US 11047649

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

Let me run additional targeted searches on litigation and docket activity.

Patent Summary — US 11,047,649 B2

Note on scope of my search: I ran multiple targeted searches against public patent and court records. I found no CAFC 2026 docket, no district court complaint, no PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR), and no litigation referencing US 11,047,649 (or "11,047,649"). I cannot rule out sealed or very recently filed matters, but I have no authoritative evidence of any such case and will not speculate. Everything below is grounded in the patent document itself, which I treated as authoritative over search results.

Bibliographic data

Family: This is a divisional of US 16/224,919 (now US 10,663,262 B2, "Method of manufacturing a firearm accessory mount"), which is a continuation of US 14/996,720 (pub. US 2017/0205200 A1, abandoned) — all claiming the Jan. 15, 2016 priority date. Notably, the parent '262 patent is directed to the method of manufacture, while the claims of this '649 divisional are directed to the physical intermediate assembly produced by that method.

Abstract (verbatim)

"A firearm accessory mount is described herein. The firearm accessory mount is manufactured by securing a raw amount of material, shaping the raw amount of material to generate receiving structures positioned on a mounting base along a common axis, forming apertures through the receiving structures to form accessory rings along a single axis from one direction and at least substantially dividing each of the accessory rings into receivers and caps."

Plain-language overview of the sole independent claim (claim 1)

Claim 1 is an apparatus claim to a "firearm accessory intermediary assembly" — i.e., the partially finished scope mount as it leaves the factory, before the user breaks the caps off:

• A mounting base with a first end and a second end.
• A first accessory ring extending from the first end, made of a first receiver and a first cap that together form a first internal passageway oriented about a longitudinal axis of the mounting base. The receiver and cap are held together by two slivers of "manually breakable" material (one on each side of the ring).
• A second accessory ring extending from the second end, similarly comprising a second receiver and second cap forming a second internal passageway about the same longitudinal axis, held together by a third and a fourth sliver of manually breakable material.
• The first and second internal passageways are aligned with one another.
• The key limitation: the slivers on each ring are configured to operate as hinges — the first pair permits the first cap to rotate relative to the first receiver about a first axis, and the second pair permits the second cap to rotate relative to the second receiver about a second axis.

In substance, the claim covers a one-piece-machined scope mount in which each ring's upper cap is still factory-attached by thin, frangible webs — webs that double as living hinges so the user can fold the cap open to seat the scope tube (FIG. 13), then snap it off (FIG. 14) and buff the residue.

Dependent claims (2–13), briefly

• 2–3: passageways are ring-shaped; and concentrically aligned.
• 4–5, 7: planar channels separate cap from receiver, running from the ring's outer surface inward to the sliver; two such channels per ring (one on each side).
• 6: receiver and cap each form equal halves of the passageway circumference.
• 8: the cap is configured to be manually separated by bending it away.
• 9–10: the slivers have a thickness of about 0.003 in. to about 0.005 in. (matching the spec's stated range).
• 11: the two caps are geometrically identical and the two receivers are geometrically identical.
• 12: the passageways are formed with a tool proceeding in a single motion along a single axis — the manufacturing-origin limitation traceable to the process claims in the parent.
• 13: each sliver extends transversely relative to the mounting base's longitudinal axis.

Figures referenced in the claim / spec

FIG. 1 (firearm system), FIG. 2 (finished mount 120 with rings 106a/106b), FIG. 3 (method flowchart, ops 150–160), FIGS. 4–11 (clamped raw extrusion through shaping, boring, and dividing), FIGS. 12–14 (the sliver 239, the folded cap, and the snapped-off cap).

Practical/technical point from the specification

The stated motivation is machining accuracy: the bores are formed after shaping and before the caps are cut, and from a single direction along one axis while the workpiece is held in one clamp, so both rings' passageways stay concentric and the cap/receiver clamping surfaces stay matched — avoiding the springing, distortion, and eccentric-bore problems the patent identifies in prior manufacturing approaches.

Uncertainty flags

• I have no authoritative information on any litigation, PTAB challenge, or CAFC appeal involving this patent; my searches returned nothing on point and several near-miss "11047649" strings in unrelated contexts (e.g., a UK Companies House filing number). Treat the "no litigation found" statement as a search finding, not a certified litigation clear.
• The Google Patents record lists the current assignee as WHG Properties LLC; I did not independently verify the chain of title in the USPTO assignment database.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11047649 across patent litigation databases.

Initial searches returned mostly unrelated results. Let me target litigation-specific databases directly.

Let me run more targeted searches on litigation databases and case dockets.

Findings: Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 11,047,649

No litigation or post-grant proceedings involving U.S. Patent No. 11,047,649 were found.

Based on searches across patent litigation resources (Unified Patents litigation portal, Justia dockets, CourtListener/RECAP, Docket Alarm, uspto.report, and general web searches for the patent number and its title), I could not identify any:

• District court infringement actions naming the '649 patent
• ITC Section 337 investigations
• PTAB proceedings (IPR, PGR, or CBM) against the '649 patent
• CAFC appeals involving the '649 patent

I want to be explicit that this is a negative finding based on public search coverage, not a certification. PACER itself is paywalled and not directly searchable here, so my result is limited to what freely indexed litigation databases surface. It is possible a case exists that these sources have not indexed, particularly a recently filed action.

Important note on identifiers (avoiding false matches)

My searches surfaced several similar but distinct identifiers that must NOT be conflated with this patent:

These are not U.S. Patent 11,047,649 and I have excluded them.

Context on the patent (why litigation may be limited)

• Patent: U.S. 11,047,649 B2, "Firearm accessory mount," issued June 29, 2021; assignee WHG Properties, LLC; inventor William H. Geissele.
• Prosecution chain: App. No. 16/659,948 (filed Oct. 22, 2019) is a divisional of App. No. 16/224,919 (issued as U.S. 10,663,262, "Method of manufacturing a firearm accessory mount"), which is a continuation of App. No. 14/996,720 (published as US 2017/0205200 A1, abandoned), all claiming priority to Jan. 15, 2016.
• The '649 claims are directed to a "firearm accessory intermediary assembly" — i.e., a partially manufactured scope-mount workpiece in which receiver and cap halves are joined by "manually breakable" slivers that act as hinges (claims 1–13). Because this claims an intermediate manufacturing state, it is the type of claim less commonly asserted offensively, which may explain the absence of litigation.

Recommended next steps if you need higher confidence

1. Direct PACER docket search (all district courts) for "11,047,649."
2. USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board end-to-end search for the patent number and its family members.
3. CAFC docket and opinion search.
4. Check the related patents in the family (U.S. 10,663,262 and the abandoned 14/996,720) — litigation is sometimes filed on a sibling/continuation rather than this specific divisional. If you'd like, I can search for litigation on those related numbers instead.

If you can confirm a specific court or time window, I can refine the search further.

I'll start by verifying the structured data's "no proceedings" result against public sources.

No hits on the patent number itself. Let me run targeted searches on the patent owner, inventor, and related family members to be thorough.

Let me do a final verification pass — checking the sibling/parent patent and any litigation-driven challenges.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on U.S. Patent 11,047,649: 0 (zero). The USPTO Open Data Portal structured block returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings, and my web-search verification pass found no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or Federal Circuit appeal directed at this patent number or its parent (U.S. 10,663,262). The breakdown by status is therefore: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0. Defensive posture: the patent is completely untested at the PTAB — there is no estoppel, no cancellation, and no adjudicated narrowing. For a defendant, that cuts both ways: the § 315(e)(2) estoppel bar that normally constrains a second-challenger does not exist here, so the full prior-art universe is still on the table for a first-filed IPR, but you also get no free invalidity roadmap and must build the record yourself. Note that the absence of IPRs on a 2016-priority patent that has been in a real, litigated product portfolio is itself a modest signal — the portfolio has been enforced (see adjacent activity below), which means challengers have had the opportunity and, so far, have picked different patents.

---

Proceedings on this patent

None. No AIA trial proceeding has been filed on U.S. 11,047,649 as of 2026-09-29 per the USPTO Open Data Portal ingest, and no public record of one surfaced in searching PTAB decision databases, Google Patents' patent page (fetched 2026-09-24, which lists no PTAB/litigation entries), Docket Alarm, or general web sources. I cannot prove a negative with certainty from web search alone; the claim that none exists rests primarily on the ODP structured data, which is authoritative for indexed proceedings.

To be explicit about what I did not find, so nothing is mistaken for a finding: I found no IPR20XX-00XXX number, no Board panel, no institution decision, no FWD, and no CAFC docket naming this patent. I am not supplying a proceeding number here, because no legitimate one exists to supply.

---

Adjacent PTAB activity (same patent owner, DIFFERENT patent — flagged because it is the piece a defendant will actually care about)

This is not a proceeding on 11,047,649. It is included only because it is the one PTAB action involving this patent owner that surfaced, and it establishes the enforcement context.

IPR2020-00373 — Lewis Machine & Tool Company v. WHG Properties, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (on U.S. Patent 7,600,338 B2 — a trigger patent, not the '649 mount patent)
• Filed: 2020-01-14
• Status: Institution granted (Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review, 2020-07-27)
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges James A. Tartal, Robert L. Kinder, and Avelyn M. Ross
• Petition grounds: sole challenged claim was claim 7 of the '338 patent; ground was anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by U.S. Patent No. 2,366,823 to Williams ("Williams '823")
• Institution decision: instituted on claim 7, the panel finding Petitioner had "established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of the claim challenged in the Petition." (35 U.S.C. § 314(a))
• Real parties in interest: Petitioner = Lewis Machine & Tool Company. Patent Owner stated the RPIs include WHG Properties, LLC, Geissele Automatics, LLC, Geissele Automatics, Inc., and Gwynedd Manufacturing, Inc.
• Related litigation: Geissele Automatics, LLC and WHG Properties, LLC v. Lewis Machine & Tool Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-04030-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.) — the '338 patent was asserted there
• Settlement / appeal / FWD: I did not verify the outcome of the trial or any appeal in this pass, and I will not guess at it. Treat the FWD disposition as unverified.
• Source: institution decision at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2020-00373/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._7600338/docs/07-27-2020-Board/Institution_Decision-6-Decision_Granting_Institution_of_Inter_Partes_Review.pdf

Why it matters here: it shows (a) the Geissele/WHG portfolio has been challenged and litigated, and (b) the challenger was a direct competitor (LMT), not a defensive aggregator. But it was aimed at the trigger patent, not the scope-mount patent. No Unified Patents or other aggregator activity on the '649 patent surfaced in search.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: all 13 claims of 11,047,649 are UNTESTED. Claims 1-13 stand as issued on 2021-06-29, with no PTAB cancellation and no adjudicated construction. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim; claims 2-13 depend from it. As issued, the claims are drafted to an "intermediary assembly" — a pre-separation manufacturing state in which each cap is held to its receiver by "manually breakable" slivers that "operate as hinges" (claim 1), with dependent claims reciting ring-shaped and concentrically aligned passageways (2, 3), planar dividing channels (4, 5, 7), equal half-circumference splits (6), manual separation by bending (8), sliver thickness of about 0.003-0.005 inches (9, 10), geometric identity of the two caps/receivers (11), formation "with a tool proceeding through a single motion along a single axis" (12), and slivers extending transversely to the longitudinal axis (13). Because the asserted article is an intermediate rather than a finished mount, claim scope and infringement (direct infringement by whom, and at what point in the supply chain) is arguably the sharper fight than invalidity — worth testing early. Also note the immediate family: the divisional parent U.S. 10,663,262 covers the method of manufacture, and the original application US 2017/0205200 A1 went abandoned. A defendant facing a demand letter should confirm which family member is actually being asserted.

Estoppel landscape: none. Because no IPR, PGR, or CBM was ever instituted on this patent, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is entirely inapplicable — no petitioner or privy is barred from any ground. Every prior-art ground that could have been raised is still available, including grounds a prior petitioner actually raised. That makes this patent unusually attractive as a first-filed IPR target for a defendant: no procedural penalty, and your petition will be the one that shapes the intrinsic record. Two constraints to keep in mind: (1) the one-year § 315(b) clock starts on service of a complaint alleging infringement — do not let it run; and (2) on the art itself, the examiner's cited references were thin — the face of the patent cites U.S. 4,531,321 (Bechtel), U.S. 5,946,006 (Horton), US 2013/0312309 (Rorick), and USD 715,393, plus two non-patent items that are unusually on-point for a manufacturing-method challenge: a 2009 Calguns.net forum thread and a 2009 Thirdeyetactical YouTube video titled "scope ring manufacture" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rscui45sGA). The YouTube video is worth pulling as potential § 102 art against the '262 method claims and as context for the '649 apparatus claims.

Pattern signals. Single-patent-owner, single-competitor enforcement so far: the only confirmed PTAB challenge in this portfolio is LMT's IPR2020-00373 against the '338 trigger patent, running parallel to the C.D. Ill. suit. No serial filer, no aggregator, no confirmed PTAB appeal by the patent owner. The patent owner is a small entity (WHG Properties, LLC, North Wales, PA; entity status "small" per the 2019-11-06 fee event), the 4th-year maintenance fee was paid 2024-12-11, and the adjusted expiration is 2036-06-04 — so there is a long runway of remaining life and every incentive to assert. Inventor of record: William H. Geissele.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Check the negative directly at the source. Run the patent number in PTAB E2E / PTAB Center search (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/) and re-query the USPTO ODP API for both 11,047,649 and 10,663,262. Verify at Patent Center whether any ex parte reexamination request has been filed (not an AIA trial, so outside the ODP block) — that is the most likely first challenge to an untested patent.
2. If you are a defendant being asserted, calendar § 315(b) immediately. No estoppel and no prior petition means you are the first mover on invalidity; file within one year of service of the complaint.
3. Do not cite a "survived two IPRs, therefore hardened" narrative — it is false here. The correct framing in a demand-letter response is: no tribunal has ever tested these claims, the asserted article is a manufacturing intermediate, and claim 1's "manually breakable … operate as hinges" limitations invite both a § 112 indefiniteness fight and a § 103 fight on the 2009 scope-ring manufacturing art.
4. Get the '262 parent's file history and the '338 IPR2020-00373 final written decision. The '338 FWD (if it issued) will tell you how the Board treats this patent owner's claims and claim-construction positions, which is useful leverage even though the patents differ; the '262 prosecution history will define the surrender that constrains the '649 claims.
5. Flag for monitoring. If I find a newly filed petition on 11,047,649 in a later pass, the relevant milestones to track under 35 U.S.C. § 316 are: institution decision deadline (6 months from petition filing), oral hearing, and the FWD due date (statutory 1 year from institution, extendable up to 6 months for good cause / joinder).

Caveat on sourcing: the structured ODP block is authoritative and empty; my web verification is consistent with it but I did not exhaustively query every PTAB docket. If you have a litigation docket number where 11,047,649 is asserted, I can cross-check for a co-pending IPR that ODP may not yet have indexed.

I'll research the assignment record for this patent, starting with targeted searches on the USPTO assignment databases and related ownership records.

Let me dig into the ownership chain and any recorded assignments.

Let me try to directly access the USPTO assignment records and related ownership documentation.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 11,047,649 B2

Sourcing caveat up front (read before the verdict): I attempted to reconstruct this chain from publicly indexed records of the USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / the legacy assignment.uspto.gov mirror) plus Google Patents legal events, the patent's own front-matter, PTAB filings, and Justia/UniCourt dockets. I was not able to authenticate a live query against the Assignment Center API within this session, and my web search surfaced no assignment instrument (no reel/frame, no conveyance, no recorded correspondent) for patent 11,047,649 or its application 16/659,948. Because I cannot prove a negative against a paywalled/unindexed database, I am treating this as "no recorded assignment found" rather than certifying that none exists. I will not invent a reel/frame. Everything below is grounded in documents I actually retrieved, and I flag the uncertainty explicitly.

---

Inventors

Pattern check — no abandonment signal. The "all inventors departed within 12 months" fire-sale tell is absent. Geissele did not depart; he is the assignee's principal. As late as August 2, 2020 he personally executed the patent owner's power of attorney in LMT v. WHG Properties, IPR2020-00373, signing as "CEO, WHG Properties, LLC." A single-founder/single-inventor portfolio controlled by the assignee's own CEO is the opposite of the leakage pattern that precedes a portfolio sale.

---

Original assignee

• Entity of record: WHG Properties, LLC, North Wales, PA (800 North Wales Road, North Wales, PA 19454, per the PTAB mandatory notices).
• Primary line of business: Firearms and firearm accessories — the operating side of Geissele Automatics (triggers, handguards, rails, muzzle devices, optic mounts, and the scope mount at issue here). Geissele is an established, commercially visible firearm-parts brand, not a licensing vehicle.
• Corporate status: Operating. The PTAB record lists the related real parties-in-interest as WHG Properties, LLC; Geissele Automatics, LLC; Geissele Automatics, Inc.; and Gwynedd Manufacturing, Inc., all at the same North Wales, PA address — i.e., a group of affiliated operating/manufacturing entities, with Geissele as the founder/CEO.
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes — the '649 spec (FIGS. 1–2, mount 104/120) describes the very product the company sells as a scope/accessory mount. This is a product line, not a paper asset.
• Entity status: Small entity (Google Patents legal events show entity status set to SMALL on 2019-11-06; the 4th-year maintenance fee was paid 2024-12-11 as a small entity).
• Minor data inconsistency to flag: A trademark-supplemental-register entry surfaced in search lists "WHG PROPERTIES, LLC (MINNESOTA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY) … NORRISTOWN, MN 19403." The "MN/Minneapolis" state notation is almost certainly a transcription/OCR error for Pennsylvania (Norristown, PA), since every other record places WHG at a Pennsylvania address. I am flagging the discrepancy rather than relying on it.

Rebuttal to the "no litigation found" note in the prior sections

The earlier-generated summaries said no litigation exists anywhere in this portfolio. That is incomplete. I retrieved a live docket: Geissele Automatics, LLC and WHG Properties, LLC v. Lewis Machine & Tool Company, No. 4:19-cv-04030-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), filed 2019-02-12, asserting U.S. 7,600,338 (a trigger patent) — stayed, with a parallel IPR (IPR2020-00373, institution granted 2020-07-27). This is family-adjacent, not this patent: the '649 mount patent itself still appears un-litigated. So the correct statement is "the '649 patent isn't the asserted instrument; its owner is an active litigant on other patents."

---

Assignment timeline

No recorded assignment instrument was found for US 11,047,649 (or for application 16/659,948).

• No recorded Assignor's Interest conveyance, no Security Agreement, no Merger, no Change of Name, and no License/Release record tying this patent number to a reel/frame was located in indexed sources.
• Google Patents shows Original Assignee = WHG Properties, LLC and Current Assignee = WHG Properties, LLC — identical. That congruence is itself evidence that ownership never moved post-issuance (a recorded transfer would ordinarily flip the "current assignee" field).
• The patent's own legal-events block (as ingested) lists only prosecution/grant/fee events — no assignment entries.

What this means practically: the inventor-to-corporate assignment almost certainly exists in the USPTO record (the issued patent names WHG Properties as assignee at grant, which normally presumes a recorded or file-accessible assignment from Geissele), but I could not surface it, and I will not fabricate a reel/frame or a correspondent for it. There is no post-issuance assignment chain to reconstruct, which is the single most important finding for the NPE question.

Per the task's own rule: because the retrievable Assignment Center record is empty for this patent, I state that plainly here. I nonetheless complete the remaining required sections so the verdict is on the record, marking each signal against concrete, retrievable facts rather than against a non-existent reel/frame.

Attorneys/correspondents surfaced (context, NOT a recorded assignment correspondent)

I could not identify an assignment-record correspondent. What I can document is the prosecution/enforcement counsel of record, which is the same info a repeat-correspondent analysis would want:

• Patent-prosecution firms on WHG family patents (from retrieved front pages): Merchant & Gould, P.C. (older WHG design patents, e.g., D759,188; D790,029) and Fox Rothschild LLP (newer, e.g., D886,933).
• PTAB/enforcement counsel for WHG in IPR2020-00373: Christopher TL Douglas (Reg. 56,950), Blas P. Arroyo (Reg. 31,319), M. Scott Stevens (Reg. 54,762), all associated with Customer No. 00826 (Ballard Spahr-type prosecution customer number), per the signed power of attorney (Aug. 2, 2020).
• Plaintiff-side counsel in the C.D. Ill. action: William Bogot (noted in docket) — the firm is Barnes & Thornburg (not independently verified here).

These are operating-company litigation/prosecution counsel, not a shell-entity recording agent. That distinction matters: recurring NPE correspondents are the tell; the counsel here are ordinary corporate IP firms.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11047649
    2016 : Geissele files 14/996720
    2018 : Continuation 16/224919 filed
    2019 : Divisional 16/659948 filed
         : Geissele sues LMT on 338 patent
    2020 : PTAB IPR2020-00373 instituted
    2021 : 649 issues to WHG Properties
    2024 : 4th year maintenance fee paid
    2026 : Still owned by WHG Properties

(All events are grounded in the patent record, the Google Patents legal-events block, or the retrieved PTAB/docket documents. No assignment event is plotted because none was retrieved.)

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

WHG Properties, LLC is simultaneously the original assignee (Google Patents, front-matter) and the current assignee, with no recorded post-issuance assignment in any indexed source — the patent was never transferred to a licensing shell. The assignee is a bona fide small-entity firearms manufacturer (Geissele Automatics) whose product line includes the very scope/accessory mount of FIGS. 1–2, and enforcement in this portfolio runs in the owner's own name and its operating affiliate's name (e.g., Geissele Automatics, LLC and WHG Properties, LLC v. Lewis Machine & Tool Co., No. 4:19-cv-04030-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), filed 2019-02-12, over the sibling '338 patent; parallel to IPR2020-00373). That combination — product-shipping owner, self-named assertion against a direct competitor, stable ownership — is the definition of operating-company assertion, not an NPE posture.

Confidence caveat: this verdict rests on (a) the absence of any recorded assignment in indexed sources and (b) the matching "original = current assignee" fields. If a post-issuance assignment exists that the public indices have not surfaced, the verdict would need revisiting — but nothing retrieved supports that, and I found no shell/asserter/aggregator name anywhere in the chain.

Verification link (Assignment Center, search by patent number 11047649):
https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (legacy mirror indexing the same records: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html)

Suggested follow-up to close the remaining gap:

1. Query the Assignment Center directly for 11047649 and 16/659,948 and capture the inventor→WHG Properties assignment instrument (reel/frame + recording correspondent). This is the only link I could not retrieve.
2. Pull the Assignment Center record for the parent 10,663,262 and the abandoned 14/996,720 — a chain, if any exists, would most likely be visible on the original application.
3. Confirm no Change of Name record reflects a "WHG Properties" reorganization around the Geissele Automatics, Inc. / Gwynedd Manufacturing, Inc. RPI entities.

Note on conflicts with prior sections: the earlier litigation/PTAB summaries stated "no litigation" portfolio-wide; the PTAB section correctly later identified IPR2020-00373 and the C.D. Ill. suit. I am adopting the PTAB section's finding as correct and flagging the earlier "no litigation everywhere" statement as an overstatement — but none of it touches the '649 patent itself, which remains uncontested and unchanged in ownership.

I'll search the USPTO/public patent databases for the specific patent number and its cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,047,649 B2

0. Identification / verification note

Searching for the literal number 11047649 returns the correct record — U.S. 11,047,649 B2, "Firearm accessory mount," App. No. 16/659,948, WHG Properties LLC / inventor William H. Geissele. I did not substitute any similar number (the litigation pass already flagged the near-miss identifiers — UK company no. 11047649, US 10,371,486, US 10,047,649 — and those are not this patent). All citation data below is taken from the patent's own face (Google Patents citation table, fetched 2026‑09‑24), which I treat as authoritative, supplemented where a search confirmed the reference's substance. References marked * are examiner‑cited; unmarked references were cited in the prosecution/IDS.

---

1. The § 102 problem specific to this patent (read this before the table)

Claim 1 is the only independent claim, and it claims an "intermediary assembly" whose point of novelty is the joint between cap and receiver:

"…the first receiver and the first cap being coupled together by a first and a second sliver of manually breakable material… configured to operate as hinges…"

No cited reference discloses a frangible/hingeing sliver. Every scope-mount reference on the face of the patent shows a cap and a receiver that are separate parts bolted together, or a one-piece ring, or a design-patent silhouette. That means:

• Claim 1 is not anticipated by any cited reference. The cited art is at most § 103 material (single-piece machining + split-ring mounts + break-away/unitary-construction teachings).
• The § 102 exposure, if any, lives in the dependent claims — the features that are generic to split-ring scope mounts (ring-shaped bore, concentric bores, half-and-half circumference split, separable cap) rather than in the sliver/hinge mechanism.

I flag this up front because the honest answer to "which claims does each reference anticipate" is mostly "none of claim 1; subordinate features only." Treat any statement to the contrary as unsupported.

---

2. Reference-by-reference table

Non-patent literature (NPL)

---

3. The closest references (deep dive)

3.1 US 2016/0209176 A1 / US 9,441,915 B2 — Zimmer (Trent Zimmer), Modular scope mount assembly — the single most relevant cited art

• Why it matters: it is a scope mount with a base(s) + bridge + two scope rings (125a, 125b), where each ring is a lower ring portion (129a/b) and an upper ring portion (131a/b) secured by threaded fasteners (133) to form a complete ring around the scope tube. That is structurally a "receiver + cap forming an internal passageway" — i.e., the generic content of claim 1.
• Date issue worth flagging (do not skip): Zimmer was filed 2015‑01‑16 (published 2016‑07‑21). The '649 priority date is 2016‑01‑15. Because the '649 is post‑AIA (priority after 2013‑03‑16), AIA § 102(a)(2) applies, and a U.S. application publication "effectively filed before" the claimed invention qualifies as prior art as of its filing date, even though it published after. Zimmer was effectively filed one day before the '649 priority date — so it is available as § 102(a)(2) art, but only barely, and only as to subject matter supported by its 2015‑01‑16 filing. (Confirm the exact filing/priority chain in the Zimmer file before relying on this.)
• § 102 verdict: Zimmer can anticipate the ring-architecture dependent claims (2, 3, 6, 11) if its disclosure supports concentric two-ring geometry and equal splits. It cannot anticipate claim 1, because it discloses no frangible sliver and no hinge — its cap is held by bolts, not by manually breakable material.

3.2 US 2016/0341522 A1 / US 9,759,527 B2 — Don Davis, Scope mounting apparatus and shield

• Why it matters: ring = top member (206) removably coupled to bottom member (210), together defining an optic aperture (216) sized to clamp the scope tube. The disclosure also describes the manufacture: "machining the required features into a blank piece of material" and boring the threaded section — which maps directly onto the '649's claim‑12 "formed with a tool proceeding through a single motion along a single axis."
• Date: filed 2015‑05‑18 (published 2016‑11‑24; patent issued 2017‑09‑12) → effectively filed before 2016‑01‑15 → § 102(a)(2) art (another inventor, before the effective filing date).
• § 102 verdict: candidate against claims 2, 3, 6, 11 (split receiver/cap ring defining a circular aperture; equal halves), and § 103/§ 102(a)(2) fodder for claim 12 (single-axis machining). No claim-1 anticipation — the top member is a discrete bolted part; no breakable web.

3.3 US 2009/0278399 A1 — Srivats (Wheels India), Wheels of unitary construction and method of making same

• Why it matters: it is the cleanest teaching in the cited art of the "unitary construction from a single piece of material" premise — rim and disc "substantially contiguous," produced from one blank, "no parts to assemble." It supplies the motivation to make the whole mount one piece (the '649's structural starting point).
• § 102 verdict: not firearm art, not claim-1 art. Its role is purely § 103: combining "make a complex article unitarily from one blank" with a split-ring scope mount.

3.4 US 8,365,647 B2 — Lippard, Manufacturing process of a unitary barrel, chamber and action

• Same theme as Srivats but in firearms: machining a unitary barrel/chamber/action. Reinforces § 103 obviousness of the "machine the whole mount from one blank" approach. Not claim-1 anticipation.

3.5 The examiner's core scope-mount art (Bechtel '321; Talley '062; Keng's '854; Rorick '309; Korapaty '964; Horton '006)

These disclose the ordinary building blocks: a mounting base secured to the firearm + two rings that together define a scope tube passage. They are the natural § 103 base for claims 2–3 (ring-shaped/concentric) and, for the matched-ring references (Talley, Keng's), for claims 6 and 11 (equal splits / geometrically identical halves). None discloses the breakable sliver or hinge, so none reaches claim 1.

---

4. Bottom line per claim

---

5. Caveats and limits of this pass

• I did not exhaustively re-verify every one of the 34 patent citations at the USPTO database; my tool budget was exhausted partway through. References #2, #16, #32, #33/#34 were confirmed by search (§ 3); the remainder rest on the patent's own citation table plus the titles/assignees as listed there. Descriptions are drawn from titles and general field knowledge — verify each reference's actual disclosure before relying on it in a § 102/§ 103 chart.
• The "publication date" column is not the § 102 date for every reference. For post‑AIA references filed before 2016‑01‑15 but published after (Zimmer #32, Davis #33/#34, Leapers #31), the operative § 102 date is the effective filing date under § 102(a)(2), not the publication date. Confirm each reference's priority chain before asserting it.
• The citing/being-cited direction matters. Some entries in the Google Patents "Citations" table are references the '649 cites and some are family members of the same invention. Nothing in the '649's own family (US 2017/0205200 A1; US 10,663,262 B2) is prior art against it — same inventive entity.
• My consistent conclusion: the cited art is a § 103 record, not a § 102 record. The three references most worth pulling in full are Zimmer (US 2016/0209176 A1 / US 9,441,915), Don Davis (US 2016/0341522 A1 / US 9,759,527), and the Thirdeyetactical "scope ring manufacture" video — the first two for the split-ring/machining features of claims 2–6, 11–12, and the video for the parent's method claims. No cited reference anticipates independent claim 1.

I'll ground this analysis in the prior-art references actually listed on the patent's page. Let me pull the disclosures of the most relevant cited references first.

The Omark reference (US 4,574,508) looks potentially critical — the search snippet describes a cap "flexibly connected together at a joint above the center line." Let me pull that and several other cited references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,047,649 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note / grounding. This analysis is built from (i) the prior-art references listed on the '649 patent page (the "Patent Citations" and "Non-Patent Citations" sets) and (ii) the full disclosures I was able to retrieve for the key ones. I retrieved and read substantive text for Bechtel U.S. 4,531,321, Omark U.S. 4,574,508, Horton U.S. 5,941,006, Rorick U.S. 2013/0312309, and Zimmer U.S. 2016/0209176. For several cited references I could only confirm title/date (e.g., Talley U.S. 2014/0190062, Korapaty U.S. 5,926,964, Hollenbach U.S. 2009/0133311, Addy Sandler U.S. 2011/0099877 / 2014/0096429, Williams U.S. 2007/0266611, Swan U.S. 8,205,375); where I rely on those, I flag it as characterization, not verified disclosure. I do not fabricate quotes from references I did not read.

This builds on the earlier sections' conclusion that the claims are entirely untested (0 PTAB proceedings, no estoppel). That matters here: invalidity is the cleanest lever, and § 103 is where these claims are most exposed.

---

1. Governing framework and the hypothetical person of ordinary skill (PHOSITA)

Under Graham v. John Deere, obviousness turns on: (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) the PHOSITA's level of skill; and (4) secondary considerations. Under KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, the analysis permits combinations where the references teach, suggest, or motivate the combination; where the combination is of known elements performing known functions; where there is a design incentive or market pressure; or where the variation is an obvious one to try with a reasonable expectation of success.

PHOSITA (proposed): A person with a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering (or equivalent experience) and about 2–5 years designing precision firearm accessories or machined metal components — familiar with: conventional CNC milling/boring/lathe operations; extruded aluminum and the internal-stress/springback ("springing") behavior of extrusions when material is removed; the standard two-ring ("scope cradle + cap") architecture of optical-sight mounts; and standard fastening (screws, dovetails, interlocks). I'd argue for the lower end on education and the mid-range on experience, since the '649 problem space (machining accuracy of scope rings) is a practitioner's art, not an academic one.

Scope of prior art: The field is crowded and highly incremental — the '649 page itself cites 33–34 patent references and two non-patent items, almost all in F41G 11/00 or F41G 1/387 (firearm sight mounts). All references address the same core objectives: securely retaining a cylindrical scope tube, maintaining alignment/concentricity, resisting recoil, and being manufacturable at acceptable tolerances. That commonality strongly supports combining.

---

2. Element-by-element mapping of Claim 1

Claim 1 (sole independent claim) recites a "firearm accessory intermediary assembly" with:

Reading: limitations A, B, C, E, G are squarely met by any of several references. The only genuinely contested limitations are D/F (manually breakable sliver) and H (the sliver doubles as a hinge).

---

3. The primary combination: Bechtel '321 + Omark '508 (+ NPL) — Claim 1

3.1 Bechtel U.S. 4,531,321 — the mount architecture

Bechtel discloses a scope mount with a base (12), a rail (64) and a beam (70) to which "vertically split scope-mount rings" are bolted via bores 90/92 (see U.S. 4,531,321, cited at https://patents.justia.com/patent/4531321 and on the '649 page). It expressly teaches the accuracy problem the '649 specification repeats — the mount must achieve "essentially zero allowance," a "snug fit," so the parts do "not shake or move freely under a load." Bechtel thus supplies limitations A, B, C, E and G.

3.2 Omark U.S. 4,574,508 — the flexing/hinged cap

This is the most damaging reference and it is on the face of the '649 patent. Omark claims (claim 1):

"cap means flexibly connected together at a joint above the center line of the sight mount and connectable to the base portion … the joint … is dovetailed so that the first part flexibly interlocks with the second part …" and claim 17: "cap means comprising a first part and a second part flexibly connected together at a dovetailed joint above the center line …"

And the specification: "the cap means 12 to flex at the dovetail joint 16. The flexing permits increased surface area contact … between the telescopic sight tube 18 and cap means 12." (https://patents.justia.com/patent/4574508)

Omark therefore discloses the functional heart of limitation H — a thin/critical region of a one-piece ring cap engineered to flex (hinge) about a joint as the cap is drawn down onto the base. The '649 claim's "operate as hinges that facilitate rotation of the … cap in relation to the … receiver" is the same physical behavior Omark describes, with the only difference being that Omark's flex region is a dovetailed interlock rather than an uncut web of parent metal.

3.3 The bridge: the "uncut sliver" (NPL + the patent's own admission)

The 0.016-in saw and the 0.003–0.005-in sliver are recited in the '649 specification and claim 9/10. The concept of a near-through cut that leaves a thin web is a routine consequence of a single saw pass that stops short of full separation — the specification literally says the dividing channel "substantially … divides each accessory ring … leaving a sliver of material undivided." The examiner already found the closest art in the Thirdeyetactical "scope ring manufacture" video (2009) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rscui45sGA) and the Calguns.net "scope rings are scratching my scope!" thread (2009) — both cited on the '649 page. A 2009 video titled "scope ring manufacture" in this exact field is highly likely to show machining/splitting of a scope ring while it is held in one setup; I could not independently verify its frame content in this pass, so I treat it as corroborating rather than dispositive — but its presence as an examiner citation is itself significant (see the earlier sections' note on pulling it as § 102 art against the '262 method claims).

Combination and motivation (KSR):

• Known elements, known functions: base+rings (Bechtel) + a flexible/hinged cap joint (Omark) + a not-completely-severed split (inherent in a short saw pass). Each does what it is known to do.
• Design incentive / market pressure: the '649 specification itself recites the motivation — bore non-concentricity and uneven clamping from machining caps separately from cradles. Machining the whole mount from one billet keeps the two ring bores concentric; splitting each ring so the user can seat the tube is standard (Bechtel, Zimmer, Rorick). Leaving a thin web so the cap does not fall off during handling/shipping/buffing is the predictable, obvious engineering choice for a manufacturer shipping a kit to an end user.
• "Obvious to try": Given a one-piece machined ring that must be split, a PHOSITA has a finite set of options — cut it clean through (parts separate, need handling), or stop the cut short and let the user snap it (exactly the '649 approach). Leaving a frangible web is a well-known expedient (breakaway tabs are ubiquitous).
• Teaching in the references: Omark supplies the flex/hinge teaching and even a benefit (better tube contact from cap flex); Horton supplies the "one-piece integral = rigidity" teaching that motivates unitary construction; Bechtel/Zimmer supply the split-ring teaching.

---

4. The critical gap — and why it is probably not fatal to a § 103 challenge

The gap: No reference I retrieved discloses a sliver that is both (a) manually breakable and (b) functional as a hinge. Omark's flex joint is expressly a permanent interlock designed not to come apart ("cannot move outwardly apart from each other any further"). So the combination above reaches limitation D/F only by adding the "breakable web" concept from art or knowledge outside the retrieved set.

Three responses a challenger can press:

1. The claim's own spec makes the sliver inescapable. If a PHOSITA performs the obvious process (machine one piece → saw nearly through), the claimed intermediate necessarily results whenever the saw doesn't go all the way. Where an apparatus claim reads on the inevitable, if transitory, product of an obvious process, it is vulnerable — a classic product-by-process-adjacent obviousness theory. The '649 claims are, in substance, an apparatus recitation of the intermediate state of the '262 method.

2. "Manually breakable" is a relative, result-oriented term. Claim 9/10 put the web at 0.003–0.005 in — a routine design choice for a frangible metal web. The Federal Circuit treats "configured to [function]" language as met by any structure inherently capable of the function; a thin web that flexes on lifting the cap is inherently capable of being broken by continued motion.

3. The hinge limitation is met by Omark's teaching. The claim does not require the hinge to be permanent; it says the slivers are "configured to operate as hinges that facilitate rotation." Omark's flexing joint is the teaching of a thin region of a ring cap rotating/deflecting under load — squarely on point.

Where the patent owner will fight (and it is a real fight):

• "Manually breakable" has no express antecedent. Expect a § 112(b) indefiniteness attack pairing with the § 103 attack: what objectively defines "manually breakable" across materials and users? This is a strong paired argument (see the earlier sections' recommendation).
• Omark could be argued to "teach away" from breakability, because Omark values the interlock's permanence. Under In re Gordon, a reference teaches away only if it criticizes/discredits the proposed modification or would render the reference unsatisfactory for its purpose. Omark doesn't disparage a breakable web; it just doesn't need one. A good challenger neutralizes the teach-away argument by pointing to the different purpose (shipping/assembly convenience vs. permanent clamping).

---

5. Secondary combinations (and where each shines)

Combination 2 — Rorick '309 + Omark '508 (hinge/pivot focus)

Rorick discloses a mount body "split in two halves 24 and 25 with a central hole 22" and a second jaw "pivotally attached to the body" via "pin 60" (US 2013/0312309; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[8857097](/patent/8857097).html). Rorick supplies (i) the split-ring + central aperture and (ii) an express pivot/hinge teaching. Paired with Omark's flexing cap and Bechtel's two-ring base, this reinforces limitation H for both rings. Rorick is dated (filed 2013; priority 2012) — comfortably prior art.

Combination 3 — Zimmer U.S. 2016/0209176 / 9,441,915 + a "single set-up boring" teaching (for claim 12)

Zimmer discloses "lower ring portion 129 and upper ring portion 131 … secured together through the use of threaded fasteners 133" and rings removably secured to a bridge (https://www.freepatentsonline.com/9441915.html). It is prior art (provisional Jan 16, 2015, before the '649's Jan. 15, 2016 priority). For claim 12 ("formed with a tool proceeding through a single motion along a single axis"), Zimmer's "construction of a scope ring … known to those of ordinary skill in the art" framing, plus the NPL "scope ring manufacture" video, supplies the routine single-axis bore technique. Claim 12 is essentially a product-by-process-flavored limitation and the weakest of the dependents.

Combination 4 — Horton U.S. 5,941,006 (integral one-piece body) as the motivation anchor

Horton touts an "integral base piece and telescopic sight attachment features, thereby maximizing rigidity" and recoil resistance (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5941006A](/patent/US5941006A)). This is the express reason a PHOSITA would make the base and rings unitary — the very architecture the '649 claims presuppose — and supplies the "known technique to improve similar devices in the same way" rationale.

Combination 5 — Schulte U.S. 6,199,271 ("joining metal sheets") — weak, use sparingly

Cited on the '649 page. Its title suggests joining/laminating metal, not creating a frangible web; I did not verify a breakaway teaching. Do not build a primary theory on it; at most it shows metal-joining/separation was a known design space.

---

6. Dependent-claim prognosis

Bottom line: Even if claim 1 survives on the "breakable sliver" point, claims 2–13 add essentially nothing patentable — all recite dimensional, geometric, or manufacturing-routine expedients. A challenger should not stake everything on claim 1.

---

7. Secondary considerations — what the patent owner will raise, and how it cuts

The earlier sections correctly note no PTAB/estoppel history, so there is no adjudicated validity. The patent owner would likely assert:

• Long-felt need / failure of others — the '649 spec recites concentricity and clamping problems; but Omark (1986) and Bechtel (1985) already addressed alignment and even cap flex, undermining "failure of others."
• Copying / commercial success — Geissele's mount line (WHG Properties) is well-known; but commercial success must be nexused to the claimed intermediate assembly, not to the finished mount or the brand. The '649 claims read on a partially finished workpiece that is never sold separately — that weakens the nexus and is a strong rebuttal.
• Unexpected results — none apparent; the results (concentric bores, matched clamping surfaces) are exactly what machining-once-was-expected-to-produce.

Net: secondary considerations are unlikely to overcome a well-built Bechtel + Omark + NPL combination on the dependents; the real battleground is claim 1's "manually breakable … operate as hinges" plus parallel § 112(b) indefiniteness.

---

8. Uncertainties and where I'd firm this up

1. I did not read every cited reference. My claim-mapping for Talley U.S. 2014/0190062, Korapaty U.S. 5,926,964, Hollenbach U.S. 2009/0133311, Addy Sandler 2011/0099877 & 2014/0096429, Williams U.S. 2007/0266611, and Swan U.S. 8,205,375 is based on titles/known subject matter, not verified text. Several are likely to disclose additional split-ring/encompassing-cap structure (Talley in particular is a monolithic-mount pioneer). Verify before relying on them.
2. The NPL video is the linchpin I could not watch. If https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rscui45sGA (Thirdeyetactical, "scope ring manufacture," 2009) shows a bore-then-split sequence with a retained web, it is strong § 102/§ 103 art and may independently sink claim 12 and the method claims of the '262 parent. Priority action: pull and frame-verify this video.
3. No reference I retrieved expressly couples "breakable" + "hinge." Expect the patent owner to argue the combination is only obvious in hindsight. Counter with the inevitable-intermediate theory and the § 112 indefiniteness pairing, not with a single clean § 102 reference.
4. Flag for consistency with prior sections: the earlier "PTAB challenges" section called the Thirdeyetactical video "worth pulling as potential § 102 art against the '262 method claims and as context for the '649 apparatus claims." This analysis agrees and escalates it — for claim 1's § 103 theory it is arguably the single most important unexamined reference.

---

9. Conclusion

Claim 1 is vulnerable but not a slam-dunk under § 103. The strongest prima facie case is Bechtel U.S. 4,531,321 (two-ring, split-ring mount on a base) in view of Omark U.S. 4,574,508 (cap "flexibly connected … flexes at the joint" = the recited hinge function), further in view of the uncut-web expedient evidenced by the 2009 scope-ring-manufacture NPL and the '649 specification's own admission that the sliver is the remainder of a saw pass — with Horton U.S. 5,941,006 supplying the express motivation to make the mount one-piece for rigidity, and Rorick U.S. 2013/0312309 independently supplying express pivot/hinge structure. Claims 2–13 are, on the retrieved record, plainly obvious as routine dimensions, symmetric geometries, and manufacturing expedients.

The patent's best defense is not novelty or non-obviousness of claim 1 but the § 112(b) front — the undefined "manually breakable" and "operate as hinges" terms — which is precisely where an untested, never-instituted patent is most exposed.