US 11236971

I'll search for the specific patent number and any associated litigation.

Let me look for the remaining independent claim text and any litigation or CAFC activity.

Let me get the full text of independent claim 14 and dependent claims 15–18.

US Patent 11,236,971 B2 — Summary

Scope note / sourcing: All bibliographic and claim content below comes from the patent's own front-matter and full text (patents.google.com/patent/US11236971B2/en) plus corroborating copies (Justia, FreePatentsOnline, Primary Arms' own patent page). I did not find any CAFC 2026 docket or USPTO/PTAB proceeding naming 11,236,971 (details under "Litigation check"). I interpreted the number literally and did not substitute similar numbers.

Bibliographic data (verified)

Abstract (verbatim)

"The disclosure is directed to a power source for one or more firearm optical sighting systems. The power source includes a solar powered cap assembly operationally configured to electrically communicate with one or more firearm optical sighting systems."

(The last sentence of the granted abstract reads "one or more firearm optical sighting systems"; the pre-grant version ended "a firearm optical sighting system.")

What the invention is (plain language)

The patent addresses a known pain point: LED-illuminated firearm optics (red dots, rifle scopes, prism scopes) run on coin/button cells such as CR2032 or CR1632, which deplete and must be replaced. Prior solar-powered sights existed (the patent cites U.S. 9,982,965 B2, "Inner Red-Dot Gun Sighting Device Powered by Solar Cell…"), but those required buying a whole new sight.

The '971 patent instead claims a drop-in replacement battery cap that screws into the existing (third-party) battery compartment in place of the original-equipment (OE) cap and the coin cell. The cap:

• Carries flexible thin-film solar cells (e.g., CIGS from PowerFilm Solar) on its outer perimeter (or top surface), under a transparent protective ring cover.
• Contains a rechargeable energy-storage device (Li-ion/LiPo/NiCd/lead-acid battery, capacitor, or super-capacitor) and control circuitry — typically a PCB with an MCU and voltage/current regulation and overcharge protection.
• Presents positive and negative power output contacts positioned to land on the host compartment's existing positive contact ring and negative floor contact, essentially "simulating a coin cell" so the sight's own electronics see the expected power source.
• Optionally includes a locking ring, a motion-sensor/accelerometer wake-up feature, and seals (O-rings) for weather resistance.

The specification frames this as an aftermarket/universal replacement that eliminates battery changes and reduces the risk of a dead-battery failure in the field.

Independent claims — plain-language overview

Note on completeness: The patent lists 18 claims. My source reproduced claims 1–14 verbatim but truncated claim 14 mid-sentence (cut off at "…disposed on an outer perimeter of the housing configured to convert light…"), and did not show claims 15–18. So claim 14 below is partial, and I cannot describe claims 15–18 at all — I have no authoritative text for them.

Claim 1 — the broad product claim (a replacement power source)

A power source for a firearm optic that is equipped with a battery compartment holding a removable coin cell and a removable battery cap, the compartment having a positive contact and a negative contact inside it. The power source is a solar-powered cap assembly comprising:

• a housing configured to mate with the battery compartment;
• one or more solar cells;
• one or more rechargeable electrical energy storage devices;
• control circuitry in electrical communication with both the solar cell(s) and the storage device(s);
• a positive power output contact and a negative power output contact, each in electrical communication with the control circuitry;

…wherein, when the housing is mated to the compartment, the output contacts are configured to electrically communicate with the compartment's internal positive and negative contacts, effective to power the sight.

This is the core "solar cap that plugs into the existing battery well" claim; it is not limited to threading, to a particular cell chemistry, or to a specific mounting location for the solar cells.

Claim 14 — the threaded cap-assembly claim (independent; text partial in my source)

Directed to a power source for a firearm optic comprising an illuminated reticle, again equipped with a coin-cell battery compartment and removable cap, where the compartment has a positive contact ring and a negative contact on the floor. The power source is a cap assembly including (1) a housing configured to threadably mate with the compartment, (2) one or more solar cells disposed on an outer perimeter of the housing configured to convert light [energy into electrical energy]… — the remaining limitations of this claim were not retrievable in my source and I will not guess at them.

Independent-claim count: Based on the claim set I could see, claims 1 and 14 are independent (claim 14's preamble uses the standalone "the power source comprising:" form). I cannot confirm whether any of claims 15–18 is also independent.

Notable dependent claims (2–13)

• 2: solar cells convert light to electricity; control circuitry feeds a controlled voltage and controlled rate into the sight.
• 3: solar cells on the housing's outer surface.
• 4: solar cells are flexible thin-film PV — monocrystalline, CdTe, CIGS, gallium arsenide, amorphous silicon, or combinations.
• 5–7: PCB in communication with the output contacts; PCB sits between the storage device and the negative output contact; a second positive contact and a second negative contact between storage device and PCB, with the second negative contact acting as a spacer.
• 8: PCB has an MCU plus a motion sensor — auto-OFF after a set no-motion period (spec: ~1–60 min) and auto-ON when motion is detected (a wake-up/battery-saving feature).
• 9–10: housing outer perimeter has a cavity holding the solar cells, with a transparent protective cover over them.
• 11: the power source is configured to replace the coin cell and the removable cap together.
• 12: the housing is configured to threadably mate with the compartment.
• 13: a power output insulating ring between the positive and negative output contacts.

Litigation check (as requested: USPTO + CAFC 2026 dockets)

• No CAFC docket, IPR/PGR, or district-court case specifically naming US 11,236,971 surfaced in my searches. I could not perform a direct PACER/CAFC docket lookup, so I cannot rule out proceedings that aren't indexed publicly — treat this as "not found," not "none exists."
• The one litigation hit involving the assignee is Leupold & Stevens, Inc. v. Primary Arms, L.L.C., Civil No. 4:24-cv-02025 (S.D. Tex., Houston Division), complaint filed May 29, 2024. There, Primary Arms is the defendant, and the patents-in-suit are US 10,578,399 and US 11,255,636 ("Locking Adjustment Device," riflescope locking turrets, priority 2012, issued 2020 and 2022). US 11,236,971 is not one of the patents asserted and is not implicated in that case.
• I found no indication that '971 has been asserted, challenged, or appealed.

Uncertainty flags

1. Claims 15–18 were not present in any source I retrieved — I have no authoritative text for them.
2. Claim 14 is incomplete in my source (truncated after "configured to convert light"); its full limitations are unknown to me.
3. "Anticipated expiration 2040-07-09" is Google Patents' assumption (filing date + 20 years) and ignores any provisional priority, terminal disclaimer, or PTA/PTE adjustments — not a legal conclusion.
4. The Primary Arms patent page lists international family members (CA, EP, CN); I did not verify their grant/status.
5. I did not independently verify the issue date or claim text against the USPTO PatentCenter/Patent Public Search full-text image; the Google Patents HTML, Justia, and FreePatentsOnline copies agree on the bibliographic data and claims 1–14.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11236971 across the sources you specified.

Let me check more specialized litigation databases.

Let me run targeted searches on litigation databases for this specific patent.

Summary of Findings: Litigation Involving US Patent 11,236,971

Bottom line: I found no litigation asserting US Patent 11,236,971 ("Solar powered cap assembly for optical sighting systems," assigned to Primary Arms, LLC).

Verification of the patent identifier (interpreted literally)

Before reporting, I confirmed the identifier resolves to the correct patent:

Litigation search results

My searches across patent-litigation sources (Unified Patents litigation portal results surfaced via search, Docket Alarm, CourtListener/RECAP, Justia Dockets, RPX Insight, and general web) returned no case in which US 11,236,971 was asserted as a patent-in-suit, challenged (e.g., IPR/PGR at the PTAB), or otherwise placed at issue.

I did find litigation involving the patent owner, Primary Arms, LLC, but none of it concerns the '971 patent — these are distinguishable and should not be conflated:

1. Leupold & Stevens, Inc. v. Primary Arms, L.L.C.

   • Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division
   • Case No.: 4:24-cv-02025
   • Filed: 2024
   • Patents asserted: US 10,578,399 ("Locking Adjustment Device") and US 11,255,636 ("Locking Adjustment Device") — not the '971 patent
   • Subject: riflescope adjustment turret assemblies (accused "GLx" series riflescopes)
   • Status: pending as of the available records

2. People of the State of New York v. [various defendants, incl. Primary Arms, LLC]

   • Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
   • Case No.: 1:22-cv-06124-JMF
   • Filed: 2022 (New York AG, Letitia James)
   • Subject: "ghost gun" / unfinished frame and receiver sales — not a patent case and not about the '971 patent; later appealed to the Second Circuit (No. 24-773)

3. PLX, Inc. v. Primary Arms, L.L.C. — TTAB trademark cancellation (Reg. No. 6,103,194); not patent litigation and unrelated to the '971 patent.

4. Other Leupold-related dockets (e.g., Leupold v. Lightforce, Battery Conservation Innovations v. Leupold, Young v. Leupold) and Leupold's own '365/'636/'399 patent family — none involve the '971 patent.

Important caveats

• No litigation does not mean no dispute. The '971 patent is only recently granted (Feb. 2022) and has not appeared in reported district-court, CAFC, ITC, or PTAB dockets that my searches surfaced.
• I was unable to complete exhaustive runs on the Unified Patents litigation portal and PACER directly (search-step limits were reached), so this should be treated as a good-faith negative result rather than a certified clear-and-complete docket check.
• Note the international counterparts (EP 20837877.8 → an EP member; CA-3145779; CN-ZL202080054710.6). There could be foreign proceedings (e.g., before the Unified Patent Court or national courts) that would not appear in U.S. dockets. I found no evidence of any such action.

Recommended next steps for a definitive answer

• Query the Unified Patents Portal case list directly: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist (filter by patent number 11236971).
• Run a PACER party/patent search and a PTAB (P-TACTS) search on the '971 patent number and on "Primary Arms."
• Check Docket Alarm / RPX Insight / Lex Machina for post-2022 filings naming Primary Arms as plaintiff (defensive assertion of the '971 patent).
• Check UPC and EPO registers for the EP family member, since the '971 disclosure is the parent for WO2021007451A1.

If you have a specific case number or party in mind, I can narrow the search further.

Note on methodology: I did not auto-correct any identifiers; "11,236,971" was searched and confirmed as the Primary Arms solar-cap patent, and I excluded results that referenced similar but distinct numbers (e.g., the Leupold '399/'636 and the unrelated SEC/foreign records that merely contained the digit string "11236971").

I'll verify the structured data with targeted searches on the patent number, its owner, and the underlying technology.

No PTAB hits yet. Let me probe additional angles — litigation, Unified Patents, and district court activity that typically precedes IPRs.

Let me check for any assertion of the patent itself and any AIA trial docket entries.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 11236971: 0. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal, most recent ingest) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM, and my independent web searches found no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or Federal Circuit appeal referencing this patent. There is therefore no proceeding to rank by impact — the count is zero across every status bucket (active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0). The bottom-line defensive posture: this patent has never been tested at the PTAB. All 18 claims — including independent claims 1 and 14 and their dependents — are UNTESTED and presumptively valid under § 282. A defendant cannot lean on an existing invalidation; any IPR/PGR would have to be built from scratch, and the estoppel landscape is empty.

Proceedings detail

None. No proceeding number exists to report, and I will not fabricate one. For completeness, here is what the checks did and did not surface:

• USPTO ODP structured data: no AIA trial proceedings for 11236971 (canonical, per prompt).
• Web search for IPR/PGR on the patent number and title: no PTAB docket entries, no petition PDFs, no FWD, no POP or CAFC appeal.
• Petitioner-side check (Unified Patents / defensive aggregators): no evidence that Unified Patents or any aggregator has challenged this patent. No EIP, no IPR.

Diligence flag (not a proceeding on this patent). Searching the parties surfaced district-court activity in which Primary Arms is the defendant, not an IPR petitioner or patent enforcer:

• Leupold & Stevens, Inc. v. Primary Arms, L.L.C., Civil No. 4:24-cv-02025 (S.D. Tex., Houston Div.). Leupold asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 10,578,399 and 11,255,636 ("Locking Adjustment Device") against Primary Arms' "GLx" riflescopes. Source: RPX litigation document 15706556. Primary Arms' Answer/Counterclaims were not returned in search; if Primary Arms has counterclaimed on 11,236,971, that would be a new fact this report does not capture.
• Secure Matrix LLC v. Primary Arms, L.L.C., No. 4:26-cv-02569 (S.D. Tex., Judge Charles Eskridge), a § 271 patent case filed in 2026 (day redacted on the aggregator page). Source: PacerMonitor case page. Plaintiff appears to be a monetization entity. No indication the asserted patent is 11,236,971.

Neither case establishes that 11,236,971 has been asserted by anyone, and neither is an AIA trial. I could not confirm a docket entry tying the '971 patent to any complaint.

Strategic summary

Claim status. All claims are live. The patent issued 2022-02-01 with 18 claims; the granted claim set includes independent claims 1 and 14. Nothing has been canceled, narrowed by disclaimer, or held unpatentable in any AIA trial. The prompt block (which cuts off mid-claim-14) confirms the claim count at 18. There has been no certificate of correction or reexamination surfaced in search.

Estoppel landscape. With zero proceedings, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is empty: no petitioner or privy is barred from raising anything. Conversely, a defendant gets no benefit from earlier petitioners' work — there is no fixed trial record to piggyback on, and the full prior-art space (the patent's own cited art, the Aimpoint/Holosun solar-red-dot products referenced in the specification and in related design-patent NPL citations, and the U.S. Pat. No. 9,982,965 B2 prior solar-powered sighting reference incorporated by the applicant) remains fair game for a fresh § 102/§ 103 challenge. Note the specification's own admission that solar-powered sighting systems existed before the '971 filing date (U.S. Pat. No. 9,982,965 B2) — a natural starting reference for an obviousness attack on the "use solar to replace coin cell" concept, tempered by the claimed retrofit-cap structure (threaded housing, positive/negative output contacts mimicking a coin cell, PCB control circuitry).

Pattern signals. No repeat-petitioner pattern (zero petitioners). No PTAB appeal activity by Primary Arms. No defensive aggregator in the chain. The relevant pattern is the inverse of a troll posture: Primary Arms appears as the target in at least two district-court suits (Leupold; Secure Matrix) and is not a serial enforcer of this patent on the public record. The '971 patent is marked inbound on Primary Arms' virtual patent-marking page, with international counterparts CA-3145779, EP-20837877.8, and CN-ZL202080054710.6 — consistent with a genuine commercial product (a solar-cap retrofit) rather than a litigation asset. That said, the absence of IPRs is not proof the patent is strong; it more likely reflects a small market (firearm optics enthusiasts), a manufacturer-on-manufacturer competitive dynamic rather than PAE assertion, and the low number of potential infringers.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant, treat the patent as fully intact. There is no FWD to link to and no invalidated claim to rely on. Do not assume anywhere that claims 1-5 have been canceled — they have not. Build your invalidity case independently.
2. Run your own knock-out search before filing. The best available IPR runway is the prior solar-sighting art (start with U.S. Pat. No. 9,982,965 B2, cited in the patent's own Background; also the Holosun solar red-dot products referenced in the NPL citations of related Primary Arms design patents). The claimed novelty hangs on the retrofit cap structure, not on solar powering per se — attack the positive/negative output contact geometry and the "simulate a coin cell" limitation.
3. Watch the two live district cases. Leupold v. Primary Arms (4:24-cv-02025) and Secure Matrix v. Primary Arms (4:26-cv-02569) both put Primary Arms at the defense table; if a counterclaim asserting 11,236,971 appears, the § 315(b) one-year window for an IPR on that claim set starts running from the counterclaim's service date. Docket monitoring on PTAB E2E and CourtListener is the right check cadence.
4. No trial-stage milestones to track because no proceeding is pending. If you file, remember the statutory clock: institution decision within 6 months of the petition's filing date, FWD within 12 months of institution (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)).

Confidence note: I have high confidence in the zero-count finding (ODP plus negative web results). I have lower confidence that a very recently filed, not-yet-published petition doesn't exist; if the client needs certainty as of a specific date, confirm directly against PTAB E2E by patent number and against PACER for the two S.D. Tex. dockets.

I'll research the assignment chain and cross-reference sources before writing up.

Let me dig for the specific assignment record details and inventor/assignee context.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 11236971 B2

Patent: US 11236971 B2 — "Solar powered cap assembly for optical sighting systems"
App. No.: 16/924,925 · Priority: 2019-07-10 (prov. 62/872,487) · Filed: 2020-07-09 · Issued: 2022-02-01
Current assignee of record (Google Patents): Primary Arms, LLC

Retrieval caveat (read first). The USPTO Assignment Center is a session-based JS application; I was not able to pull the underlying assignment abstract directly from assignmentcenter.uspto.gov within this session. The chain below is reconstructed from the Google Patents legal-events record for this patent, which mirrors the Assignment Center entry but does not expose reel/frame numbers or the correspondent of record. I flag every place where that missing detail changes a conclusion. Do not treat the absent reel/frame as "no assignment" — one assignment is clearly evidenced. Verify at USPTO Assignment Center (search patent 11236971) and Google Patents legal events.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check: No. There is a single inventor, and he assigned to the operating company rather than departing one. There is no evidence of inventors leaving the original assignee, and none of the fire-sale precursors (multiple inventors departing within 12 months) apply. The inventor-to-company assignment executed roughly 15 months after the 2019-07-10 priority date and ~3 months after the 2020-07-09 non-provisional filing — the normal "assign at filing" cadence, not a distressed transfer.

Original assignee

Primary Arms, LLC (also styled "Primary Arms, L.L.C."), a Texas limited liability company, 3219 S. Sam Houston Pkwy. E., Suite 100, Houston, TX 77047.

• Primary line of business: Retail/e-commerce and design of firearm optics. Founded 2007–2008 in Houston as an online sport-optics store; launched its own private-label optics lines (CLx Classic, SLx Silver, GLx Gold, PLx Platinum) with design in Houston and manufacturing outsourced to Japan/Philippines/China. The HTX-1 (2025) is its first US-made optic.
• Product embodying the claims: yes. Primary Arms maintains a virtual patent-marking page under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) that expressly lists US-11236971-B2 under "Solar powered cap assembly for optical sighting systems," alongside foreign counterparts CA-3145779, EP-20837877.8, CN-ZL202080054710.6, and the published application US-20210010784-A1. The commercial read-through is the AutoLive® battery-cap line (e.g., the 2025 "AutoLive Battery Cap 'R Spec'"), which is a drop-in powered battery cap — i.e., the claimed article. See Primary Arms patent marking page.
• Current status: Operating. Active product launches as of 2025–2026 (Discovery 2025 lineup, PLx 1.5-12×36 launch, HTX-1). No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition surfaced. Note the entity is a defendant in unrelated patent suits (see below), which is consistent with an operating company, not a shell.

Assignment timeline

The Assignment Center record for this patent is thin — one recorded assignment, the original inventor-to-assignee conveyance. Google Patents legal events show no subsequent transfers through issuance (2022-02-01) or after.

• Executed date: not exposed by available sources (on or before 2020-10-15) / recorded 2020-10-15 — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: Sheets, Robert E, Jr. ("MR.")
  • Assignee: PRIMARY ARMS, LLC
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved. The Assignment Center abstract would name the recording attorney/firm; Google Patents omits it. Because a correspondent comparison is the core of the repeat-player test (see Signal 3), this is the single most important missing data point in this analysis.
  • Context: Founder/employee-to-company assignment — the inventor conveying rights to the operating entity that filed and prosecuted the application. Not a fire-sale, reorg, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.

No other recorded links. There is no second assignment, no security agreement, no merger, no change of name, no license recordation, and no release on the face of the legal-events record. Google Patents still lists Primary Arms, LLC as both original and current assignee, and the patent remains Active with anticipated expiration 2040-07-09.

Non-assignment litigation context (not title transfers, included only for the NPE analysis):

• 2024-08-29 — Leupold & Stevens, Inc. v. Primary Arms, L.L.C., No. 4:24-cv-02025 (S.D. Tex.). Primary Arms is the defendant; Leupold is the plaintiff asserting its own '399 and '636 locking-turret patents against Primary Arms' GLx riflescopes. (complaint)
• 2026-03-31 — Secure Matrix LLC v. Primary Arms, L.L.C., No. 4:26-cv-02569 (S.D. Tex.). Primary Arms is the defendant; Secure Matrix LLC is the plaintiff, represented by Isaac Philip Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC) and Yetter Coleman LLP. (docket)

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11236971
    2019 : Provisional filed by Sheets
    2020 : Non-provisional filed by Primary Arms
         : Assignment to Primary Arms LLC recorded
    2021 : Application published
    2022 : Patent issued to Primary Arms LLC
    2024 : Primary Arms named defendant in Leupold suit
    2026 : Primary Arms named defendant in Secure Matrix suit

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Insufficient data — interpreted narrowly and with an affirmative gloss.

Strictly applied to the option set, this patent has only the original assignment (Sheets → Primary Arms, LLC, recorded 2020-10-15) and no post-issuance transfers, which is the textbook "Insufficient data" trigger. That said, the finding is not really a data vacuum on the NPE question: it is an affirmative clean-chain result. Every one of the eight NPE signals is either not present or (for Signal 3) unassessable for want of the correspondent of record, and the sole owner is a verified product-shipping operating company that marks US-11236971-B2 on its commercial AutoLive battery-cap line. Note the option set has no "operating-company owner, no assertion campaign" bucket — I did not select Operating-company assertion because Primary Arms is not suing competitors on this patent; it is the defendant in both 2024 (Leupold) and 2026 (Secure Matrix) actions, and the latter is brought by an NPE using Rabicoff Law, i.e., Primary Arms sits on the receiving end of the NPE model. If forced to state a conclusion in English rather than picking a bucket: no NPE pattern; original operating company retains sole ownership.

Verify: USPTO Assignment Center → search "11236971" (pull the reel/frame abstract to confirm correspondent and execution date); cross-check Google Patents legal events; Primary Arms patent marking.

Open items for a follow-up pass (not resolvable from the sources retrieved):

1. Reel/frame number and correspondent of record for the 2020-10-15 assignment — required to definitively clear Signal 3.
2. Exact assignment execution date (vs. the 2020-10-15 recording date).
3. Robert E Sheets, Jr.'s role/employment at Primary Arms at filing — relevant only to characterizing the transfer, not to the NPE call.
4. Confirmation of whether any foreign counterpart (CA-3145779, EP-20837877.8, CN-ZL202080054710.6) carries a divergent ownership record.

I'll search the USPTO database and patent citation sources for US 11,236,971 and its cited references.

Let me pull the specific citation lists (both the "Cited Patent Documents" and the examiner-cited references) for this patent.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,236,971 B2

Sourcing note up front (read this before the analysis): The instruction was to search the USPTO database for the specific number 11236971 and return only that patent's prior art. I confirmed the identifier resolves to US 11,236,971 B2 (the Primary Arms solar-cap patent already characterized in the prior sections) and excluded look-alike numbers. However, I hit search-step limits before I could pull the complete face-of-patent "References Cited" list (the examiner-cited U.S. patent references printed on the front page) directly from USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter. So the list below is divided into two honesty tiers:

• Tier A — authoritative: the reference the '971 specification itself cites in its Background Art (this is verified from the patent's own full text, which is the controlling source).
• Tier B — relevant but not confirmed as cited on '971: references that surfaced in the citation lists of related patents in the same technology family. These are legitimate prior art to consider, but I cannot certify that the '971 examiner cited them. Do not treat Tier B as "the citations for 11236971."

I will not fabricate a front-page citation list I could not retrieve.

Tier A — The reference cited in the '971 specification (verified)

US 9,982,965 B2

Verification: The '971 full text states, verbatim: "Other firearm optical sighting systems have been developed to replace coin cell batteries with solar power, e.g., see U.S. Pat. No. 9,982,965 B2, issued on May 29, 2018, titled 'Inner Red-Dot Gun Sighting Device Powered by Solar Cell and Provided with Micro-Current LED Light Source,' which is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety." Search results independently confirm US 9,982,965 B2 = Huanic Corporation, 2014 priority.

Brief description: An integrated red-dot sight whose inner sighting device is solar-powered from a photovoltaic cell and driven by a micro-current LED light source. It is a complete replacement sighting optic, not a module that drops into an existing optic's battery well.

§ 102 anticipation assessment (claim-by-claim):

• Claim 1 — NO anticipation. Claim 1 requires a "solar powered cap assembly" with a "housing configured to mate with the battery compartment," plus positive/negative power output contacts positioned to land on the battery compartment's existing internal positive and negative contacts. Huanic discloses a self-contained solar sight, not a cap that mates to a host battery compartment and presents output contacts to that compartment's internal contacts. Missing element ⇒ no § 102 anticipation.
• Claim 14 — NO anticipation. Same deficiency: claim 14's preamble requires a host optic "equipped with a power input system including a battery compartment for housing a removable coin cell battery," with a "positive contact ring" and a "negative contact on a floor" of that compartment. Huanic does not disclose a cap that threadably mates to and energizes such a host compartment.
• Narrower dependent claims — partial relevance only. Huanic's solar-cell + micro-current-LED teachings are relevant to the solar-energy-harvesting concepts of claims 2 and 4, but because those claims depend from claim 1, they cannot be anticipated unless claim 1's elements are all present in the same reference. They are not.
• Proper role: Huanic is best characterized as a § 103 obviousness reference (combined with a conventional threaded coin-cell battery cap as the secondary reference), not a § 102 anticipation reference. This is consistent with how the '971 patent distinguishes it: "such solar powered firearm optical sighting systems are provided as separate commercial items… A need exists to employ solar power with existing coin cell battery powered firearm optical sighting systems."

Tier B — Prior art that surfaced in related-family citation lists (NOT confirmed as cited on '971)

These appeared in "citations"/"family-cites" listings of neighboring patents (e.g., US 2023/0032342 A1, "Renewable energy powered weapon sight," and WO family members). Treat as candidate prior art, not as the '971 citation record.

B1. WO 2015/131452 A1

• Citation: WO 2015/131452 A1, "Inner red-dot gun sighting device powered by solar cell and provided with micro-current LED light source," applicant 西安华科光电有限公司 (Xi'an Huake / Huanic).
• Dates: published Sept. 11, 2015; priority Mar. 1, 2014.
• Description: The PCT parent of US 9,982,965 B2 above — same integrated solar red-dot sight disclosure.
• § 102: No anticipation of claims 1 or 14, for the same reasons as US 9,982,965 B2 (integrated sight, not a replacement cap). Same § 103 role.

B2. WO 2017/211074 A1

• Citation: WO 2017/211074 A1, "Solar red dot sight," 西安华科光电有限公司.
• Dates: published Dec. 14, 2017.
• Description: A further solar-powered red-dot sight development from the same family; describes photovoltaic-powered illumination of a sight.
• § 102: No anticipation of claim 1/14 — again an integrated sight, and it does not disclose a replacement cap with output contacts mating to an existing compartment.

B3. DE 201 19 281 U1

• Citation: DE 201 19 281 U1, "Automatic all-weather lighting device for riflescope" ("Automatische Allwetter-Beleuchtungsvorrichtung für Zielfernrohre"), He Yinquan, Zhuhai.
• Dates: priority June 15, 2001; published Feb. 14, 2002.
• Description: A riflescope illumination device; relevant as early art for illuminated-reticle scopes.
• § 102: Does not disclose solar cells, rechargeable storage, control circuitry, or a replacement cap with power output contacts. No anticipation of any of claims 1–18.

B4. CN 108592700 B

• Citation: CN 108592700 B, "Multi-gear brightness adjusting circuit board and multi-gear battery holder structure," 西安华科光电有限公司.
• Dates: filed May 3, 2018; granted July 9, 2024.
• Description: Multi-gear brightness control and a battery-holder structure for solar red-dot sights.
• § 102: The battery-holder/brightness circuitry may be relevant background, but it does not disclose a solar-powered replacement cap assembly that mates with an existing third-party battery compartment. No anticipation.

B5. US 11,287,220 B2

• Citation: US 11,287,220 B2, "Macro alignment reticle sight system," Grace Engineering Corp.
• Dates: priority Feb. 15, 2019; issued Mar. 29, 2022.
• Description: A reticle-based sight system with alignment features. It is a near-contemporaneous filing (priority ~Feb. 2019, five months before '971's July 2019 priority), so under AIA § 102(a)(2) it is only potential art if it qualifies as an earlier-filed published application/US patent effective as of its filing date for the relevant subject matter.
• § 102: Discloses a reticle sight system, not a solar replacement cap with output contacts mating to a host battery compartment. No anticipation of claims 1 or 14. (Note the timing issue — as a same-era filing it is weak art in any event.)

B6. US 2019/0201161 A1 and US 2017/007351 A1 (Yu, Steven Sounyoung)

• Citation: US 2019/0201161 A1 (published July 4, 2019); family member US 2017/007351 A1 (published Jan. 12, 2017).
• Description: Optical sighting/apparatus disclosures that surfaced in a PCT search report (PCT/EP2021/062027) as "Y" references against claims 1–36 of another application.
• § 102: Cited in a different application's search report; I have not verified it discloses the replacement-cap architecture of claims 1/14. No established anticipation.

B7. WO 2017/079985 A1

• Citation: WO 2017/079985 A1, Shenzhen NED Optics Co. Ltd.
• Dates: published May 18, 2017.
• Description: Also an "Y" reference in PCT/EP2021/062027 (viewed with figures 1, 4, 7, 10, 13–20) for optical-device robustness/mounting features.
• § 102: No verified disclosure of the '971 replacement-cap claim architecture. No anticipation.

Overall § 102 conclusion

No reference I could identify anticipates claim 1 or claim 14 of US 11,236,971. The single verified cited reference (Huanic US 9,982,965 B2) is directed to a self-contained solar sight and is missing the defining element of the '971 claims — a solar-powered cap assembly whose housing mates with an existing coin-cell battery compartment and whose output contacts electrically communicate with that compartment's internal positive/negative contacts to "simulate a coin cell." That gap is precisely the novelty the '971 spec asserts.

Practical takeaway for a validity challenge:

• § 102: No clean anticipation reference surfaced.
• § 103: The strongest avenue is Huanic US 9,982,965 B2 (solar-powered illuminated reticle) combined with a conventional threaded coin-cell battery cap and standard rechargeable-storage/regulator teachings. The '971 dependent claims that add specific structure — the recessed cavity + transparent cover (claims 9–10), the PCB-between-storage-and-negative-contact arrangement with a spacer contact (claims 5–7), the motion-sensor wake-up MCU (claim 8), and the insulating ring (claim 13) — would each need separate art to reach.

Uncertainty flags (please read)

1. I did not retrieve the complete front-page "References Cited" list for US 11,236,971 from USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter. My search budget was exhausted before that step. The Tier A reference is verified from the patent's own text; the Tier B references are from related citation lists and are not confirmed as examiner-cited on '971.
2. No fabricated citations. Where I could not verify a reference's § 102 content, I said so rather than asserting anticipation.
3. Claim 14 remains partially inaccessible in the sources available (truncated after "configured to convert light"), consistent with the earlier section's flag — so my claim 14 § 102 assessment rests on the claim preamble and the portions I could read.
4. Number literalism observed: "11236971" was searched and confirmed as US 11,236,971 B2; I did not substitute the Leupold '399/'636 patents or any other look-alike number.
5. Recommended definitive next step: pull the "References Cited" and "Cited By" tables directly from https://patents.google.com/patent/US11236971B2/en and the USPTO Patent Public Search "References" tab, plus the '971 file-wrapper (Image File Wrapper) to capture any examiner-cited art and § 102/§ 103 rejections, then reconcile with the Tier A/B lists above.

If you can authorize additional search steps, I will retrieve the exact front-page citation table and replace Tier B with the certified examiner citation record.

I'll gather prior-art references relevant to the claims before building the §103 analysis.

Let me pull more detail on the strongest candidate references (dates and claim scope) and check the '971 patent's own citations/Similar Documents.

Obviousness Analysis of US 11,236,971 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note. This builds on the two prior sections (Patent summary; Litigation summary). Per the earlier summary, claims 1–13 are quoted verbatim in my sources, claim 14 is truncated mid-sentence, and claims 15–18 were never retrieved — so I analyze claim 1 and claims 2–13 in full, treat claim 14 only partially, and cannot address claims 15–18 at all. Nothing below is auto-corrected: every patent number is used literally. This is an analytical exercise, not a legal opinion of invalidity; I have not seen the '971 file wrapper or the examiner's IDS.

Contradiction flag: the earlier summary's international family (CA-3145779, EP-20837877.8, CN-ZL202080054710.6) versus the litigation summary's family (WO2021007451A1 + the same three) — minor and immaterial here, but noted.

1. Prior art set relied upon

Not prior art (post‑date '971 and therefore excluded from the §103 combinations below): Meprolight US 2023/0032342 A1 / US 12,055,366 (priority IL283500, 2021‑05‑27); US 2025/0035943 A1 (2024 filing); Universal Electronics US 2024/0097063 and US 2025/0226465 (2024 filings). These show the field moving the same way, but they cannot be used against '971.

2. Framework

Under §103 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a claim is obvious where the differences over the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the effective filing date (2019‑07‑10, the provisional priority date). A motivation to combine may come from the nature of the problem, the teachings of the references, market/design incentives, and predictable variation; the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely obvious, and the result need not be physically embodied in a single reference.

Proposed level of ordinary skill (Graham factors): a person with a B.S. in mechanical or electrical engineering (or equivalent) and about 2–4 years of experience designing battery-powered optical or portable-electronic devices — or more experience with less formal education. This person would be familiar with: coin‑cell battery compartments and threaded caps with coin‑slots (the '971 specification itself describes these as conventional); solar cells and charge controllers; and microcontroller-based power management (MCU, regulators, motion wake‑up).

Threshold observation. Claim 1's preamble is largely a recitation of the environment — a sight "equipped with" a coin‑cell compartment and a removable cap with internal positive and negative contacts. The '971 specification admits this: "commercially available third‑party firearm optical sighting systems … are typically equipped with a power input system including (1) a battery compartment … and (2) a removable OE battery cap" (US 11,236,971, ¶ discussing FIGS. 1–8). Admissions in the specification are prior art against the applicant, so the preamble narrows the field but adds little patentable weight. The inventive question therefore reduces to the cap assembly elements and, chiefly, where the solar cells and storage sit and how power is delivered to the compartment's existing contacts.

3. Claim 1 — element mapping and combinations

Claim 1 requires: (a) environment = coin‑cell compartment with internal +/− contacts and removable cap; (b) solar‑powered cap assembly with (i) housing configured to mate with the battery compartment, (ii) one or more solar cells, (iii) one or more rechargeable storage devices, (iv) control circuitry linking (ii) and (iii), (v) +/− power output contacts in communication with the control circuitry; and (c) when mated, those contacts communicate with the compartment's internal +/− contacts to power the sight.

Honest assessment: I did not find a single reference that discloses every element of claim 1. In particular, the references that put solar on a battery cap/cover (US 2011/0117974) keep the original battery plus an adapter, while the references that insert a solar power module into the coin‑cell holder itself (US 11,356,052; US 2015/0318736; US 10,587,221) are not, on their faces, threaded caps that mate with the compartment. The obviousness case is therefore a combination case. That is still sufficient under KSR — and the combination is a tight one, because the gap between the two families of references is precisely the element each supplies for the other.

Combination A (primary): US 2011/0117974 + US 10,587,221 + US 9,982,965

Combination B (alternative): US 11,356,052 (if prior art) + US 9,982,965 + US 2011/0117974

If US 11,356,052's effective filing predates 2019‑07‑10, this is the closest art: it discloses a solar module sized/form‑factored to insert into a coin‑type cell holder, with electrodes that contact the holder, stackable energy‑storage and power‑management modules, a transparent cover exposing the PV cell, and the express purpose of substituting a coin‑type cell. Adding a threaded cap/shell (US 2011/0117974's cover; US 10,587,221's battery cap; or the admittedly conventional OE coin‑slot cap) and the firearm‑optic end use (US 9,982,965; US 10,514,233) completes claim 1.

Motivation to combine (KSR rationales)

1. Same problem, same solution, analogous art. US 2011/0117974 states the identical problem in portable electronics: "the battery packs … may become discharged … If a user has no replacement battery or charger on hand … the device cannot be used until a replacement battery or a charger is obtained." The '971 Background states the same concern for optics (coin‑cell "limited service life requiring replacement") and expressly frames the goal as "employ solar power with existing coin cell battery powered firearm optical sighting systems." A PHOSITA facing that problem in a red‑dot sight would look to the solar battery‑cover art.
2. The '971 specification supplies the motivation itself. It cites US 9,982,965 and criticizes it only because it "requir[es] one to purchase … the entire solar powered optical sighting system." The stated need — retrofitting existing sights — is a design incentive, not an inventive insight. Under KSR, "the problem the inventor was trying to solve" can supply the reason to combine.
3. Predictable, routine engineering. Placing a known PV cell, a known charge controller, and a known rechargeable cell/supercapacitor into a known removable cover/battery form factor, and delivering power through contacts patterned on the coin cell's own terminals, is the "combination of familiar elements according to known methods" that KSR holds likely obvious. US 2015/0318736 and US 10,587,221 confirm that solar cells had already been packaged into standard battery/cover form factors with terminals; US 2011/0117974 confirms a solar cover with contacts was known.
4. Reasonable expectation of success / mere optimization. The '971 specification's own operating criterion is that the average current from the solar cells exceeds the sight's current draw at maximum brightness, with recharge taking about 2–48 hours. That is a sizing exercise (cell area, storage capacity, candlepower vs. LED current), i.e., routine optimization, not a new result. Commercial solar‑equipped red dots (Holosun) demonstrate the enabling feasibility in the same field before the priority date.

4. Dependent claims 2–13

• Claim 2 (light→electricity; "controlled voltage and controlled rate"). Disclosed by US 9,982,965 (MCU controlling voltage/current to the LED), US 10,514,233 (MCU + gear control circuit), US 10,587,221 (control circuitry). Obvious.
• Claim 3 (solar cells on the housing's outer surface). US 9,982,965 (solar cell on the housing top surface), US 2011/0117974 (solar generator on the battery cover), US 10,587,221 (PV on the shell wall). Obvious.
• Claim 4 (flexible thin‑film PV: monocrystalline, CdTe, CIGS, GaAs, a‑Si, or combinations). US 9,982,965 lists monocrystalline silicon, polycrystalline silicon, Si photodiode, and low‑light amorphous silicon; US 11,356,052 lists thin‑film GaAs (single/multi‑junction), a‑Si, and dye‑sensitized. Choosing among known PV chemistries for known thin/flexible/low‑light properties, with no teaching away and predictable results, is obvious. Obvious (a selection of known materials).
• Claim 5 (control circuitry includes a PCB in communication with the +/− output contacts). US 9,982,965 ("controlling circuit board"), US 10,514,233 (circuit board with MCU), US 10,587,221. Obvious.
• Claim 6 (PCB disposed between the storage device and the negative output contact). This is a spatial/stacking limitation. US 11,356,052 expressly teaches stacking the modules in a chosen order (solar top; storage/power‑management below) within a coin‑cell form factor, each with a shaped circuit board/substrate. Stacking a PCB between a cell and a contact in a coin‑cell‑diameter housing is a predictable packaging choice. Likely obvious, but this is the kind of mechanical‑arrangement claim (like claims 7 and 13) where an examiner has previously demanded a reference showing the specific stack — see §6.
• Claim 7 (a second positive contact and a second negative contact between storage device and PCB, the second negative contact acting as a spacer). The '971 specification itself calls the negative contact a "spacer for a snug type fit." A conductive spacer/contact between a coin‑cell and a board is routine battery‑holder design. Likely obvious as a design choice, but I found no reference that expressly recites a contact doubling as a height spacer; this limitation is the most likely to survive a prima facie case absent better art.
• Claim 8 (PCB with MCU and a motion sensor; auto‑OFF after a set no‑motion period; auto‑ON on motion). This is directly met by the Holosun "Shake Awake" public use: a motion sensor keeps the LED on during use, and "after 10 minutes (default setting) … powers the LED off until motion is again detected. The slightest touch of the optic instantly reactivates the LED" — in an already‑solar, supercapacitor‑equipped optic. The '971 specification's claimed range (1–60 min; default‑like 10 min) sits squarely inside that disclosure. Strongly obvious (public use/on‑sale art), provided the Holosun feature is corroborated with a pre‑July‑2019 dated document (catalog, manual, press release, or the corresponding Holosun patent).
• Claim 9 (outer perimeter with a cavity holding the solar cells). The '971 specification contrasts this with a smooth raised‑mount surface (FIG. 17) — i.e., it is one of two disclosed alternatives. Recessing cells to protect them is a design choice; US 9,982,965 and US 11,356,052 both address cell protection. Obvious.
• Claim 10 (transparent protective cover over the cells in the cavity). US 9,982,965: "a protection glass is provided at a top surface of the solar cell"; US 11,356,052: transparent opening/cover exposing the PV cell. Obvious (and near‑anticipatory in substance).
• Claim 11 (configured to replace the coin cell and the cap). US 2011/0117974 claim 8 ("replace a non‑enhanced battery compartment cover"); US 2015/0318736 (substitute for a standard battery); US 11,356,052 (substitute a coin‑type cell). Obvious — this is essentially the preamble goal realized.
• Claim 12 (housing threadably mates with the compartment). Threaded coin‑slot caps are admitted prior art in the '971 specification ("a typical OE battery cap 15 includes a circular threaded surface 16 … for threadably mating with a threaded surface 11 of the battery compartment"). Substituting a threaded housing for a snap/latch cover is an obvious design choice for a removable battery cover. Obvious.
• Claim 13 (power output insulating ring between the +/− output contacts). Any concentric/annular positive‑and‑negative contact pair requires electrical isolation; the '971 specification says the ring is a "plastic." Battery assemblies (including coin cells, which use an insulating gasket/separator between anode and cathode cases) routinely use such insulators. Obvious as a design choice, though again I found no reference expressly reciting an "insulating ring" between cap output contacts — a search of battery‑holder/coaxial‑connector art is advisable.

5. Claim 14 (independent) and claims 15–18

Claim 14 is truncated in every source I could retrieve ("…disposed on an outer perimeter of the housing configured to convert light"). Based on the visible portion, claim 14 adds over claim 1: (i) an illuminated‑reticle optic environment (US 9,982,965; US 10,514,233 disclose exactly this); (ii) a threadably mating housing (= claim 12, obvious); and (iii) solar cells on the outer perimeter (US 10,587,221 places PV on the shell wall; US 2011/0117974 on the cover). The claim also recites the positive contact ring and negative floor contact of the compartment — again admitted prior art in the '971 specification ("a positive contact (shown as a positive contact ring 30) … and a negative contact 25 … on a floor 21"). I cannot complete this analysis because the remaining limitations are unknown; the same combination rationale would apply to any additional conventional cap‑packaging limitations.

Claims 15–18: no text available in any source I retrieved — I cannot analyze them and will not guess. If they are dependents of claims 1/14 reciting routine features (seals/O‑rings, a locking ring, storage chemistry, or dimensional ranges such as the Table 3/Table 4 values), they would face the same predictable‑variation rationale under KSR; if any of them recites something structurally unusual, my analysis would change.

6. Where the patentee would push back, and what art is still needed

Likely non‑obviousness arguments from the owner:

1. "No single reference discloses a threaded solar cap that also eliminates the coin cell." Fair. My case is a combination case; the owner will argue the references are from different sub‑fields (phone battery covers; solar batteries; integrated solar sights) and that nothing suggested collapsing the solar hardware into the cap with no battery left in the well.
2. Claim 6/7/13 mechanical arrangements. The stacked PCB‑between‑cell‑and‑contact, the "second negative contact as spacer," and the insulating ring are the sort of limitations where examiners have historically required explicit structural art. Better art would come from coin‑cell holder patents (cavities, springs, spacers) and from threaded‑cap flashlight/solar tail‑cap art.
3. Claim 8's motion sensor. The Holosun "Shake Awake" public use is my strongest evidence, but public use must be corroborated with pre‑July‑2019 dated materials (Holosun patent, printed manual, dealer catalog, archived web page). Absent that, the owner may defeat this claim even if claim 1 falls.

Recommended additional searches (to convert "likely obvious" into a firm prima facie case):

• Google Patents "Similar Documents" and "Cited By" for US 11,236,971 and its EP/CN family members, plus the EPO search report for the family (note that the EPO search report for the related Huanic case, EP 3 901 560 A4, cited US 2015/247702 A1 (Davidson) and US 6,373,628 B1 (Gunnarsson, Aimpoint) — the latter may be instructive on reticle‑illumination power architecture). See http://data.epo.org/pise-server/rest/collections/lgpi/EP3901560A4.pdf
• Threaded solar‑cap/tail‑cap art: e.g., solar tail caps for flashlights and other threaded, contact‑bearing caps (analogous art with the exact "threaded housing + contacts + solar cell" structure).
• Coin‑cell holder art (spacers, spring contacts, insulating rings) for claims 6, 7, 13.
• Dated Holosun materials for claim 8.
• Verification of US 11,356,052's earliest effective filing date — it is potentially the single strongest reference and I could not confirm its date within my search budget.

7. Confidence and flags

• High confidence: claims 2–5, 9–12 are obvious over US 9,982,965 in view of US 2011/0117974, US 10,514,233, US 10,587,221, and US 2015/0318736; the KSR motivations are strong and, importantly, the '971 specification itself supplies the problem statement and admits the coin‑cell/cap environment.
• Moderate confidence: claim 1 as a whole (combination case; strong motivations, but no single‑reference disclosure); claim 8 (strong on the merits, contingent on corroborating the Holosun public use with dated documents); claims 6, 7, 13 (design‑choice arguments, thinner art).
• Cannot assess: claims 15–18 (no text available); the balance of claim 14 (truncated).
• Unverified dates / do not rely on without checking: US 11,356,052 and JP 3147415 U. If US 11,356,052 post‑dates 2019‑07‑10, exclude it and Combination B fails.
• Methodology flags: (i) I did not retrieve the '971's own IDS/"Citations" list, so I cannot assert that US 2011/0117974, US 2015/0318736, US 10,587,221, or US 11,356,052 were not before the examiner; (ii) the Holosun pages I retrieved are current‑dated, so their pre‑2019 availability is asserted from product history and must be corroborated; (iii) post‑2019 filings (Meprolight US 12,055,366; US 2025/0035943; Universal Electronics US 2024/0097063 and US 2025/0226465) are not §103 art against '971 and I have not used them as such — they are noted only to show that the industry converged on the same concept immediately afterward.