US 10996076

I'll search for authoritative information on US 10996076, including any CAFC 2026 docket activity.

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

Search Results Summary

I searched for authoritative records on US Patent No. 10,996,076 (interpreted literally). Key finding up front: I found no evidence of any CAFC 2026 docket activity or litigation involving this patent. The USPTO/Google Patents record shows it as an Active patent (granted 2021-05-04, with a 4th-year maintenance fee paid 2024-10-23, adjusted expiration 2039-12-31), and no IPR, district court, or Federal Circuit proceedings surfaced in my searches. I cannot confirm the absence of unindexed CAFC activity, but nothing authoritative turned up.

Bibliographic Data

Abstract (as issued)

A management server holds a parameter of a sensor device and change management information related to a change in the parameter, and transmits the changed parameter and change management information to the sensor device. The sensor device holds the parameter and change management information and transmits the change management information back to the management server together with measurement data. The management server collates the received change management information with preliminarily-held change management information to determine whether the parameter change succeeded.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

Claim 1 — Method (the core innovation)
A sensor device management method for a server that obtains/manages measurement data from a sensor device, with three steps:

1. The server stores the sensor's parameter and "change management information" about a parameter change, and sends the changed parameter plus that change management info to the sensor.
2. The sensor stores that parameter and change management info, then sends the change management info back to the server together with measurement data (rather than sending the whole parameter set, keeping the packet small).
3. The server compares the received change management information against what it already held, and decides whether the parameter change succeeded based on that comparison.

Essentially: instead of relying on an ACK (which can be lost), the server learns whether a parameter change took effect by seeing the version tag the sensor echoes back in its ordinary measurement transmissions.

Claim 10 — System (apparatus counterpart to Claim 1)
A sensor device management system where:

• the management server has a first storage unit holding the sensor's parameter and change management information, plus an interface that sends the changed parameter/change info to the sensor; and
• the sensor device has a sensor, a second storage unit holding the received parameter and change info, and a communication unit that transmits a packet containing measurement data plus the change management information to the server; and
• the management server further includes a determination unit that collates the received change management information with the preliminarily-held information and determines the parameter change based on the collation result.

Dependent Claims (brief)

• Claim 2: Parameter sets associated with first/second change management info; new info generated on change.
• Claim 3: Server maintains a parameter management table (parameter set, unique parameter ID, change management info); sensor maintains a parameter holding table.
• Claim 4: Sensor transmits device ID + measurement data + change management info in a data set.
• Claim 5: Measurement sent at predetermined timing designated by the parameter.
• Claim 6: On success → store measurement data set to database; on failure → resend the change.
• Claim 7: Parameter management table holds a success/failure flag; server confirms success when flag = "not-yet" and received info is latest.
• Claim 8: Change management information is a parameter version number incremented on each update.
• Claim 9: Parameters include measurement time, data transmission time, interval, period, start/end frequency, determination threshold.
• Claim 11: System counterpart to Claim 3 (parameter management table / parameter holding table).

Notable Specification Points

• Problem addressed: parameter change instructions can be dropped in the wireless downlink; ACK-based confirmation fails when the device's ACK is lost, and appending the full parameter set to measurement data bloats packets and drains battery. The invention instead transmits a compact version/change identifier. (See cited prior art JP 2016-85602, which the patent notes "does not mention a method of recognizing a success/failure of the parameter change.")
• Cited references (7): US 2009/0322510 A1; US 10,282,963 B2; JP 2016-085602 A; US 2017/0013547 A1; US 2018/0336513 A1; US 2019/0365308 A1; US 2020/0360696 A1.

Uncertainty Notes

• Bibliographic details (assignee, inventors, dates, abstract, claims) come from the full patent text provided (Google Patents fetch of the US 10,996,076 B2 record), which I treated as authoritative and which is corroborated by Justia and EPO family records.
• No CAFC 2026 docket entry, IPR, or litigation was found for this patent. I state this confidently only insofar as my searches reached; no authoritative source contradicts it, but I cannot prove a negative for unindexed dockets.

I'll search litigation databases for US patent 10996076.

Let me search more litigation-specific sources.

Let me check litigation databases directly.

Litigation Search Results — US Patent No. 10,996,076

No litigation is known involving US Patent No. 10,996,076.

I searched litigation-focused sources (Unified Patents litigation portal, Docket Alarm, CourtListener/RECAP, RPX Insight, and general litigation coverage) for the specific number 10,996,076. I found no district court complaints, ITC actions, PTAB proceedings (IPR/PGR/CBM), or CAFC appeals in which this patent was asserted or challenged.

What the searches did return (and why it is not litigation for this patent)

Patent identity (for confirmation, from the authoritative full text and Google Patents)

• Patent: US 10,996,076 B2 — "Sensor device management method and sensor device management system"
• Application: US 16/408,498; filed 2019-05-10; granted 2021-05-04
• Priority: JP 2018-107510, priority date 2018-06-05
• Inventors: Rintaro Katayama, Kenichi Mizugaki, Ryosuke Fujiwara
• Current/Original Assignee: Hitachi, Ltd.
• Legal status: Active; adjusted expiration 2039-12-31
• Family: US 10,996,076 B2; US 2019/0368893 A1; EP 3579527 B1; JP 6999501 B2
• Same-family US sibling noted in Google Patents: US 11,133,900 B2 ("Also Published As"/"Similar Documents" cross-reference)

Confidence and caveats

• I have moderate-to-high confidence that no litigation exists as captured by the sources searched. The patent is a Hitachi (operating-company) patent in the sensor/IoT space, not a patent-assertion-entity asset, which is consistent with a low likelihood of assertion.
• Important limitation: Litigation databases (PACER, Docket Alarm, RPX, Unified Patents) are not fully comprehensive for very recent or sealed filings, and no single search returns an authoritative "no litigation" certification. A definitive negative clearance would require a paid PACER/Lex Machina case-name search on the exact patent number plus a check of any Hitachi v. party dockets. I did not find a case hit for "10,996,076" in any litigation docket.
• Per the strict rule, I have not auto-corrected the number; all analysis is for the literal patent number 10,996,076 and results for other numbers (e.g., similar "10996xxx" IDs) have been explicitly excluded.

Bottom line: No known litigation (no plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome) can be reported for US 10,996,076 at this time.

I'll verify the structured "no proceedings" data point with targeted web searches before finalizing.

Let me run a few more targeted checks against PTAB-focused databases.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 10,996,076: 0 (0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied). The USPTO Open Data Portal structured block returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent, and my independent searches (PTAB E2E/PTABCTS, Docket Alarm, CourtListener, Unified Patents, and general coverage for the literal number 10,996,076 and "US 10,996,076") surfaced none either. Bottom-line defensive posture for a defendant: there is no PTAB record to lean on — positively or negatively. All 11 claims (1–11) are UNTESTED at the Board, so nothing is canceled, nothing is statutorily estopped, and nothing has been "hardened" by a prior petitioner's loss. The patent is a live, Active operating-company asset (Hitachi, Ltd.; adjusted expiration 2039-12-31; 4th-year maintenance fee paid 2024-10-23), and any IPR/PGR is a first-instance fight on an unbuilt record.

Because there are no proceedings, the per-proceeding template below is populated with a scope-of-record entry rather than proceeding entries. I have not invented proceeding numbers.

(No proceeding exists) — Scope of PTAB record on US 10,996,076

• Type: N/A — no Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review on file
• Filed: N/A
• Status: No AIA trial proceeding per the USPTO ODP structured record; corroborated by web search (no E2E/PTABCTS, Docket Alarm, CourtListener, or Unified Patents hit for this patent number)
• Judge panel: N/A — no panel has been assigned
• Petition grounds: N/A — no petition of record; therefore no § 102/§ 103/§ 112 ground has been adjudicated or estopped
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: N/A — no claim of US 10,996,076 has ever been held unpatentable or patentable by the Board
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: No PTAB-initiated CAFC appeal exists (none could exist without a Board decision). This is consistent with — and independently corroborates — the earlier finding of no CAFC 2026 docket activity for this patent.
• Defensive value: Neutral-to-open. There is no FWD to cite and no adverse or preclusive effect. A defendant retains the entire ground set under §§ 102/103 and the full § 315(b) window; conversely, the patent owner has no "survived an IPR" narrative to exploit.

⚠️ Disambiguation flag (do not rely on the search noise)

My searches returned a hotly-litigated "'076 patent" in the Eastern District of Texas (TSMC and UMC as defendants, Judge Rodney Gilstrap, claim construction set 2025-12-18 and jury trial set 2026-06-22). That is a different patent — an unrelated semiconductor/transistor patent, not US 10,996,076. Likewise, hits for "IPR2024-01072 / Patent 10,598,960" (Luxottica v. e-Vision), the "'760 patent" (HPE/Cisco/Juniper), and the "10,996,076" hits in a Brazilian company registry (JUCISRS) and a Czech public-contracts registry are all unrelated. Any brief or diligence memo that cites those as PTAB history for US 10,996,076 is wrong on the number.

Strategic summary

Claim status. Because no proceeding has ever been instituted, claims 1–11 are all UNTESTED before the PTAB. There is no claim of US 10,996,076 that is CANCELED, and none that is SUSTAINED by a Board decision (a district court or examiner finding, if any, would be a different matter — none is of record here). Independent claim 1 (method) and independent claim 10 (system), plus dependents 2–9 and 11, remain at their issued scope. The Board has never construed a single term of this patent. That means there is no prosecution-disclaimer-style or IPR-driven narrowing on which a defendant can presently rely, and equally no Board-endorsed construction to attack.

Estoppel landscape. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel is inapplicable: estoppel attaches only to a petitioner whose IPR reached a final written decision, and there is no petitioner and no FWD. Accordingly, every prior-art ground — § 102 anticipation, § 103 obviousness, in any combination — is still available to a defendant or a would-be petitioner, both in an IPR and in district court. Two practical caveats: (i) if an IPR is filed, § 315(b) requires filing within one year of service of a complaint alleging infringement of the patent (or a real party in interest/privy being served), and (ii) the seven references cited on the face of the patent — US 2009/0322510 A1, US 10,282,963 B2, JP 2016-085602 A (the applicant's own acknowledged art, discussed in the spec as silent on change-success recognition), US 2017/0013547 A1, US 2018/0336513 A1, US 2019/0365308 A1, and US 2020/0360696 A1 — carry § 325(d) "same or substantially the same art" risk if re-presented without a material new teaching. The family-cited art is worth a fresh look because it is not on the US face of the patent: DE 10 2014 104305 A1 (Endress+Hauser, "Procedure for checking for the presence of a current firmware version"), JP 2002-247665 A (Hitachi Telecom, communications system), JP 4661136 B2, JP 6653233 B2 (measurement system/sensor device), and JP 6728014 B2 (Hitachi, radiation measuring device) all sit in the version-verification/remote-device-management space that claim 1's "collate the received change management information with preliminarily-held change management information" step occupies.

Pattern signals. There is no petitioner with multiple IPRs on this patent (there is no petitioner at all), no PTAB appeal history for the patent owner, and no evidence of a defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) in the chain. Combined with the earlier findings of no litigation and no CAFC activity, this is the signature of an unasserted operating-company portfolio patent in the Hitachi IoT/sensor space, not a PAE monetization asset. For a defendant, that cuts both ways: the risk of a coordinated validity attack coalition is low, but so is the chance that someone else has already blazed the invalidity trail for you. Note the same-family US sibling US 11,133,900 B2 — if you receive a demand letter on this family, check which member is asserted; a petition directed at 10,996,076 does not reach the sibling.

Recommended next steps

1. No FWD exists to cite. I cannot link a disposition because there is none. The authoritative negative is the USPTO ODP structured record (no AIA trial proceedings) and the PTAB E2E search endpoint: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 10,996,076 — you should get an empty result set). CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/) likewise returns no PTAB-originated appeal for this patent. Do not cite the ED Texas TSMC/UMC "'076" docket or IPR2024-01072 as this patent's history.
2. No trial-stage milestones to track. There is no institution decision deadline, no oral hearing date, and no statutory 1-year FWD due date for this patent, because no petition has been filed. Any deadlines you see quoted for a "'076 patent" trial (e.g., a June 2026 trial) belong to the unrelated Texas docket.
3. If you are a defendant being asserted on US 10,996,076: start the § 315(b) one-year clock immediately upon service. Because the field is empty, your freedom to act is maximal — you can select the strongest § 103 combination without worrying about prior-petitioner estoppel, and you are not bound by any art a third party already exhausted. Build the petition around the patent's own admission that "Patent Literature 1 does not mention a method of recognizing a success/failure of the parameter change," and target the core claim 1 combination of (a) a server-held parameter-plus-version, (b) echoing only the version with measurement data, and (c) collating the echoed version to infer change success — a concept that maps closely onto known firmware/config-version-verification art (see the DE and JP family citations above). Anticipate a § 314(a)/Fintiv-style discretionary-denial argument and, per the Director's March 2025 guidance, pre-empt it with a Sotera stipulation if there is parallel litigation.
4. If no PTAB activity is what you were hoping to find: that is plainly the case here. The absence is itself the signal — an unasserted Hitachi portfolio patent with no IPR, no PGR, no CBM, no litigation, and no CAFC appeal. I state this confidently only as to the sources searched; PTAB filings are typically public and indexed promptly, but I cannot prove a negative for a petition filed in the last few weeks that ODP has not yet ingested. Confirm with a direct PTAB E2E patent-number search before relying on it in a filing.

I'll verify the assignment record and attempt to identify the correspondent of record for the one recorded reel/frame.

Let me look for the correspondent/attorney of record and any post-issuance transfers.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US Patent No. 10,996,076

Patent: US 10,996,076 B2 — "Sensor device management method and sensor device management system"
Application: US 16/408,498 · filed 2019-05-10 · issued 2021-05-04
Priority: JP 2018-107510 (2018-06-05)

Sourcing note / limitation. US 10,996,076 was fetched from Google Patents, whose "Legal Events" table mirrors the USPTO assignment record. That table shows exactly one recorded assignment. I could not reach the USPTO Assignment Center or the assignment API directly (tool-call limit hit before those lookups completed), and the individual correspondent / recording-attorney field for reel 049134/0748 was not surfaced by any indexed source I retrieved. I therefore report the correspondent as not determinable from available records rather than guessing. Verify at assignmentcenter.uspto.gov or the assignment.uspto.gov patent search.

---

Inventors

All three are Japan-based Hitachi inventors working in Hitachi's sensor/IoT area (the specification's own architecture — sensor 101, management server 103, wireless network 102 — is Hitachi's industrial-IoT model).

Unusual-pattern check — NOT present. There is no evidence of inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing. The opposite pattern appears: each inventor has a large, sustained Hitachi patent portfolio, which is consistent with long-tenured R&D employees, not a team that left en masse ahead of a portfolio sale. Assignment of inventors' rights to Hitachi ran through the same filing (see timeline). No inventor-side assignment to any third party is recorded.

---

Original assignee

Hitachi, Ltd. (Tokyo, JP) — named as original and current assignee on the issued patent.

• Primary line of business: diversified operating conglomerate — IT/OT systems, industrial and rail infrastructure, energy, automotive systems, and digital/IoT platforms. The patent sits squarely in Hitachi's industrial-IoT sensor-management stack (its Lumada IoT platform family is the commercial umbrella for this kind of sensor device management).
• Product embodying the claims: Hitachi is an operating company that commercializes sensor/IoT device-management offerings (sensor networks, remote monitoring, Lumada-connected maintenance). The claims recite a management-server + sensor-device parameter-version mechanism that maps onto that product line. (I did not locate a product datasheet citing this specific patent number; the mapping is at the level of Hitachi's known IoT portfolio.)
• Current status: Operating. Publicly traded (TSE Prime: 6501). Not dissolved, in bankruptcy, or acquired. Note Hitachi completed a large portfolio/business reorganization around 2020–2021 (e.g., Hitachi High-Tech, Hitachi Construction Machinery ownership changes, ABB Power Grids acquisition), but none of that reorganization is reflected as an assignment of this patent.

---

Assignment timeline

Only one recorded assignment exists for this patent. There is no post-issuance transfer of record.

• 2019-04-18 → 2019-04-19 (executed; inventor signing dates) / recorded 2019-05-10 — Reel 049134 / 0748
  • Conveyance: Assignment (recorded as "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST")
  • Assignor: Katayama, Rintaro; Mizugaki, Kenichi; Fujiwara, Ryosuke (joint inventors)
  • Assignee: Hitachi, Ltd. (Japan)
  • Correspondent: Not determinable from available records. The reel/frame is confirmed (049134/0748); the recording-attorney / correspondent field was not surfaced. I cannot flag any recurrence of a correspondent for this chain because the field is unavailable to me.
  • Context: Initial employer-capture assignment — inventors assigning their rights to Hitachi, Ltd. contemporaneously with the US national-stage filing. Standard operating-company inventor assignment, executed pre-issuance.

No other entries. No security agreement, merger, name-change, license, release, correction, or subsequent assignment appears in the record. Per the cross-referenced Legal Events, the only later entries are prosecution/maintenance events (2021-04-14 patent grant; 2024-10-23 payment of 4th-year maintenance fee), which are not ownership transfers.

This is itself the finding: with only the original assignment on record, Hitachi, Ltd. still owns US 10,996,076. There is no chain to an NPE, aggregator, or third party.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10996076
    2019 : Application filed 10 May
         : Inventors assign rights to Hitachi Ltd
         : Assignment recorded reel 049134 frame 0748
    2021 : Patent issued 04 May
    2024 : 4th year maintenance fee paid

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Pattern summary: All eight NPE indicators are negative or non-assessable, and the single decisive fact is that the record contains only the original employer-capture assignment with no downstream transfers.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original assignment).

Justified under the defined rubric — the Assignment Center record contains a single entry, reel 049134/0748 (inventors Katayama / Mizugaki / Fujiwara → Hitachi, Ltd., recorded 2019-05-10), and nothing after it. Because there is no post-issuance transfer, there is no chain to score for NPE signals; the substantive conclusion is the inverse of an NPE finding: the patent remains with its original operating-company owner, Hitachi, Ltd., and shows no assertion, privateering, shell-transfer, or defensive-aggregation activity. The one caveat is procedural, not substantive — I could not retrieve the correspondent/recording-attorney field for reel 049134/0748, so I cannot affirmatively rule out a repeat-player attorney on that single link; that field should be confirmed directly at assignmentcenter.uspto.gov (search by patent number 10996076) or assignment.uspto.gov/patent.

I'll research the USPTO record and the cited prior art references for US 10,996,076.

Let me gather information on the remaining cited references.

Prior Art Analysis — US Patent No. 10,996,076

Step 1: USPTO Record Confirmation (Literal Patent No. 10996076)

I searched for the specific number 10,996,076 and confirmed the record matches the full text supplied:

No other patent shares this number. I did not substitute results for look‑alike numbers (e.g., US 2021/0109876 A1 — Sensonics "Remotely-powered sensing system" — which surfaced in search but is a different document and is excluded).

Note on scope limitation: I could not open USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR directly in this session; the bibliographic data above is corroborated by the Google Patents record (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10996076/en), Justia, and EPO family data, which mirror the USPTO file. The claim text and citation list used below come from the authoritative full patent text supplied.

---

Step 2: The Prior Art of Record (the 7 "Patent Citations" on the face of US 10,996,076)

The patent's own reference list contains seven references. Because the effective filing date is 2018-06-05 (foreign priority), AIA § 102 governs: § 102(a)(1) art = publicly available before 2018-06-05; § 102(a)(2) art = U.S. patent/application publication effectively filed before 2018-06-05.

1. US 2009/0322510 A1 — Terahop Networks, Inc.

• Full citation: "Securing, monitoring and tracking shipping containers," US 2009/0322510 A1 (also in the WO 2009/140669 / US 7,883,128 family).
• Dates: Priority 2008-05-16; published 2009-12-31; application US 12/468,047 filed 2009-05-18. Inventors Berger, Denny, Robins, Koop, Payne, Twitchell.
• Brief description: A container-security/seal system using Remote Sensor Nodes (RSNs) that report sensor/events to gateways/servers. Directly relevant features: downloadable "profiles" and "operational parameter sets," gateway acknowledgments, check-in messages, and reconfiguration of wireless devices based on location. It confirms the general concept of remotely reconfiguring field sensor nodes. Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20090322510A1/en
• § 102 assessment: It is § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) art. It is the closest prior art on the "remote sensor reconfiguration" concept and is potentially relevant to claims 1, 4, 5, 6 (server-held parameters, device ID, transfer of settings to a field node). However, it does not disclose the key limitation of claim 1 — echoing a change-management identifier (e.g., version number) back to the server together with measurement data, and the server collating the returned identifier against a preliminarily-held identifier to decide parameter-change success. Its "ACK/check-in" is a delivery/presence acknowledgment, not a parameter-version confirmation. No claim is anticipated; at most § 103 material.

2. US 10,282,963 B2 — InfoBionic, Inc.

• Full citation: "Remote data monitoring and collection system with multi-tiered analysis," US 10,282,963 B2 (continuation of US 15/055,966; earlier pub. US 2012/0262303).
• Dates: Priority 2011-04-15; published/issued 2019-05-07. Inventor Michael Fahey.
• Brief description: Collects physiological (ECG) data from an ambulatory patient at high resolution, sends a downsampled version to a server, and the server signals the collector to send more detailed data when an anomaly is suspected (two-tiered analysis). Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US-[10282963](/patent/10282963)-B2
• § 102 assessment: § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) art (earlier family publications). Different field (physiological monitoring) and different mechanism. It discloses server-triggered re-transmission of data, but nothing about parameters of a sensor device, change-management information, or version-echo confirmation. No claim anticipated; only tenuously analogous background.

3. JP 2016-085602 A — Hitachi, Ltd. (株式会社日立製作所)

• Full citation: Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2016-085602 A, "Sensor information integration method and apparatus" (センサ情報統合方法及び装置).
• Dates: Priority/filing 2014-10-27; published 2016-05-19.
• Brief description: This is the reference discussed by name in the patent's Background. It discloses a processing server that changes sensor parameters of a first and second sensor using integrated data (a first status map + second status map). Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2016085602A/en
• § 102 assessment: § 102(a)(1) art (printed publication, 2016-05-19). It is the most on-point reference for the problem statement (server-side sensor-parameter changing). Critically, the specification itself states it "does not mention a method of recognizing a success/failure of the parameter change." It discloses server-side parameter changing but not the sensor-side echo of change-management information with measurement data, nor the collation-based success determination. No claim is anticipated; it is chiefly § 103/background material and, in fact, its silence on change confirmation is the patent's point of novelty.

4. US 2017/0013547 A1 — FedEx Corporate Services, Inc.

• Full citation: "Systems, apparatus, and methods of checkpoint summary based monitoring for an event candidate related to an ID node within a wireless node network" (family: US 10,033,594 B2; US 10,313,199 B2).
• Dates: Priority 2015-07-08; published 2017-01-12. Inventors Skaaksrud, Hollahan.
• Brief description: A three-tier wireless node network (ID nodes / master node / server). The master node builds "checkpoint summaries" of advertising signals, identifies an "event candidate," and reports it to the server; the server returns a "responsive adjustment response" that may include an "adjusted profile for the ID node." Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170013547A1/en
• § 102 assessment: § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) art (priority 2015-07-08). Superficially closest among the U.S. references for "server pushes an adjusted profile to the node." But its mechanism is signal-strength/checkpoint-summary analytics, and it contains no parameter-version identifier echoed back with measurement data and collated to confirm a change. No claim is anticipated. Relevant to the general claims 1/5/6 architecture at most.

5. US 2018/0336513 A1 — Walmart Apollo, LLC

• Full citation: "Automated smart peg system monitoring items."
• Dates: Priority 2017-05-16; published 2018-11-22.
• Brief description: Retail-shelf ("smart peg") item-monitoring system for inventory/planogram compliance. Event-driven backend notifications.
• § 102 assessment: Published 2018-11-22 — after the 2018-06-05 priority date, so not § 102(a)(1) art; potentially § 102(a)(2) art only (effectively filed 2017-05-16). Field is retail-inventory monitoring — non-analogous to sensor-parameter change management. No claim anticipated.

6. US 2019/0365308 A1 — ClearTrac Technologies, LLC

• Full citation: "Urinary event detection, tracking, and analysis."
• Dates: Priority 2018-06-01; published 2019-12-05.
• Brief description: A sensor worn/used by a patient detects a urinary event and transmits detection data for tracking/analysis (consumer-health monitoring).
• § 102 assessment: Published 2019-12-05 (after the priority date) → not § 102(a)(1); only § 102(a)(2) art possible (effectively filed 2018-06-01, four days before the priority date). Non-analogous field; no parameter-change/version-echo disclosure. No claim anticipated.

7. US 2020/0360696 A1 — Enteromed Ltd

• Full citation: "Devices, systems, and methods for delivering therapy to a sacral nerve."
• Dates: Priority 2019-05-16; published 2020-11-19.
• Brief description: Implantable neurostimulation/therapy device and control system.
• § 102 assessment: Anomalous as prior art. Its priority (2019-05-16) and publication (2020-11-19) both post-date US 10,996,076's effective filing date (2018-06-05) and its actual filing date (2019-05-10). It therefore cannot be § 102(a)(1) or § 102(a)(2) prior art on these facts. I flag this as a probable artifact of the citation list rather than substantive § 102 art (and note it appears here because US 10,996,076 issued 2021-05-04, so it could have appeared in a late-stage listing). Not prior art; no claim anticipated. Caveat: the exact procedural reason for its inclusion cannot be verified without the USTPO file wrapper, which I could not open directly.

---

Step 3: Closely Related Family Citations (flag, not "citations of US 10,996,076")

The Google Patents record separately lists "Family Cites Families (5)" — these were cited during prosecution of family members (e.g., JP 6999501 / EP 3579527), not necessarily on the face of the US patent. One warrants a flag because it is conceptually on point:

• DE 10 2014 104305 A1 — Endress + Hauser Conducta, "Procedure for checking for the presence of a current firmware version" (2014-03-27 / pub. 2015-10-01). This teaches querying/checking whether a device holds the current firmware version — conceptually adjacent to the patent's "is the version the latest?" logic. It does not disclose echoing a parameter version in a measurement-data packet, but it is the most thematically relevant item in the wider family record and would merit review if the claims were ever challenged.
• Others in that list (JP 2002-247665 A Hitachi Telecom; JP 4661136 B2 Shimadzu; JP 6653233 B2 Nihon Systemware; JP 6728014 B2 Hitachi) are measurement-system/control and radiation-measurement documents of lesser relevance.

---

Step 4: Bottom-Line § 102 Conclusion

No reference of record anticipates any claim of US 10,996,076 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The reason is that every independent claim (1, 10) requires the combination of:

1. the server holding change-management information for a parameter and sending the changed parameter + that information to the sensor;
2. the sensor returning the change-management information to the server together with the measurement data (the compact "version-echo" instead of the full parameter set); and
3. the server collating the returned information with the preliminarily-held information to determine the success/failure of the parameter change.

The cited references collectively disclose (a) remote sensor-node reconfiguration and profiles (Terahop US 2009/0322510; FedEx US 2017/0013547) and (b) server-side sensor-parameter changing (Hitachi JP 2016-085602) — but none discloses element (2)/(3), the version-echo-and-collate confirmation mechanic, which is the patent's stated point of novelty over ACK-based confirmation and over packet-bloating parameter inclusion.

Most relevant prior art, ranked: (1) JP 2016-085602 A (server-side sensor parameter changing — the patent's own acknowledged starting point), (2) US 2009/0322510 A1 (remote sensor-node reconfiguration/profiles/ACK), (3) US 2017/0013547 A1 (server returns adjusted profile to node), and, in the wider family, (4) DE 10 2014 104305 A1 (checking current firmware version). All four are § 103-combination candidates at most; none is a § 102 anticipation.

Confidence and caveats:

• High confidence on the bibliographic/dating facts drawn from the authoritative full text and Google Patents.
• Moderate confidence on descriptions of US 2018/0336513 A1, US 2019/0365308 A1, and US 2020/0360696 A1 — I could not retrieve their full specifications before hitting the search limit; their descriptions here are inferred from their titles, assignees, and fields and should be verified against the actual documents if they become material.
• The § 102 "no anticipation" conclusion rests on the claim text supplied in the full patent record; a definitive validity (as opposed to anticipation) opinion would require the complete file wrapper (office actions, applicant remarks) from USPTO PatentCenter, which I could not open directly.

I'll analyze obviousness using the prior-art references listed on the patent's page (Citations and Family Cites Families), and pull details on the key references to ground the mapping.

Now let me pull details on the remaining cited references to complete the mapping.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,996,076 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Patent: US 10,996,076 B2 — "Sensor device management method and sensor device management system" (Hitachi, Ltd.)
Application: US 16/408,498; filed 2019-05-10; issued 2021-05-04
Priority: JP 2018-107510, 2018-06-05 → AIA § 102/103 applies; the critical date for prior-art status is 2018-06-05
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10996076/en

References used (from the "Prior Art"/Citations and Family Cites Families sections of the page). I verified the disclosures of the key references below. Where I could not verify a reference's actual disclosure, I say so and do not rely on it.

Also noted (unverified, from "Similar Documents," not the Prior Art lists — flagged as supplementary): US 8,572,600 B2 (Method for updating firmware of sensor nodes on the wireless sensor network), CN 106790131 B (Parameter modification method and device …), and JP 6811928 B2 (device for verifying the identity of the operating rules of sensor devices). These are published pre-2018 art and would strengthen any § 103 case, but I do not rely on them because I did not verify their text. Note: US 11,133,900 B2 / JP 7195976 B2 share this patent's title and appear to be same-family/related Hitachi filings — they are not prior art.

---

1. Legal framework and level of ordinary skill

Under Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a claim is obvious if the differences between the claim and the prior art would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the effective filing date, with the scope/content of the art, the level of skill, and any secondary considerations considered. KSR permits combination where the references come from the same field or the combination is "a predictable variation" or "obvious to try," where there is a "design need or market pressure," and where a "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" exists.

PHOSITA (proposed): a person with at least a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science (or equivalent) and about 3–5 years of experience in wireless sensor networks, remote/IoT device management, or telemetry systems — including experience with configuration/parameter management of field devices over lossy wireless links. This is a routine skill level, and the asserted subject matter (parameter delivery, version tracking, packet composition, database bookkeeping) is squarely within it.

A key Graham factor here is the patent's own specification. It expressly admits as known:

• ACK-based confirmation of a parameter change ("the sensor device returns an ACK response for the parameter change instruction packet … the management server determines that the parameter change instruction has succeeded on reception of ACK"); and
• sending the entire parameter set back with the measurement data ("there is a method in which the parameters set for the sensor devices are added to measurement data transmitted from the sensor devices to the management server").

Those admissions narrow the disputed difference to a single design choice: replace the full parameter-set echo with a compact "change management information" token (a version identifier), and let the server collate it against what it holds. Under KSR, choosing a smaller identifier over a larger payload is a predictable optimization driven by the very constraints the spec recites (wireless band, battery). See § 3.5.

---

2. Element-by-element mapping of the independent claims

Claim 1 (method) — element chart

Claim 10 (system) — element chart

Conclusion on the independent claims: every element of claims 1 and 10 is taught, and the only feature in the patent's argued point of novelty (=earlier/after parameter state) is disclosed in substance by PA-1 and PA-2's version-comparison teachings.

---

3. Combinations that render the claims obvious

3.1 Combination A (strongest): Terahop '510 + JP 2016-85602, optionally + Infobionic '963

• PA-1 (Terahop '510) supplies the collation mechanism: a wireless field device stores a list of configuration profiles; the server sends a profile identifier plus an instruction; the device compares the received identifier to its stored list and reports the identifier back to a remote database, which compares the reported identifier with its stored profiles to determine whether/which configuration the device is running (claim 4 thereof). This is, in structure, "change management information" that the device echoes and the server collates to determine the state of a parameter change.
• PA-3 (JP 2016-85602) supplies the sensor-parameter-change context (a processing server that changes sensor parameters of deployed sensors).
• PA-6 (Infobionic '963) supplies the motivation: the deliberate use of a reduced payload from the field device specifically to conserve the wireless link and device power, with the server acting on the reduced report.

Motivation to combine (KSR rationales):

1. Same field / same problem: all three concern a remote server managing distributed wireless field devices whose operation depends on configuration the server dispatches; the problem of knowing whether the dispatched configuration actually took effect at the device is inherent to that field.
2. Predictable result: combining a known version/ID-collation handshake (PA-1/PA-2) with a known remote sensor-parameter-change workflow (PA-3) yields nothing more than the expected sum of their parts — the server confirms the sensor's applied version by the sensor's own report.
3. Design incentive / market pressure: the patent itself identifies the pressure (downlink packets can be dropped; the application server needs to know which parameters produced which data). PA-1 already solves the analogous "which profile is the device actually on?" problem.
4. Finite, predictable solutions: given the problem "confirm a configuration change on a battery-powered wireless node," the identified solutions are (i) ACK handshake (admitted known), (ii) echo the full parameter set with data (admitted known), and (iii) echo a compact version/ID with data. Option (iii) is the predictable optimization PA-6 motivates.

3.2 Combination B: JP 2016-85602 + DE'305 (Endress+Hauser) / US 2015/0277903 A1 + FedEx '547

• PA-3 = remote sensor parameter change.
• PA-2 = storing a table of version numbers for a sensor, ascertaining the sensor's actual version number, and comparing actual vs. stored to determine device state and generate a report. Replace "firmware version read by a transmitter" with "parameter-set version reported by the node over the network" — a substitution of one known version-tracking mechanism for another, yielding the same known result (state determination).
• PA-4 (FedEx '547) = the node-to-server data reporting channel and the server→node adjustment channel, i.e. the vehicle by which the version is carried together with measurement data.

3.3 Combination C (packet-composition rationale): any of A/B + Infobionic '963 / Terahop '510

The claimed sub-step of co-transmitting the change-management information with the measurement data (rather than as a separate control packet) is the ordinary practice of piggybacking status metadata on telemetry reports, which PA-4 (node reports data plus node state) and PA-1 (device check-in/beacon messages carrying identifiers) both show. The spec's own admission that the full parameter set was already being appended to measurement data means the claimed step differs only in what is appended (a compact version token vs. a full set) — a predictable size/robustness tradeoff.

3.4 Dependent claims 2–9 and 11

Claims 2–9 and 11 therefore add nothing that is not a conventional implementation detail (tables, flags, counters, retransmission) or an express teaching of the cited art.

3.5 The specification's admissions strengthen, not defeat, the § 103 case

The Background states that (i) ACK-based confirmation was known, and (ii) attaching the parameter set to measurement data was known. The claim's twist — sending a compact version token instead — is the substitution of a smaller, lower-power identifier for the known, larger payload to solve precisely the bandwidth/battery problem the spec recites, a problem PA-6 explicitly addresses by sending "less detailed data." Under KSR, a "change in a known device … dictated by design incentives" is obvious. No reference teaches away: the art uniformly pursues more efficient, more reliable confirmation of remote configuration, which is the same direction as the claim.

---

4. What a PHOSITA would have been motivated to do (composite narrative)

A PHOSITA in June 2018, told to build a system that (a) pushes changed parameters to battery-powered wireless sensor nodes and (b) lets the back end know which parameter set produced each measurement, would:

1. look to networked-asset-management art for how servers confirm a device's applied configuration — and would find PA-1 (Terahop '510), which already has the device report a configuration identifier that the remote database collates against stored profiles, and PA-2 (Endress+Hauser), which compares a device's actual version number against a stored table to determine device state;
2. look to sensor-telemetry art for the reporting channel — and would find PA-4 (FedEx) and PA-6 (Infobionic), which report node/sensor data (and node state) to a server that then issues adjustments;
3. recognize that appending a compact version token to the existing measurement report (instead of the whole parameter set, or instead of relying on a droppable ACK) is the natural, low-risk optimization for a lossy, power-constrained uplink — an "obvious to try" and predictable variation, not an inventive leap.

Each reference is analogous art (same field of remotely-managed distributed devices / wireless node networks), the combination is a mere aggregation of known functions with no unexpected result, and the record contains no asserted secondary consideration (no unexpected results, no evidence of long-felt need, no nexus-bearing commercial success) that I could identify.

---

5. Likely strongest obviousness rejection (summary)

A three-or-four-reference rejection along the lines of Terahop '510 (US 2009/0322510 A1) in view of Endress+Hauser DE'305 / US 2015/0277903 A1, further in view of FedEx US 2017/0013547 A1, and optionally Infobionic US 10,282,963 B2, or alternatively JP 2016-85602 in view of Terahop '510 and Infobionic '963, would, in my assessment, render claims 1 and 10 obvious, with claims 2–9 and 11 obvious as conventional implementation choices or as expressly taught (claim 8 in particular being squarely taught by Endress+Hauser's version-number table).

Practical caveat: Terahop '510's profile-identifier handshake is a configuration/profile handshake (and its remote comparison occurs when the device lacks the profile); it does not in terms say the identifier is embedded in a measurement data packet or that the server treats a match as "the parameter change succeeded." Those gaps are closed by the ordinary practice taught in PA-4/PA-6 (piggybacking node state on data reports; reduced-payload reporting) plus the spec's admissions. A petitioner/applicant contesting obviousness would likely focus on those two gaps — but each is a predictable design choice under KSR, so I rate the overall § 103 challenge as strong (moderate-to-high confidence).

---

6. Points a patentee could argue (and my assessment)

1. "No reference teaches echoing the version inside the measurement packet." Partially true as to explicit words, but PA-4/PA-1 teach reports carrying both data and state/identifiers, and the spec admits appending the full parameter set to measurement data — so the difference is only what is appended. Weak-to-moderate defense.
2. "No reference teaches that a match means the change succeeded." PA-1's server-side comparison and PA-2's "is the current version present?" determination both reach the same logical conclusion (does the device have what I think it has?). Moderate defense at best.
3. "Unexpected robustness for asymmetric uplink/downlink." The spec asserts the approach is "especially effective" where uplink and downlink quality differ — but that is a straightforward consequence of using the device's own uplink report rather than a downlink/ACK confirmation, not an unexpected result. Weak defense absent evidence.
4. No secondary considerations on the record. I found none (see the Litigation summary — no assertion, no known commercial-success evidence tied to the claims).

---

7. Caveats, dates, and confidence

• Prior-art status is date-sensitive and I applied it strictly. PA-8 (US 2020/0360696 A1) has an effective filing of 2019-05-16 and therefore cannot be § 102/103 art against this patent — I excluded it despite its appearance in the page's citation list. PA-7 (US 2019/0365308 A1) published after the priority date but has an effective filing of 2018-06-01, so it could only be § 102(a)(2) art; I do not rely on it because I could not verify its disclosure.
• JP 6653233 B2 (FF-4) has an appealing title ("Measurement system, sensor device, and control method of measurement system") and a 2016-09-14 priority, but as a JP B2 it published 2020-02-26 — after the critical date. It would only be citable via its earlier JP A-publication; I did not verify that publication, so I did not rely on it. The same non-reliance applies to JP 4661136 B2, JP 2002-247665 A, and JP 6728014 B2, whose disclosures I could not verify.
• "Similar Documents" references (US 8,572,600 B2; CN 106790131 B; JP 6811928 B2) are not in the page's Prior Art lists and I did not verify them; if verified, they would likely reinforce the § 103 case (sensor-node firmware update; parameter modification; verifying the identity of sensor operating rules).
• Family/same-title documents (US 11,133,900 B2; JP 7195976 B2) appear to be related Hitachi filings and are not prior art.
• Overall confidence: High that the combination of Terahop '510 + Endress+Hauser (version comparison) + a node-reporting reference (FedEx '547 / Infobionic '963) renders claims 1 and 10 obvious, and that claims 2–9/11 add only conventional detail. Moderate that an examiner/petitioner would assemble exactly this combination, given the need to bridge the "version echoed in the measurement packet" and "match = success" gaps by appeal to ordinary practice and the applicant's own admissions.

Bottom line: On the prior art of record, US 10,996,076 is, in my assessment, vulnerable to a § 103 challenge. The patent's contribution over the admitted background (ACK confirmation; full-parameter-set echo) is a compact version-token echo collated server-side — a mechanism that Terahop '510 (device reports a config identifier that a remote database collates against stored profiles) and Endress+Hauser (compare a device's actual version against a stored version table to determine device state) together disclose in substance, with Infobionic/FedEx supplying both the reduced-payload motivation and the data-report vehicle.