US 11402364

I'll verify the current status of this patent through searches before summarizing.

Let me pull the actual claim text to ground the independent-claim summary.

US 11,402,364 B1 — Verification Summary

Sourcing note: I could not access the USPTO PatentCenter/Public PAIR interface or the CAFC docket system directly (no direct-docket tool available). The following is grounded in the authoritative full patent text supplied in the prompt plus corroborating public sources (Google Patents, Justia Patents, IPqwery). Items I could not verify are flagged explicitly.

Bibliographic Data

Abstract (as issued)

The patent concerns detection, assessment, and mitigation of harmful water-borne bacteria such as cyanobacteria. An apparatus can apply at least one of UV-C irradiation, ozone-containing microbubbles, and ultrasonic sound to mitigate the bacteria. Applications extend to fresh water, salt water, and wastewater treatment. The systems/methods can reduce algae concentration directly, or reduce the concentration of nutrients (e.g., phosphorus) on which algae depend. Mitigation is described as avoiding introduction of chemicals into the environment.

Independent Claims — Plain-Language Overview

The patent has at least two independent claims: claim 1 (apparatus) and claim 7 (method). Based on the Justia claim listing I retrieved, claims 2–6 are dependent on claim 1. Uncertainty: I could not retrieve the complete claim set to confirm the total number of claims or whether any further independent claims exist beyond 1 and 7.

Claim 1 — Apparatus (the operative, narrow claim):

1. Aqueous monitoring sub-system — must include at least one of a Phycocyanin Blue-Green Algae Sensor, a Phycoerythrin Blue-Green Algae Sensor, or a Chlorophyll A sensor, to measure algae concentration in a body of water and output a responsive signal.
2. Assessment sub-system — a microprocessor running non-volatile-memory instructions that receives the sensor signal, computes a current algae concentration value, and holds a predetermined reference concentration value.
3. Mitigation sub-system with three discrete reaction zones:
   • Zone 1: applies UV illumination, microbubbles, and/or ultrasonic sound in the 28 kHz to 35 kHz range;
   • Zone 2: provides ozone gas to react with the effluent from Zone 1;
   • Zone 3: applies UV-C illumination to the Zone-2 effluent to convert residual ozone to molecular oxygen.
4. Control sub-system — compares the current concentration value to the predetermined reference and, based on that comparison, controls operation of the sub-systems and records their data.
5. Communication sub-system — transmits data to an operator and receives operator instructions.

Analyst note: The issued claim 1 is materially narrower than the "Summary of the Invention" language quoted in the patent body (which recited a single-chamber mitigation sub-system with "a UV illumination source, a source of microbubbles, and an ultrasonic transducer"). The granted claim adds the mandatory three-zone architecture, ozone in the second zone, UV-C ozone destruction in the third zone, and the specific 28–35 kHz sonication range. Any infringement or validity analysis must run on the claim text, not the summary.

Claim 7 — Method (parallel to claim 1):
Provides the same apparatus, then requires the steps of: operating the apparatus to collect water; using the control sub-system to run Zone 1 (UV/microbubble/ultrasound) to reduce a nutrient amount; running Zone 2 to apply ozone to the Zone-1 effluent; running Zone 3 with UV-C to convert residual ozone to oxygen; and discharging the Zone-3 effluent into the body of water — thereby mitigating the bacterium and/or its harmful chemical without introducing ozone into the body of water.

Dependent Claims (as retrieved)

• Claim 2 — apparatus configured to reduce a nutrient (phosphorus, per the specification and claim 3) to mitigate algae growth.
• Claim 4 — adds flotation, propulsion, and location (e.g., GPS) sub-systems, all in communication with the control sub-system, to make the apparatus a water-going vessel.
• Claim 5 — adds a tethered aerial observation sub-system (e.g., tethered drone/balloon with camera) communicating with the control sub-system.
• Claim 6 — apparatus configured to reduce algae concentration and/or the harmful chemical produced by the algae.
• Claim 3 (nutrient is phosphorus) appears in the specification text but I could not confirm its exact claim number from the retrieved listing.

Litigation / Docket Posture — Important Caveats

• I found no CAFC 2026 docket, IPR, or Article III patent infringement proceeding involving US 11,402,364 in the searches performed. I cannot certify that none exists; this reflects the limits of the search tools used.
• I did find a state-court matter, not a patent case: Eget Liber, Inc. et al. v. Clear Water Systems Limited et al., filed Dec. 1, 2025 in New York Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Case No. appears available on UniCourt), designated Commercial and Trade – Contract, with R. James Boyd and Richard Hardiman among the listed parties. Docket entries through 2026 include a temporary restraining order/injunction motion (Seq. 4) and an opposition memorandum referencing an "Eget Liber Reactor." This is a contract/state-law action; it is not a patent validity or infringement ruling and should not be cited as such. Attribution of any docket details is to UniCourt's aggregator page and should be independently confirmed.
• Note the potentially related but separate PCT publication WO 2021/021969 A1 (PCT/US2020/044126), directed to "mitigation of cyanobacterium … without the application of chemical agents," which appears to be an earlier family filing by the same inventors. It is a distinct document from US 11,402,364 and should not be conflated with it.

Bottom Line

US 11,402,364 B1 is a 2022 Eget Liber, Inc. patent covering a real-time, sensor-driven cyanobacteria monitoring and mitigation system. Its enforceable coverage centers on the three-zone sequence — UV/sonication (28–35 kHz)/microbubbles → ozone treatment → UV-C ozone destruction — with an optical algae sensor feeding a comparison against a reference threshold, all under microprocessor control with an operator communication link. Broader platform features (flotation, propulsion, GPS, tethered drone) are captured only in dependent claims.

I'll search litigation-tracking sources for US 11,402,364 specifically.

Let me run more targeted searches, including on the assignee and any Unified Patents/PTAB records.

Litigation Search: US Patent 11,402,364

Search scope and limitations. I queried for the exact patent number 11,402,364 and for the assignee (Eget Liber, Inc.) across litigation-aggregator sources. I could not directly access the Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist), PACER, or the CAFC docket system with the tools available — the Unified query explicitly returned no usable result. My findings below reflect what the available web-search results disclose. I am therefore reporting a negative finding with caveats, not a certified "no litigation exists" conclusion.

Federal patent litigation (district court / CAFC / PTAB)

None found. My searches returned no Article III patent infringement suit, declaratory judgment action, CAFC appeal, or PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR) in which US 11,402,364 is the asserted or challenged patent.

I specifically checked for and did not find:

• Any case on the Unified Patents litigation list for this patent;
• Any IPR/PGR petition naming US 11,402,364 as the challenged patent;
• Any CAFC appeal identifying US 11,402,364;
• Any district-court complaint asserting the '364 patent.

Caution: aggregators like Unified's portal and Docket Alarm require direct database queries I could not complete here, so the absence of a hit in my results is not conclusive. It should be verified against PACER and the Unified Portal before you rely on it.

Identified litigation — but NOT a patent case

The only matter I found naming Eget Liber is a state-court contract action, not a patent case:

Important characterization: This is a contract dispute, not a patent infringement or patent validity action. Docket filings reference an "Eget Liber Reactor" (e.g., Plaintiffs' Exhibit AS: "Photo of Eget Liber Reactor," and exhibits concerning DAERA Phase 1/Phase 2 agreements), which suggests the subject matter is related to the assignee's water-treatment technology, but the '364 patent is not identified as an asserted patent in this docket. It should not be cited as patent litigation, and the patent-number-to-case linkage is not confirmed by any source I retrieved.

Bottom line

• No federal patent litigation (infringement suit, DJ action, CAFC appeal, or PTAB proceeding) involving US 11,402,364 was found.
• The only litigation naming Eget Liber that I located is the New York state contract case Eget Liber, Inc. et al. v. Clear Water Systems Limited et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Onondaga County; filed Dec. 1, 2025; active), which is not a patent case and whose connection to the '364 patent is unverified.
• Consistent with my earlier summary, I also note the separate PCT publication WO 2021/021969 A1 (PCT/US2020/044126) by the same inventors — a distinct document that should not be conflated with US 11,402,364.

Recommended verification before relying on this: run the patent number directly against PACER (all district courts), the Unified Patents litigation caselist, and the CAFC docket, and confirm before citing whether US 11,402,364 has ever been asserted.

I'll verify the structured block against live sources before writing, since recently-filed petitions sometimes lag the ODP ingest.

Let me run a few more targeted checks on litigation-style and PTAB sources before concluding.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file against US 11,402,364. The USPTO Open Data Portal structured block supplied for this analysis returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and my independent web searches (Google Patents-family pages, IPqwery/Onscope portfolios, PTAB E2E ptacts.uspto.gov document hits, and general "Eget Liber + PTAB/IPR" queries) surfaced no petition, institution decision, final written decision, or Director Review order naming either US 11,402,364 or application 17/672,176. Breakdown: 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials.

Bottom-line defensive posture: This is the opposite of the "troll has no case" scenario. No challenger has ever tested these claims at the Board, so the patent is untested, not hardened, and not narrowed. There is no FWD to quote, no cancellation to point to, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel to work with. For a defendant, that cuts both ways: you inherit a clean slate — no procedural baggage, no prior petitioner's roadmap to inherit, and no risk that your best art was already "reasonably could have been raised" by someone else — but you also have no free kill shot and must fund the validity challenge yourself.

No per-proceeding entries

There are no proceeding numbers to list. I will not manufacture placeholder IPR/PGR numbers to fill this section. Every ### {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} heading that would normally follow is empty because the underlying event never occurred.

Search-limitation disclosure (per operating rules): I cannot certify a universal negative. The ODP ingest is the canonical list here, live search is imperfect, and recently filed petitions can lag both. What I can say with confidence is that four independent query angles returned nothing, including a direct patent-number search, an owner-name search, and a keyword search pairing the patent with "IPR petition PTAB." If a petition was filed in the last few weeks it may not yet be indexed anywhere I can reach.

One adjacent item worth separating out (not a PTAB proceeding)

The earlier-generated Patent summary flagged a state-court contract action: Eget Liber, Inc. et al. v. Clear Water Systems Limited et al., filed 2025-12-01 in New York Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Commercial and Trade – Contract), with a TRO/injunction motion (Seq. 4) and an "Eget Liber Reactor" reference. Consistent with the prior section, I reaffirm this is a state-law contract dispute, not a patent validity or infringement action and not an AIA trial. It tells you the patent owner is currently in a dispute involving its reactor technology, which is a mild commercial signal of active enforcement posture — but it is not citable as a validity ruling and does not appear on any PTAB docket. Contradiction check: none — this is consistent with, and adds nothing new to, the prior section's caveat.

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is UNTESTED. No claim of US 11,402,364 has been canceled, disclaimed, or confirmed through an AIA trial. Whatever the operative claim set is (the prior section identified claim 1 as an apparatus claim and claim 7 as a method claim, with claims 2–6 dependent and an acknowledged inability to retrieve the complete claim listing), all claims stand as issued on 2022-08-02. For a defendant, the practical consequence is that you are arguing against the full, as-issued claim scope — including the narrow three-zone architecture the prior section flagged (Zone 1 UV/sonication in the 28–35 kHz range/microbubbles → Zone 2 ozone → Zone 3 UV-C ozone destruction), plus the dependent-claim platform features (flotation/propulsion/GPS under claim 4, tethered aerial observation under claim 5). Because the granted claim 1 is materially narrower than the patent's "Summary of the Invention" language, the narrowness itself is your best non-invalidation defense: a device missing any one of the three zones, or sonicating outside 28–35 kHz, likely falls outside claim 1 on its face. I'd treat that as the first-line argument and invalidity as the second — with no IPR record, there is no prosecution-through-trial narrowing history to help you construe terms either way.

Estoppel landscape: clean, but for how long. § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only to a petitioner that actually obtains an institution decision. No one has, so no estoppel exists against anyone as of 2026-09-29. That means every prior-art ground — including the references already of record (de Meulenaer US 8,097,170; Kuwata US 8,849,483; Song KR 10-2016-0031766 A; Baltz US 9,778,180 and its continuations US 10,393,654 / US 10,989,657) — remains fully available to you in both an IPR and a district court, subject to § 325(d) discretion if you recycle art the examiner already considered. If you file and institute, you will be the first petitioner, which means (a) you are not exposed to General Plastic serial-petition discretionary denial, since that doctrine targets follow-on petitions, and (b) you will be the one whose grounds become estopped later, so plead your full § 102/§ 103 theory in the first petition rather than saving art for a "Round Two." Note also that § 315(b) is not running against you unless you have been served with a complaint on this patent — if you have been, the one-year clock is the single most important date on your calendar.

Pattern signals: absent. No serial petitioner, no repeat filer, no Unified Patents–style defensive aggregator in the chain, and no patent-owner appeal to the Federal Circuit (there is no FWD to appeal). The only litigation signal is the state-court contract action noted above, which does not constrain the PTAB path at all. The commercial picture — a 2021-priority, 2022-issued patent with an active assignee and a live commercial dispute over an "Eget Liber Reactor" — is exactly the profile that historically attracts an IPR once the patent gets asserted in a patent case. Its absence today most plausibly means it simply hasn't been asserted against a well-resourced defendant yet.

Recommended next steps

Because there is no PTAB activity, the honest answer is: there is nothing at the Board to cite, distinguish, or rely on. Do not build any argument — to a client, a court, or an insurer — on an assumption that claims have been invalidated or narrowed. They have not.

For a defendant facing assertion today:

1. Build the invalidity case from scratch, on a § 102/§ 103 basis. The Board's fee-and-speed advantages are fully intact for you as a first mover. Anchor on the patent's testimonial admissions in the specification, which are unusually strong for a mechanical/process patent: the "operational device" was described as 32 UV-C lamps in 2 rows of 16 (Rexim 6-watt, 254 nm, 192 W aggregate), traversing at ~1 mph with a 2.5-second pass-through exposure, and the inventors' own data characterize effective thresholds as 36 W·s (≈56% chlorophyll reduction over 24 h) and 48 W·s combined with microbubbles and 28 kHz @ 0.75 W sonication (≈96.5% reduction over 24 h). Those admissions hand you a ready-made obviousness and enablement/§ 112 framework, and the de Meulenaer/Kuwata/Song/Baltz art of record gives you a starting combination — mindful of § 325(d) risk if you rely solely on art the examiner saw.
2. Front-load the dependent-claim attack. Claim 4's flotation/propulsion/GPS elements and claim 5's tethered drone are each independently well-represented in the prior art (Kuwata is expressly cited for autonomous vessels). Challenging across all claims in one petition avoids leaving § 315(e)(2) gaps.
3. Watch the § 315(b) date. If you have been served with a complaint asserting this patent, you have one year from service to petition. That is the controlling deadline. If you have not been served, there is no bar and no rush — use the time to build a stronger record.
4. Monitor for a first-filed petition by someone else. If another party petitions first, your calculus changes materially: you may face General Plastic denial as a serial petitioner, and a Sotera-type stipulation or a joinder under § 315(c) becomes the better path. There is no such filing as of 2026-09-29.
5. Confirm the claim set before committing. The prior section was explicit that it could not retrieve the full claim listing and could not confirm whether any independent claim beyond 1 and 7 exists. That gap should be closed against the USPTO PatentCenter full-text before drafting — you cannot scope a validity opinion, or allocate petition grounds, without the exact claim count and dependency structure.

Sources checked, with links: Google Patents family page for this patent (https://patents.google.com/patent/US11402364/en) and the PTAB public information portal (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/) — no documents for US 11,402,364 found. No FWD, no institution decision, no Director Review order, and no CAFC opinion exists to link, because none was issued.

I'll research the assignment record and ownership chain for US 11,402,364. Let me start with several targeted searches.

Good leads. Let me dig into the assignment record and the Eget Liber corporate/RanMarine relationship.

Now let me pin down the recorded assignment specifics, the correspondent attorney, and the RanMarine/Eget Liber licensing relationship.

I could not complete all planned lookups — I hit the tool-step limit before I could open the USPTO Assignment Center record directly. I'll flag every gap explicitly rather than fill it with a guess. Most importantly: I could not retrieve the reel/frame number or the recorded correspondent, so I have not invented one.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 11,402,364 B1

Sourcing note: Two things were not directly retrievable in this session: (1) the USPTO Assignment Center page for this patent (reel/frame + correspondent fields) and (2) the RanMarine Form F-1 license disclosure. Everything below is grounded in the authoritative patent text supplied in the prompt (which carries the Google Patents legal-events entry), plus corroborating public records (SAM.gov via OpenGovUS, UniCourt, RanMarine/Water Europe product literature, Crunchbase, IPqwery/Onscope). Items I could not verify are marked NOT RETRIEVED.

Inventors

Unusual patterns to flag:

• Inventor–attorney overlap (present). Milstein is simultaneously a named co-inventor, appears to be the patent attorney of record, and is litigation counsel in the 2025 state action. Inventor-counsel overlap is a governance/conflict flag worth noting, though it is common in small-startup filings where the founder's patent lawyer contributes to the invention.
• No inventor-departure/fire-sale precursor. Both inventors remained attached to Eget Liber well past the 12-month window: Dean is still CEO (SAM record updated March 2025), and Milstein was still acting for Eget Liber in a filing dated Dec. 1, 2025. That is the opposite of the "all inventors depart before a portfolio dump" pattern.
• Onscope lists the second inventor's given name as "Joseph, B." and Crunchbase indexes only Dean as a company principal — no divergence of substance.

Original assignee

Eget Liber, Inc. — a New York corporation, sole address of record 1247 Chestnut Ridge Rd, Kirkville, NY 13082 (Kirkville is adjacent to Syracuse). It is the original and current assignee on the issued patent.

• Primary line of business: environmental remediation of harmful algal blooms (HABs). SAM.gov classifies it under NAICS 562910 – Remediation Services, business type "Manufacturer of Goods," entity structure "Corporate Entity (Not Tax Exempt)," and self-certified Small Disadvantaged Business (CAGE code 8CJF0). Founded Feb. 22, 2019; officers Jason A. Dean (CEO) and Brenda L. Dean (Treasurer) — a family-run micro-entity (Crunchbase lists <10 employees).
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? — Yes, evidence of a real product. Eget Liber's reactor / "Staged Flow Treatment System" (SFTS) is a commercialized treatment unit combining ozone, aeration, sonication and UV-C. It is integrated onto RanMarine Technology BV's "CyanoShark" autonomous surface vessel (Water Europe product sheet explicitly describes "Eget Liber's innovative Staged Flow Treatment System (SFTS)"), and was fielded in a £450,000 DAERA-funded pilot at Lough Neagh, Northern Ireland with Clear Water Systems. This is not a paper patent.
• Current status: Operating (small private startup). Note: its SAM.gov registration shows as Expired as of 2026-03-18 — this is a federal-contracting registration lapse, not evidence of dissolution or bankruptcy, and should not be read as a fire-sale trigger. There is an active state-court contract dispute (see below) but no bankruptcy filing, SEC registrant event, or patent-infringement suit was found.

Assignment timeline

This is the critical finding: the USPTO record for US 11,402,364 contains only the original inventor→company assignment. There are no post-issuance transfers, no security interests, no re-recording, and no assignments to any IP-holding LLC or NPE.

Per the authoritative Google Patents legal-events entry carried in the patent text:

• 2022-06-22 (recorded; execution date NOT RETRIEVED) — Reel/Frame NOT RETRIEVED
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (assignment)
  • Assignor: DEAN, JASON A.; MILSTEIN, JOSEPH B.
  • Assignee: EGET LIBER, INC.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED. Do not treat as confirmed, but the most likely correspondent is Joseph B. Milstein PC (Milstein is the named co-inventor, the apparent patent attorney, and litigation counsel for Eget Liber in the 2025 state case). A single appearance would not be a "repeat correspondent" signal anyway.
  • Context: Internal capitalization — the two inventors assigning their rights to the operating startup they founded. This is the ordinary founding assignment, not an acquisition, fire-sale, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.

Same-day recorded filings reflecting the same founding event (Google Patents legal events, not separate asset transfers):

• 2022-02-15 — Application filed by Eget Liber, Inc.
• 2022-06-22 — Assignment recorded (above).
• 2022-08-02 — Patent granted (US 11,402,364 B1).

NOT RETRIEVED: I could not open the Assignment Center page to capture the reel/frame or the recorded correspondent of record, and I could not confirm whether any additional assignment (e.g., a security interest or a license recordation tied to the RanMarine relationship) exists but is not surfaced in the Google Patents legal-events feed. If any additional record exists, the Google Patents feed did not expose it. This is the single largest gap in this analysis and should be closed manually at the Assignment Center.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11402364
    2019 : Eget Liber founded in Kirkville NY
    2021 : Provisional filed Feb 16
    2022 : Utility application filed Feb 15
         : Inventors assign rights to Eget Liber
         : Patent granted Aug 2
    2024 : RanMarine CyanoShark integration
    2025 : Lough Neagh pilot with Clear Water
         : Eget Liber files contract suit

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The only recorded transfer is into the operating company, not out of it. Assignee Eget Liber is a registered NY manufacturer (NAICS 562910, "Manufacturer of Goods," CAGE 8CJF0) at a real street address tied to its CEO, not a registered-agent drop box. No "IP/Holdings/Ventures" licensee appears anywhere in the chain (Reel/Frame NOT RETRIEVED, but no such assignee is surfaced in any source consulted).

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. Neither Eget Liber nor any linked entity appears on Unified Patents / RPX high-frequency-plaintiff directories, nor among Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, etc. No such assignee appears in the Google Patents legal events.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / no finding. With only one link in the chain there is no recurrence to test. Correspondent field NOT RETRIEVED. A single recording by a founder-inventor's own attorney would not, standing alone, be a signal.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. One assignment over the patent's entire life; no chained LLCs, no <24-month cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. The sole assignment (recorded 2022-06-22) predates the only known dispute (Dec. 1, 2025 state contract action) by ~3.5 years, and that dispute is a contract claim, not patent infringement. Nothing in the record indicates an assignment arranged to set venue or standing for a patent suit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11, no SEC distress filing, no judicial sale found. The only "expiry" in the record is Eget Liber's SAM.gov contracting registration (lapsed 2026-03-18), which is administrative and unrelated to insolvency.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. The Eget Liber–RanMarine relationship runs the opposite direction from privateering: a small operating company licenses its own technology into a commercial partner's product (RanMarine's CyanoShark), rather than an operating company offloading patents to an NPE to sue rivals. No NPE assertion vehicle appears.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Related but non-assignment matter (context, not a signal): Eget Liber, Inc. et al. v. Clear Water Systems Limited et al., NY Supreme Court, Onondaga County, filed 2025-12-01, designated Commercial and Trade – Contract (docket parties include Eget Liber, Jason Dean, RanMarine Technologies BV, Richard Hardiman, Richard James Boyd; counsel include Joseph B. Milstein and Alexander Paykin). UniCourt attributes this docket detail and it should be independently confirmed. It is a contract/state-law action, not a patent validity or infringement ruling, and it does not convert Eget Liber into a patent asserter.

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original assignment) — with the strong caveat that every available indicator points away from an NPE conclusion.

The USPTO-facing chain for US 11,402,364 consists solely of the 2022-06-22 inventor→Eget Liber assignment (Google Patents legal events; Reel/Frame NOT RETRIEVED), with zero post-issuance transfers, security interests, or shell-LLC hops. The assignee is a genuine small operating manufacturer (SAM: NAICS 562910, CAGE 8CJF0) that has actually deployed its reactor/SFTS on RanMarine's CyanoShark and in a £450k DAERA pilot, and none of the eight NPE signals is present. The verdict is "insufficient data" only because the record literally contains nothing beyond the founding assignment — not because the evidence is ambiguous as to character.

Two open items to close manually: (a) pull the reel/frame and recorded correspondent from the Assignment Center, and (b) confirm whether the RanMarine license/commercialization is documented as a license (which would typically not appear as an assignment) versus any unrecorded transfer.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center search (patent no. 11402364): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• USPTO Patent Assignment Search (mirror): https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents (legal events): https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11402364B1](/patent/US11402364B1)/en
• SAM.gov entity record: https://opengovus.com/sam-entity/KMKEEEQC7417
• UniCourt state case: https://unicourt.com/case/ny-sup5-case7v989d67d0de6c-18565

Contradiction check vs. earlier sections: none of substance. The prior summary's naming of inventors (Dean, Kirkville NY; Milstein, Brookline MA) and its note that the state case is not a patent ruling are consistent with everything found here. One clarification worth recording: Onscope's listing of "Application Number US2022016452 / Publication 2022/177901" is the WIPO/PCT publication (WO 2022/177901), distinct from the U.S. pre-grant publication US 2022/0260546 A1; and the "Document Number 03207891 – Pending" entry is a Canadian counterpart. These are foreign family members, not U.S. assignments, and should not be entered into the U.S. assignment chain.

I'll verify the patent record and pull details on each cited reference. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me confirm the citation list and dates on the Google Patents record, plus the Korean application details.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,402,364 B1

Building on the earlier sections. The Patent/Litigation/PTAB summaries already established the bibliographic record and the claim posture. This section does not repeat those; it goes to the specific question asked — the prior art cited in the '364 patent and its § 102 potential.

Sourcing note (read first)

1. The authoritative full text supplied in this prompt does not include a granted-claims section, and it does not include the front-page "References Cited" (USPTO Form 892/PTO-892) list. The references analyzed below are those the applicant expressly discussed in the specification's "PATENT PRIOR ART" section, plus the two continuations the specification names alongside the Baltz patent. I could not retrieve the examiner's complete 892 table, so additional US patents, published applications, foreign references, or non-patent literature may be of record that I have not enumerated. Verify the complete 892 list against PatentCenter before relying on this as exhaustive.
2. Charge-level caveat: § 102 anticipation requires a single reference disclosing every claimed element, arranged as in the claim. Because the granted claim 1 (per the earlier section) appears to require a three-zone mitigation architecture and a 28–35 kHz sonication range, and none of the cited references discloses that full combination, most of these references are § 103 and § 112 references, not clean § 102 anticipators of independent claim 1 or 7. Where a reference can anticipate, I say so and identify the claim scope.
3. Contradiction flagged (per operating rule): the specification's "Summary of the Invention" recites a mitigation sub-system with "a UV illumination source, a source of microbubbles, and an ultrasonic transducer" (single sub-system), whereas the earlier-generated section states the granted claim 1 requires three discrete zones plus ozone plus the 28–35 kHz range. These are consistent only if claim 1 was narrowed during prosecution. I could not independently verify the claim text from the authoritative document provided, so the § 102 mapping below is stated conditionally on the claim structure described in the prior section.

Reference 1 — Song et al. (closest prior art)

Brief description. A floating green-tide removal vessel comprising: a buoyant main body; an engine unit generating propulsion power; a power-generation unit; an analysis unit measuring water quality including the cyanophyceae (blue-green algae) population from a water sample; a treatment unit removing cyanophyceae using ultrasonic waves and UV-C; a control unit that controls the treatment unit based on the measured population; and a communication unit transmitting water-quality data to a control center.

§ 102 potential.

• Strong § 102(a)(1) candidate against the broad "platform" claims — i.e., any claim reciting a floating, self-propelled vessel carrying an algae-measuring unit, a UV/ultrasonic mitigation unit, a controller responsive to measured algae concentration, and a communication link. Song discloses each of those elements in a single printed publication. Note the '364 specification reproduces Song's abstract almost verbatim, so the examiner clearly had it before him.
• Maps to the dependent-claim platform features (flotation + propulsion + location/communication + control responsive to measured algae) — cf. claim 4-type subject matter. Caveat: Song's data goes to a remote "control center"; whether it discloses a GPS-type location sub-system on the vessel is unclear from the abstract.
• Does not anticipate claim 1 or 7 as described, because it appears to lack (a) the ozone reaction zone, (b) the UV-C 254 nm ozone-destruction zone, and (c) the 28–35 kHz sonication range, and it is not shown to use the specific BGA-PC / BGA-PE / Chlorophyll A sensors. It is nonetheless the single best § 103 anchor because it supplies the entire apparatus context that the ozone/three-zone features are added to.

Reference 2 — de Meulenaer et al.

Brief description. A device/process for treating a liquid medium: an ultrasound emitter emitting high-frequency ultrasound of about 200 kHz to 10 MHz into a compartment, plus a microbubble emitter emitting gas microbubbles with average diameter < 1 mm into the ultrasound field. The spec's own summary states the microbubbles may be "air, ozone or oxygen," and the reference teaches use for neutralizing/removing microorganisms, in particular algae, and optionally includes an electromagnetic-radiation (light) emitter into the same field.

§ 102 potential.

• § 102(a)(1) candidate only against a narrow claim reciting, in substance, "exposing liquid containing algae to ultrasound and gas microbubbles (optionally air/oxygen/ozone) in a compartment." That is essentially the Zone-1 concept of the '364 mitigation sub-system.
• Cannot anticipate claim 1/7 as described: its ultrasound range (200 kHz–10 MHz) is outside the claimed 28–35 kHz range, and it discloses no ozone reaction zone, no 254 nm UV-C ozone-destruction zone, and no algae-monitoring/assessment/communication sub-systems.
• Best role: § 103 — evidence that ultrasound + microbubbles (+ light) for algae inactivation was known, and a § 112 enablement/obviousness tool against the broad "microbubbles + sonication" concepts.

Reference 3 — Kuwata et al.

Brief description. Systems/methods for autonomously operating a waterborne surface vessel: sensors detect other objects/hazards; a general-purpose programmable computer with instructions recorded on machine-readable memory controls the sensors, deduces object location/velocity/heading, applies navigation and collision-avoidance rule sets, issues velocity/heading commands, and iteratively repeats the loop until the destination is reached. Includes GPS/INS-based state input. This is the reference the '364 specification cites for autonomous operation of the water-going apparatus.

§ 102 potential.

• § 102 candidate against claims limited to the vessel-automation aspects — e.g., a claim to an autonomous waterborne vessel having sensors plus a programmable computer controlling propulsion and location and repeating a control loop. That maps to the control/propulsion/location elements of claim 4-type subject matter.
• Cannot anticipate claim 1/7: no algae sensor, no assessment of algae versus a reference concentration, no mitigation sub-system, no ozone/UV-C.
• Best role: § 103 for the flotation/propulsion/location/autonomous-control features, and § 112 support for the "autonomous operation" embodiment.
• Note (potential duty-of-disclosure/relationship issue, flagged cautiously): the '364 specification names Joseph B. Milstein as a co-inventor, and Kuwata's front page lists its representative firm as "Milstein Zhang & Wu LLC; Joseph B. [Milstein]." I cannot confirm the identity or any legal significance from the sources retrieved; treat this as an observation requiring independent verification, not an assertion.

Reference 4 — Baltz et al. (the sensor reference)

Brief description. Turbidometers/fluorometers with a compact ("pie"-geometry) form factor for sub-2-inch multiparameter sondes; a relatively large-diameter LED source; integrated beam splitter and reference detector enabling closed-loop compensation for light-intensity drift; signal/reference ratio computation; real-time measurement. The '364 specification cites this family as the source of the optical algae sensors (Chlorophyll A, BGA-PC, BGA-PE).

§ 102 potential.

• § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) candidate against claims limited to the aqueous-monitoring sub-system — i.e., an optical fluorescence sensor having an LED source, a reference detector, and closed-loop compensation, suitable for measuring algae/chlorophyll in situ.
• Cannot anticipate claim 1/7: it is a sensor, not a mitigation/monitoring/control/communication system.
• Best role: § 103 for the monitoring sub-system, and a § 112 reference for sensor operation.

References 5 & 6 — Baltz continuations

Brief description. Same specification/disclosure as US 9,778,180 (the '364 specification expressly states these "issued from continuation applications of the above identified U.S. Pat. No. 9,778,180 and include similar disclosures").

§ 102 potential. Identical mapping to Reference 4. Because all three share a common Nov. 10, 2014 priority, each is § 102(a)(2) prior art as to the '364's Feb. 16, 2021 priority date. They are cumulative to the '180 for § 103 purposes; cite the one whose claim set best matches the monitoring-sub-system limitation.

Anticipation matrix (§ 102)

Bottom line on § 102: No cited reference, standing alone, anticipates independent claim 1 or claim 7 as characterized in the earlier section. The only reference that comes close to the complete apparatus is Song (KR 10-2016-0031766 A), and it fails on the ozone reaction zone, the 254 nm ozone-destruction zone, and the 28–35 kHz range. The § 102 value of these references lies in anticipating narrower claim scope (sensor-only claims via Baltz; ultrasound+microbubble claims via de Meulenaer; autonomous-vessel claims via Kuwata; vessel/monitoring/control claims via Song). Their greater value is § 103 combination: Song supplies the apparatus platform, de Meulenaer supplies ultrasound+microbubble algae treatment, Baltz supplies the optical algae sensor, and Kuwata supplies autonomous vessel control.

Reference that is not prior art (do not conflate)

WO 2021/021969 A1 (PCT/US2020/044126, "Cyanobacterium mitigation device," Dean, J.A.), published Feb. 4, 2021. Although its publication date precedes the '364's Feb. 16, 2021 priority date, it is a same-inventor family filing, not third-party prior art; excluded under § 102(b)(1)(A)/(2)(B). It should not be cited against the '364. (This is the separate document the earlier sections already flagged.)

Possible additional citation (unverified)

A search hit placed US 11,402,364 B1 inside the "Cited By" listing of US 2010/0279373 A1, "Device and process for treating a liquid medium" (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100279373A1/en), which would indicate the '364 cites that publication. I could not confirm this from the authoritative text or a completed 892 retrieval, so treat it as a lead to verify, not a finding. If confirmed, it appears to be another de Meulenaer/Ashland-family liquid-treatment document and would be analyzed like Reference 2.

Verification checklist before relying on this

1. Pull the complete PTO-892 "References Cited" list from USPTO PatentCenter for application 17/672,176 — my reference set is drawn from the specification's "PATENT PRIOR ART" discussion, not the 892 table.
2. Confirm the granted claim text (the authoritative document supplied lacks the claims); the entire § 102/§ 103 mapping is conditioned on the claim structure described in the earlier section.
3. Confirm the filing/issue dates for US 8,097,170 (I show filed May 3, 2004 / issued Jan. 17, 2012) and KR 10-2016-0031766 A (published Mar. 23, 2016; granted Apr. 26, 2016 as KR 10-1602571 B1) against the primary registers.

Sources consulted: the authoritative patent text in this prompt; Google Patents (US11402364, US8097170, US8849483B2, KR20160031766A, KR101602571B1, US9778180, US20100279373A1); Justia Patents (US8097170); NASA NTRS PDF of US 8,849,483 B2; In-Situ US 10,989,657 PDF; Patents-Review.com reproduction of the '364 "Patent Prior Art" section.

I'll ground the obviousness analysis in the actual prior-art references before writing. Let me pull details on each named reference and look for additional art.

Let me pull the actual claim text and check the remaining references.

§ 103 Obviousness Analysis — US 11,402,364 B1

Status note before I begin. This builds on the prior sections (claim structure, prior-art-of-record list, and the finding of zero PTAB/litigation activity). I did not independently re-verify the issued claim text in this session — my element-by-element mapping below uses the claim 1 (apparatus) / claim 7 (method) structure and the three-zone + 28–35 kHz limitations identified in the earlier Patent summary, plus limitations that appear in the specification's own "operational device" description. Every mapping conclusion should be re-run against the certified claim text and the file wrapper before being relied on. I also flag one data-integrity item: the task header states "April 26, 2026" while the analysis environment reports 2026-09-29. This does not change any conclusion below, but the two dates should be reconciled if the output is date-stamped for filing.

1. Threshold: what counts as prior art, and as of when

The '364 patent claims priority to provisional 63/149,707 (filed 2021-02-16) and provisional 63/302,766 (filed 2022-01-25), with the non-provisional filed 2022-02-15. Subject matter carried through the first provisional gets a § 102/§ 103 cutoff of 2021-02-16; anything appearing in the January 2022 provisional or added in the 2022 non-provisional only gets the later date.

Two consequences that matter here:

1. All four references of record are comfortably pre-2021 art. de Meulenaer US 8,097,170 (2012); Kuwata US 8,849,483 (2014); Song KR 10-2016-0031766 A (published 2016-03-23); Baltz US 9,778,180 (2017). No § 102 date fight is available on those.
2. Two documents must be handled carefully:
   • US 10,989,657 (Baltz continuation, issued 2021-04-27) post-dates the 2021-02-16 priority date as a printed publication, but is available as § 102(a)(2) art because it is a U.S. patent whose effective filing date (through the US 9,778,180 chain) long predates the '364's effective filing date and names a different inventive entity (In-Situ). Cite it for the sensor teachings; do not treat it as a § 102(a)(1) printed publication.
   • WO 2021/021969 A1 (PCT/US2020/044126, published 2021-02-04) is the same family as the '364 (it shares FIGS. 1–10 and the "traverse the water / irradiation chamber" disclosure). Because it published before the 2021-02-16 priority date, it would be § 102(a)(1) art absent § 102(b)(1)(A). If the inventive entity is the same as the '364's inventors and the disclosure is their own work, § 102(b)(1)(A) excepts it — i.e., it is probably NOT usable as § 102/§ 103 art and should be treated as background/double-patenting material, not as a combination reference. This must be confirmed by comparing named inventors on the WO to the '364's inventors (Dean and Milstein). Do not build a ground on it until that is checked — it is the single easiest way to lose a petition on the pleadings.

I also identified supplemental art that is not on the face of the patent and is therefore § 325(d)-free: US 2002/0098109 A1 (LeVay), US 6,444,176 B1, and US 2013/0101468 A1. Those are my workhorses below precisely because the examiner did not consider them.

2. What the references actually teach (grounded quotes)

Critical admissions in the '364 specification itself (these are the strongest § 103 ammunition and are usable regardless of which art the examiner cited):

• "It is believed that each of the UV-C illumination, microbubbles of air and ultrasonic energy, alone or in combination, can mitigate the cyanobacteria."
• "UV-C light, nanobubbles comprising ozone and ultrasonic sound provided by ultrasonic transducers may be used individually or in combination to mitigate cyanobacteria."
• "Well known ozone sources include reactors in which air or other oxygen-bearing gas is subjected to electric discharge or to UV illumination having a wavelength of 185 nm."
• The claimed sonication values are the inventors' own bench setting: "a frequency of 28 kHz @ 0.75 watts was delivered via two ultrasonic transducers"; "Sonication consisted of sinusoidal frequencies ranging from 28 kHz to 35 kHz at 0.75 W."

An inventor's own statement that the three mechanisms are independently effective and may be used "alone or in combination" is close to a judicial admission of combinability. It substantially neutralizes any argument that combining UV-C, microbubbles and 28–35 kHz sonication was nonobvious.

3. Ground A (primary): Song + de Meulenaer + Baltz + LeVay

This is the cleanest four-reference combination because each reference is in the water-treatment/water-quality field and each supplies a distinct, non-overlapping element.

Limitations chart (claim 1):

Articulated motivation to combine (KSR factors):

1. Same field, same problem, same solution mechanism. All references are directed to killing or inactivating algae/cyanobacteria in water. Song and de Meulenaer both aim at preventing or reducing algal blooms without biocides — the exact problem statement and the exact advantage the '364 asserts ("do not involve the introduction of chemicals into the environment").
2. de Meulenaer does the recombination work for you. It not only permits the three Zone-1 mechanisms to be applied together, it says the combination "is particularly effective at inactivating and removing microorganisms, in particular algae," and it lists ozone as one of the three permissible microbubble gases. Adding ozone as the bubble gas in a sonication chamber is therefore not a recombination at all — it is a selection from a two- or three-item list that the reference itself presents as an alternative.
3. Song teaches the platform and the closed loop. Song already places a cyanobacteria-population-measuring analysis unit, a UV + ultrasound treatment unit, a control unit that actuates treatment based on the measured population, and a telemetry link on a self-propelled buoyant vessel. That is claim 1's control/communication architecture and claim 4's vessel architecture in a single document. The only remaining gap is what the treatment zone contains — which de Meulenaer fills.
4. Predictable result / reasonable expectation of success. A POSITA combining UV-C photoinactivation, low-frequency sonication (cell/gas-vesicle disruption), and ozone oxidation is combining three independently known water-treatment unit operations with known, overlapping mechanisms (DNA lesions, membrane/vesicle disruption, oxidative attack). de Meulenaer's radical-generation and sonoluminescence discussion supplies the mechanistic expectation that microbubbles + ultrasound amplify the effect.
5. Strong environmental/regulatory driver for Zone 3. The patent itself concedes residual ozone "is harmful to the environment" and that 254 nm UV de-ozonation is the mechanism. LeVay supplies the known 185 nm-generate / 254 nm-destroy architecture. When a reference teaches discharging an oxidant, and another reference teaches a known UV step that removes that oxidant before discharge, the motivation to place the destruction step downstream of the treatment step is supplied by the art itself.
6. Design incentive. The patent admits the industry problem being solved — grab-sample-plus-lab analysis yields data "days old" and unrepresentative of the water at the time of sampling. Song's and Baltz's real-time, in-situ, LED-based platform responds directly to that recognized need, supplying a motivation to substitute in-situ fluorometry for grab sampling.

4. Ground B (alternative): Song + US 6,444,176 + US 2013/0101468 + LeVay + Baltz

Useful as a fallback if the patentee successfully attacks de Meulenaer's applicability (e.g., a "different field — medical/hyperproliferative cells" argument; note de Meulenaer's claims as issued are directed to human/animal hyperproliferative cells, even though the specification's disclosure is broadly about algae).

• US 6,444,176 supplies a flow-through, moving-water treatment duct for blue-green algae with ultrasonic transmission followed by ozone mixing — i.e., the zone-1→zone-2 ordering and the "traverse a body of water rather than bring the water to the apparatus" concept.
• US 2013/0101468 supplies ultrasound specifically against cyanobacteria, expressly combined with oxygenation/filtration, and supplies fluorescence monitoring of cyanobacteria during treatment.
• LeVay supplies the ozone-generate/de-ozonate UV pair; Baltz supplies the specific sensor species; Song supplies the vessel, control-on-measurement, and telemetry.
• Motivation: same as Ground A, plus US 6,444,176's express motivation for the ozone step ("the processed and discharged blue green algae are decomposed by the oxidation due to ozone... sludge formation... can be prevented") — i.e., it supplies a separate, independent reason (settling/sludge prevention) to place ozone immediately downstream of a sonication zone that has just processed BGA.

The advantage of Ground B is that neither US 6,444,176 nor US 2013/0101468 nor LeVay appears on the face of the '364, so § 325(d) cannot be used to deny institution on those elements.

5. The 28–35 kHz limitation and the "three separate zones" limitation

These are the two limitations most likely to be argued as the nonobvious core. Neither is, in my view, a strong defense.

28–35 kHz:

• The claimed band is a narrow species of a known genus. Low-frequency (<100 kHz) cavitation sonication to disrupt algal gas vesicles and membranes is standard; de Meulenaer's own background section describes US 6,503,449 (Smith) as "treating water-based suspensions with high-energy, low-frequency ultrasound." A POSITA optimizing sonication for cyanobacteria would recognize low frequency as the regime for mechanical/cavitational disruption (higher frequency = smaller cavitation bubbles, more radical chemistry, less mechanical shear).
• The '364's own specification shows the band was reached by picking a commercial off-the-shelf generator: the Kemo Model #M048N ultrasound generator and the 28 kHz transducer pair. Selecting an off-the-shelf unit's output frequency is the paradigm of a predictable, routine design choice.
• Anticipated patentee counter — teaching away: de Meulenaer distinguishes its 200 kHz–10 MHz range from "high-energy, low-frequency ultrasound... dependent upon using toxic biocides." That is a narrow disparagement: it is aimed at high-energy/low-frequency combined with biocides, not at low-energy 28–35 kHz. And it is contradicted by the other art (US 6,444,176; US 2013/0101468; KR '766) that applies low-frequency sonication to BGA. Expect this to be the patentee's best § 103 argument; be prepared to rebut with the low-energy qualifier (0.75 W) and the express low-frequency BGA art.

Three reaction zones in series:

• The prior art is full of staged, sequential treatment. LeVay teaches a sequence of chambers (ozone chamber → germicidal chamber; and germicidal → ozone → germicidal variants). US 6,444,176 teaches a processing duct followed by ozone mixing. de Meulenaer's single-vessel disclosure does not teach away from staging; and KSR permits rearranging known process steps where the change produces no unexpected result.
• Note the '364 specification's own framing that the zones may be "isolated... whether by having discrete reaction units or cells or simply by having the three reaction regimes separated by suitable distance in a flow system" — a broad, functional recitation that makes the "three zones" limitation easier for a petitioner to meet, not harder.

6. Dependent claims

7. Secondary considerations / what the patentee will argue

• Unexpected results. The specification reports ~56% chlorophyll reduction at 36 W·s UV-C, ~96.5% at 48 W·s + microbubbles + 28 kHz sonication, and ~60% phosphorus reduction from UV-C alone. Two problems for the patentee: (i) the data are largely monotonic with dose, which is the opposite of unexpected; and (ii) the inventors' own characterization that each mechanism "alone or in combination" mitigates cyanobacteria undercuts synergy-in-combination. There is also no evidence of record of a nexus between any commercial success and the claimed combination.
• Long-felt need. Real, but the need was recognized and being addressed by the art (Song; de Meulenaer; US 2013/0101468), which weakens it.
• Teaching away (de Meulenaer frequency): addressed above — the best available non-invalidity argument, but narrow.
• Claim scope defense on the merits: claim 1 appears to be materially narrower than the specification's "Summary of the Invention" (which recited a single-chamber mitigation sub-system). Practically, an accused device that runs only one or two of the three zones, or sonicates outside 28–35 kHz, likely falls outside the claim regardless of § 103. As noted in the earlier sections, that non-infringement-first posture remains the most reliable defense; § 103 is the second line.

8. Procedural notes for any petition

• § 325(d): de Meulenaer, Kuwata, Song and Baltz are all of record and were presumably considered. If your lead ground rests solely on those four, expect a Becton, Dickinson / Advanced Bionics discretionary-denial argument. Ground B (LeVay / US 6,444,176 / US 2013/0101468) is the antidote — lead with the art the examiner never saw, and use the record art only to fill peripheral elements.
• § 315(b): no complaint asserting the '364 has been found in the prior search work, so the one-year clock is not shown to be running. Re-confirm.
• Statutory disclaimer/OPD: if WO 2021/021969 is confirmed to be the same inventive entity, consider whether the '364 and any sibling U.S. cases raise a terminal disclaimer / ODP issue rather than a § 103 issue — a different and potentially cheaper attack vector.
• Nonprior-art material: the 2024 Korean conference paper describing an ultrasound + UV + microbubble module train with reported ≥95% chlorophyll-a removal is after the priority date and cannot be used as § 103 art. It is useful only as evidence of what a POSITA would consider conventional design, and even then with date caveats.

9. Verification gaps I am flagging rather than papering over

1. Exact issued claim text (independent-claim count, dependency structure, and the precise 28–35 kHz / three-zone wording). The previous section could not retrieve the full listing; my mapping inherits that uncertainty. Close this before drafting anything.
2. US 6,444,176 B1 and US 2013/0101468 A1 bibliographic data (inventors, assignees, exact issue/publication dates) — I retrieved disclosure text but not verified front-page data. Confirm before citing as art.
3. In-Situ sensor commercial-availability dates before 2021-02-16. The Baltz patents are the documentary anchor; confirm the product catalogs/offers for sale to establish the BGA-PC/BGA-PE/Chl-a sensors as § 102(a)(1) art in their own right.
4. Inventive entity of WO 2021/021969 A1 — decisive for whether it can be used as art at all.
5. Claim 5 (tethered aerial observation) — no verified pre-2021 reference identified; treat as unbuilt ground.

10. Bottom line

Claim 1 is, in my assessment, vulnerable to a well-constructed § 103 challenge, but not on the art alone as the examiner framed it. The strongest combination is Song KR 10-2016-0031766 A + de Meulenaer US 8,097,170 + Baltz US 9,778,180 + LeVay US 2002/0098109 A1, with US 6,444,176 B1 and US 2013/0101468 A1 as the § 325(d)-free alternative spine. Every element of claim 1 — the fluorometric sensor species, the threshold comparison, the UV/sonication/microbubble zone, the ozone zone, the 254 nm de-ozonation zone, the controlling/recording subsystem, and the telemetry link — is disclosed across that set, and the motivation is supplied by (a) the common field and common biocide-free objective, (b) de Meulenaer's express teaching that ultrasound + microbubbles (including ozone) + light act together on algae, (c) LeVay's express generate-then-destroy ozone architecture extended to liquids, and (d) the '364's own admissions that the three mechanisms may be used "alone or in combination" and that 185 nm ozone generation and 254 nm de-ozonation are "well known."

The genuine soft spots for a petitioner are the 28–35 kHz limitation (de Meulenaer's disparagement of low-frequency sonication, though narrow and contradicted by US 6,444,176 / US 2013/0101468) and the tethered aerial observation dependent claim. As against an accused product, the narrower practical point from the earlier sections still governs: non-infringement of claim 1's three-zone architecture is the first argument; § 103 is the second.