US 11236974

I'll search for this specific patent number as requested.

Let me check for CAFC 2026 dockets and litigation involving this patent.

Let me check specifically for any PTAB/IPR or district court litigation involving Fabriser.

Summary — US Patent 11,236,974 B2

Note on scope of search: I searched for the exact number "11236974" (and its formatting variants) in patent databases and for any CAFC 2026 docket or PTAB/IPR activity naming it. I found no Federal Circuit 2026 docket and no litigation/PTAB record for this patent. I could not access the USPTO PatentCenter docket directly through these searches, so my litigation-status statement is limited to "nothing found in the sources searched" — not a certified absence.

Bibliographic data (verified against multiple sources)

Sources: Google Patents (the authoritative full text supplied), Justia Patents, OnScope/IPqwery owner record, PatentBuddy classification record.

Abstract (verbatim)

The abstract describes a foldable, antistatic, semi-flexible, thin-walled container with components that serves as water insulation, soil stabilizer, and continuous extension regardless of length — even across caverns and/or geological faults — enabling cushioned blasting by decoupling the borehole. It is placed in a natural borehole, can be folded/unfolded without affecting shape or function, allows easy explosive loading despite water, cracks, faults, prior mining or loose ground, and prevents obstructions/"falls" from drilling vibration or nearby-blast ground movement. A smaller-diameter container plus a spacer-and-anchor ring forms an air chamber for a mitigated blast. In long downward holes the explosive can be self-supporting via a crossbar or shutter; in long ascending holes it can be stopped even when loaded for more than 8 weeks. It eliminates static-charge accumulation and the associated accidental-initiation risk.

Independent claims — plain language

There are two independent claims: claim 1 and claim 9 (10 claims total).

Claim 1 — Container with an inserted, hermetically sealed tip
A tubular container for explosives/explosive initiators, comprising:

• a foldable, elongate plastic tubular body that is antistatic and semi-flexible, with an open end, a defined longitudinal axis, and a closed end; and
• a tip configuration consisting of a tip insert that is hermetically sealed to the closed end — the seal closes the closed end and helps the body slide into a natural borehole.
• The body must be long enough that, once in the borehole, the open end sticks out so explosives/initiators can be loaded into it.

Plain language: a long, foldable, static-safe plastic sleeve, closed at the nose by a separate sealed tip plug, with the tail left protruding from the hole for loading.

Claim 9 — Container whose closed end is itself heat-formed into a tip
A tubular container with the same foldable, elongate, plastic, antistatic, semi-flexible body (open end, longitudinal axis, closed end), but here the closed end has a tip configuration that is:

• an oval protrusion, or a protrusion shaped like a slot-head (flathead) screwdriver tip, both formed by heat-fusing the edges of the closed end of the tubular body — again to facilitate insertion into a natural borehole; and
• the same open-end-protruding-out-of-the-borehole length limitation.

Plain language: same sleeve, but instead of a separate plug, the nose is melted/shaped into an oval or screwdriver-blade point.

Key structural distinction between the independents: claim 1 requires a separate tip insert sealed to the closed end; claim 9 requires the closed end to be integrally heat-formed into a specific tip shape (oval or screwdriver-type).

Dependent claims (brief)

• 2 — tip insert has at least one notch so it can be press-fit into the closed end.
• 3 / 4 — a crossbar perpendicular to the axis near the open end; claim 4 specifies the crossbar crosses the open end through two diametrically opposed side perforations.
• 5 — a fixing-shutting element perpendicular to the axis near the open end to temporarily cover the open end.
• 6 — that element is a plate sized to support the container and its contents and to shut the open end, using two diametrically opposite side slots.
• 7 — the element is a two-part assembly: (i) an annular piece inserted into the open end with a perpendicular top rim that rests on the borehole edge, having an external notch and a perforation extending into a slot; and (ii) a cover with a fixing element that slides in the slot.
• 8 — the fixer-shutter comprises a hollow conical piece press-fit into the open end (its base externally threaded to screw into an internal thread of a part), a ring holding the container and contents, and stakes supporting the ring.
• 10 — a claim-9 container further including the same fixing-shutting element near the open end.

Prior art context (from the patent's own citation list)

Closest cited art includes the inventor's earlier WO2007004857A1 ("Synthetic bore"), GB1018089A (Schlumberger), US8028624B2 (Mattson Inter Tool), US20150053106A1 (Fowlds 3), CN2784865Y, plus 17 total examiner-cited references. The international search report was prepared by the Spanish Office (Feb. 19, 2019).

Uncertainty flags

• CAFC 2026 docket: None found in the searches performed. I cannot confirm with certainty that no appeal exists; the Federal Circuit's docket was not directly queried in these results, and the search returned only unrelated 2026 appeals.
• Litigation / PTAB: No IPR, PGR, or district-court case naming this patent surfaced. Absence of results is not proof of absence.
• Claim-text fidelity: The claim language above is reproduced from the authoritative Google Patents full text you provided. Note the patent text itself contains apparent typographical artifacts (e.g., the incomplete "screwing with the internal thread of a;" in claim 8, and "least one notch" in claim 2); I have not corrected these, per the literal-interpretation rule.
• Inventor name: Rendered "Pedro Augusto NOVO MERCADO" / "Novo Mercado, Pedro Augusto" across sources — consistent.

If you want, I can attempt a targeted Federal Circuit docket query (e.g., via the court's CM/ECF or a docket aggregator) to definitively confirm the absence of a 2026 appeal.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11,236,974 (US11236974B2).

Let me check dedicated litigation databases directly.

Let me run a few final targeted checks on case-law databases.

Litigation search results for US Patent No. 11,236,974

Summary: I found no litigation (district court, CAFC, or PTAB proceedings) involving US Patent No. 11,236,974 ("Anti-static, folding container for blasting operations, which can be partially compressed, and associated accessories," assigned to Fabriser, S.A. de C.V.).

What I searched

• General web queries for the patent number and title in connection with litigation, infringement suits, and case captions.
• Patent-owner searches: Fabriser, S.A. de C.V.; inventor Pedro Augusto Novo Mercado.
• Attempted litigation-database coverage (e.g., Unified Patents litigation resources, PTAB/PTACTS filings, CourtListener/RECAP references). The searches returned no matching case records before my search budget was exhausted. ⚠️ Note: I was not able to complete a direct query of the Unified Patents litigation caselist or a full PACER/Docket Alarm pull, so my conclusion rests on the searches that did run plus the absence of any indexed record — I cannot rule out a very recent or thinly indexed filing.

No cases found

Important distinctions (do not conflate)

Two near-identical numeric identifiers appeared in results and are unrelated to US 11,236,974:

1. "11236974" in an SEC/EDGAR filing (Vera Bradley, Inc., CIK 1495320, accession 0000000000-21-000647). This is an internal filing/identifier string in a financial disclosure system, not the patent. It is a coincidental numeric match and should not be treated as patent-related.
2. U.S. Patent No. 11,967,369 — subject of a PGR petition, PGR2025-00010 — is a different patent (number differs: 11,967,369 vs. 11,236,974) directed to NAND/memory technology. It has no relationship to the Fabriser blasting container.

Related context (not litigation of this patent)

• The patent is a US national-phase entry of PCT/MX2018/000096 (filed Sep. 21, 2018), claiming priority to MX/a/2017/012724 (filed Oct. 3, 2017). Corresponding foreign family members exist in CN (CN111183329B), AU (AU2018346063B2), BR (BR112020006489B1), CA (CA3078176A1), CL, CO, PE, and WO (WO2019070110A1).
• The patent's U.S. prosecution (not litigation) included a Non-Final Action (Dec. 2020), Response (Apr. 2021), Final Rejection (May 2021), and a Response After Final Action (Sep. 2021), followed by a Notice of Allowance (Sep. 2021) and grant on Feb. 1, 2022. This is ex parte prosecution, not litigation.
• Subsequent patents citing this patent (e.g., CN111829399A, CN112378298B, CN115655039A) are citations, not litigation.

Bottom line: Based on the searches performed, there is no known litigation — no district court case, no Federal Circuit appeal, and no PTAB (IPR/PGR) proceeding — involving US Patent No. 11,236,974. If you need a court-record-confirmed negative, I'd recommend running the patent number directly through PACER Case Locator, Docket Alarm, and the Unified Patents litigation portal, which I was unable to fully query here.

I'll verify the structured data against public sources before drafting.

Let me run a few more targeted checks before concluding.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file for US 11236974. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and independent searches for PTAB activity, PTAB-hosted documents keyed to the patent number, and any Federal Circuit appeal involving Fabriser, S.A. de C.V. surfaced nothing to contradict that. The defensive posture this gives a defendant is unusual and, on balance, favorable: the patent is completely untested at the Board — no claim of claims 1–10 has been canceled, but none has been validated either, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel has attached to any petitioner. This is not a "hardened after two IPRs" patent. It is an un-challenged patent, which means the full § 102/§ 103 space is still open to whoever files first.

---

Per-proceeding detail

No proceedings exist to detail. The template headings (proceeding number, petitioner, judge panel, institution decision, FWD, settlement, appeal) have no content because there is no record to fill. I am deliberately not populating them with placeholder or analogous numbers — the only PTAB numbers in the search results (IPR2018-00274, IPR2021-01190 through IPR2022-00405, IPR2025-01374, PGR2025-00010, etc.) belong to entirely unrelated patents and parties (ZTE/Fundamental Innovation, Power2B/Samsung, Haemonetics/Terumo) and must not be attributed to this patent.

No proceedings — what the record actually shows

• Type: N/A
• Filed: N/A
• Status: No AIA trial proceeding on file (USPTO ODP ingest)
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A — no petition has been filed
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: N/A — none of claims 1–10 has been adjudicated at the Board
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: No CAFC appeal by or against Fabriser, S.A. de C.V. identified for this patent
• Defensive value: Every ground you would want — anticipation, obviousness, and (for a PGR-eligible window that has long closed, since the patent issued 2022-02-01) § 112 — remains unspent. Filing first means you define the record and no other petitioner's estoppel constrains you.

Confidence and caveat (stated explicitly): my searches relied on general web search plus the ODP block; they are not a substitute for a direct PTAB E2E / PTAB Center query by patent number (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and a Docket Alarm or CourtListener docket check (https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%2211236974%22). ODP ingest can lag recently filed petitions. I found no contrary evidence, but abstain from asserting a negative with mathematical certainty.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: all ten claims are UNTESTED. Claims 1 and 9 are the independents; claims 2–8 depend from claim 1 and claim 10 depends from claim 9. Nothing has been canceled, disclaimed, or amended in any post-grant posture. The only claim narrowing on record is prosecution-side: the file history shows a Non-Final Action (mailing 2020-12-29), a response (2021-04-01), a Final Rejection (2021-05-13), a response after final (2021-09-19), and a Notice of Allowance (2021-09-30) — meaning the allowed claims reflect an amendment and/or argument made under final-rejection pressure. That after-final amendment is the highest-value piece of intrinsic evidence you have: it likely contains a distinguishing argument tied to a specific reference, and it is a strong § 325(d) / prosecution-disclaimer hook if the patent owner later argues a broader scope. Pull the full file history from PatentCenter before you do anything else.

Estoppel landscape — essentially empty, which favors you. § 315(e)(2) estoppel is petitioner-specific: it bars a petitioner and its privies/real parties in interest from raising before the Board or in district court any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised. With no petitioner on file, no estoppel has attached to anyone. Two consequences: (1) you may file an IPR on any § 102/§ 103 ground without inheriting a prior challenger's mistakes; and (2) because no US infringement action against a petitioner is visible in my searches, the § 315(b) one-year clock almost certainly has not started — so if a demand letter or complaint arrives, calendar the one-year bar immediately and decide whether to file before or after the litigation posture clarifies.

Two ground-selection notes grounded in the record: seventeen references were cited on the face of the patent, and the patent owner's own earlier publication, WO2007004857A1 ("Synthetic bore," Novo Mercado, published 2007-01-11), is among them. Because it published more than one year before the 2017-10-03 priority date, it is § 102(a)(1) art not saved by the § 102(b)(1) grace period — meaning the patent owner's own prior invention is fair game as a primary reference, and admission-against-interest statements in it about the earlier semi-rigid tube may be powerful. Conversely, be aware that much of the face-cited art (GB1018089A, US3837279A, US5259316A, US20020050222A1, WO2003004960A1, CN2784865Y, US20070131129A1, WO2011117337A1, US8028624B2, US20150053106A1, US20110297030A1) went through the examiner, which invites a § 325(d) discretionary-denial fight under Advanced Bionics / Becton, Dickinson; the references asterisked as third-party citations (US3122096A, US4000696A, US4369711A, US4787316A, US5625162A) are the cleaner starting points. These are my analytical observations from the face of the patent, not findings of any tribunal.

Pattern signals. No petitioner has filed anything — so no repeat-filer pattern, no joinder, no parallel-proceeding discretionary-denial exposure under § 314(a). No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) appears anywhere in the chain. The patent owner is a small Mexican entity (Fabriser, S.A. de C.V.; USPTO entity status set to SMALL ENTITY on 2020-04-09; inventor Pedro Augusto Novo Mercado) that has pursued a broad national-phase family — AU2018346063B2 (active), BR112020006489B1 (grant), CN111183329B (active), CA3078176A1 (pending), CL, CO, PE, MX — and paid the 4th-year maintenance fee on 2025-07-23. That profile reads as a real operating/industrial patentee monetizing in mining jurisdictions, not a US litigation troll. Correspondingly, I found no US district court assertion. If you received a demand, treat it as the first US enforcement activity and expect the patent owner to be inexperienced at the PTAB — which, combined with zero estoppel, is a favorable asymmetry.

---

Recommended next steps

• Verify the negative yourself before relying on it. Query PTAB E2E / PTAB Center by patent number (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and search Docket Alarm and CourtListener for 11236974 and for Fabriser; confirm no proceeding and no co-pending US case. ODP ingest lag is the only realistic way a proceeding could exist that I did not surface.
• Because no claims are invalidated, there is no FWD to cite. Nothing in this patent is "dead," so do not build a defense narrative around canceled claims. Your leverage is offensive, not defensive: you can be the first petitioner and the first to fix a record.
• Pull the file history now. The Final Rejection (2021-05-13) and the after-final response (2021-09-19) are the roadmap to both your invalidity theory and your § 325(d) strategy.
• Calendar the § 315(b) bar the moment you are served with a complaint alleging infringement of this patent — one year, no extensions, and it is jurisdictional in practice.
• If you do file, no statutory trial-deadline pressure exists yet. There is no institution decision to track, no oral hearing scheduled, and no FWD due date; the PTAB's one-year clock from institution under § 316(a)(11) begins only if and when the Board institutes. You control the timing.
• Flag for the reader: the structured ODP block is the canonical source here and it says "no PTAB activity." I found no search evidence to the contrary, but if a recently filed petition appears later, it will not be reflected in this analysis.

I'll research the assignment record for US 11,236,974, starting with the recorded assignment data and the parties involved.

Let me dig deeper into the assignment record specifics and the corporate background.

Let me look for the correspondent of record and any product/business footprint.

Assignment Record Reconstruction — US Patent 11,236,974 B2

Record scope note: US 11,236,974 has exactly one recorded assignment in the chain (inventor → company). There are no post-issuance transfers and no chained-LLC activity. Everything below is grounded in the Google Patents legal-events record supplied as authoritative text plus cross-referenced secondary sources. Where the Assignment Center's correspondent of record field could not be retrieved with the sources I could reach before my search budget expired, I flag it explicitly rather than inventing it.

---

Inventors

Sole named inventor: Pedro Augusto Novo Mercado (rendered "NOVO MERCADO, Pedro Augusto" / "Novo Mercado, Pedro Augusto" across sources — consistent).

Employer at filing: Fabriser, S.A. de C.V. is managed by Pedro Augusto Novo Mercado (Verif/D&B company profile lists him as the most senior leader of the assignee), and the underlying PCT publication (WO2019070110A1) names Fabriser, S.A. de C.V. as applicant with Novo Mercado as sole inventor (patentados.com record of the PCT abstract). He is also the named inventor/applicant on the earlier, closely-related WO2007004857A1 "Synthetic bore" which the patent itself cites as its own closest prior art.

Unusual-pattern check — NEGATIVE. There is no inventor-departure pattern to report: only one inventor exists, he is the principal of the assignee entity, and the assignor→assignee transfer is a standard founder/inventor-to-company assignment executed at US national-phase entry (see timeline). This is the opposite of the "all inventors bolt within 12 months → fire-sale" tell.

---

Original assignee

Fabriser, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico) — the entity named as owner on the issued patent and as applicant on the PCT (WO2019070110A1).

• Principal line of business: Fabriser is a packaging converter/manufacturer, not a mining-services or explosives company per se. D&B standard industry code 26730300 "Plastic and pliofilm bags"; NACE 1721 "Manufacture of corrugated paper and paperboard and of containers of paper and paperboard" (Verif.com). This is consistent with the product: a thin-walled (1–8 mm), extruded semi-flexible plastic tube — a bag/film-converting product.
• Address of record: Calzada Montemorelos No. 515, Col. Álamo Oriente, Tlaquepaque, Jalisco, C.P. 45560, Mexico (patentados.com PCT record). Verif lists the headquarters at "El Álamo, 45560 Tlaquepaque."
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Unclear / no independent product evidence found within search budget. The company is a real, registered manufacturing operation (not a single-purpose IP shell), the invention is described in the specification as an improvement to the inventor's own earlier commercial "synthetic bore" product line, and the identical family was filed in 10 jurisdictions (US, CN, AU, BR, CA, MX, CL, CO, PE, WO) — the filing behavior of a company protecting an actual product line rather than a litigating entity. But I could not retrieve a Fabriser product catalog, e-commerce listing, or datasheet confirming current sales of this specific container; treat "ships a product" as probable but unverified.
• Current status: Operating, per available records. OnScope/IPqwery lists Fabriser with Total IP = 3 filings (all 2018–2020, all this same family), status "In Force" on the US grant. The 4th-year US maintenance fee was paid 2025-07-23 (small-entity), which is affirmative evidence that the owner is alive, solvent, and monetizing/upholding the asset.
• Cautionary flag (unverified): Verif.com's automated risk template shows indicators including "Has open bankruptcy / Has open claims / Past embarrassment(s)." These are aggregator heuristics, not confirmed court filings, and I could not corroborate any bankruptcy or claim against Fabriser in a court record. Flagged for completeness, not relied upon.

---

Assignment timeline

Chronological, all recorded transfers:

• 2020-03-20 (executed) / recorded 2020-04-01 — Reel 052287 / Frame 0159
  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
  • Assignor: NOVO MERCADO, Pedro Augusto (individual inventor)
  • Assignee: FABRISER, S.A. DE C.V. (Mexico)
  • Correspondent of record: ⚠️ Not determined from the sources reachable in this session. The Assignment Center correspondent field and the recorded cover-sheet attorney/correspondent were not surfaced by the searches I could complete. This is the single most important missing datum for the "repeat correspondent / NPE handler" analysis (see §3 below) and should be pulled directly from assignmentcenter.uspto.gov for reel 052287/0159.
  • Context: Internal founder/inventor-to-operating-company assignment executed at U.S. national-phase entry (the PCT was filed 2018-09-21; the U.S. national phase under 35 U.S.C. §371 was entered on/about this date, publication US20200248994A1 followed 2020-08-06). This is routine housekeeping to place title in the applicant company — not an acquisition, fire-sale, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.

No other assignments are recorded. No security agreements, no name changes, no mergers, no releases, no corrections, and — critically — no post-issuance transfer. The patent has remained with Fabriser since before grant. The only other legal event touching ownership-adjacent status is the maintenance-fee payment, 2025-07-23 (4th year, small entity), which confirms continued ownership rather than a transfer.

Cross-check: the Google Patents "reassignment" event and the USPTO assignment abstract agree (same reel/frame 052287/0159, same assignor/assignee, effective 2020-03-20). No conflicting family-level assignment records appeared for the sibling members (CN111183329B, AU2018346063B2, BR112020006489B1).

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11236974
    2017 : Priority application filed in Mexico
    2018 : PCT and US national phase filed
    2020 : Inventor assigns to Fabriser S A de C V
         : US application published
    2022 : Patent granted to Fabriser
    2025 : Fourth year maintenance fee paid

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The only transfer is inventor → Fabriser, S.A. de C.V., a named Mexican operating corporation with a physical manufacturing address (Calzada Montemorelos 515, Tlaquepaque) and a real industry classification (paper/plastic packaging, D&B 26730300). No "IP/Holdings/Ventures" suffix, no registered-agent drop-box, no single-purpose Delaware/Texas LLC. Reel 052287/0159.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. Neither the assignor (individual) nor the assignee (Fabriser) appears on any of the listed NPE rosters (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities) or in the litigation summary previously generated for this patent, which found no litigation at all. Reel 052287/0159 terminates at Fabriser and stays there.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (data gap, not a finding). Because there is only one link in the chain, the "recurrence" test cannot be satisfied even in principle — recurrence requires a chain. However, I was unable to retrieve the correspondent name for reel 052287/0159. I therefore make no positive finding here. If the recorded correspondent turns out to be a high-volume NPE-recording firm, that would not by itself change the verdict (a single appearance is expressly "not a finding" under the rubric), but it is the one value worth confirming directly.

4. Cascading transfers (chained LLCs in <24 months) — NOT PRESENT. There is a single assignment, not a cascade. The 2020-03-20 transfer is the first and only recorded conveyance; nothing follows it. Reel 052287/0159.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. No infringement suit exists naming this patent (per the litigation summary previously generated: no district court, no CAFC, no PTAB). The 2020-03-20 assignment precedes grant (2022-02-01) by ~22 months and was made for national-phase entry, not to arm a suit. Reel 052287/0159.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 of Fabriser identified, and no patent-sale-in-bankruptcy record. The 2025-07-23 maintenance-fee payment is inconsistent with a distressed abandoned estate. Unverified caveat: an aggregator risk template (Verif.com) displays "open bankruptcy" language; I could not corroborate it and do not treat it as evidence.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. No operating-company-to-NPE transfer exists; Fabriser retained the patent itself. Nothing to signal privateering. Reel 052287/0159.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at the original operating assignee, which is a neutral outcome, not a defensive-aggregation one.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original assignment).

The entire ownership chain for US 11,236,974 consists of one recorded conveyance — the inventor Pedro Augusto Novo Mercado assigning to Fabriser, S.A. de C.V., executed 2020-03-20 and recorded 2020-04-01 at Reel 052287 / Frame 0159 — with no subsequent transfers, no security interests, no name changes, and no chain of LLCs. The assignee is a real Mexican packaging manufacturer whose principal is the inventor himself, the asset was filed across 10 jurisdictions, and the 4th-year maintenance fee was paid on 2025-07-23; combined with the previously generated finding of zero litigation and zero PTAB activity, there is no NPE/assertion pattern to score, but the rubric's affirmative "operating-company assertion" verdict also fails (no suits against competitors). One datum — the correspondent of record on reel 052287/0159 — could not be retrieved and should be pulled directly to close the loop.

Verify at: USPTO Patent Assignment Search — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 11236974, or reel/frame 052287/0159). Mirror index: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html.

I'll search the USPTO database and verify the cited references for US 11,236,974.

Let me verify the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent 11,236,974 B2

Task: Identify and assess the most relevant prior art for US 11,236,974 (the examiner-cited references), giving full citation, date, description, and — critically — a §102 anticipation assessment against each claim.

Important framing note (honest limitation): In the searches available to me I independently verified the full text of three of the seventeen cited references (WO2007004857A1, US20150053106A1, US8028624B2). For the remaining fourteen, my descriptions draw on (a) the citation metadata in the authoritative Google Patents full text you supplied (title, assignee, filing/publication dates) and (b) general knowledge of these well-known blasting-cartridge references. I flag where my description is metadata-derived rather than verified full-text. I did not find any reference not already on the patent's face, and I found no supplementary prior art in my searches.

---

1. Legal framework applied

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a claim is anticipated only if a single reference discloses every element of that claim, arranged as in the claim. For the two independent claims here, that means one reference must disclose, in combination: (i) a foldable tubular body; (ii) plastic; (iii) antistatic; (iv) semi-flexible; (v) an open end and a closed end; (vi) a tip that seals the closed end (separate insert in claim 1; heat-fused oval/screwdriver shape in claim 9); and (vii) a length sufficient for the open end to protrude from the borehole for loading.

Because the patent's stated point of novelty is foldability for transport of an antistatic, long liner with such length, the §102 question usually collapses to: does any single reference disclose a foldable, antistatic, semi-flexible plastic liner whose open end protrudes from the hole? The answer appears to be no — several references disclose sub-combinations, but none discloses the full combination. The most-every-reference conclusions are therefore "relevant to claim X's individual elements; does not anticipate."

Prior-art qualification: All seventeen references published between 1966 and 2015, i.e., well before the 2017-10-03 priority date, so each qualifies as prior art under § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) (patented/published before the effective filing date). No date issue disqualifies any of them.

---

2. Citation roster (from the patent's face)

(Dates as listed on the patent's citation table; §102 relevance unaffected by minor source-to-source date variance.)

---

3. Reference-by-reference §102 analysis

3.1 — WO2007004857A1 — "Synthetic bore" (inventor's own earlier application) ★ closest art

• Full citation: WO 2007/004857 A1 (Novo Mercado), pub. 2007-01-11; priority/filing 2005-07-01.
• Description (verified full text): A straight, semi-rigid, thin-walled, antistatic plastic tube inserted into a natual borehole as a liner. Open at a mouth (10) for loading bulk explosive; sealed, water-tight at the other end with three types of sealed tips (9). In Fig. 6 it is "disengaged"/decoupled from the hole wall with a wedge (7) to create an air chamber (8) for damped blasting. Explicitly serves as water insulation, borehole-continuity, and soil stabilizer.
• §102 assessment vs. claim 1: This discloses elements (ii) plastic, (iii) antistatic, (v) open end/closed end, and a sealed end tip, and its Fig. 6 decoupled use implies the open end staying accessible. It does NOT disclose "foldable" — the '857 tube is expressly "recto" (straight) and "semi-rígido" (semi-rigid), not foldable/semi-flexible. Because foldability is a required element of claim 1, the reference does not anticipate claim 1 (or 9). It is, however, the single most relevant reference and would be the primary §103 starting point.
• Relation to claims 2, 5–8: Its sealed tips and water-tight closure are the closest antecedent to the "hermetically sealed tip" concept; relevance to claim 1, not anticipation.

3.2 — US20150053106A1 — "Blasting cartridge" (Fowlds 3) ★ relevant to claims 5–8

• Full citation: US 2015/0053106 A1, pub. 2015-02-26; filed 2012-04-03 (priority ZA 2012/002400).
• Description (verified full text): A cartridge with a receptacle (plastics) holding a propellant and having an open end with a stemming device secured to the open end to form a substantially closed container. The stemming device expands radially (static member + movable piston; anchor members through ports) before the receptacle ruptures. Cylindrical receptacle; closures on both ends possible; water-proof.
• §102 assessment: Discloses open-end-plus-closure architecture and radial-anchoring, which is structurally analogous to the claimed "fixing-shutting element" at the open end (claims 5/8). It discloses no foldable antistatic semi-flexible body, no hermetically sealed tip insert, and no heat-fused tip — and it is a propellant/gas-expansion cartridge, not an explosive-containment liner. Does not anticipate any claim. Relevant as art for the open-end closure concepts of claims 5, 7, 8 (and 10).

3.3 — US8028624B2 — "Rock-blasting cartridge and blasting method" (Mattson Inter Tool) ★ relevant to claims 1/2/5

• Full citation: US 8,028,624 B2, issued 2011-10-04; PCT/CH2007/000052 filed 2007-02-02.
• Description (verified full text): An elongated, tubular/cylindrical sleeve (12) with two ends, each closed; the first end holds a detonator/percussion cap; the second end has a connector (14) pressed into the sleeve to form the end, releasably joining adjacent cartridges. Sleeve wall ~1–5 mm; sleeve made of synthetic polymer.
• §102 assessment: Discloses a tubular plastic sleeve with closures and an insert (connector) press-fit into an end — the closest antecedent to claim 2's "notch … pressed into the closed end" and to claim 1's "tip insert." It does not disclose foldability, antistatic character, semi-flexibility, or a sealing tip insert, and it is a snug-fitting charge cartridge, not a protruding long liner. Does not anticipate any claim. Relevant under §103 to claims 1–2, 5.

3.4 — CN2784865Y — "Smooth blasting cartridge" ★ relevant to the "antistatic" limitation

• Full citation: CN 2784865 Y, pub. 2006-05-31; filed 2004-09-30.
• Description: A plain (non-sparking) pipe body with side walls concave inward forming two elongated energy-storage channels, a spacer plate dividing the cavity, explosive filled in the channels; the cavity protects surrounding rock and fractures it under pressure. "Non-sparking" bodies are the functional ancestor of the claimed antistatic limitation.
• §102 assessment: Discloses a non-sparking tube with explosive therein, but no foldable/antistatic-polymer semi-flexible liner, no sealed tip insert, no open-end-protruding length. Does not anticipate any claim. Relevant to the antistatic/non-sparking concept of claim 1.

3.5 — US20070131129A1 — "Self-supporting air tube for blasting…" (Kang)

• Full citation: US 2007/0131129 A1, pub. 2007-06-14; filed 2005-03-11.
• Description (metadata/gen'l knowledge): A self-supporting air tube placed in a blast hole to leave an air gap/decoupling chamber for controlled (cushioned) blasting.
• §102 assessment: Relevant to the "air chamber / decoupled blast" function claimed as an eighth variant, but discloses no foldable antistatic semi-flexible plastic liner with a hermetically sealed tip, and no claimed length sufficient to protrude. Does not anticipate any claim.

3.6 — US20020050222A1 — "Rock blasting method using air bladders embedded in loading layers" (Kang)

• Full citation: US 2002/0050222 A1, pub. 2002-05-02; filed 1999-09-16.
• Description: Method using embedded air bladders in explosive loading layers to create air gaps.
• §102 assessment: Air-gap/decoupling concept only; no tubular foldable antistatic container with sealed tip. Does not anticipate any claim.

3.7 — US4787316A — "Expandable, self-tamping explosive bag" (Econex)

• Full citation: US 4,787,316, issued 1988-11-29; filed 1984-09-10.
• Description: An expandable explosive bag that self-tamps within a borehole.
• §102 assessment: Discloses a flexible/expandable explosive container that deploys in a hole, but not a foldable-for-transport, antistatic, semi-flexible plastic liner with a hermetically sealed tip insert and protruding open end. Does not anticipate any claim.

3.8 — US4369711A — "Bag for explosives with lower reinforcing sleeves" (Leader)

• Full citation: US 4,369,711, issued 1983-01-25; filed 1980-11-24.
• Description: An explosive bag with reinforcing sleeves at its lower end.
• §102 assessment: Discloses a bag/container with reinforced end structure, but no foldable antistatic plastic liner, no sealed tip insert (claim 1) or heat-fused tip (claim 9), and no protruding-length requirement. Does not anticipate any claim.

3.9 — US3122096A — "Expansible explosive package" (Wick)

• Full citation: US 3,122,096, issued 1964-02-25; filed 1962-03-16.
• Description: An expansible (expandable) explosive package.
• §102 assessment: An expandable explosive package is not a foldable, antistatic, semi-flexible borehole liner with a sealed tip insert; no open-end-protruding limitation. Does not anticipate any claim.

3.10 — GB1018089A — "Improvements in casings for blasting cartridges used in petroleum bore holes" (Schlumberger)

• Full citation: GB 1,018,089 A, pub. 1966-01-26; filed 1961-10-10.
• Description (per patent's own summary): A casing made by compressing/sintering metallic powder with a thermochemical treatment; powdered iron compressed at 500 °C, reduced in hydrogen at 1040 °C, hardened in CO at 900 °C; variants with oxidation or copper impregnation. Holds an explosive charge.
• §102 assessment: A metallic sintered casing — the opposite of a foldable plastic antistatic liner, and no tip/fold/length elements. Does not anticipate any claim.

3.11 — US3837279A — "Blasting cartridge and primer" (Du Pont)

• Full citation: US 3,837,279, issued 1974-09-24; filed 1973-03-05.
• Description: A blasting cartridge with a primer/initiator arrangement.
• §102 assessment: Discloses cartridge + primer, i.e., the detonator/cartridge combination recited in the patent's description, but not the claimed foldable antistatic liner or tip. Does not anticipate any claim.

3.12 — US4000696A — "Cartridge for two-component field-mixed explosive" (Excoa)

• Full citation: US 4,000,696, issued 1977-01-04; filed 1975-09-05.
• Description: A cartridge for field-mixing two explosive components.
• §102 assessment: Cartridge architecture only; no foldable/antistatic/sealed-tip elements. Does not anticipate any claim.

3.13 — US5259316A — "Method and apparatus for wet/dry, small borehole explosive device" (Nelson)

• Full citation: US 5,259,316, issued 1993-11-09; filed 1992-11-09.
• Description: Wet/dry adaptable small-borehole explosive device.
• §102 assessment: Addresses wet/dry hole loading (cf. the patent's water-management goal) but on a small cartridge scale, with no foldable antistatic liner/tip elements. Does not anticipate any claim.

3.14 — US5625162A — "Signal tube of improved oil resistance" (ICI Australia)

• Full citation: US 5,625,162, issued 1997-04-29; filed 1993-12-20.
• Description: A signal-transmission (shock-tube) of improved oil resistance — a detonation signal-carrying tube, not a charge container.
• §102 assessment: Different field of use (signal transmission); no container/tip/fold elements. Does not anticipate any claim.

3.15 — WO2003004960A1 — "System with connectable blasting cartridges" (Hodgkinson)

• Full citation: WO 03/004960 A1, pub. 2003-01-16; filed 2001-07-02.
• Description: A system of connectable blasting cartridges.
• §102 assessment: Cartridge-to-cartridge connection (relevant conceptually to continuity across a hole) but no foldable antistatic liner, sealed insert tip, or protruding-length limitation. Does not anticipate any claim.

3.16 — US20110297030A1 — "Method and Apparatus for Charging an Upwardly Oriented Hole With a Pumpable Material" (Maxam Dantex)

• Full citation: US 2011/0297030 A1, pub. 2011-12-08; filed 2008-06-05.
• Description: Charging upward-oriented boreholes with pumpable (bulk) explosive.
• §102 assessment: Relevant to upward-hole loading/retention (cf. the patent's seventh variant), but no foldable antistatic container or claimed tip. Does not anticipate any claim.

3.17 — WO2011117337A1 — "Cartridge system for explosives in cartridges" (Dynaenergetics)

• Full citation: WO 2011/117337 A1, pub. 2011-09-29; filed 2010-03-24.
• Description: A cartridge system for explosives supplied in cartridges.
• §102 assessment: Cartridge handling/delivery only; no foldable antistatic liner, sealed tip insert, or heat-fused tip. Does not anticipate any claim.

---

4. Bottom line

No cited reference anticipates any claim of US 11,236,974 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, because no single reference discloses the required combination of a foldable, antistatic, semi-flexible plastic tubular body having a hermetically sealed tip insert (claim 1) or a heat-fused oval/screwdriver tip (claim 9) and a length sufficient to leave the open end protruding from the borehole. The cited art is properly §103 material, with WO2007004857A1 (the inventor's own earlier "Synthetic bore") being by far the most significant — this self-citation is a key vulnerability, since the foldability/semi-flexibility limitation is the principle distinguishing point over it, together with the length-to-protrude limitation and the specific tip/closure sub-features of the dependent claims.

---

5. Flags and caveats

1. "Do not auto-correct identifiers": All references are reported exactly as they appear on the patent's face. Note two title/ID oddities in the patent's own text (carried over, uncorrected): the "related applications" text mis-renders the earlier application as "WO2007004004857 A1," whereas the citation table lists it correctly as WO2007004857A1; and claim 8 contains the incomplete phrase "the internal thread of a;" — these are source-text artifacts, not transcription errors on my part.
2. Verification depth: Only WO2007004857A1, US20150053106A1, and US8028624B2 were confirmed by full-text retrieval in this session (all three corroborating the descriptions above). Descriptions of the remaining fourteen are metadata-derived (title/assignee/date from the patent's citation table) plus general knowledge, and should be confirmed against full texts before being relied on in a formal office action or invalidity contention.
3. No new art found: My searches surfaced no prior art beyond the seventeen references already cited on the patent. Absence of additional art in these searches is not proof of absence.
4. §102 vs. §103: The task asked specifically for §102; my conclusion is that none of the references anticipate. Where I note a reference as "relevant to claim X," that is a §103 obviousness observation, not an anticipation finding, and I have labeled it as such.

If you want, I can attempt a deeper single-reference element-by-element chart (claim-chart format) for the top three references against each of claims 1–10, or verify the remaining fourteen full texts against their metadata descriptions.

I'll ground this §103 analysis in the actual cited references. Let me pull details on the closest art.

Let me pull the remaining key references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,236,974 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Note: I exhausted my search budget after verifying full text for three references (WO2007004857A1, US4787316A, US7331291B2/US20070131129A1). For the remaining cited references I rely on their titles, abstracts, and the patent's own characterizations — flagged below. Per the operating rules, I have not corrected any identifiers.

---

1. The legal framework

Under Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), and KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), I assess: (a) scope and content of the prior art; (b) differences between the prior art and the claims; (c) level of ordinary skill; and (d) objective indicia. The central question is whether the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious — i.e., whether the differences are such that the subject matter "would have been obvious" to a PHOSITA, not whether the references expressly disclose the combination. KSR expressly authorizes the "predictable results," "simple substitution," "known technique to improve similar devices," and "obvious to try with a finite number of predictable solutions" rationales (see also MPEP §§ 2143, 2144.04–2144.05).

Level of ordinary skill (PHOSITA): A bachelor's degree in mechanical or mining engineering (or equivalent), with 3–5 years of experience in underground mine drilling-and-blasting and bulk-explosive handling, including familiarity with ANFO/hydrogel loading, borehole liners, air-decking, and mine-safety static-control requirements. All cited references are analogous art: they are from the same field of endeavor (commercial/underground blasting, IPC F42B 3/087 and F42D 1/08) and are reasonably pertinent to the same problem — protecting and retaining a bulk explosive charge in a borehole.

---

2. Ground truth: what the closest reference actually discloses

WO2007004857A1 ("Synthetic bore," Novo Mercado, publ. 2007-01-11) is the inventor's own earlier publication and is § 102/§ 103 prior art to the 2017 priority date. Its verified text (patents.google.com/patent/WO2007004857A1/en; patentimages PDF) discloses:

Key observation: WO'857 discloses every limitation of claim 1 except (i) "foldable," (ii) "semi-flexible" (WO'857 says semi-rígido), and (iii) the characterization of the tip as a discrete "tip insert." Its three water-tight sealed tips (9) plainly disclose a tip configuration that seals the closed end; whether that tip is integrally formed or a separate insert is a structural formality (see § 4 below). The "open end extends out of the borehole" limitation of claim 1 is directly met by the floor-bore teaching of WO'857.

This is the single most important fact in the analysis: the only genuinely arguable novelty of the '974 patent over its own inventor's prior publication is the foldability/semi-flexibility of the tube.

---

3. Combination A — Claim 1: WO'857 + US4787316A (Econex)

US4787316A ("Expandable, self-tamping explosive bag," Econex, Inc., 1988) — verified text (patents.google.com/patent/US4787316A/en; freepatentsonline.com/4787316.html) — discloses:

• An inner bag formed of a tube of flexible waterproof material such as polyethylene;
• The tube is longitudinally folded to provide an expansion pleat 16 — i.e., a foldable plastic tubular body;
• Heat-sealed at each end (heat seal 18/18A) — a hermetically sealed closed end of a plastic tube;
• Sized small enough to "drop easily down the blast hole," expandable on reaching the bottom;
• Explicitly targeted at the wet blast hole problem — the same ANFO/water problem the '974 patent addresses.

The differences between claim 1 and the prior art therefore collapse to:

1. substituting a foldable, semi-flexible plastic tube for WO'857's semi-rigid tube; and
2. characterizing the tip as a separate "insert."

Why a PHOSITA would have combined them (motivation, articulated):

• Same field, same problem, same structure. Both teach a thin-walled plastic tube lining/containing a bulk explosive charge in a blast hole to protect it from water. Combination of references from the same field addressing the same problem is the paradigm § 103 case (KSR; MPEP 2144.01).
• Known technique to improve a similar device (KSR rationale C). US4787316A's longitudinal fold/pleat is a known plastic-film technique for making a tube collapsible for storage/handling that re-expands to fill the hole. Applying that known collapsibility technique to WO'857's bore liner to solve the transport problem is the "use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way."
• The patent's own specification supplies the motivation. The '974 specification states the improvement over WO'857 was needed because "there was no proposal to make it foldable for transportation," facilitating transport, storage and handling of containers "as long as required" (up to the claimed 50 m) into mine tunnels. That is a stated, recognized problem — a strong § 103 motivation.
• Simple substitution (KSR rationale B). Swapping a semi-rigid polyethylene tube for a semi-flexible/foldable polyethylene tube is a substitution of one known plastic-tube material/construction for another, expected to work for its known purpose (hold bulk explosive, keep it dry, unfold to original shape).
• "Semi-flexible" vs. "semi-rigid" is a degree-of-flexibility parameter. KSR holds that "a change in a parameter… obvious to try" where the result is predictable. Selecting a wall-thickness/flexibility that permits folding while still recovering shape (the patent claims 1–8 mm wall, ½–14 in diameter) is routine optimization — and note WO'857 itself claims the tube be flexible enough to "absorber las imperfecciones o desviaciones" of the borehole.

Result: Claim 1 would have been obvious over WO2007004857A1 in view of US4787316A. Claims 2 (notched press-fit tip insert) adds only a conventional press-fit/notch retention feature — an obvious mechanical expedient (MPEP 2144.04) — and would be obvious over the same combination (or over WO'857's sealed tips).

---

4. Combination B — Claim 9: WO'857 + US4787316A (+ cartridge-tip art)

Claim 9 differs from claim 1 in requiring the closed end itself be heat-fused into an oval or slot-head-screwdriver-shaped protrusion.

• Heat-fusing edges to close/seal a plastic tube end is expressly taught by US4787316A ("heat sealed to provide a water-tight closure"; "the ends of the inner bag are heat sealed").
• Forming a tapered/pointed nose to ease insertion of an explosive cartridge/liner is ubiquitous in the cited art and in cartridge art generally (e.g., US3837279A "Blasting cartridge and primer," US3122096A "Expansible explosive package," and the 1925 Holderer cartridge discussed inside US4787316A as background). A PHOSITA forming a pointed tip by heat-fusing tube edges is applying a known technique (heat-sealing a tube end) to yield a known result (a sealed, insertion-facilitating nose).
• The particular geometry (oval vs. flathead-screwdriver) is an obvious design choice among a finite number of predictable shapes — MPEP 2144.05. The '974 specification itself presents oval, conical, and screwdriver tips as interchangeable variants serving the same function ("to remove the materials that are released," "slide on its sides the materials"). Presenting them as alternative known shapes is itself evidence they are not separately patentable.

Result: Claim 9 obvious over WO'857 + US4787316A; and claim 10 (adding the fixing-shutting element) obvious for the same reasons as claims 5–8 below.

---

5. Dependent claims 3–8 — secondary combinations

The Maxam Dantex reference (US20110297030A1) is particularly damaging to claim 8: it is cited by the examiner and is directed to the identical problem — charging an upwardly oriented borehole — supplying an express motivation to add the anchoring/retention structure of claim 8 to the WO'857/US4787316A liner.

---

6. Additional cumulative art and the "antistatic" limitation

Because the antistatic limitation is not novel (WO'857 expressly discloses "antiestático" and its static-charge rationale), it adds nothing. CN2784865Y ("Smooth blasting cartridge," a tube with a non-sparking body, concave energy-storage channels, filled with explosive) is cumulative evidence that spark/static-safe tubular explosive containers were known. WO2011117337A1 (Dynaenergetics, cartridge system) and WO2003004960A1 (Hodgkinson, connectable blasting cartridges) further show that modular/continuous cartridge-tube systems for long holes were known — supporting obviousness of the unclaimed-but-described "continuity" objective. US5259316A (Nelson, wet/dry small-bore-hole explosive device), US4000696A (Excoa), and US5625162A (ICI, signal tube of improved oil resistance) reinforce the breadth of the plastic-tube/water-isolation art.

---

7. Objective indicia

No evidence of nexus-qualified secondary considerations appears in the record supplied. The patent's summary asserts benefits (transport, antistatic safety, 8-week retention) — but these are arguments, not evidence, and each benefit traces to a known property of the individual references:

• Foldability for transport → disclosed purpose of US4787316A's foldable polyethylene tube.
• Antistatic safety → expressly disclosed by WO'857.
• Upward-hole retention → the express problem of US20110297030A1.

At most, these could be framed as a "long-felt need" for transporting long (>8 m) liners into tunnels — but the need was self-identified in the inventor's own prior publication and specification, and the solution (a foldable plastic tube) was a known technique, not an unexpected result.

---

8. Conclusion and ranked rejection strategy

Bottom line: Every claim of US 11,236,974 B2 is vulnerable under § 103. The strongest primary rejection grounds, best→weakest:

1. WO2007004857A1 in view of US4787316A — renders claims 1, 2, and 9 obvious; add US20070131129A1, GB1018089A, and US20110297030A1 for claims 3–8, 10.
2. WO2007004857A1 alone — anticipates or renders obvious all of claim 1 except foldability; the sole material gap is the "foldable/semi-flexible" recitation, which is a result-effective parameter requiring only routine optimization absent unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05).
3. WO2007004857A1 + US20070131129A1 (Kang) + US20110297030A1 (Maxam Dantex) — a self-contained combination of the citation list that maps to the liner, the air-chamber/decoupling feature, and upward-hole retention, respectively.

Areas the practitioner should attack (weak spots in the rejection):

• Whether WO'857's tips (9) are a separate "insert" as claim 1 requires ("a tip insert") — the reference's exact construction is not described in the text I retrieved, so this limitation should be verified. Claim 9 avoids this issue by requiring integral heat-forming, which US4787316A's heat-sealing supports.
• Whether the "extend out of the borehole" limitation is a structural limitation or impermissible intended-use language; WO'857's floor-bore teaching (mouth turned upward outside the hole) appears to meet it literally, which helps the rejection.
• Claim 8's grammatical defect ("screwing with the internal thread of a;") means the claim's intended structure (a ring with internal thread) must be construed before the rejection can be finalized.

Recommended next step for a validity challenge: obtain the prosecution history (the record shows a Non-Final Rejection, Final Rejection, and a post-final allowance) to see exactly what the examiner treated as the distinguishing feature over WO'857; that tells you where the actual novelty was argued to reside, and therefore where an obviousness attack should focus.

Caveats: I verified full text only for WO2007004857A1, US4787316A, and US7331291B2/US20070131129A1; the mappings for US3122096A, US3837279A, US5259316A, US20020050222A1, US8028624B2, WO2003004960A1, WO2011117337A1, US20150053106A1, and GB1018089A rest on their titles and the patent's own characterizations and should be confirmed against their full texts before filing.