US 10976162

I'll search for this specific patent number and any related litigation.

Let me run additional targeted searches to check for litigation and confirm the bibliographic details.

Let me check the granted claims directly and look for any litigation or PTAB proceedings.

US 10,976,162 — Summary

Important caveats up front

• My lookup tools could not reach USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR or a CAFC docket database directly. The bibliographic data below is drawn from the Google Patents record for US10976162B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10976162/en) and the full patent text supplied in the authoritative source, plus corroborating secondary listings. I found no CAFC 2026 docket, district-court case, ITC action, or PTAB proceeding involving patent 10,976,162. I cannot positively rule out such a proceeding, but nothing in my searches ties this patent to litigation.
• Search results also surfaced US 10,796,562 B1 (Amazon, "Autonomous home security devices") — a different patent with a superficially similar number. I am not reporting on it. Likewise, "10,596,162" and "10,693,700" appeared in unrelated litigations; they are not this patent.

Bibliographic data (as recorded)

Note the long pendency (filed 2012 → granted 2021) and the unusual adjusted expiration date of 2035-10-26 relative to a 2012 PCT filing; treat those dates as literal record entries rather than derived conclusions.

Abstract (verbatim)

"There is provided an information processing apparatus including an absolute position acquiring section that acquires an absolute position of a user, an acquiring section that acquires a first value indicating a walking tempo of the user who is walking, a calculation section that calculates a second value indicating a step or a traveling speed of the user by using, as a trigger, movement of a predetermined distance based on the absolute position, and a learning section that learns a correspondence between the first value and the second value by using the second value calculated."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The claim set is organized around the "Further aspects" boilerplate in the specification (numbered configurations (1)–(9)) plus corresponding method and program/recording-medium claims. Stated plainly:

1. Independent apparatus claim (claim 1 / configuration (1)) — A device (e.g., a smartphone/navigation terminal) that: (a) acquires the user's absolute position (e.g., GPS, or WiFi-base-station triangulation); (b) acquires a first value = the user's walking tempo (steps per unit time); (c) computes a second value = the user's step length or traveling speed using movement of a predetermined distance (based on absolute position) as the trigger, rather than a fixed time interval; and (d) learns a correspondence between the walking tempo and the step/speed from the computed second value. The core insight is that distance-triggering guarantees each learning sample spans a distance large enough that positioning error is tolerable, unlike fixed-time sampling, which can produce short, error-prone intervals when the user pauses or walks slowly.

2. Independent method claim (configuration (9)) — The same process as a method: acquire a first value indicating walking tempo; calculate a second value indicating step or traveling speed using movement of a predetermined distance by the user as the trigger; and learn the correspondence between the first and second values.

3. Independent program / computer-readable recording-medium claims — A program (and a recording medium storing it) that causes a computer to function as the above apparatus: absolute-position acquisition, walking-tempo acquisition, distance-triggered step/speed calculation, and correspondence learning.

Representative dependent-claim subject matter (from the "further including" configurations):

• A decision section that sets the value of the predetermined distance based on the precision of the absolute position — in particular estimating precision from map information (e.g., good environment: residential streets, large parks, wide roads → shorter thresholds such as 200 m / 400 m; poor environment: downtown high-rises, overpasses, forest → longer thresholds such as 500 m / 1000 m).
• Estimating absolute-position precision based on the number of external devices (e.g., WiFi base stations) wirelessly connected, and setting the distance threshold accordingly. (The description also discusses satellite count, DOP, and signal strength as precision indices.)
• A walking determination section (e.g., accelerometer) so the first value is acquired only when the user is actually walking — pauses are excluded from the traveling time.
• An azimuth acquiring section (geomagnetic/compass) plus an autonomous positioning section that estimates the step/speed at the current time from the current walking tempo using the learned correspondence, and computes current position from that value and the azimuth; optionally doing so when absolute positioning is unavailable (e.g., in a tunnel).
• A navigation section that guides a route using the autonomously computed current position.

Embodiments in brief

The patent teaches three embodiments: (1) distance-triggered learning of a walking-tempo↔step correspondence table; (2) assuming and identifying a function between walking tempo and traveling speed (linear v = a·f + b, with higher-order or trigonometric alternatives) and classifying walking tempo into classes to obtain per-tempo speed/step values; and (3) combining the two. Alternative "first values" such as vertical acceleration (shown to correlate linearly with speed across carry positions: breast/abdomen/hip pocket, bag) are also disclosed.

Uncertainty statement: I do not have the verbatim, claim-numbered text of the granted claims in front of me; the overview above is reconstructed from the specification's own summary-of-invention/claim-mirroring language and the abstract in the authoritative full text. If exact claim numbering, claim count, or claim language is needed (e.g., for an infringement or validity analysis), the granted claims should be pulled directly from USPTO PatentCenter or the official patent PDF.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10976162 across patent litigation sources.

Let me search more specifically across litigation databases.

The searches returned considerable noise (the number matches Estonian company registrations, phone numbers, etc.). Let me query patent-specific litigation portals.

Summary: No litigation identified involving US Patent 10,976,162

Based on my searches, I found no litigation — district court, ITC, or Federal Circuit — involving U.S. Patent No. 10,976,162. I want to be explicit that this is a "no known litigation" result rather than an affirmative confirmation, and I'll explain my search limitations below.

Patent identification (verified from the authoritative full text)

Before addressing litigation, here is the patent I searched for, interpreted literally:

Search results

No hits tying this patent number to any cause of action. The specific-queries I ran returned:

1. Sony-related patent suits that do NOT involve this patent — e.g., Ozmo Licensing LLC v. Sony Group Corp. (W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00048), SensoSure LLC v. Sony Group Corp. (E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00177), HyperQuery LLC v. Sony Electronic Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00611), Flexiworld Technologies v. Sony Corp. (E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00616), and Genuine Enabling Technology LLC v. Sony Group Corp. (Fed. Cir., Feb. 19, 2026). None of these assert the '162 patent, and I did not see the '162 patent listed among their asserted patents.

2. Heavy numeric noise — the string "10976162" repeatedly matched unrelated identifiers: an Estonian company registry code (Polizia Seif OÜ), an SEC Form 4 filing ID (West Corporation), a Hong Kong phone-number spam database, and Chinese-language administrative records. None of these relate to the patent.

3. One item requiring an explicit caveat. A PTAB petition excerpt (Paper on discretionary denial / Fintiv and real-party-in-interest, involving petitioner Mediaocean and investors CVC Capital Partners and TA Associates) referenced "the '962 Patent's family." I could not verify this refers to US 10,976,162, and I believe it almost certainly does not — that matter concerns digital-advertising technology, whereas the '162 patent concerns pedestrian dead-reckoning/autonomous navigation. I flag it only for completeness and expressly do not treat it as litigation involving this patent.

Important limitations (stated per your instructions)

• I could not directly query the sources you named. My toolset is a general web search; it reached PACER/docket aggregators, RPX, and PTAB materials only indirectly. I was unable to run a direct docket-number search on the Unified Patents litigation caselist, PACER, or the CAFC docket.
• A "no results" finding is not proof of non-existence. A patent that expired for failure to pay maintenance fees and that appears never to have been asserted is a plausible reason for zero litigation hits — but I cannot rule out a suit that exists in PACER but is not indexed by the sources my search touched.
• Because the patent is Expired – Fee Related, the practical incentive for future assertion is low, which is consistent with (though not proof of) the absence of litigation.

What I recommend to confirm

To close the verification gap, run the patent number directly through:

• Unified Patents litigation portal — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist
• RPX Empower / Insight — search "10,976,162" in the Patent Information field
• PACER "Find a Case" by party, using assignee history (Sony Corp → Sony Group / Sony Electronics / Sony Mobile)
• Docket Alarm / Justia Dockets filtered to the patent number
• CAFC docket search for any appeal referencing the '162 patent

Bottom line: my searches identified no litigation involving US 10,976,162. I state that as "no known litigation found," not as a verified absence, and I have not fabricated any case details, plaintiff/defendant names, case numbers, filing dates, or outcomes.

I'll verify the structured "no PTAB activity" finding against public sources before finalizing.

Let me run a couple more targeted checks before concluding.

PTAB Proceedings Report — U.S. Patent No. 10,976,162

Prepared: 2026-09-29 · Patent: Information processing apparatus, information processing method for acquiring precise position in autonomous navigation system · Assignee of record: Sony Corporation · Inventor: Masato Kimishima · Priority: 2011-08-30 (JP 2011-186709) · Filed: 2012-06-25 · Granted: 2021-04-13

---

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings on file for US 10,976,162 — no IPR, no PGR, and no CBM — so the breakdown is 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied. The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) returns an empty AIA-trial set for this patent as of the most recent ingest, and my independent search of public PTAB materials (PTAB E2E dockets, petition PDFs indexed at ptacts.uspto.gov, and CourtListener Federal Circuit opinions) surfaced no petition, institution decision, final written decision, or appeal naming this patent. Bottom line for a defendant: this patent is not "hardened" by PTAB litigation — it is simply untested. That cuts both ways. No claim has been canceled, so an IPR-based defense cannot be built on somebody else's win. But equally, no panel has ever credited the claims, there is no adverse estoppel, and the entire prior-art universe remains open to you. The single most important defensive fact may not be a PTAB fact at all: Google Patents reports the patent's legal status as "Expired – Fee Related," with an adjusted expiration of 2035-10-26, which if accurate would mean the patent lapsed for failure to pay a maintenance fee and cannot be asserted at all until and unless revived.

Confidence statement: I have high confidence in the "no PTAB activity" finding because the structured ODP block is canonical and my searches corroborated it. I have moderate confidence in the maintenance-fee-lapse status, which comes from a third-party aggregator rather than the USPTO register itself (see Recommended next steps). I did not find any public district court assertion of this patent, but absence of a search hit is not proof of absence of litigation, and I make no representation on that point.

---

Per-proceeding detail

None to report. No proceeding numbers exist to enumerate, and I will not invent any. To be explicit about the fields the template calls for:

• Type: N/A — no IPR / PGR / CBM was ever instituted or even petitioned against this patent on the public record.
• Filed / Status / Judge panel: N/A — no APJ panel has ever been assigned.
• Petition grounds / Institution decision / FWD: N/A — no claim of US 10,976,162 has been adjudicated by the Board.
• Settlement / termination: N/A.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal arising from a PTAB proceeding on this patent exists. (I checked CAFC dispositions; the Rule 36 and precedential opinions I retrieved that resemble the search pattern — e.g., Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc., No. 2023-1357, decided 2024-06-05 — arise from IPR2021-00962, a different proceeding number on a different patent, and are not related to US 10,976,162. The numeral similarity is coincidental; do not conflate them.)

Family context that does matter (not a PTAB proceeding)

• The Japanese priority application, JP 2011-186709 (published as JP 2013-050307 A, 2013-03-14), discloses the same subject matter — distance-triggered stride/speed learning for pedestrian dead reckoning on a mobile terminal.
• The U.S. pre-grant publication is US 2014/0180626 A1; the patent granted nearly nine years after filing (2021-04-13), which is consistent with a long, contested prosecution. That prosecution history is the most likely source of prosecution-history estoppel and, more usefully, of prosecution disclaimer arguments — worth pulling via Patent Center before you file anything.
• A related Sony/Kimishima patent, US 8,898,009 B2, covers adjacent ground (evaluating GPS reliability from the correlation between walking tempo and GPS-derived traveling speed). If you are being asserted against on US 10,976,162, check whether US 8,898,009 or its foreign counterparts are also in the demand letter or complaint — they share an inventor, an assignee, and a technical narrative, and the same prior art may reach both.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: every claim is UNTESTED. No claim of US 10,976,162 has been canceled, confirmed, or even challenged at the Board. There is no narrowing claim certificate, no disclaimer of record that I could find, and therefore no "safe" claim list and no "dead" claim list. Any statement that claims 1–5 (or any other set) are canceled would be fabrication. Practically, this means the full claim set — as issued — is the operative risk surface, and you must read the claims yourself rather than relying on any adjudicated construction. Note that the Board would apply the Phillips framework (claim language, specification, prosecution history) rather than the patent-Trial "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard that existed before the 2020 rule changes.

Estoppel landscape: none, from either side. Because no IPR was ever instituted against this patent, § 315(e)(2) estoppel has never attached to anyone on this patent. No petitioner, and no privy or real party in interest of any petitioner, is barred from raising any § 102 or § 103 ground. The entire prior-art field is available to you, and you can also consider § 112 (written description, enablement, indefiniteness) — which is unavailable in an IPR and only available in a PGR, so if you want § 112 in a post-grant forum you would need a PGR, which is no longer available here (see below). For a defendant, the cleanest sequencing is: (1) run the invalidity case in district court including § 112, and (2) if you want post-grant relief on § 102/§ 103 art, file an IPR before your § 315(b) clock runs, because you get one shot with no follow-on petition generosity under General Plastic.

Statutory windows you must check immediately. (a) The PGR window closed 2022-01-13 (nine months after the 2021-04-13 grant), so PGR — and with it § 101 and § 112 grounds at the Board — is off the table. (b) For IPR, the § 315(b) one-year bar runs from the date you are served with a complaint alleging infringement of this patent; if the demand letter or complaint is already more than a year old, IPR is time-barred absent joinder under § 315(c). Confirm your service date before budgeting for a petition. (c) Under the current USPTO practice (Director Squires' 2025-10-16 memorandum and the pending proposed rules), institution is now decided by the Director in consultation with at least three judges, and the proposed rules would bar IPR outright against a patent that has already survived a validity challenge in court or at the PTAB — so if you are contemplating parallel litigation, an early institution-focused strategy matters more than it used to.

Pattern signals: none indicative of a campaign. I found no serial petitioner, no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) in the chain, and no Sony pursuit of PTAB appeals. A patent that issues after a nine-year prosecution, sits in a large consumer-electronics portfolio, and attracts no IPRs within five years of grant is more consistent with a portfolio/defensive asset or a former under-the-radar assertion than with an active licensing campaign. That inference is soft; treat it as a hypothesis to test, not a finding.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Verify the fee status first — it may end the analysis. Confirm the maintenance-fee and legal-status fields for US 10,976,162 on USPTO Patent Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov) and the USPTO maintenance-fee portal. Google Patents lists the status as "Expired – Fee Related" (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10976162/en). If that is confirmed on the register and no revival petition has been granted, the patent is unenforceable for the unpaid-fee period and cannot support an infringement claim or a standing-based declaratory judgment action absent revival. Two cautions: (i) lapsed patents can be revived by petition — unintentional delay within two years of the lapse, or unavoidable delay thereafter — so the window for a quiet revival attempt matters; and (ii) the running "expires 2035-10-26" field implies a substantial patent term adjustment, so do not assume the term ended at the 2032 anniversary of filing.

2. Confirm there is no PTAB activity yourself, contemporaneously. Search PTAB E2E / PTAB Center (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) by patent number, and query the USPTO ODP API for AIA trials by patent number. My searches and the ODP feed agree that the set is empty; re-run before you rely on it in a filing, since new petitions can appear at any time and an IPR filed by a co-defendant would change the estoppel and discretionary-denial picture overnight.

3. If you are a defendant and the patent is still live: there is no FWD to cite, no claim to quote, and no cancellation to lean on — say so plainly in your invalidity contentions rather than implying Board endorsement. Pull the full prosecution history (US 2014/0180626 A1 → US 10,976,162) for disclaimer and estoppel arguments, and check the JP 2011-186709 / JP 2013-050307 A family for prior-art and counterpart-claim overlap. Budget an IPR only after confirming your § 315(b) service date, and assume the Director's new institution policy applies.

4. Do not cite numerals loosely. If opposing counsel or a search result points you to "IPR2021-00962" in connection with a walking-tempo patent, verify the patent number — the proceeding I surfaced under that number is a Sonos matter in an unrelated technology and was affirmed by the Federal Circuit in a nonprecedential Rule 36 disposition.

Caveat: this analysis reflects publicly available materials as of 2026-09-29 and is not legal advice. Undocketed or recently filed proceedings may not yet be indexed by ODP; verify against primary USPTO sources before relying on any statement here in a filing or opinion.

I'll research the assignment record for US 10976162 before drafting.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 10,976,162 B2

Patent: "Information processing apparatus, information processing method for acquiring precise position in autonomous navigation system"
App. No.: 14/237,423 (PCT national stage) · Filed: 2012-06-25 · Priority: 2011-08-30 (JP) · Issued: 2021-04-13
Assignee of record: Sony Corporation (Sony Corp)
Legal status: Expired – Fee Related (adjusted expiration listed as 2035-10-26)

Retrieval caveat up front. I could reach the Assignment Center landing pages and the Google Patents legal-events record, but I could not pull the underlying reel/frame numbers or the correspondent-of-record field for this patent from the sources available to me. Google Patents surfaces exactly one assignment event (2014-02-06, "Assigned to SONY CORPORATION," assignor KIMISHIMA, MASATO). Everything below is grounded in that record plus the patent text itself; where a field is unknown I say so rather than guess. Verify reel/frame and correspondent directly at the USPTO Assignment Center or assignment.uspto.gov.

---

Inventors

• Employer determination: Kimishima's rights were assigned to Sony Corporation by the 2014-02-06 recorded assignment, and every patent on his public inventor record is Sony-owned. His portfolio spans Sony mobile/navigation work: US 8,260,542 (Navigation apparatus…), US 8,477,244 (Angular velocity correction…navigation device…), US 8,898,009, US 9,117,150 (Positioning device…), US 9,927,237 (…magnetic sensor measurement error), and this patent — a consistent pedestrian-navigation / dead-reckoning thread running through Sony's mobile terminal group.
• Unusual patterns — none present. The classic red flag (all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing, presaging a portfolio sale) is absent. Kimishima continued filing for the same corporate family for a decade — his most recent listed grants are US 11,900,468 (2024), US 11,959,775 (2024), and US 12,078,485 (2024), all Sony/Sony Group. There is no inventor-side event suggesting preparation for divestiture.

---

Original assignee

Sony Corporation (Tokyo, Japan) — the entity named on the issued patent and the sole recorded assignee.

• Primary line of business: diversified consumer electronics and entertainment. Relevant segment for this patent is Sony's mobile/positioning products — Xperia smartphones, personal navigation devices, and the sensor/positioning software stack.
• Product embodiment: Plausible but not established by the record I reviewed. The claims recite pedestrian dead-reckoning using GPS-anchored distance triggers, a pedometer/accelerometer step count, and a learned walking-tempo↔step correspondence table — functionality that is implemented in modern smartphone location stacks of the kind Sony ships. I did not find a Sony marketing document, product manual, or court filing tying the specific claimed features to a named Sony product, so treat "ships a practicing product" as an inference from the technology field, not a verified fact.
• Current status: Operating. Effective 2021-04-01 Sony underwent a corporate reorganization: the listed parent became Sony Group Corporation (holding company) with Sony Corporation continuing as the electronics operating entity. No bankruptcy, dissolution, or asset-sale proceeding affecting this patent was found.
• Post-issuance conduct: Sony has been an active defendant in 2024–2026 NPE suits (e.g., Ozmo Licensing, SensoSure, Tau Ceti Ventures, WFR IP, Control Sync Systems — E.D. Tex. / W.D. Tex. / S.D. Cal.), and an IPR petitioner alongside Apple against SiOnyx in 2025. In none of those actions is US 10,976,162 the asserted patent against Sony, and Sony is not asserting it against anyone.

---

Assignment timeline

Exactly one recorded assignment exists in this chain.

• (execution date not shown in the sources retrieved) / recorded 2014-02-06 — Reel/frame not retrievable from available sources
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: KIMISHIMA, MASATO
  • Assignee: SONY CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable from the sources I could access — this field must be verified directly in Assignment Center. No recurrence analysis is possible without it.
  • Context: Standard inventor-to-employer assignment, recorded contemporaneously with the US national-stage entry of the PCT application. Not a fire-sale, not a securitization, not a transfer to an asserter.

No further assignments of record. There is no second link, no LLC intermediary, no security interest, no nunc pro tunc correction, and no license recorded against this patent. Combined with the fee-lapse status, this means the chain terminates at Sony and always has.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10976162
    2011 : Priority application filed in Japan
    2012 : PCT application filed by Sony
    2014 : US national stage entry
         : Inventor assigns rights to Sony Corporation
    2021 : US patent issued
    2035 : Adjusted expiration date

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

One additional observation, offered as a status fact rather than an NPE signal: the patent is recorded as Expired – Fee Related. A patent that lapses for failure to pay maintenance fees is one the owner chose not to keep alive — strongly inconsistent with a licensing/assertion thesis, and consistent with a large operating portfolio pruning peripheral filings.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original inventor-to-employer assignment exists, so the enumerated NPE categories cannot be evaluated).

The chain for US 10,976,162 consists of a single recorded assignment — Masato Kimishima → Sony Corporation, recorded 2014-02-06 — with no subsequent transfer of any kind, no LLC intermediary, no asserted litigation, and a fee-lapse status. That is the factual profile of a patent that never left its original operating-company owner; there is no basis in the record for an NPE characterization.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 10,976,162 or app. 14/237,423; the reel/frame and correspondent fields need to be pulled here)
• USPTO Assignment (legacy index) — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events — https://patents.google.com/patent/US10976162/en#legalEvents

Two fields I deliberately left blank rather than estimate: the assignment's execution date and its reel/frame + correspondent of record. If you can paste the Assignment Center result for 14/237,423, I'll slot the exact reel/frame and correspondent into the timeline and re-run the recurrence check (signal 3).

I'll research the prior art cited for US Patent No. 10,976,162. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me search more specifically for the patent's front-page references and its patent family documents.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent No. 10,976,162 B2

Firm scope note before the analysis (important)

I could not retrieve the authoritative "References Cited" list printed on the face of US 10,976,162 B2 from USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR or the official grant PDF — my search tooling reached the Google Patents full text, the pre-grant publication (US 2014/0180626 A1), and the Freepatentsonline copy, but not the front-page citation block itself. Accordingly:

• I can confirm only one citation of record — the one expressly identified inside the patent's own specification: JP 2010-085285 A ("Patent Literature 1").
• The additional references below are ones that surfaced on the JP family member record (JP 5953677 B2 / JP 2013-050307 A) and in the closest field art. I have flagged each one as "confirmed citation" vs. "family-record/field art — not confirmed as a citation of record for the US grant."
• I have not fabricated any patent numbers, dates, or citations to fill the front-page list. Where I am uncertain whether a reference is a §102 citation, a §103 citation, or merely a forward citation ("Cited By"), I say so explicitly.

Also note the legal-regime point that governs the whole §102 analysis: priority is 2011-08-30 and filing is 2012-06-25 — both before 2013-03-16 — so pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 applies. Prior art must predate the 2011-08-30 priority date to be §102(a)/(b)/(e) art.

---

1. The verified citation of record

JP 2010-085285 A — "Patent Literature 1"

§102 assessment: JP 2010-085285 A discloses elements that map to the preamble/basic elements of claim 1 — (a) acquiring an absolute (GPS) position, (b) acquiring a walking tempo, and (d) learning a correspondence between walking tempo and step — but it expressly uses fixed time as the sampling trigger. It does not disclose the characterizing limitation of claim 1: calculating the second value "by using, as a trigger, movement of a predetermined distance." The '162 patent was written specifically to distinguish this reference on that very point (moving-distance trigger vs. fixed-time trigger produces intervals of guaranteed length and better positioning precision).

Conclusion: JP 2010-085285 A does not anticipate independent claim 1 (or the independent method/program/medium claims, which carry the same distance-trigger limitation). Because every dependent claim incorporates the claim-1 distance trigger, it anticipates no claim of the '162 patent. It is properly a §103 background/combination reference, not a §102 anticipation reference — the specification itself concedes it as the starting point of the art.

---

2. Documents surfaced on the JP family-member record (JP 5953677 B2)

The following appeared in the citation listing associated with the family member JP 5953677 B2 / JP 2013-050307 A (same invention, same priority, filed by Sony). Caution: the listing mixes documents of different vintages; pre-2011 items are plausibly prior-art citations, while post-2011 items are almost certainly forward citations ("Cited By") and therefore cannot be §102 art against the '162 priority date. I mark each accordingly.

2a. Pre-priority-date documents (potential prior art)

2b. Post-priority-date documents (forward citations — NOT prior art)

These are listed for completeness only; each postdates the '162 priority date and therefore cannot be §102 art:

• JP 6012204 B2 (MegaChips), 2016-10-25 — positioning system/terminal/program; forward citation.
• JP 5870817 B2 (Sony), 2016-03-01 — information processing apparatus; forward citation.
• US 9,223,004 B2 (Qualcomm), 2015-12-29 — controlling position uncertainty in a mobile device; forward citation.
• US 11,131,562 B2 (Apple), 2021-09-28 — forward citation.
• CN 105241454 A, 2016-01-13 — multi-sensor pedestrian navigation; forward citation.
• US 10,408,627 B2 (Ricoh), 2019-09-10 — forward citation.
• CN 105698813 B (OPPO), 2018-11-27 — anti-error step-counting; forward citation.

---

3. Closely related field art identified during the search (not confirmed as citations of record)

These are same-field / same-assignee references a patent analyst should evaluate; I could not confirm they appear on the '162 front page, so treat them as investigative leads, not established citations:

---

4. Bottom line

1. Only one prior-art reference is affirmatively confirmed as of record in US 10,976,162: JP 2010-085285 A ("Patent Literature 1"). It is the examiner/specification's identified starting-point art.
2. JP 2010-085285 A does not anticipate any claim of the '162 patent. It discloses absolute positioning + walking tempo + a learned walking-tempo↔step correspondence table, but uses fixed-time sampling. The novelty of claim 1 (and its method/program counterparts) resides in the predetermined-distance trigger, which this reference lacks. It is a §103 reference at most.
3. No confirmed prior-art reference in my possession anticipates independent claim 1. Anticipation of the independent claims would require a single reference disclosing all of: absolute-position acquisition, walking-tempo acquisition, distance-triggered computation of step/traveling speed, and learning of the tempo↔step/speed correspondence. None of the references I could confirm or reasonably attribute discloses the distance trigger.
4. Strongest §102 lead if the front-page record confirms it: US 6,546,336 B1, whose "predetermined cumulated distance" step-length correction most closely approaches the distance-trigger limitation. JP 2004-085511 A and the Sony US 8,898,009 / US 9,121,712 pair are the next-most-relevant field art for the learning/autonomous-positioning aspects.

Verification gap / recommendation: To complete this per-reference §102 analysis properly, pull the actual "References Cited" front-page block and the US Examiner's cited references (form PTO-892 / "Notice of References Cited") for application 14/237,423 from USPTO PatentCenter and the Global Dossier for PCT/JP2012/066141 (WO 2013/031355 A1), and cross-check the JP 5953677 B2 file wrapper for the JPO examiner's cited art. If the front-page list contains any additional U.S. patent numbers I could not reach, supply them and I will run the same §102 element-by-element mapping against claim 1 and each dependent claim.

(Publication/date values above are as returned by the search sources; where a date is given only as a year or where the assignee was not confirmable, I have not extrapolated.)

I'll ground this § 103 analysis in the prior art identified on the face of the patent and in the field. Let me run targeted searches.

Good — I'm getting strong grounding. Let me verify the primary reference (JP 2010-085285 A) and the distance-trigger art.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,976,162 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analyst: Senior US patent analyst
Subject patent: US 10,976,162 B2 ("Information processing apparatus, information processing method for acquiring precise position in autonomous navigation system")
Inventor / Assignee: Masato Kimishima / Sony Corp
Effective filing / priority date: 2012-06-25 (PCT) / 2011-08-30 (JP priority, JP 2011-186709)
Analysis date: per the task header, April 26, 2026

---

0. Preliminary caveats (read before relying on anything below)

These are not boilerplate; they materially limit the conclusions.

(a) I do not have the verbatim granted claim text. Consistent with the earlier "Patent summary" section of this analysis, the claim mapping below is reconstructed from (i) the specification's own claim-mirroring "further aspects" list (configurations (1)–(9) in the authoritative full text at https://patents.google.com/patent/US10976162/en), (ii) the abstract, and (iii) the JP family claim language (JP 2013-050307 A, appl. JP 2011-186709, which is the priority application of the same family — https://trade.patenthub.cn/cpc/patent-[165975](/patent/165975)-JP2013050307A-da3e69914ddebc7250a8c376adfc0a34.html). The JP claim set maps 1:1 onto configurations (1)–(9). Before this analysis is used for a real validity opinion, the granted US claims must be pulled from USPTO PatentCenter / the official PDF. Claim numbering and claim count below should be treated as provisional.

(b) Date discrepancy. The system context states today is 2026-09-29; this task header states 2026-04-26. I flag it as a contradiction and proceed on the assumption that the operative date for "current" purposes does not affect the § 103 analysis, which runs as of the 2011-08-30 priority date.

(c) Claim term construction — "step." The Japanese 歩幅 (hoshō) is step length / stride length, not step count. The English claim language "a second value indicating a step or a traveling speed" therefore means step length or traveling speed, not "number of steps." This matters: the whole patent is about computing a per-step distance to derive speed via v = k·f.

(d) Same-family documents are NOT prior art. WO 2013/031355 A1, JP 5,953,677 B2, and JP 2013-050307 A are all the same Sony family / same priority. They appear repeatedly in retrieval and must be excluded from the prior-art set. I call this out because one search result (JP 5,953,677 B2) contains language that reads exactly like the US specification — it is the same invention, not art.

(e) I could not retrieve the primary reference's full text directly. JP 2010-085285 A ("Patent Literature 1," the sole reference of record on the face of the patent) was not returned as a standalone document; I retrieved its characterization in the patent's own background, plus a later document (JP 5,407,255 B2) that cites it. Where I rely on JP 2010-085285 I say so and explain what I could and could not verify.

---

1. The claim at issue, element by element

Taking configuration (1) / claim 1 as representative of the independent apparatus claim, with (9) the method and the parallel program/CRM claims:

Dependent subject matter (configurations (2)–(8)):

• (2) decision section setting the predetermined distance based on precision of the absolute position
• (3) precision estimated from map information
• (4) absolute position from wireless distances to external devices; precision estimated from number of connected devices
• (5) walking determination section; first value acquired only while walking
• (6) azimuth acquiring section + autonomous positioning section estimating the second value from the first via the learned correspondence, computing current position
• (7) autonomous positioning when absolute positioning is unavailable
• (8) navigation section guiding a route

Key observation for § 103: The independent claim's only real point of novelty over the admitted art is limitation C's trigger — distance instead of time. Everything else (GPS absolute position, pedometer-derived tempo, computing distance±steps to get step length/speed, building a tempo-keyed correspondence table) is squarely in the admitted prior art. The grant of this patent 8.7 years after filing, on a claim set this narrow, is itself a signal that the examiner struggled to find art on the trigger, not on the rest.

---

2. The person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

A PHOSITA at the 2011-08-30 priority date would be a person with a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field and 2–3 years of experience (or equivalent) in pedestrian navigation / dead reckoning / sensor fusion on mobile devices, familiar with: GPS and WiFi positioning and their error characteristics; accelerometer-based step counting; the pedometer relation v = k·f; GPS-logging practice; and basic regression/calibration of stride length against cadence. This is a mature, crowded field — relevant to the "finite number of predictable solutions" rationale in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).

---

3. Graham factor 1 — scope and content of the prior art

3.1 The reference of record: JP 2010-085285 A ("Patent Literature 1")

Per the patent's own description (authoritative full text, Background Art):

"Patent Literature 1 discloses the method of calculating the step by performing GPS positioning at fixed intervals and dividing the moving distance in the meantime by the number of steps. At this point, a correspondence table associating the calculated average step and the average walking tempo in the meantime is created. Using the correspondence table, the step in accordance with the walking tempo obtained from the pedometer can be used to calculate the speed."

Corroborating retrieval: the citation "特開2010-85285" appears as a background reference in JP 5,407,255 B2 (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/46/3b/3f/8e442067899d78/JP5407255B2.pdf), a Toshiba/Fujitsu-Mobile mobile-communication-terminal patent whose claim 1 recites, in relevant part:

歩数を検出する歩数検出手段と、位置を測位する測位手段と、時間をカウントする計時手段と、…所定時間ごとに前記測位手段に測位させた位置のデータから前記所定時間ごとの歩行距離及び平均速度を算出し、前記算出した平均ビッチを予め定めた歩行ビッチのランクに分類し、前記分類された歩行ビッチのランクに含まれる前記歩行距離の合計値である積算歩行距離及び…積算平均速度を算出して格納する…

Translation: a terminal with step-count detection, positioning, and timing means that (i) computes walking distance and average speed every predetermined time from GPS positions, (ii) computes an average pitch (walking tempo), and (iii) classifies the pitch into predetermined tempo ranks and stores accumulated distance and average speed per rank, and (per claim 5) corrects the current position using that accumulated per-rank data. That is a tempo-keyed distance/speed correspondence table, built from fixed-time GPS sampling — precisely the state of the art the '162 patent concedes and improves on.

Caveat: I am relying on the patent's own characterization of JP 2010-085285 for that document's disclosure, corroborated by JP 5,407,255 B2's citation of it. JP 5,407,255 B2 itself published in 2014 and therefore is not prior art against the '162 patent; I cite it only as evidence of what the field contained and as evidence of how JP 2010-085285 was being read.

Nothing in JP 2010-085285 uses distance as the sampling trigger. It uses fixed time, and that is exactly the deficiency the '162 patent identifies.

3.2 Distance-triggered position capturing — a well-known, explicitly interchangeable technique

This is the pivotal art. Multiple independent references teach capturing/logging position every fixed distance OR every fixed time, treating the two as alternatives:

• JP H07-159192 (特開平7-159192), "移動経過記録装置" (Movement-History Recording Apparatus) — https://jglobal.jst.go.jp/detail?JGLOBAL_ID=200903070718383882. The abstract states the object is to record the position of a moving body "一定時間経過ごとに又は一定距離移動ごとに" — "at every fixed time elapsed or at every fixed distance traveled" — for operation management of trucks, buses, taxis, using a GPS receiver. This is an express recitation of distance-based triggering as an equivalent alternative to time-based triggering, in the GPS position-logging context.

• JP 5,752,602 B2 (JP translation of a navigational-apparatus specification) — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/0d/25/51/ff74442ba2d82e/JP5752602B2.pdf — "この装置は、位置キャプチャを、例えば5分ごとまたは20メートルごとに受信および記憶する…データ密度（単位時間または距離あたり）は、対象の期間の全体にわたり、均一に保つことができる" — the device receives and stores position captures, e.g. every 5 minutes or every 20 metres … the data density (per unit time or distance) can be kept uniform over the whole period. This teaches both the distance alternative and the reason for it (uniform data density), which is a direct analogue of the '162 patent's stated rationale.

• EP 0 925 566 B1 — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/4c/59/15/dceca5330c8932/EP0925566B1.pdf — claim 1 recites recording absolute position and then relative position data triggered by movement; claim 9 recites recording a position "in response to the movement of the vehicle ceasing." Trigger-based, movement-responsive logging.

• US 2015/0012211 A1 — logs position when "differences in positional data are greater than a predetermined minimum," i.e., a distance-delta trigger among other event triggers — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ec/f9/34/7468bd8527f236/US20150012211A1.pdf.

• JP 2013-054697 A — https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2013054697A/en — expressly contrasts "所定間隔" being "所定時間" (which "corresponds to the case where the vehicle is stopped or in a traffic jam") versus "所定走行距離," i.e., it articulates the very trade-off (time-interval sampling fails when the subject is not moving) that motivates the '162 patent's distance trigger. Date caveat: this publication post-dates the '162 priority date and I could not confirm its filing date; I therefore treat it as corroborating context, not as § 102/§ 103 art.

3.3 Learning a tempo→step-length / tempo→speed relation (including by fitting a function)

• JP 3,598,352 B2 ("Portable electronic device") — https://patents.google.com/patent/JP3598352B2/en — computes the user's walking pitch–stride characteristic as a linear relational expression (y = ½x + 20) from measurements at two different walking pitches P1, P2 over a fixed distance (e.g. 10 m), stores the expression, and thereafter computes stride, distance and average speed from the measured pitch. This is squarely a "step-length as a function of tempo" correspondence, derived from two calibration points — structurally the same idea as the '162 patent's second embodiment.

• US 2003/0018430 A1 / US 6,826,477 B1 (Ladetto et al., Leica Geosystems — "Pedestrian navigation method and apparatus operative in a dead reckoning mode") — step length modeled as step_length = sl₀ + m · speed (Margaria relationship), with continuous recalibration when satellite (GPS) data are available, and a Kalman update whose observation is "Distance (GPS)/# steps − m·Speed_mean." This is a GPS-calibrated linear stride-length model — https://patents.justia.com/patent/[6826477](/patent/6826477).

• Cho et al., "AutoGait" (KAIST, 2010) — https://ic.kaist.ac.kr/publications/papers/cho2010autogait.pdf — experimentally validates a linear relationship between stride length and step frequency, calibrates the stride-length line using GPS, and builds it up by least-squares fitting over samples ("we estimate the stride length by dividing the distance between two points by the number of steps, and the step frequency by averaging step frequencies between two points").

• US 6,434,212 (Levi) — as analyzed in the public IPR record (IPR2017-02023, EX1003), teaches S = S₀ + m·(f − f₀) — stride length as a linear function of stride rate, calibrated at multiple speeds. The IPR record itself documents the field's recognition that "it was well known … that there is an approximately linear relationship between stride rate and stride length" and that fixed average stride length is inaccurate across speeds — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1497194](/patent/1497194)/.

• JP 5,332,313 B2 — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e1/67/17/def49316c195bc/JP5332313B2.pdf — a portable terminal that computes stride automatically from GPS-derived positions (averaging multiple position solutions to a "center position"), and stores a 距離補正テーブル (distance-correction table) keyed to position and a 歩幅係数テーブル (stride-coefficient table) keyed to number of steps/min — i.e., a cadence-indexed stride-correction table. (Grant date 2013; I could not confirm its filing date, so treat as contextual.)

• Niigata University, "GPS, 歩数計及び方位計を用いた歩行者移動経路追跡法" — https://niigata-u.repo.nii.ac.jp/ — demonstrates that 歩行速度と歩幅の間に一次式の関係が成立する ("a first-order/linear relationship holds between walking speed and stride"), formulates per-step duration vs. per-step stride, combines it with compass heading, and uses GPS-fixed positions to correct the path. (Non-patent literature; date not confirmed in retrieval.)

3.4 Map/precision-dependent behavior

The '162 specification itself concedes the technical facts underpinning dependent claims (2)–(4): GPS precision degrades "in a downtown high-rise area, below an overpass, or in a forest" and improves "in a residential street of detached houses, a large park, or a wide road"; GPS precision depends on the number of captured satellites, DOP, and signal strength; and WiFi-triangulation precision depends on the number of visible base stations. I did not retrieve a specific pre-2011 reference that maps those conditions to a variable step-learning interval — so dependent claims (2)–(3) are the strongest candidates for a non-obviousness argument (see § 7). Precision estimation from satellite count / DOP / signal strength and from visible-AP count was itself routine, however.

---

4. Ground 1 — Claim 1 obvious over JP 2010-085285 A in view of the distance-trigger art

The only difference between claim 1 and JP 2010-085285 is limitation C's trigger. JP 2010-085285 discloses A (GPS positioning), B (pedometer/walking tempo), and D (a correspondence table of average step vs. average walking tempo). It samples at fixed time intervals.

Substituting distance-traveled for time-elapsed as the interval-closing trigger is taught expressly and as an equivalent alternative by JP H07-159192 ("一定時間経過ごとに又は一定距離移動ごとに") and JP 5,752,602 B2 ("5分ごとまたは20メートルごと"), and as a data-capture trigger by EP 0 925 566 B1 and US 2015/0012211 A1.

Motivation to combine — KSR-style, multiple independent rationales:

1. The problem was known, and its solution was known. The '162 specification's own Background admits: "A measurement error of the moving distance relatively increases with a decreasing moving distance" and "the user may not move a sufficient distance to allow enough positioning precision during the fixed time." Where the specification itself frames the problem, that framing supplies the motivation. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 ("a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions").

2. Simple substitution of one known trigger for another, with a predictable result. JP H07-159192 literally lists time-interval and distance-interval recording as alternatives for the same purpose. Applying a known alternative to a known GPS-logging process is the paradigm of obviousness. KSR ("the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results").

3. Same field, same problem, same data. All references are GPS/pedestrian position acquisition. The distance-trigger art is not merely "reasonably pertinent" — it addresses the identical defect (non-uniform spatial sampling / degraded density when the subject stalls) in the identical data stream. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (art from the same field is presumptively pertinent).

4. Finite number of predictable solutions. A designer wanting more reliable per-interval distance measurements had essentially two knobs: time or distance. JP 5,752,602 B2 even names the metric ("data density (per unit time or distance)"). This is a "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" case. KSR.

5. Predictable result, no new mechanism. The combination requires no change to the pedometer, the tempo computation, or the table-learning step; it changes only when the interval is closed. The Federal Circuit routinely affirms on exactly this posture.

Likely claim-1 conclusion: obvious. Note carefully that claim 1 does not require the predetermined distance to vary, does not require any particular distance value, and does not require map-based precision estimation. It is a broad trigger-swap claim.

---

5. Ground 2 — Claim 1 also obvious over JP 2010-085285 in view of the tempo→step-length modeling art

Even if a tribunal were to read limitation C more narrowly (e.g., as requiring the interval to be re-opened at the moving absolute position so that each learning sample is a fresh distance-bounded segment), the combination still holds: a PHOSITA building a tempo→step-length table as taught by JP 2010-085285, and knowing from JP 3,598,352 B2 and US 6,826,477 that stride length is a linear function of tempo/speed that must be calibrated from known-distance samples, would be motivated to delimit the calibration samples by known distance — precisely the trigger of claim 1. JP 3,598,352 B2 calibrates over a "fixed distance" (e.g. 10 m) at two pitches; that is distance-bounded calibration in the same field, predating the '162 patent by roughly a decade.

Motivation: calibration accuracy improves when the reference segment length is known and sufficiently long; error in a short reference segment dominates the fitted slope/intercept.

---

6. Ground 3 — Dependent claims

---

7. Claims the prior art may NOT reach (the patent's defensible ground)

Stated candidly, because a one-sided analysis is not useful:

1. Configuration (3) — map-information-derived precision used to size the distance threshold. If this is a granted claim, it is the most likely to survive a § 103 challenge, because I have not verified a pre-2011 reference that specifically couples map-derived environment classification to the length of a step-learning interval. The prior-art posture here is "obvious design choice / predictable optimization," which is defensible but not overwhelming.

2. A claim to the function-identification-by-solving-two-interval-equations subject matter (the second/third embodiments; v = a·f + b solved from moving distance X, tempo f, and time T across two intervals, with tempo classification per FIGS. 14–16). Important: the specification's own "further aspects" list (configurations (1)–(9)) does not include this subject matter, so it may not be claimed at all. If it is claimed (I cannot confirm from the authoritative text in front of me), then JP 3,598,352 B2 (linear pitch–stride relation from two calibration points), US 2003/0018430/US 6,826,477 (sl₀ + m·speed with GPS recalibration), the Cho/AutoGait paper, and US 6,434,212 (S = S₀ + m(f − f₀)) collectively render it obvious — the "solve for slope and intercept" step is ordinary linear regression, and the "classify tempo into bins to limit table size" step is a routine data-compression trade-off.

3. Any claim reciting a specific numeric distance threshold pair (200 m/400 m vs. 500 m/1000 m). Not in the disclosed claim configurations; if claimed, would be an obvious optimization absent criticality data.

Note the internal tension: the more ground the patent's dependent claims hold, the more clearly the independent claim's contribution is exposed as the bare trigger-swap — which is the weakest possible § 103 position.

---

8. Teaching away / objective indicia (Graham factors 2 and 4)

• No teaching away. Nothing in JP 2010-085285 or the logging art disparages distance-triggered sampling; JP H07-159192 in particular presents it as a co-equal alternative. Where art presents two alternatives for the same purpose, there is no teaching away. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
• Unexpected results: none demonstrated. The specification's asserted effect — "precision in calculation of a step (or a traveling speed) is improved, and precision of the generated correspondence table is improved" — is the predictable consequence of the stated mechanism (longer reference segment ⇒ smaller relative error). Improving accuracy by lengthening a noisy reference baseline is not an unexpected result.
• Long-felt but unmet need: weak. GPS logging at distance intervals was known (JP H07-159192; JP 5,752,602 B2), and the tempo→step table was known (JP 2010-085285; JP 3,598,352 B2). Where all elements were known and individually used, the "long-felt need" narrative is hard to sustain.
• Commercial success / copying / licenses: no evidence identified. Consistent with the earlier finding in this analysis that no litigation involving this patent was located, and that the patent is recorded as Expired – Fee Related (adjusted expiration 2035-10-26) — which suggests it was not commercially asserted or maintained. Absent a nexus, this cuts against any secondary-consideration argument. (I flag this as inference from the record status, not from a business evaluation.)

---

9. Bottom line

Claim 1 (and mirroring method/program claims) would very likely be held obvious under § 103. The claim is a GPS + pedometer + tempo→step-table learning apparatus whose only point of novelty over JP 2010-085285 A (the sole reference of record) is closing the learning interval on distance traveled rather than elapsed time — and that very substitution is expressly taught as an equivalent alternative in the same field (JP H07-159192: "一定時間経過ごとに又は一定距離移動ごとに"; JP 5,752,602 B2: "5分ごとまたは20メートルごと…データ密度…均一に保つ"), for the same reason the '162 patent asserts (uniform, error-tolerant spatial sampling). The motivation is supplied by the specification's own admission of the problem and by the well-known alternative, and the result (better accuracy) is predictable, not unexpected. KSR, 550 U.S. 398.

Dependent claim (2)/(3) — precision-based (and especially map-based) sizing of the predetermined distance — is the most defensible subject matter, and is the best target for a narrower, claim-differentiating response if the patent is ever challenged. A § 103 attack on (3) would rest on "obvious design choice," which is a weaker, though still tenable, position.

Confidence: Moderate-to-high on claim 1; moderate on (2); low-to-moderate on (3). The primary and secondary references are in the same field and the combination rationale is robust, but the assessment is limited by the fact that (i) I could not review the verbatim granted US claims, and (ii) I could not retrieve JP 2010-085285 A's full text directly.

To firm this up, pull: (1) the granted US claims from PatentCenter; (2) the full text of JP 2010-085285 A (JPO/J-PlatPat); (3) the filing dates of JP H07-159192 (1993 — safely prior art), JP 5,752,602 B2, JP 2013-054697 A, JP 5,332,313 B2, and the Niigata University paper, so that only pre-2011-08-30 art is relied upon; and (4) JP 3,598,352 B2's claim set to map it precisely onto any function-identification claims.

---

Explicit uncertainty statement: I have not fabricated the disclosure of any reference. Where I describe JP 2010-085285 A, I am relying on the '162 patent's own characterization of it plus a later citing document, and I say so. Where I cite a document whose date I could not confirm (JP 2013-054697 A, JP 5,332,313 B2, the Niigata paper), I have flagged it as contextual rather than as verified § 103 art. The claim mapping is a reconstruction, not a quotation of the granted claims.