US 11054244

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number and any CAFC 2026 docket activity.

Let me check for any CAFC (Federal Circuit) 2026 docket activity and litigation involving this patent.

US Patent 11,054,244 B2 — Analyst Summary

Important scoping note: The identifier you gave ("11054244") resolves literally to US 11,054,244 B2, titled "Method of suppressing false positive signals during self mixing interference particle detection." All statements below refer to that specific patent only. I did not find any Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 docket activity for this patent — see the "CAFC 2026" section below, including an explicit caveat on my search coverage.

---

Bibliographic Data

Sources: Google Patents US11054244B2, USPTO report page for App. 16/680,563, PatentWorth entry.

Data anomaly flag: The Google Patents "Legal Events" section for this patent contains an entry dated 2024-05-31 assigning rights to "OMEROS CORPORATION" (a biopharmaceutical company). That entry bears no relation to the Trumpf/Philips chain, to this technology, or to any assignor in this file, and appears to be a mis-posted or scraped-in error in the Google Patents event feed. I would not treat Omeros as an owner of US 11,054,244 on the basis of that record, but I flag it because it appears in the authoritative fetched text.

---

Abstract (as granted)

A method of measuring a particle density of particles includes emitting, by a laser, a laser beam directed to a mirror; redirecting the laser beam by the mirror with a predetermined periodic movement; and focusing the laser beam to a detection volume by an optical imaging device. The method further includes determining a self-mixing interference signal of an optical wave within a laser cavity if the self-mixing interference signal is generated by laser light of the laser beam reflected by at least one of the particles, and suppressing a false self-mixing interference signal for particle detection if the self-mixing interference signal is caused by a disturbance in an optical path of the laser beam. The false self-mixing signal caused by the disturbance is suppressed in a defined range of angles of the mirror during the periodic movement.

---

Technical Context

The patent addresses self-mixing interferometry (SMI) particle sensing. A laser beam is scanned by an oscillating/moving mirror and focused into a detection volume; light backscattered from a particle re-enters the laser cavity and modulates the laser output, which is detected by an integrated photodiode. The problem addressed is false positives: stray reflections off optical surfaces (cover glass, lens surfaces, contamination such as fingerprints or dirt) also re-enter the cavity and mimic particles. Because the mirror moves periodically, these artifacts are also periodic and mirror-angle-dependent, which enables suppression. The specification discusses several suppression techniques: mirror-angle/time gating, frequency-range filtering, duration thresholds, amplitude/signal-strength limits, background-noise estimation per time segment (STFT/PSD frame "signatures"), Adaptive Line Enhancers (ALE), and FFT bin discarding. Example figures use a 400 Hz mirror oscillation, 2.5 ms mirror period, fs = 40 MHz sample rate (100,000 samples per mirror period).

---

Independent Claims — Plain-Language Overview

The granted patent has four claims that are independent in form: claims 1, 12, 16, and 17. (Note: claim numbering differs between the pre-grant publication US 2020/0096314 A1 and the granted B2; in the B2 the laser sensor module is claim 16 and the computer program product is claim 12, whereas the publication had these as claims 12 and 14 respectively.)

Claim 1 — Method of measuring particle density

A method with these steps:

1. Emit a laser beam from a laser toward a mirror.
2. Redirect the beam with the mirror using a predetermined periodic movement.
3. Focus the beam into a detection volume with an optical imaging device.
4. Determine a self-mixing interference signal of the optical wave in the laser cavity when that signal is generated by laser light reflected by a particle.
5. Suppress a false self-mixing interference signal used for particle detection when the signal is caused by a disturbance in the optical path of the beam.

• Key limitation: the false signal is suppressed in a defined range of mirror angles during the periodic movement. This angle-gating requirement is what distinguishes claim 1 from generic "filter out reflections" approaches.

Claim 12 — Non-transitory computer program product

A non-transitory computer program product holding executable instructions that, when run by a processor device of a laser sensor module (one or more processors), cause the laser sensor module to perform the method of claim 1. (Claim 13 adds that the memory device is located in the laser sensor module.)

Claim 16 — Laser sensor module

An apparatus for measuring particle density of particles in a fluid, comprising:

• a laser arranged to emit a beam toward a mirror;
• a mirror arranged to move periodically to redirect the beam;
• an optical imaging device arranged to focus the beam into a detection volume;
• wherein the module is arranged to determine a self-mixing interference signal when generated by light reflected by a particle, and further arranged to suppress a false self-mixing interference signal caused by a disturbance in the optical path;
• Key limitation: suppression occurs in a defined range of mirror angles during the periodic movement.

Claim 17 — Device

A device (e.g., air purifier, exhaust hood, car, sensor box, wearable/mobile communication device in the specification) comprising the laser sensor module of claim 16.

---

Dependent Claims (brief)

• 2: Suppression based on the periodic movement of the mirror.
• 3: Suppression based on a first frequency range of the particle-generated SMI signal.
• 4–6: The defined mirror-angle range is derived from a characteristic of the SMI signal; the characteristic is a frequency characteristic; the described chirp profile is high-frequency/low-amplitude at the start, lower-frequency/higher-amplitude in the middle, and low-amplitude at the end, with the angle range set by the beginning and end of the signal.
• 7: Suppress if the signal exceeds a defined threshold duration.
• 8: Suppress based on signal strength/amplitude of the particle-generated signal.
• 9–10: Background-noise determination for discrete time segments within one mirror period, adapting the detection threshold per segment (and per frequency range).
• 11: Suppression in a subperiod of the mirror movement characterized by laser light reflecting off an element of the optical imaging device back into the laser cavity.
• 13: Memory device located in the laser sensor module.
• 14–15: Particles smaller than 20 μm; and preferably smaller than 10 μm.

---

CAFC 2026 Docket Search — Result

I searched for Federal Circuit / CAFC 2026 docket activity specifically tied to US 11,054,244 and to "Trumpf Photonic Components" appeals, and found no CAFC docket, appeal, or decision involving this patent. Related 2026 Trumpf litigation that surfaced in searches is unrelated to this patent: it concerns IPG Photonics vs. TRUMPF over EP 2 951 625 (fiber laser beam-combiner technology) before the Unified Patent Court, Mannheim Local Division (UPC_CFI_735/2024), with a UPC first-instance decision of 24 February 2026 and a subsequent global settlement announced 5 May 2026 — a European proceeding on a different patent and technology. Nothing about US 11,054,244.

Confidence caveat: My tools are general web search, not a direct live query of PACER, the CAFC docket system, or USPTO PatentCenter. I can affirmatively report no findable 2026 CAFC activity for this patent, but I cannot guarantee completeness of that negative. Practically, a 2026 appeal is also unlikely given the patent's status: maintenance fees lapsed with an effective date of 2025-07-06, and the asset is recorded as "Expired – Fee Related."

---

Bottom Line

US 11,054,244 B2 is a Trumpf Photonic Components (originally Philips-linked) patent on suppressing false positives in self-mixing-interference particle detectors by suppressing the false signal within a defined range of angles of the oscillating mirror — the core limitation of independent claims 1 and 16. It claims 17 total claims spanning a method, a laser sensor module, a device containing that module, and a computer program product. Filed as a US continuation on 2019-11-12, issued 2021-07-06, priority 2017-05-12, and now expired for non-payment of maintenance fees. No CAFC 2026 docket activity involving this number was found; the only 2026 Trumpf litigation identified concerns a different patent (EP 2 951 625) in the UPC.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11054244.

The initial results reference other patents (e.g., a different '542 patent, and the '444 patent), not US 11,054,244. Let me search litigation-specific sources.

Findings: Litigation involving US Patent No. 11,054,244

No litigation is known involving US 11,054,244.

Based on my searches of patent-litigation sources (including Google Patents' litigation/citation records for this specific patent, Unified Patents materials, CourtListener, and CAFC/PTAB-related sources), I found no district court action, ITC investigation, PTAB proceeding, or Federal Circuit appeal naming US 11,054,244 as an asserted or challenged patent. Any case that would have asserted this patent would ordinarily surface in the "Cited By," litigation, or family records for the patent, and none appears.

Important caveats about identifiers

The searches returned several results for other patents that share the "542" shorthand or similar numbers. These are not US 11,054,244 and I did not auto-correct or conflate them:

• A different "'542 patent" involved in Genzyme v. Sarepta (D. Del. Civil Action No. 21-1736-RGA) and related IPR proceedings — this is an unrelated biotech/AAV patent, not the Trumpf self-mixing sensor patent. (PTAB petition document)
• The "'444 patent" (US 7,110,444) in ParkerVision v. TCL/LG, IPR2021-00990 — a different patent number entirely. (CAFC R.36 judgment)
• The "'542 Patent" in W.D. Pa. case quoted (gov.uscourts.pawd.316393) — a different patent in an unrelated matter. (CourtListener RECAP)
• UPC_CFI_735/2024, Trumpf Laser UK Ltd. v. IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG (Local Chamber Mannheim) concerns EP 2 951 625 (a fiber-laser/optical-combiner patent), not US 11,054,244. (UPC order, Nov. 13, 2025) Its 2026 orders (Jan. 24, 2026) are unrelated to this patent along with the '244.

Related (but non-litigation) activity worth noting

• Forward citations by Apple: US 11,680,788; US 11,774,342; US 11,692,809; US 11,874,110; US 12,376,763 (Apple Inc.) cite US 11,054,244 as background art in self-mixing particulate-matter sensing. These are citations, not litigation.
• Patent status: The patent is recorded as "Expired – Fee Related," with a lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees dated 2025-08-11 (effective 2025-07-06) and an adjusted expiration date of 2038-08-08. An expired/patent-lapsed asset of this nature would not support an ongoing infringement suit.

Bottom line

If you are looking for litigation that asserts or challenges US 11,054,244 specifically, I found none as of the current date. I should flag that my search did not exhaustively query paywalled PACER dockets directly, so I cannot say with absolute certainty that no suit was ever filed; based on the public sources available, however, there is no known litigation. If you need confirmation, I'd recommend a direct Docket Navigator / Lex Machina query on "US 11,054,244" and a PACER docket search.

I'll verify the structured data (which says no AIA trials on file) against public sources before writing the report.

Let me run a few more targeted queries to be thorough before concluding.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings — no IPR, PGR, or CBM — have ever been filed against US 11,054,244. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns an empty AIA-trial set for this patent, and my independent web searches (PTAB E2E/PTAB Center petition documents, Board decisions, CAFC opinions, CourtListener, and third-party PTAB dockets) surfaced no petition, no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, and no appeal naming 11,054,244. There is consequently no claims-invalidated / claims-sustained / settled breakdown to report: all 17 claims stand as issued and untested at the Board. For a defendant, the practical bottom line is not "hardened patent" and not "dead claims" — it is that the validity of the claims has never been litigated in an AIA forum, so there is no PTAB record, no estoppel, and no free roadmap to lean on. Any invalidity case you build is a first-generation one (see caveats below on expiration).

---

Proceedings

There are no proceedings to itemize. Per the task instructions — "If no PTAB activity exists, say so plainly" — I am not generating per-proceeding entries, because doing so would require inventing proceeding numbers, panels, and dispositions. I will not do that.

For completeness, here is what I affirmatively checked and did not find:

False positives I explicitly rejected (do not conflate these)

Consistent with the litigation section already generated, my searches repeatedly returned other patents whose numbers resemble 11,054,244. I am listing them so no one mistakes them for this patent:

• U.S. Pat. No. 11,396,244 — Toyota Motor Corp. v. Emerging Automotive LLC, IPR2024-00814. A different patent (vehicle/charging art). (PTAB petition document)
• U.S. Pat. No. 6,889,244 — SAP America Inc v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd, IPR2025-00420. Different patent (messaging architecture).
• The '542 patent (Genzyme v. Sarepta, D. Del. 21-1736-RGA; IPRs) and the '442 patent (IPR2025-xxxxx, cloud-computing art) and the '244 / '256 patents (magnetic-recording-media art) that appear in PTAB petition text — all unrelated. The "244" / "442" snippets are sharing the last three digits, nothing more.

I also confirmed the UPC action surfaced in the earlier section — Trumpf Laser UK Ltd. v. IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG, UPC_CFI_735/2024 (Local Chamber Mannheim) — concerns EP 2 951 625, a fiber-laser/combiner patent, and is not a PTAB proceeding and not this patent.

One data anomaly to flag (does not change the conclusion)

The Google Patents "Legal Events" feed for US 11,054,244 contains a 2024-05-31 assignment record to "OMEROS CORPORATION" (Reel/Frame 067584/0815). On its face this is inconsistent with the patent's chain of title (Philips → Trumpf Photonic Components GmbH, effective 2019-08-28) and with the technology, and it appears to be a mis-scraped / mismatched assignment record, not a real transfer. I am flagging it rather than treating it as genuine — I cannot confirm it from the authoritative patent text, and I would not rely on it. It has no bearing on PTAB activity.

Also worth stating for the record (outside AIA-trials scope)

I found no ex parte reexamination, no reissue, and no PTAB (or district-court) challenge of any kind. The patent's only post-grant events in the record are the 2019 chain-of-title assignment and the 2025 lapse for non-payment of maintenance fees (below). If you need ex parte reexam confirmed, that is a separate ODP pull and is not the AIA-trial question you asked.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. All claims are UNTESTED at the PTAB — none canceled, none sustained, none narrowed by any AIA proceeding. The patent as granted carries 17 claims: independent method claim 1; dependent method claims 2–11; a computer-program-product claim 12 with dependent claim 13; dependent method claims 14–15 (particle size <20 µm / <10 µm); independent laser-sensor-module claim 16; and claim 17 (a device comprising the module of claim 16). The asserted center of gravity, if anything is asserted, is claim 1's final limitation — suppressing the false self-mixing signal "in a defined range of angles of the mirror during the periodic movement" — which is the feature the specification repeatedly ties to the mirror's periodic motion and to the angle-referenced suppression schemes (claims 4–6, 9–11 depend on it).

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel to worry about in either direction. No petitioner has been estopped, because no IPR ever reached an FWD; and no patent owner has any PTAB win to point to. Practically, this cuts against a would-be defendant in one narrow sense — you cannot ride someone else's invalidity work product through an estoppel-safe path — and in favor of you in a larger sense: every prior-art ground the cited-art list contains (below) remains fully available, untested, and un-estopped for a first-filed IPR or for district-court invalidity. The intrinsic record identifies the art of record as: US 6,233,045 (Light Works, self-mixing sensor); WO 02/37410 (Philips, fingertip input device — incorporated by reference by the applicant); US 2007/0206180 A1; US 7,656,526 B1; US 2012/0002189 A1; US 2016/0238510 A1; US 2016/0313243 A1 and DE 10 2015 207 289 A1 / US 9,857,287 B2 (Bosch particulate sensor — the applicant's own admitted background); and WO 2017/017282 A1 and WO 2017/016888 A1 (Philips family art). Non-patent literature of record: Giuliani, Norgia, Donati & Bosch (J. Opt. A, 2002) and Zabit et al. (IEEE Sensors J., 2013). Note the two Philips WO publications (2017/016888 and 2017/017282) are same-assignee/family-adjacent art with a 2015 priority — they will raise § 102(b)/§ 103 and possibly § 103(c)-type common-ownership issues, and a careful petition should treat them as candidate primary references only after addressing whether they are § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) art and whether they qualify as the applicant's own work.

Pattern signals. There is no pattern at all — no repeat petitioner, no serial petitions, no General Plastic follow-on problem, no Unified Patents-style defensive aggregator in the chain, and no indication the patent owner has been an aggressive PTAB appellant. The only recognizable "pattern" is forward citation pressure from Apple: US 11,680,788 (Handling obstructions and transmission element contamination for self-mixing particulate matter sensors), US 11,774,342, US 11,692,809, US 11,874,110, and US 12,376,763 all cite US 11,054,244 as background in self-mixing particulate-matter sensing. That tells you Apple is building in the same space and has itself flagged this patent as prior art — a strong signal of a ready-made petitioner, a motivation-to-combine narrative, and expert availability, but not evidence of a filed proceeding.

The expiration wrinkle — the single most important fact for a defendant. The record shows this patent expired early for failure to pay maintenance fees: a "Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees" event dated 2025-08-11 (effective 2025-07-06) under 37 CFR 1.362, with the patent transitioned to "Expired – Fee Related." The nominal/adjusted expiration is 2038-08-08, but the enforceable term ended in 2025. Two consequences: (1) the patent cannot support forward-looking infringement relief (no injunction, and pre-expiration damages only, subject to the six-year § 286 lookback); and (2) an IPR is still legally available against an expired patent, but the practical return is nil if there is no live damages window to protect — which is likely why no one bothered. A petition for unintentional-delay revival under 37 C.F.R. § 1.378 is theoretically possible and worth monitoring if you receive any assertion; absent revival, any demand letter resting on this patent warrants a standing/expiration inquiry before a merits inquiry.

---

Recommended next steps

• No PTAB activity exists. Say so plainly in any invalidity opinion or defense strategy memo: there is no IPR/PGR/CBM, no FWD to cite, no canceled claims to quote, and no institution decision to rely on. Any statement to the contrary would be fabrication. The absence itself is the signal — a patent with commercial relevance in consumer PM sensing (evidenced by the Apple citations) that nonetheless attracted zero IPRs over four issuance years, and then lapsed for fee non-payment, is not a patent that has proven worth attacking.
• Lead with status, not validity. Confirm the fee lapse and the effective expiration date of 2025-07-06 directly in USPTO Patent Center for App. No. 16/680,563 / US 11,054,244, and check for any § 1.378 revival petition. If the patent is confirmed lapsed and unrevived, the practical defense is non-enforceability/expiration plus § 286 limits on any damages tail — a far cheaper posture than an IPR.
• If revived and asserted, the IPR window is wide open, with no estoppel and no Fintiv baggage. There is no co-pending AIA proceeding to consolidate or stay behind, and no petitioner has locked down any ground. The prior-art of record (US 6,233,045; WO 02/37410; US 2016/0313243 / DE 10 2015 207 289 / US 9,857,287; WO 2017/016888; WO 2017/017282) plus the Apple self-mixing PM publications give a concrete starting kit; expect § 103 to be the primary basis, with § 112 as a secondary line aimed at the functional "defined range of angles" limitation of claim 1.
• Watch, don't chase, Federal Circuit activity. There is no FWD and therefore no appeal venue to monitor for this patent. If you want to track related risk, monitor the Apple portfolio (US 11,680,788 et al.) and the Trumpf/Philips family members — EP 3635364 B1 (granted, active) and the JP 2020519905 / CN 110914665 members are the live siblings if the dispute is ever pursued outside the US.
• Authenticate before you rely. Because this is a no-proceeding report, every negative finding should be reproduced with a direct query: PTAB E2E / PTAB Center for "US 11,054,244," Patent Center for the application file, and a Docket Navigator / Lex Machina / PACER pull for any litigation that would have driven an IPR. I reached my conclusion from ODP structured data plus public web sources; I did not exhaustively query paywalled dockets, and the ODP ingest can lag newly filed petitions by days to weeks.

Caveat on certainty: I am confident there is no PTAB proceeding as of the current date, based on the empty ODP AIA-trial set and the absence of any petition, decision, or appeal in public sources. I cannot prove a negative to a certainty for the most recent few weeks, so the recommended direct PTAB E2E query should be treated as the confirming step before you commit to a no-IPR position in a filing.

I'll research the assignment/ownership chain for US 11,054,244 using the assignment records and related sources.

Let me dig deeper into the assignment records and corresponding firm.

Let me search for the specific assignment correspondence details and check the TRUMPF/Philips acquisition context.

I've reached my search step limit, but I gathered enough to reconstruct the chain from the authoritative patent text plus the TRUMPF/Philips acquisition record. Where I could not confirm a detail (notably the correspondent of record), I say so explicitly rather than guessing.

---

Ownership Reconstruction — US Patent No. 11,054,244 B2

Governing caveat: The Google Patents legal-events feed for this patent (fetched 2026-09-24) exposes two recorded assignments, both at Reel 051099, and one anomalous entry. I was unable, via general web search, to retrieve the "correspondent of record" (recording attorney/agent) fields for either reel, and I was not able to open the Assignment Center record directly before hitting my tool limit. I flag that gap rather than fabricating a name. The reel/frame numbers, assignors, assignees, and dates below are taken verbatim from the fetched Google Patents legal-events text.

Inventors

• The PCT application (PCT/EP2018/061638) was filed by Koninklijke Philips N.V., confirming the inventors were Philips-side personnel at filing.
• The Google Patents bibliographic header lists all four inventors at Ulm, DE — consistent with Philips Photonics GmbH, the Ulm-based laser-diode business (founded 2000) that Philips sold to TRUMPF. (Source: TRUMPF press release, 2019-04-01.)
• Unusual-pattern check: The inventor→assignee assignment was executed staggered, from 2018-11-14 to 2019-10-24 (per the reel 051099/0247 free-text: "SIGNING DATES FROM 20181114 TO 20191024"). That span brackets the TRUMPF/Philips deal (announced Dec 2018; closed effective 2019-04-01), i.e. the inventors were signing rights over to Philips while the business unit was being sold. This is consistent with an M&A-driven clean-up, not a fire-sale.

Original assignee

• Entity named on the issued patent: TRUMPF Photonic Components GmbH (Lise-Meitner-Strasse 13, 89081 Ulm, Germany). Koninklijke Philips N.V. is also listed as an assignee in the Google Patents header (the record reflects both the pre-deal Philips interest and the post-deal Trumpf interest).
• Business: TRUMPF Photonic Components is TRUMPF's laser-diode / photonics division — it ships products embodying this technology family (VCSELs and laser diodes for smartphones, sensors, and automotive/autonomous-driving applications). The parent is the privately held TRUMPF Group (Ditzingen, Germany; ~€3.6 bn sales, ~13,400 employees as of FY2017/18). This is an operating company, not a licensing vehicle.
• Current status: Operating. TRUMPF Photonic Components continues to hold and be cited as owner of a large active self-mixing/particle-sensing portfolio (e.g., US 11,656,166; US 11,828,594; US 11,441,998 on onscope/patentleaderboard listings). The patent itself is Expired – Fee Related (lapsed 2025-08-11, effective 2025-07-06), but the assignee is a live business.

Assignment timeline

All records below are from the Google Patents legal-events feed for US 11,054,244 B2. Two share Reel 051099.

• Executed 2018-11-14 → 2019-10-24 (staggered) / recorded 2019-11-25 — Reel 051099/0247

  • Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST")
  • Assignor: OUWELTJES, OKKE; SPRUIT, JOHANNES HENDRIKUS MARIA; VAN DER LEE, ALEXANDER MARC; AND OTHERS (i.e., the four named inventors)
  • Assignee: KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. (Netherlands)
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable from my sources — flag as unknown. A direct Assignment Center query is required.
  • Context: Employment/utility assignment — inventors conveying their rights to the corporate research parent (Philips) that filed the PCT.

• Executed/effective 2019-08-28 / recorded 2019-11-25 — Reel 051099/0266

  • Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST; ASSIGNOR: KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.")
  • Assignor: KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.
  • Assignee: TRUMPF PHOTONIC COMPONENTS GMBH
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable from my sources — flag as unknown. Same-reel clustering (051099) is itself noted below.
  • Context: M&A / corporate carve-out — transfer of the Philips Photonics business (including this patent) to TRUMPF, part of the TRUMPF acquisition of Philips Photonics completed 2019-04-01.

• Recorded 2024-05-31 — Reel/frame not associated with this chain [citation needed — Google Patents shows no reel for this entry]

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: CUTSHALL, NEIL S.; GAGE, JENNIFER LYNN; GOLDSTEIN, SARA REBECCA; AND OTHERS
  • Assignee: OMEROS CORPORATION (Washington)
  • Context: Data anomaly — almost certainly mis-posted. The assignors and assignee are biopharmaceutical (Omeros is an ophthalmic/pharma company); none appears anywhere else in this file. I do not treat Omeros as an owner of US 11,054,244. This matches the anomaly flagged in the previously generated summary — no contradiction, independently confirmed.

• No further post-issuance assignments recorded. No evidence of any transfer to a licensing entity, NPE, or defensive aggregator.

If Assignment Center has additional records my sources missed, this section would change — but on the authoritative fetched text, the chain is exactly: four inventors → Koninklijke Philips N.V. → TRUMPF Photonic Components GmbH, and nothing after.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11054244
    2017 : Priority EP filing by Philips
    2018 : PCT filed by Koninklijke Philips
         : Inventors begin assigning rights to Philips
    2019 : US continuation filed
         : Inventors assign to Koninklijke Philips
         : Philips assigns to Trumpf Photonic Components
    2021 : Patent issued
    2024 : Anomalous Omeros entry posted
    2025 : Lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The only post-inventor transfer ran from an operating company (Koninklijke Philips N.V.) to another operating company (TRUMPF Photonic Components GmbH), Reel 051099/0266. No "IP/Holdings/Ventures"-style assignee appears anywhere in the chain.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Neither Philips nor TRUMPF matches any NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, etc.). Both are/were large operating manufacturers.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / indeterminate. Both assignments sit on the same reel (051099), which often reflects a single recording agent handling a related batch, but I could not retrieve the correspondent-of-record names, so I cannot state recurrence. This is a genuine evidence gap, not a negative finding.
4. Cascading transfers through chained LLCs in <24 months — Not present. Only one ownership transfer (Philips → Trumpf); no LLC chain.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. No infringement suit naming this patent was found (per the previously generated litigation section), so there is no suit for an assignment to precede.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No Chapter 7/11 involving Philips Photonics or TRUMPF; the Philips→TRUMPF transfer was a strategic divestiture of a going concern (280 employees, active Ulm fab), per the TRUMPF 2019-04-01 press release.
7. Privateering — Not present. No evidence TRUMPF (or Philips) transferred the patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf; the patent stayed with the operating acquirer.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain terminates at TRUMPF, an operating company, not at RPX/AST/LOT/Unified/OIN.

Verdict

Insufficient data → effectively "Operating-company ownership, non-asserting."

This patent's chain is a textbook corporate carve-out, not an NPE play: four Philips inventors assigned to Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Reel 051099/0247, executed 2018-11-14 to 2019-10-24), which then assigned to TRUMPF Photonic Components GmbH (Reel 051099/0266, effective 2019-08-28) as part of TRUMPF's completed acquisition of Philips Photonics on 2019-04-01. The assignee is a live operating manufacturer that ships laser-diode products, zero NPE signals are present, and no litigation or further transfer is recorded; the one apparent third-party entry (Omeros Corporation, 2024-05-31) is a mis-posted record and is not part of this chain. I stop short of a clean "Operating-company ownership" verdict primarily because I could not verify the correspondents of record, and the asset has since lapsed for fee non-payment (2025-08-11) — but there is no evidence of NPE or troll activity in this file.

Verification: USPTO Assignment Center / Patent Assignment Search — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search patent number 11054244; both surface Reels 051099/0247 and 051099/0266, and the disputed 2024 Omeros entry). Cross-check the correspondents there, since I could not retrieve them here.

I'll search for authoritative details on each prior-art reference cited on the face of US 11,054,244.

Let me gather details on the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,054,244 B2

Step 0 — Patent-number verification (strict, literal)

The identifier 11054244 resolves, literally and without auto-correction, to US 11,054,244 B2 — an 8-digit US patent number (rendered "11,054,244"), "Method of suppressing false positive signals during self mixing interference particle detection." Confirmed via the authoritative full text: application US 16/680,563, issued 2021-07-06, priority 2017-05-12, assignee Trumpf Photonic Components GmbH (assignment from Koninklijke Philips N.V. effective 2019-08-28).

• I did not substitute any other number (e.g., US 7,110,444 / "the '444 patent," or the unrelated "'542" patent) that appeared in earlier searches. Those were different patents and are excluded here.
• I could not query USPTO PatentCenter directly with my tools; the bibliographic and citation data below come from the authoritative Google Patents record (which mirrors USPTO data) and cross-checked public sources. Where I could not retrieve a reference's full text, I say so explicitly.

Effective filing date for § 102 purposes: 2017-05-12 (EP priority; PCT filed 2018-05-07). This is a post-AIA patent, so 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (publicly available before 2017-05-12) and § 102(a)(2) (US patents/applications published with an earlier effective filing date) apply.

Face-of-patent prior-art citations: 11 patent references + 2 non-patent references. All 11 patent references published on or before 2017-02-02, i.e., all qualify as prior art against the 2017-05-12 effective filing date.

---

Step 1 — The claims to be anticipated

Anticipation under § 102 requires one single reference to disclose every element of a claim, arranged as claimed. The independent claims are 1, 12, 16, 17 (per the earlier-generated summary and confirmed against the claim text). The distinguishing limitation that runs through claims 1 and 16 is:

"the false self mixing signal caused by the disturbance in the optical path of the laser beam is suppressed in a defined range of angles of the mirror during the periodic movement."

For any § 102 anticipation, a reference must therefore disclose (a) a laser, (b) a mirror with predetermined periodic movement redirecting the beam, (c) an optical imaging device focusing the beam to a detection volume, (d) determination of an SMI signal generated by particle reflection, and (e) suppression of a false SMI signal within a defined range of mirror angles.

Headline finding: No cited reference anticipates any independent claim. Every cited reference is missing at least the angle-gated false-signal suppression (element e), and most are missing the periodically-oscillating-mirror redirection and/or the particle-density context. The references are best characterized as § 103 obviousness material and as background, not as anticipatory art. Details and the closest near-misses per reference follow.

---

Step 2 — Reference-by-reference analysis

1. US 6,233,045 B1 — Suni et al. / Light Works LLC (examiner-cited on face)

• Full citation: US 6,233,045 B1, "Self-mixing sensor apparatus and method," Paul J. M. Suni & Christian J. Grund, assignee Light Works LLC.
• Dates: Filed 1999-05-14; provisional 60/085,815 filed 1998-05-18; issued 2001-05-15.
• Description: Foundational self-mixing laser sensor for remotely measuring speed, vibration, range and length. Detects temporal variations of the emitted light caused by interference with back-scattered light re-injected into the laser; includes means for estimating signal strength and a controllable light attenuator to control how much light re-enters the cavity (avoid mode hopping). Detects phase, amplitude, frequency content, SNR, and peaks/unit time.
• § 102 assessment: Discloses the generic "determining a self-mixing interference signal of an optical wave within a laser cavity" concept (claim 1 step d) and amplitude/strength estimation (cf. dependent claim 8). It does not disclose a mirror with predetermined periodic movement, an optical imaging device focusing to a detection volume, particle-density measurement, or suppression of a false SMI signal in a defined range of mirror angles.
• Potentially anticipates: None of claims 1, 12, 16, 17. Background/low-value art.
• Source: US6233045B1 PDF; Google Patents

2. WO 02/37410 A1 — Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.

• Full citation: WO 02/37410 A1, "Method of measuring the movement of an input device."
• Dates: Filed 2000-11-06; published 2002-05-10.
• Description: SMI input-device sensor (fingertip moving across a transparent window; diode laser, lens, photodiode/impedance detector). This is the reference expressly incorporated by reference in US 11,054,244's Detailed Description to explain the self-mixing principle (see the patent text).
• § 102 assessment: Supplies SMI background only. No periodic mirror, no particle-density detection, no angle-gated false-signal suppression.
• Potentially anticipates: None. Background art.

3. US 2007/0206180 A1 — Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.

• Full citation: US 2007/0206180 A1, "Movement Sensor."
• Dates: Filed 2004-04-29; published 2007-09-06.
• Description: SMI-based relative-movement sensor (laser cavity, detector, signal processing), generally in the Philips SMI sensor family.
• § 102 assessment: SMI movement-sensing background; no particle detection, no mirror-angle false-signal suppression, no detection volume for particles.
• Potentially anticipates: None.
• Caveat: full text not independently retrieved; characterization based on the face-of-patent title/field.

4. US 7,656,526 B1 — University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (examiner-cited on face)

• Full citation: US 7,656,526 B1, "Lidar system for remote determination of calibrated, absolute aerosol backscatter coefficients."
• Dates: Filed 2006-07-21; issued 2010-02-02.
• Description: Lidar (elastic-backscatter) system for aerosol backscatter-coefficient calibration — optical remote sensing of airborne particles, but via lidar backscatter, not self-mixing.
• § 102 assessment: Field-adjacent (airborne-particle optical measurement) but discloses a fundamentally different measurement principle. No SMI in a laser cavity, no periodically-moving mirror redirection, no angle-gated false-signal suppression.
• Potentially anticipates: None.
• Caveat: full text not independently retrieved.

5. US 2012/0002189 A1 — Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (examiner-cited on face)

• Full citation: US 2012/0002189 A1, "Apparatus for determining a flow property of a fluid."
• Dates: Filed 2009-03-18; published 2012-01-05.
• Description: Philips SMI-based apparatus for determining a flow property of a fluid (laser self-mixing with beam handling/scanning to sense flow).
• § 102 assessment: SMI fluid-sensing art; may use beam deflection, but no particle-density measurement of <20 µm particles and no suppression of a false SMI signal keyed to mirror angle.
• Potentially anticipates: None.
• Caveat: full text not retrieved; characterization based on the face-of-patent title/field.

6. US 2016/0238510 A1 — Artium Technologies, Inc. (examiner-cited on face)

• Full citation: US 2016/0238510 A1, "Enhanced detection through parsing records into signal components."
• Dates: Filed 2015-02-13; published 2016-08-18.
• Description: Signal-processing technique that parses detected records into component signals to enhance detection — i.e., the kind of frequency/record decomposition relevant to the signal-processing dependent claims (claims 3, 9, 10).
• § 102 assessment: Potentially relevant only to the signal-processing-dependent claims (frequency-range filtering; background-noise/threshold per time segment). Does not disclose the apparatus of claims 1/16 or the mirror-angle suppression limitation, and is not an SMI particle sensor per se.
• Potentially anticipates: None of the independent claims. Best used (if at all) in an obviousness combination against claims 3/9/10 paired with an SMI particle-density reference.
• Caveat: full text not retrieved.

7. US 2016/0313243 A1 — Robert Bosch GmbH

• Full citation: US 2016/0313243 A1, "Particulate sensor device."
• Dates: Filed 2015-04-22; published 2016-10-27. (US counterpart of DE 10 2015 207 289 A1.)
• Description: Particle sensor apparatus with an optical emitter, a detector surface, an evaluation device, and a lens element arranged so the emitted radiation is focusable onto a focus region inside the volume. Discloses VCSEL (VCSE/VeCSE laser) with an integrated photodiode, and analysis via the self-mixing interference effect, plus an optional mirror device with which the focus region is shiftable one- or two-dimensionally to scan the sample volume; can identify particle size and particle speed, using the SMI effect to detect light scattered from the particle.
• § 102 assessment: This is the closest structural art among the Bosch references and discloses a substantial portion of the apparatus preamble (laser, lens focusing to a focus region, particle detection, SMI analysis, and even a mirror to shift the focus region). It does not disclose predetermined periodic movement of the mirror for the recited purpose, nor suppression of a false SMI signal in a defined range of mirror angles. The mirror in Bosch is for scanning the focus region, not for angle-gated artifact rejection.
• Potentially anticipates: None of claims 1, 12, 16, 17. Strong § 103 candidate against claim 16's preamble elements when combined with a mirror-angle-gating teaching.

8. DE 10 2015 207 289 A1 — Robert Bosch GmbH

• Full citation: DE 10 2015 207 289 A1, "Partikelsensorvorrichtung" (Particle sensor device).
• Dates: Filed 2015-04-22; published 2016-10-27.
• Description: German priority disclosure of #7 above — the same particle sensor apparatus with emitter, detector surface, evaluation device, and lens element focusing to a focus region; expressly cited in US 11,054,244's own Background section.
• § 102 assessment: Same as #7 — missing periodic-mirror angle-gated false-signal suppression.
• Potentially anticipates: None of the independent claims.

9. US 9,857,287 B2 — Robert Bosch GmbH (examiner-cited on face)

• Full citation: US 9,857,287 B2, "Particulate sensor device."
• Dates: Filed 2015-04-22; granted 2018-01-02 (US grant in the same family as #7/#8; its pre-grant pub US 2016/0313243 published 2016-10-27). Prior art under § 102(a)(2) by virtue of the earlier-filed/published family member.
• Description: Same Bosch disclosure as #7/#8.
• § 102 assessment: Same limitations gap — no angle-gated suppression of a false SMI signal.
• Potentially anticipates: None of the independent claims.

10. WO 2017/017282 A1 — Koninklijke Philips N.V.

• Full citation: WO 2017/017282 A1, "Laser sensor for particle size detection." Priority EP 15179036.7 (2015-07-30); US equivalent US 2018/0209892 A1; EP 3329250 A1; CN 108027312 A.
• Dates: PCT filed 2016-08-01; published 2017-02-02.
• Description: Laser sensor module for particle size detection using SMI: at least one laser, detector, electrical driver and evaluator; the evaluator determines particle size from a relative distance (particle-to-laser) and amplitude information extracted from the SMI signal; includes a focus region. Notably, this document was cited as "X" (relevant to all claims 1–15) in the international search report for a related Philips application, PCT/EP2018/055524.
• § 102 assessment: Discloses laser + detector + driver + evaluator + focus region + SMI signal handling — a large part of claim 16's structural preamble — but is directed to particle size (not density), and is silent on a periodically-moved redirecting mirror and on angle-gated suppression of false SMI signals.
• Potentially anticipates: None of claims 1, 12, 16, 17. Relevant as closest-art background / § 103 material.

11. WO 2017/016888 A1 — Koninklijke Philips N.V.

• Full citation: WO 2017/016888 A1, "Laser sensor for particle density detection." Priority EP 15179046 (2015-07-30); EP 3329248 B1 (granted 2020-09-02); US family member US 10,866,083 B2.
• Dates: PCT filed 2016-07-14; published 2017-02-02.
• Description: Laser sensor module for particle density detection: at least one first laser, a first detector, and an electrical driver; the detector detects a first self-mixing interference signal of an optical wave in the laser cavity, caused by reflected laser light re-entering the cavity; the module is adapted to reduce multiple counts of a particle. This is the closest-in-field reference and is cited in US 11,054,244's own Background as the SMI particle-density prior art.
• § 102 assessment: Discloses the SMI particle-density platform (laser, detector, driver, SMI signal from particle-reflected light) and a false-count-reduction concept — but it reduces multiple counts of the same particle, not false positives from optical-path disturbances/reflections. It does not disclose the periodically-moved redirecting mirror or suppression of a false SMI signal in a defined range of mirror angles.
• Potentially anticipates: None as to the distinguishing limitation. This is the single most important reference to address in any validity challenge, but anticipation of claims 1/16 fails on the mirror-angle suppression element.

Non-patent references cited on the face

• Giuliani, Norgia, Donati & Bosch, "Laser diode self-mixing technique for sensing applications," J. Opt. A: Pure Appl. Opt. 4, S283–S294 (2002). Foundational SMI review, incorporated by reference in US 11,054,244. — General background; not anticipatory.
• Zabit et al., "Self-Mixing Laser Sensor for Large Displacements: Signal Recovery in the Presence of Speckle," IEEE Sensors J. 13(2), 824–831 (Feb. 2013). — Displacement sensing / speckle rejection; not anticipatory of the particle-density claims.

---

Step 3 — Summary mapping (claim → reference → role)

Closest dependent-claim art (for § 103, not § 102):

• Claim 8 (signal-strength-based suppression) — general amplitude/strength sensing in US 6,233,045.
• Claims 3, 9, 10 (frequency-range filtering / per-segment background noise & threshold) — signal-parsing art in US 2016/0238510.
• Claim 11 (suppression in a subperiod characterized by optical-element reflection) — Bosch US 2016/0313243 / US 9,857,287 / DE 10 2015 207 289 (internal reflections touched on generally).

---

Step 4 — Bottom line

1. I literally interpreted "11054244" as US 11,054,244 B2 and did not conflate it with any similar number.
2. No reference cited on the face of US 11,054,244 anticipates any of its independent claims (1, 12, 16, 17) under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The independent claims require suppression of a false self-mixing signal within a defined range of angles of the periodically moving mirror — a limitation no cited reference discloses.
3. The most relevant prior art is:
   • WO 2017/016888 A1 (Philips) — same field (SMI particle-density detection); closest conceptually.
   • WO 2017/017282 A1 (Philips) — SMI particle sensing with laser/detector/evaluator/focus region.
   • US 2016/0313243 A1 / US 9,857,287 B2 / DE 10 2015 207 289 A1 (Bosch) — closest apparatus structure (laser + lens focusing to a focus region + SMI + mirror to shift the focus region).
     These support § 103 obviousness arguments but do not, individually, anticipate.
4. The remaining references (US 6,233,045; WO 02/37410; US 2007/0206180; US 7,656,526; US 2012/0002189; US 2016/0238510) are background / secondary art (generic SMI, SMI movement sensing, lidar aerosol backscatter, and record-parsing signal processing).

Confidence caveats (stated rather than fabricated):

• I verified bibliographic data and descriptions for the Philips and Bosch references and for US 6,233,045 via retrieved text. For US 2007/0206180, US 2012/0002189, US 2016/0238510, US 7,656,526, and WO 02/37410 I relied on face-of-patent data plus general knowledge; I did not retrieve their full texts, so my § 102 assessments for those are based on title/field and could change if their specifications contain unexpected mirror-angle or false-signal-suppression teachings. I flag this rather than assert completeness.
• I could not query USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR directly; citation data come from the Google Patents record, which mirrors USPTO data.

I'll research the cited prior art references to ground the obviousness analysis.

Let me research the remaining key prior art references.

Obviousness Analysis — US 11,054,244 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note: This builds on the previously generated sections (bibliographic data, claim overview, litigation history). I do not repeat those here. One contradiction to flag up front:

⚠️ Contradiction with the earlier "Independent Claims" section. That section listed claim 17 as "independent in form." Reading the granted text literally, claim 17 recites "A device comprising the laser sensor module according to claim 16" — that is a dependent claim, not independent. The independent claims are properly 1, 12, and 16 only. I flag this because it affects how many independent claims must be separately invalidated.

---

1. Legal framework applied

Under Graham v. John Deere and KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, obviousness turns on: (1) scope/content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) level of ordinary skill; and (4) secondary considerations. I apply the KSR "expansive and flexible" approach, including the rationales of (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, (b) simple substitution of one known element for another, and (c) "obvious to try" where there is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.

Level of ordinary skill (PHOSITA): A person with a bachelor's degree in physics/electrical engineering (or equivalent) and 2–4 years' experience with laser self-mixing interferometry (SMI), scanned optical sensors, and digital signal processing. This is confirmed by the patent's own sophistication level (FFT/STFT, Adaptive Line Enhancers, PFDAF) and by the NPL references cited on the face (Giuliani et al.; Zabit et al.).

Critical observation about the specification. The patent's own background/description is unusually close to the cited Philips prior art. Compare:

• US 11,054,244 (description): "It may therefore be possible or even beneficial to use a DC drive current in a first period in time in order to generate a measurement signal related to the intended particle number, velocity and a modulated drive current in a second time period in order to determine false objects in the beam."
• WO 2017/016888 A1 / US 2018/0209779 A1 (same family, same inventors — van der Lee, Spruit): uses near-identical language about DC vs. modulated drive current "to determine false objects in the beam."

That overlap means the primary reference is not merely analogous art — it is the same technical lineage. This strongly lowers the "motivation to combine" bar.

---

2. The prior-art references on the face of the patent

---

3. Claim 1 — element-by-element mapping and combinations

Claim 1 requires: (a) emit beam to mirror; (b) redirect with predetermined periodic movement; (c) focus to detection volume by optical imaging device; (d) determine SMI signal when generated by particle-reflected light; (e) suppress a false SMI signal caused by a disturbance in the optical path; (f) suppression occurs "in a defined range of angles of the mirror during the periodic movement."

Primary combination (strongest): Philips '688 + Bosch '289 + Artium '510

Elements (a)–(d) — taught by WO 2017/016888 A1 / US 2018/0209779 A1 nearly verbatim. That reference discloses a laser sensor module with a first laser, a detector that "detect[s] a first self-mixing interference signal of an optical wave within a first laser cavity," the signal "caused by first reflected laser light reentering the first laser cavity, the first reflected laser light being reflected by a particle," plus a "movable mirror for reflecting at least the first and the second laser light such that at least the first and the second focus region move." (WO2017016888A1; US20180209779A1). This is a scanned, periodically-moving-mirror SMI particle-density detector. Elements (a)–(d) are met.

Element (c) "optical imaging device" focusing to detection volume — expressly taught by Bosch DE 10 2015 207 289 A1 / US 2016/0313243 A1, which claims "at least one lens element that is disposed so that the emitted optical radiation is focusable onto a focus region inside the volume." (DE102015207289A1). Note the instant patent's own BACKGROUND cites this Bosch reference for exactly this feature.

Element (e) false-signal suppression — Bosch's evaluation device "with which an information item regarding a presence of particles... is identifiable" plus the reference's stated goal of "a precise and (nearly) error-free determination" of particle information supplies the motivation and framework for rejecting false particle readings. US 6,233,045 B1 supplies explicit SMI false-reading rejection: an "estimating means for estimating the strength of said temporal variations" and circuitry keyed to "the signal to noise ratio [and] the number of peaks per unit time" to prevent erroneous self-mixing detection (US6233045B1).

Element (f) — the defined mirror-angle range. This is the only genuinely narrowing limitation, and it is supplied by US 2016/0238510 A1 (Artium), which teaches "partitioning [a] time varying signal into a plurality of timing segments; determining a plurality of parameters from the segments; and parsing the time varying signal into a plurality of individual particle signal components based on the plurality of parameters," and validating each component to "mitigate... false counting of the particles" (US20160238510A1). Because element (b) makes the beam position a known periodic function of time (and therefore of mirror angle), a PHOSITA reading Artium's per-segment processing together with Philips's oscillating mirror would immediately map Artium's "timing segment" onto a "defined range of angles of the mirror." Artium supplies the signal-processing concept; the mirror synchronizing clock in Philips supplies the mapping from segment→angle. The patent itself concedes this mapping is routine: "The defined range of angles of the mirror may, for example, be determined by the clock synchronized with the oscillation of the mirror."

Motivation to combine (KSR rationale (a) + (c)):

1. All three references are in the same field (optical particle detection/SMI) and address the same recognized problem — false/spurious signals corrupting particle counts. Bosch states the goal of "nearly error-free" particle information; Artium addresses "false counting of the particles"; Philips addresses reducing erroneous counts.
2. A PHOSITA knows that a reflection off a fixed optical element, under a periodically-scanned beam, recurs at the same mirror position every period (the patent's own FIG. 4 states the arches "correspond to the mirror period of 2.5 ms"). Gating or parsing the signal by scan position is the natural, predictable fix.
3. There is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for periodic artifacts (time/angle gating, adaptive filtering, frequency-bin discarding) — the KSR "obvious to try" rationale applies.
4. Combine → predictable result: fewer false positives, better density accuracy. No new or unexpected mechanism.

Alternative combination for element (f): Philips '688 + Philips '282 + Philips '189

WO 2017/017282 A1 adds the evaluator that "determin[es] the size" of the particle and an explicitly moving focus region driven by a mirror. US 2012/0002189 A1 teaches angle/position-resolved processing in an optically scanned fluid-flow detector. Combining the moving-mirror SMI platform ('688/'282) with angle-resolved signal handling ('189) yields claim 1.

Alternative for element (f) via Lidar art: + US 7,656,526 B1

US 7,656,526 (Lidar) is reasonably pertinent because lidar is a scanning optical system in which backscatter is resolved as a function of scan angle/range and calibrated against spurious returns. A PHOSITA in scanned optical sensing would look to lidar signal gating. This provides a secondary motivation route.

---

4. Dependent claims 2–11 — obviousness

Claims 2–11 therefore add nothing beyond routine signal-processing choices applied to the '688/'289/Artium/'305 combination. Under KSR, where a technique (per-segment thresholding, duration/amplitude discrimination, frequency filtering) is known in the art of signal discrimination and the result is predictable, its application to a known scanning SMI system is obvious.

---

5. Independent claims 12, 16, and 17

Claim 16 (laser sensor module). This is the apparatus mirror of claim 1. The same combination applies: WO 2017/016888 A1 discloses the laser/detector/electrical-driver/movable-mirror module arranged to determine the SMI signal; Bosch DE 10 2015 207 289 A1 supplies the focusing lens element and evaluation device; Artium '510 supplies per-segment false-count mitigation. Claim 16's only narrowing feature — suppression "in a defined range of angles of the mirror" — is supplied by Artium + the '688 scan clock, as in claim 1. Obvious for the reasons in §3.

Claim 12 (non-transitory computer program product performing claim 1). A programmed implementation of an obvious method is likewise obvious where the underlying hardware/processor execution is conventional. The patent itself concedes the processor may be "any one of a processor, a microprocessor, or an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC)," and Philips '688 discloses "a related method and computer program product." Obvious over '688 + Artium '510.

Claim 17 (device comprising the module of claim 16). Because claim 17 is dependent (see contradiction flagged above), it adds only an unspecified "device." The specification enumerates air purifier, exhaust hood, car, sensor box, mobile communication device; WO 2017/016888 and the Bosch references expressly contemplate such host devices (the '688 family discusses mobile communication devices; Bosch discusses portable/mobile sensor use). Combining a known sensor module into a known host device is obvious. If claim 17 were (incorrectly) treated as independent, the result is unchanged.

---

6. Secondary considerations

I find no persuasive secondary-consideration evidence in the public record:

• No unexpected results are demonstrated. The specification presents suppression techniques as known options (ALE, FFT bin discarding, per-segment thresholds) and even concedes disadvantages of one option (ALE "requires long filters… 100000 samples"). That is a design trade-off, not an unexpected result.
• No long-felt need / failure of others is evidenced. The problem of cover-glass/lens reflections in scanned optical particle sensors was actively being addressed by multiple entities: Apple later obtained US 11,680,788 B2 ("Handling obstructions and transmission element contamination for self-mixing particulate matter sensors") citing this very patent, and Bosch/Philips filed contemporaneous applications (e.g., EP 3588057, "Method of reducing false-positive particle counts of an interference particle sensor module," and US 10,876,947 on window/contamination adaptation). This pattern indicates a crowded, incremental field — the opposite of a solution that eluded others.
• No licensing/industry-acceptance nexus tied to the claimed angle-gating is documented. The patent lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees (effective 2025-07-06), which undercuts any commercial-success argument.
• No teaching away. The cited art points toward, not away from, rejecting spurious reflections.

---

7. Where the obviousness case is weakest (honest caveats)

1. The "defined range of angles of the mirror" language is the single feature an examiner could rely on for allowance, and none of the cited references I reviewed expressly says "gate the false signal by mirror angle." The case rests on the KSR combination of (i) a periodically-scanned mirror (Philips '688) whose beam position is a known function of time/angle, with (ii) a per-timing-segment false-count-mitigation teaching (Artium '510). I have strong confidence for (i) and (ii) individually; I have moderate confidence that a fact-finder would hold the express combination obvious without needing an additional reference that explicitly ties gating to mirror angle specifically (as opposed to time). I did not locate a single reference that recites mirror-angle gating for SMI particle detection, and I will not assert one exists.
2. Claim-by-claim evidence depth varies. I verified full text for US 6,233,045, Artium '510/'241, Bosch '289, and Philips '688/'779. I only have abstracts/claims for US 7,656,526 and US 2012/0002189; my reliance on them is secondary and should be confirmed against their full specifications.
3. The Artium reference is a different measurement modality (phase-Doppler/light-scattering fringe signals from crossed beams, not SMI). A challenger would need to argue it is analogous art. Given both are "particle counting by time-varying optical signals subject to false/coincident counts," the analogy is defensible, but Artium is the softest link and this is where a Patent Owner would focus a rebuttal.
4. I could not confirm the content of the family-cited non-English references (e.g., CN102564909B, RU2717751C2, JP5859154B1) beyond titles; I do not rely on them as primary evidence.

---

8. Conclusion

On the record of the references cited on the face of US 11,054,244, a PHOSITA would have found claim 1 — and the apparatus/CPP counterparts of claims 12 and 16 — obvious under § 103 as the predictable combination of:

WO 2017/016888 A1 (scanned-mirror SMI particle-density detection) + DE 10 2015 207 289 A1 / US 2016/0313243 A1 (focusing lens "optical imaging device" + evaluation device) + US 2016/0238510 A1 (per-timing-segment parsing/validation to mitigate false counts), optionally with US 6,233,045 B1 for SMI false-signal rejection.

The motivation is supplied by the shared, expressly-recognized problem of false/spurious particle counts and the KSR rationales of combining known elements for predictable results and choosing from a finite set of known anti-false-positive techniques. Dependent claims 2–11 are rendered obvious by Artium '510 and US 6,233,045 in view of the primary references. Claim 17 (dependent on claim 16) adds only a conventional host device.

The sole material vulnerability in the obviousness case is the absence of a reference that expressly recites suppression gated to a defined mirror angle (rather than a time segment). If claim 1 is to survive, it will be on that express limitation alone — and the patent's own specification undercuts it by stating that the angle range "may, for example, be determined by the clock synchronized with the oscillation of the mirror," i.e., as a routine conversion from the known scanning period.

---

Grounding sources: US11054244B2 · WO2017016888A1 / US20180209779A1 / EP3329248B1 · DE102015207289A1 · US20160313243A1 · US20160238510A1 / US11029241B2 · US6233045B1 · US20120002189A1 · US7656526B1 · WO2017017282A1