 B2 — Valeo (2017-04-18) and WO 2017/137277 A1 — Valeo (2017-08-17). Citations #(applicant). Nozzle/spray cleaning of driving-aid cameras; background for claim 11.
• US 10,430,833 B2 — Nio USA (2019-10-01). Citation #11. Detecting objects/obstructions on sensor surfaces; relevant only to the problem the '002 solves, not to its structure. US 10,166,949 B1 — Adel Selim (2019-01-01). Citation #12. Vehicle safety/security; minimal relevance.
• US 10,589,723 B1 / US 10,597,002 B1 — Ford "Imaging system" (2020-03-17 / 2020-03-24; both filed 2018-09-21). Citations #16–17. Ford imaging systems filed weeks before the '002; § 102(a)(2) candidates if they disclose any overlapping housing/lens/cleaning structure (not verified at full text — lower confidence). US 2020/0101905 A1 — Ford "Releasably attachable roof panel" (2020-04-02; filed 2018-09-28). Citation #18. Roof-panel sensor mounting; § 102(a)(2) candidate on the "housing attachable to a vehicle roof" context.

3. Claim-by-claim § 102 mapping summary

4. Bottom line

• No single one of the 24 cited references anticipates claims 1, 18, or 19. The defining limitation — an annular disc attached to the sensor, concentric around the lens, whose radially outer edge is contactlessly exposed to the chamber and which defines an annular slot spanning at least 180° around the lens — is not disclosed by any cited reference.
• The most relevant prior art is the gas-curtain cluster: US 7,138,640 B1 (Kla-Tencor) and the Uber/Aurora US 2018/0015908 A1 / US 10,220,817 B2 family (annular, inward-flowing air platform), followed by Ford's US 10,514,303 B2 (pressurized pod with air-brush nozzles at sensor windows) and Visteon US 2019/0310470 A1. These support § 103 (and element-level § 102) challenges to dependent claims 9–11, but not to the independent claims.
• Timing nuance worth flagging: several cited documents were filed before the '002 effective filing date (2018-11-14) but published/issued after it — notably US 10,589,723 B1 (2018-09-21), US 10,597,002 B1 (2018-09-21), US 2020/0101905 A1 (2018-09-28), and US 2019/0310470 A1 (2018-04-10). These are potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) ("secret prior art") references, not § 102(a)(1) printed publications.

Caveats

• Claims/bibliographic data are drawn from the authoritative patent text supplied and are high-confidence. Reference descriptions in Tier 1 were confirmed via full-text/abstract searches (e.g., US 7,138,640 B1 at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7138640B1](/patent/US7138640B1)/en; US 2018/0015908 A1/Uber; US 10,514,303 B2 full text). Some Tier 2/3 descriptions were not independently full-text verified (tool-budget cutoff) and are marked lower-confidence: in particular US 2019/0310470 A1 (Visteon), DE 10 2013 012 522 A1 (Daimler), US 9,746,666 B2 (Agricam), and the two Ford "Imaging system" references.
• § 102 conclusions here are analyst assessments, not legal conclusions; a definitive anticipation/invalidity opinion would require the examiner's reasons-for-allowance and image-level review of each reference's figures (the '002's slot geometry is best confirmed from drawings, e.g., FIGS. 10A–10C).
• I did not locate any litigation, IPR/PGR, or CAFC activity on this patent (consistent with the earlier sections), and I completed no live USPTO docket query — so the citation set is per the patent record, not re-derived from the file wrapper.

I'll research the key prior-art references cited on the patent page to ground the obviousness analysis in their actual disclosures.

Good grounding. Now let me research the remaining key references, especially the Visteon, Valeo, Kautex, Agricam, and Bell references.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,908,002 B2 ("Sensor airflow apparatus") under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Building on the bibliographic and claim summaries already generated, this section analyzes the claims against the prior art of record listed in the "Citations (24)" section of the patent page, and identifies § 103 combinations.

1. Framework and level of ordinary skill

The controlling inquiry is Graham v. John Deere (scope/content of prior art, differences, PHOSITA level, secondary considerations), as tempered by KSR Int'l v. Teleflex — where the claimed subject matter is a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions, and where the field presents "a finite number of identified, predictable solutions," the combination is obvious.

PHOSITA here would be a mechanical/electrical engineer with ~2–3 years' experience designing exterior sensor and camera-cleaning/airflow hardware for vehicles — familiar with (i) roof- or body-mounted ADAS/LIDAR camera pods, (ii) blower/pressurized-plenum lens-cleaning systems, and (iii) nozzle/slot geometries that form "air curtains" or air-knives over optics. This is an ordinary, crowded, incremental art.

Critical framing point: the '002 patent's own specification concedes that (a) pressurizing a chamber with a blower and (b) forcing air through a slot to form an "air curtain" across a lens are known techniques; the stated advantage is merely that a slot wrapping ≥180° lets the curtain "come together at a center of the lens" to push debris blocking farther out. That is a result-driven design tweak, not a new mechanism — which is exactly the posture KSR treats as obvious.

2. Prior art of record (from the patent page)

The examiner-cited art is a dense cluster of vehicle-sensor lens-cleaning/airflow references. Those most material to the claims:

Note the convergence of assignees (Uber, Valeo, Visteon, Kautex, Daimler, Ford) on the identical problem — keeping exterior vehicle-camera/LIDAR optics clear of debris with directed air. That convergence is itself evidence that the solution space was well-trodden and the claimed arrangement predictable.

3. Independent claim 1 — element map and the primary combination

Primary combination: US 2018/0015908 A1 (Uber) as the base, in view of US 2019/0310470 A1 (Visteon), and optionally US 9,625,714 B2 (Valeo) and US 7,138,640 B1 (Kla-Tencor).

Why one of ordinary skill would combine. All references are in the same field (vehicle exterior sensor/camera optics protection), address the same problem (contaminant/rain/bug/ice obscuring an ADAS/LIDAR camera), and their elements perform their known functions: Uber's cavity/slit emits directed air; Visteon's blower + duct blows air "from behind the camera over the lens … forming an air curtain that deflects road debris"; Valeo's annular, cone-faced head wraps the lens; KLA-Tencor's housing/pressurized-gas source floods the optics with purge gas. Combining them is the predictable assembly of known elements with no change in their respective functions (KSR; MPEP 2143). The motivation is a recognized design incentive: maximize curtain coverage and converge the flow at the lens center to move the debris-blocking zone away from the glass.

4. Motivation to combine — specific rationales

1. Same problem, same field, common assignee overlap. Ford's own US 10,514,303 B2 ("sensor pod") and US 10,099,630 B1 ("vehicle sensor mount") show Ford already used a roof-mounted pod with a pressure boundary; adding a lens-local air emitter is an obvious refinement.
2. Finite number of solutions. "How do I get air across a lens?" reduces to: a nozzle, a slit/slot, or a full annular ring. Choosing the ring (annular) option to cover the whole lens is the predictable exhaust of a short list.
3. Known benefit → obvious to pursue. The '002 spec's own benefit statement (≥180° wrap → curtain converges at lens center → debris blocked farther out) is the same rationale Visteon states for its air curtain. A PHOSITA seeking that stated benefit would arrive at the arc/slot geometry without invention.
4. Design/mechanical convenience. Attaching the air-directing ring to the sensor (rather than the panel) and letting its outer edge float in the plenum is an obvious packaging choice — it simplifies assembly and lets a single pressurization chamber feed multiple sensors (which the '002 claims 15–17 explicitly contemplate for a multi-camera 360° pod, a configuration disclosed in Uber's and Ford's pod art).

5. Independent claims 18 and 19

• Claim 18 = claim 1 + "the slot extends at least 270° around the lens." Merely increasing the arc of a slot is an obvious degree-of-coverage change with the predictable effect (more complete curtain). No new mechanism. Obvious over the same combination.
• Claim 19 = claim 1 + "the disc includes a projection contacting the panel." A projection that seats against the panel to close off part of the circumference and force all plenum air through the slot is a gasket/seal + plenum-wall arrangement — the most elementary fluid-guiding expedient. KLA-Tencor's cover "that physically blocks contaminants" and Uber's housing that defines the only exit (the slit) both point to it; and claim 20 (slot + projection = 360°) is the natural "seal the rest of the gap" implementation. Obvious.

6. Dependent claims 2–17

These are all conventional or expressly known adjuncts:

Claim 17's "second slot … at least 180° around the lens" (rather than "the second lens") is the antecedent-reference quirk flagged in the earlier section — for § 103 it changes nothing; the second-disc/second-lens arrangement is the obvious duplication of the first.

7. Secondary considerations / potential rebuttal

The intrinsic record offers no asserted unexpected result that is tied to a claimed structural difference. The stated advantages (debris removal/prevention, "no dead zones," wind shielding reducing vibration, small packaging, concealment behind the panel) are the expected consequences of a full-coverage air curtain — the same benefits Visteon and Uber articulate. That makes them weak objective indicia.

The most plausible non-obviousness argument an owner could raise is claim-scope-centric, not technical:

• Claim 1 recites the slot "defined by the disc," while the specification repeatedly says the slot "is constituted by the panel 38, the front surface 84 of the disc 46, and possibly a projection 88." If "defined by the disc" is read to require the disc alone to form the slot (independent of the panel), the claim may cover arrangements closer to Uber's housing structure that itself contains the cavity and slit. Either reading cuts toward invalidity: a broad reading is squarely met by Uber's slit; a narrow reading limited to the disc-plus-panel arrangement is met by the Valeo annular cone-faced head plus a panel. An examiner (or a § 103 challenger) would press this "practically, the two readings collapse" position.
• The "contactlessly exposed" outer edge is the only element without near-verbatim prior-art language. But it is a spacing/absence-of-contact limitation, and giving an airflow ring a free outer rim inside a plenum is the kind of "design choice … obvious to try" (KSR) that does not survive § 103 when the functional result (chamber air escaping via the slot) is unchanged.

8. Bottom line

The claims of US 10,908,002 are, on the art of record, vulnerable to a § 103 rejection. The strongest rejections are:

1. US 2018/0015908 A1 (Uber) in view of US 2019/0310470 A1 (Visteon) — housing cavity + slit-air-emitter to form an air curtain over a lens, further in view of US 9,625,714 B2 (Valeo) for the annular, cone-faced member concentrically about the lens → anticipates/renders obvious claims 1, 7, 11.
2. Add US 7,138,640 B1 (KLA-Tencor) for the pressurized-gas housing/plenum and a blocked-periphery cover → claims 9–10, 19–20.
3. Add Ford's own pod art (US 10,099,630 B1; US 10,514,303 B2) and a multi-camera reference (Uber 2018/0290631; Mazzilli US 2002/0113875) → claims 15–17.

Motivation throughout is supplied by the common field, common problem, the finite set of airflow-delivery options, and the express teaching in Visteon (air curtain) and Valeo (annular cone-face over the objective) — i.e., a predictable combination of known elements, each performing its known function.

9. Confidence and caveats

• High confidence: identity, dates, assignee, claim text, and the citation list — taken from the authoritative patent text supplied.
• Moderate-to-high confidence: the substantive disclosures of US 7,138,640 B1, US 9,083,864 B2, US 2018/0015908 A1 (and its WO 2018/017395 A1 / EP 3481683 A1 family, which expressly recites "a slit opening to enable air to move from the cavity to outside the housing structure"), US 2019/0310470 A1, US 9,625,714 B2, and US 2018/0290631 A1 — verified via patent text/Google Patents/freepatentsonline in this analysis.
• Lower confidence (title/abstract only): I could not fully verify the disclosures of WO 2017/137277 A1 (Valeo), US 2017/0259789 A1 (Kautex), US 9,746,666 B2 (Agricam), and US 9,217,864 B2 (Bell) — my searches reached a step limit before retrieving their specifications. They are treated here as field/motivation evidence, not as element-mapped anticipatory references.
• This is an analyst's technical assessment, not a legal opinion or a validity conclusion. Whether "defined by the disc" captures a panel-cooperating slot, and the weight of any secondary considerations, are questions to be resolved on the full intrinsic record by the USPTO or a court. No litigation or PTAB proceeding involving this patent was found (consistent with the earlier sections).