US 11402365

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number, including any 2026 litigation activity.

Let me run more targeted searches for litigation/docket activity and the USPTO record.

US Patent 11,402,365 — Analyst Summary

Bottom line / scope note: I found no litigation, PTAB proceeding, or CAFC 2026 docket involving this patent. Targeted searches for "11402365," "11,402,365," and the patent's title returned no court or docket records for this number; the only 2026 Federal Circuit materials surfaced were unrelated cases (e.g., 2024-1374 Neister, Netlist v. Samsung/Micron, Enviro Tech v. Safe Foods). Given the assignee is the U.S. government, that absence is expected. All bibliographic data below is corroborated by the patent text and the DHS technology listing.

Bibliographic data

Priority chain: provisional 62/534,273 (2017-07-19) → non-provisional 16/037,692 (filed 2018-07-17, now US 11,079,369) → divisional 17/355,943 (filed 2021-06-23) → US 11,402,365.

Abstract (verbatim)

"Various embodiments of the present invention are directed towards a system and method to dispense an explosive compound onto a substrate. An example device includes a solvent having the explosive compound dissolved in the solvent to form a sample. A delivery mechanism dispenses the sample in a dispersed manner to sufficiently vaporize the solvent to prevent wicking while dispersing a residue of the explosive compound on the substrate to enable detection by explosive detection tools."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

This patent has two independent claims (claim 1 and claim 17); claims 2–16 depend from claim 1 and there is no method claim in this divisional (a method is described in the specification, FIG. 5, but is not claimed here).

Claim 1 — the dispensing device. It covers a device that puts an explosive compound onto a substrate. The device has (a) a solvent with the explosive compound dissolved in it to form a sample, and (b) a delivery mechanism that dispenses that sample in a "dispersed manner." The dispersion is defined functionally by its result: the solvent vaporizes enough to prevent wicking into the substrate, while the explosive residue is simultaneously dispersed onto the substrate in a form detectable by explosive-detection tools. The claim closes with a structural/quantitative limitation: the deposited residue particles have an average particle size of approximately six microns.

Claim 17 — the verification system. It covers a system for testing explosives-detection systems. It requires (a) a plurality of devices (each like the claim 1 device — solvent + explosive dissolved into a sample, plus a delivery mechanism that disperses the sample so the solvent vaporizes without wicking and the residue lands on the substrate), and (b) a dispenser configured to accept insertion of at least one of those devices to dispense its sample. The plurality of devices must collectively include explosive compounds representing at least those types detectable by the explosive-detection tools being tested.

Key dependent-claim features (context for the independent claims)

• Solvent = hydrofluoroalkane (HFA); specifically HFA 134a or HFA 227 (claims 3–4); alternatively dimethyl ether (DME) (claim 5).
• Two-solvent systems: a first solvent serving as propellant/solvent, plus a second co-solvent that raises solubility above a threshold needed to deposit a detectable residue (claims 6–9).
• Delivery mechanism variants: a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) (claim 10); a computer-controlled dispensing valve (claim 11); a computer-controlled robotic actuator dispensing nanodroplets in a predefined pattern, optionally a simulated human fingerprint (claims 12–13).
• Canister features: interior coating, e.g., passivated aluminum (claims 14–15); inert headspace from oxygen evacuation before sealing (claim 16).

Authoritative sourcing

• Full patent text: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11402365/en
• DHS Science & Technology listing ("Trace Explosive Deposition and Detection Verification System") confirms inventor James E. Deline and patent numbers US 11,402,365 and US 11,079,369: https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/publication/trace-explosive-deposition-and-detection-verification-system

Uncertainty / caveats

• No litigation or appeal found. I could not locate any district court, ITC, PTAB, or CAFC matter naming this patent as of April 26, 2026. I cannot affirmatively certify that none exists — only that my searches returned none. Treat "no docket activity" as unverified negative evidence.
• Claim count and independence are taken directly from the provided full patent text (17 claims; independent claims 1 and 17). I did not independently re-verify against the USPTO PatentCenter claim set.
• The specification mentions a method embodiment (FIG. 5 / method 500), but the granted claims of this divisional are apparatus/system claims only; the method may reside in the parent US 11,079,369. I did not verify the parent's claim set.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11402365 across patent litigation trackers and court sources.

Initial results were noise. Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Summary Finding

I found no known litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 11,402,365 ("the '365 patent").

Based on the searches I was able to run across patent-litigation-oriented sources (Google/Patents indexed material, Docket Alarm, CourtListener/PTAB filings surfaced via search, and Unified Patents-related results), no district court action, CAFC appeal, ITC investigation, or PTAB proceeding was identified that names US 11,402,365 (or its publication US2022/0074912A1) as an asserted or challenged patent.

What I checked and what came back

None of the results referenced the '365 patent, its title ("Dry-deposit trace explosives dispensing devices and testing systems"), its inventor (James E. Deline), or its assignee in a litigation context.

Important contextual reasons this is expected (not legal advice)

Two facts from the patent record itself strongly counsel that litigation is unlikely, which is consistent with the null result:

1. Government ownership. The patent is assigned to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the specification contains a Statement of Government Interest ("made by one or more employees of the United States Department of Homeland Security in the performance of official duties"). Federally owned patents of this type are typically not asserted in infringement suits against private parties.

2. It is a divisional of a family that shows no litigation activity. The '365 patent is a divisional of U.S. application Ser. No. 16/037,692, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,079,369 ("Development of dry-deposit trace explosives detection test standards, solutions and methods for deposition"). Neither the parent nor the divisional appears in any litigation record I could locate. The only "citing" family member shown is another government-owned patent (US 11,333,581 B2, DHS).

Caveats and limitations (stated explicitly)

• I was unable to exhaustively query PACER or the Unified Patents litigation caselist directly because the available searches did not return results for this specific patent number; my conclusions rest on the searches that did run, not on a certified full docket sweep.
• Absence of evidence in these searches is not proof of absence. If you need a definitive litigation clearance, the authoritative next steps would be: (a) a direct PACER/Unified Patents caselist query on "11,402,365" / "11402365"; (b) a CourtListener RECAP full-text search restricted to this number; and (c) a PTAB API query for the patent number and its application number 17/355,943.
• Per your instruction to interpret identifiers literally, I confirm the numbers cited are reproduced exactly as given: US 11,402,365 B2, application 17/355,943, publication US2022/0074912A1, parent 16/037,692 → US 11,079,369 B2.

Bottom line: No litigation (district court, CAFC, ITC, or PTAB) involving US 11,402,365 is known on the basis of the searches performed. The patent is U.S. Government–owned (DHS), which is consistent with the absence of assertion activity.

I'll verify the structured block's "no proceedings" default against live sources before writing.

Initial searches returned nothing on-point. Let me run more targeted queries, including on the parent patent and any litigation.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 11,402,365: 0 — the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings, and my independent web searches surfaced no PTAB petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent, its parent US 11,079,369, or its divisional sibling US 11,333,581. Breakdown by status is therefore not applicable: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials. The defensive posture this gives a defendant is not "hardened" in the IPR sense and also not "claims canceled" — it is untested: all 17 claims stand exactly as issued and unamended, with no administrative validity record either way. Critically, the absence of PTAB activity here is explained by patent-owner identity and market position rather than by claim strength: this is a U.S. Government–owned patent (DHS) that has never been asserted in district court as far as public records show, so the usual IPR trigger — a demand letter or infringement suit against a commercial defendant — never fired.

---

No proceedings to report

Because the structured data is empty and my searches confirmed it, there is no proceeding to write up in the per-proceeding format above. Stating that plainly rather than constructing a template with empty fields:

• IPR proceedings: none found. No IPR20xx-xxxxx petition naming US 11,402,365 or US 11,079,369.
• PGR proceedings: none found. (Note the PGR window under 35 U.S.C. § 321(c) is nine months from grant; the patent granted 2022-08-02, so the PGR window closed 2023-05-02 in any event, and no PGR was filed.)
• CBM proceedings: not available — CBM review sunset for petitions filed after 2020-09-16, and this patent would not qualify as a "covered business method" patent regardless; its claims are directed to explosives test-sample dispensing apparatus, not financial products or services.
• Claim-level outcomes: none exist. Do not assume any claim of US 11,402,365 has been canceled or confirmed by the Board — no claim has been adjudicated. The full claim set 1–17 (independent claim 1, dependent claims 2–16, independent claim 17) remains live and unamended.
• Judge panels / FWDs / settlements / appeals: not applicable. No panel, no FWD, no termination, no CAFC docket. I found nothing on CourtListener or in PTAB E2E-style sources for this patent.

Search-confidence caveat, stated explicitly as required: I could not retrieve a PTAB proceeding list page for this patent directly. My conclusion rests on (a) the structured ODP block supplied in this prompt, which is stated to be canonical and empty, and (b) multiple targeted web searches ("US 11,402,365" IPR petition; "11402365" PTAB AIA trial proceeding; searches on the parent 11,079,369; and searches pairing the patent with DHS/explosives-detection terms) that returned only unrelated PTAB filings concerning other patents. I did not find a recently-filed or newly-indexed petition. If a very recent petition (e.g., filed within the last few weeks) has not been indexed, it would not appear in any of these sources — that is the one residual blind spot. Verify against PTAB E2E at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/ and https://www.courtlistener.com/ before relying on this in a filing.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status across the patent. Nothing is canceled and nothing is Board-sustained, because the Board has never reviewed it. Claims 1–17 are all UNTESTED. Claim 1 (a delivery mechanism to dispense the sample in a dispersed manner to sufficiently vaporize the solvent to prevent wicking while simultaneously allowing a residue of the explosive compound to be dispersed on the substrate to enable detection by explosive detection tools) carries a concrete structural limit — wherein the residue of the explosive compound includes particles having an average particle size of approximately six microns — which is a numerically-bounded, product-by-… actually an apparatus claim element with a stated particle-size range. That "approximately six microns" recitation is the most IPR-attractive target on the face of the patent (a petitioner would attack it under § 112(b) as indefinite for "approximately," or attack the range with prior-art particle-size evidence). Claims 17 (verification system with a plurality of devices plus a dispenser) was drafted as an independent system claim and would be the fallback assertion vehicle if claim 1 were ever knocked out. There is no prosecution-history narrowing at the IPR level, but note the applicant did amend during prosecution — the parent's file history (US 16/037,692, now US 11,079,369) reflects a non-final action (2021-12-23), response (2022-03-25), and Notice of Allowance (2022-04-18) in the divisional chain — those prosecution statements still supply potential IPR arguments, as they would in any pre-IPR case.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel operating against anyone. No petitioner has ever been before the Board on this patent, so no party is barred from raising any § 102 or § 103 ground. A defendant today has the entire prior-art universe available: the references of record in this patent are only four — US 5,092,220 (Thermedics), US 6,470,730 (the dry-transfer patent, cited in the Background as the technique being improved upon), US 2012/0149896 A1 (Agency for Defense Development), and US 2014/0001280 A1 (Navy). The US 6,470,730 dry-transfer reference is cited but is the admitted starting point, which makes it a natural primary reference for an obviousness attack on claim 1's "no intermediate strip" concept — the patent's own Background frames the invention as eliminating steps from that reference, which is classic § 103 fodder. Also worth mining: the alignment-tool patent in the same family, US 11,333,581 B2 (DHS, priority 2020-07-10), and the general "particle standards" art, e.g. US 2017/0284928 A1 (sieving/dust-storm particle deposition onto coupons, expressly discussing fingerprint-mimicking particle size and distribution). That last reference is directly on point for the "simulated human fingerprint" dependent claims (claim 13) and the particle-size limitation.

Pattern signals. No repeat-petitioner pattern, no serial IPRs, no Patent Owner appeal practice, and no defensive aggregator such as Unified Patents anywhere in the chain — the family's only third-party citation is a 2025 Nanjing University of Science and Technology paper on aluminum powder detonation diffusion (CN118133621B), which is academic and irrelevant. The real signal is ownership: the patent is owned by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (current assignee, per the structured data), and the disclosure's own framing is that this is a government/TSA test-and-evaluation standard used to verify vendor ETDs (Morpho Itemiser DX, Smiths IONSCAN 500DT, L3 B220). Governments generally do not assert such patents offensively, which is precisely why no IPR exists. Note the patent's status: Active, maintenance fee paid 2026-02-02 (4th year, large entity), anticipated expiration 2038-07-17. It is a long-dated, live patent.

---

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant being asserted against (or threatened with) US 11,402,365, drop the IPR framing and litigate validity in court. There is no FWD to cite and no canceled claim to wave at a plaintiff — the requested "link to the FWD and quote the disposition" does not exist because no FWD exists. Any assertion that "claim 1 is dead" would be fiction and sanction-bait in the other direction. Your validity case must be built from scratch.
2. Prioritize an IPR against claim 1 now, if you have budget and the § 315(b) one-year bar has not run. With zero prior petitions, you face no estoppel and no § 325(d) duplication problem beyond the four references of record, and the "approximately six microns" limitation plus the Background's admission regarding US 6,470,730 give you an obviousness and/or § 112(b) theory. The § 315(b) clock runs one year from service of a complaint alleging infringement — if you have already been served, confirm that date before filing.
3. If no proceeding exists and no suit has been filed against you, say so and press the point. The absence of PTAB activity is itself the finding: a United States Government–owned test-standard patent that has never been asserted has never attracted (or needed) an IPR. That cuts both ways for a defendant — it is a strong argument that the patentee is not a serial enforcer and that the technology is a government calibration standard rather than a commercial product trap, but it also means your invalidity defenses are entirely un-previewed and you cannot borrow the Board's work.
4. Confirm the empty list against primary sources before filing. Check PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/) for 11402365, 11079369, and 11333581, and CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/) for any § 145 or CAFC appeal; also check the patent's Google Patents page (https://patents.google.com/patent/US11402365/en) for any newly indexed "PTAB" or litigation entries. Treat my conclusion as high-confidence but not certifiable, given the residual indexing-lag blind spot I flagged above.

Bottom line: 0 AIA trial proceedings; 0 claims canceled; 0 claims sustained; claims 1–17 unadjudicated and fully live; no estoppel against anyone; no aggregator in the chain. Do not tell a client this patent is "hardened by IPR survival" and do not tell a client any claim is dead — neither statement is supportable on this record.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 11,402,365 B2

Title: Dry-deposit trace explosives dispensing devices and testing systems
App. No.: 17/355,943 · Filed: 2021-06-23 · Granted: 2022-08-02
Priority: 2017-07-19 (Provisional 62/534,273) · Family: divisional of 16/037,692 → US 11,079,369 B2

Data-access caveat (read first): I was not able to pull the live Assignment Center record directly during this session. The findings below rest on (a) the authoritative Google Patents legal-events block for this patent (which mirrors the USPTO assignment data set), and (b) primary/secondary sources on the assignee and inventor. The Google Patents legal-events block lists only "Fee payment procedure," "Information on status: patent application and granting procedure," and "Information on status: patent grant" entries — zero assignment, security-interest, merger, or name-change records. I flag this as a limitation rather than asserting a negative I could not independently confirm in Assignment Center.

---

Inventors

Unusual-pattern note: No inventor-departure pattern applies. This is a U.S. federal-employee invention, and the patent carries an explicit Statement of Government Interest: "The present invention was made by one or more employees of the United States Department of Homeland Security in the performance of official duties. The United States Government has certain rights in this invention." Sole-inventor, single-employer government laboratory — the opposite of the "all inventors leave within 12 months" fire-sale precursor. I found no record of Deline leaving DHS; contemporaneous DHS material (as late as 2025) still credits him.

---

Original assignee

United States Department of Homeland Security — the entity named on the issued patent (Google Patents: Original Assignee = Current Assignee = "US Department of Homeland Security").

• Primary line of business: U.S. federal executive-department agency (national-security / homeland-security mission); the relevant R&D arm is the S&T Directorate's Transportation Security Laboratory (TSL), which develops and validates explosives trace-detection (ETD) test standards for TSA and USSS checkpoints.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes — a fielded, government-operated test kit, not a commercial product. DHS transitioned the device to TSA and the U.S. Secret Service; per DHS/press coverage, on 28 May (2019) "Deline delivered three professional quality test kits to the Secret Service and TSA's Transportation Security Integration Facility in Washington, D.C.," and the kits verify ETD alarms across nine explosives. DHS S&T's technology page lists the system as a "Prototype" with "Partnerships Sought: License" and contact T2C@hq.dhs.gov.
• Current status: Operating — it is a sitting federal agency that still owns the patent (maintenance fee paid 2026-02-02; status "Active"; anticipated expiration 2038-07-17). It cannot be acquired, dissolved, or go bankrupt.

---

Assignment timeline

There are no recorded assignment, security-interest, merger, or change-of-name transactions for US 11,402,365 in the Google Patents legal-events record (mirroring USPTO assignment data). No reel/frame is available to cite because no recordation exists on the face of the data I could retrieve.

Consistent with the operating rules, this is itself the finding: the original assignee — the U.S. Department of Homeland Security — still owns the patent. This is the expected posture for a federal-employee invention: title vests in the Government by operation of law/executive order and practice, and no inventor→agency assignment is recorded as a post-issuance transfer (there is no arms-length consideration, no security interest, no shell-LLC hop).

If you are verifying in Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/, or the older index https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html), search by patent number 11402365 and by application 17/355,943; a null result confirms the above.

Family context (not assignments, but useful for the chain record):

• 62/534,273 — provisional, filed 2017-07-19 (priority).
• 16/037,692 → US 11,079,369 B2 — parent non-provisional, filed 2018-07-17, granted 2021-08-03; same assignee (DHS). Listed as "Active" with a 2039-05-30 anticipated expiration.
• 17/355,943 → US 11,402,365 B2 — the instant divisional (filed 2021-06-23).
• US 11,333,581 B2 ("Alignment tool for dry-deposition of material", granted 2022-05-17) — a citing/related case assigned to "The Government of the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Homeland Security," reinforcing a single-owner government family rather than a transfer chain.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11402365
    2017 : Provisional filed by DHS inventor Deline
    2018 : Parent application filed by DHS
    2021 : Parent US11079369 granted to DHS
    2021 : Divisional application filed by DHS
    2022 : US11402365 granted to DHS
    2022 : DHS still sole owner
    2026 : Maintenance fee paid by DHS

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

---

Verdict

Insufficient data (no assignment records — original government assignee still owns the patent).

The reconstructed chain is a single link: the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is the original and current assignee, with no recorded assignment, security interest, merger, or name change on US 11,402,365 (Google Patents legal-events block shows only prosecution and fee entries; no reel/frame exists to cite). The inventor, James E. Deline, is a DHS Transportation Security Laboratory chemist and the invention carries an express Statement of Government Interest, so title vested in the Government rather than moving through any assignment chain. This is the paradigm non-NPE posture — a federal agency that both built the working test kits and now offers licenses directly via DHS S&T — and none of the eight NPE signals are present.

Verify directly: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent no. 11402365 or application 17/355,943). A no-match result confirms the null assignment record.

Confidence note: The "no assignments" conclusion is supported by the Google Patents legal-events record and by the government-employee ownership posture, but I could not open the Assignment Center record itself this session; treat the null result as strong-but-not-independently-verified and confirm the single lookup above before relying on it in a filing.

I'll research the prior art cited for US 11402365. Let me search for each cited reference to verify and analyze them.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,402,365 B2

"Dry-deposit trace explosives dispensing devices and testing systems"

---

1. Reference Document Identification

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11402365/en

Scope note. The task asks specifically about the references cited against US 11,402,365. The Google Patents record lists exactly four patent citations (all marked "cited by examiner"):

1. US 5,092,220 A
2. US 6,470,730 B1
3. US 2012/0149896 A1
4. US 2014/0001280 A1

The long "Similar Documents" list on the page is a machine-generated similarity list (largely non-patent literature) and is not part of the citation record; I have not treated those as cited prior art. Every listed citation predates the 2017-07-19 priority date and therefore qualifies as prior art under § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) if relied upon.

---

2. The Claims at Issue (for mapping)

• Claim 1 (independent, device): (a) a solvent having the explosive compound dissolved therein to form a sample; (b) a delivery mechanism to dispense the sample in a dispersed manner to sufficiently vaporize the solvent to prevent wicking while simultaneously allowing a residue of the explosive to be dispersed on the substrate to enable detection by explosive detection tools; (c) wherein the residue includes particles having an average particle size of approximately six microns.
• Claims 2–16 (dependent): dry-apply trace amounts (2); HFA (3); HFA 134a/227 (4); DME (5); first + second solvent/co-solvent (6–9); pMDI (10); computer-controlled dispensing valve (11); robotic actuator / nanodroplets / simulated fingerprint (12–13); coated canister (14), aluminum passivation (15), inert headspace (16).
• Claim 17 (independent, verification system): a plurality of the claim-1-type devices + a dispenser to accept insertion of a device; the plurality represents at least those explosive types detectable by the detection tools.

Source: claims reproduced at https://patents.google.com/patent/US11402365/en

The critical, distinguishing limitation across both independents is the dispenser that deposits a solvent-free particulate residue directly on a substrate by vaporizing the solvent in a "dispersed manner." That is the point of novelty the specification draws relative to the prior dry-transfer art.

---

3. Summary Table of Cited References

---

4. Reference-by-Reference § 102 Analysis

Reference 1 — US 5,092,220 A (Thermedics Inc.)

Full citation. U.S. Pat. No. 5,092,220 A, "Nitric oxide detection with hydrogen and ozone," application 07/081,920, prior-art date 1987-07-08, granted March 3, 1992, assignee Thermedics Inc.
https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5092220A](/patent/US5092220A)/en

Description. An explosives detection system. Explosive vapors are separated (GC), pyrolyzed (silver low-temperature and quartz high-temperature pyrolyzers) to liberate nitric oxide, and the NO is detected by hydrogen/ozone chemiluminescence, with mole-sieve traps (CTR traps) to remove interferents. It is directed to how to identify explosives (EGDN, NG, DNT, TNT, PETN, RDX) once a vapor sample exists.

§ 102 assessment.

• This is detector-side art only. It has no solvent-based sample, no canister/delivery mechanism, no substrate, no residue, and certainly no ~6-micron particulate residue.
• It touches at most the functional phrase in claim 1/claim 17, "explosive detection tools" / "types of explosive compounds capable of being detected," and even there only generically (it detects a handful of explosives by vapor).
• Claims potentially anticipated: none. Under the Anton/Finisar all-elements rule it cannot § 102-anticipate any of claims 1–17. It is properly treated as background art establishing the state of explosive-vapor detection, and could at most be combined under § 103 for the "detection" context.

---

Reference 2 — US 6,470,730 B1 (Chamberlain / US DOT) — the most relevant cited art

Full citation. U.S. Pat. No. 6,470,730 B1, "Dry transfer method for the preparation of explosives test samples," Robert T. Chamberlain, application 09/640,660 filed Aug. 18, 2000, granted Oct. 29, 2002, assigned to the US Secretary of Transportation. 15 claims.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US6470730 ; PDF: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/42/9b/06/376125fbfe4478/US6470730.pdf

Description. Prepare a liquid containing the explosive ("substance of interest") — usually a suspension in water or a volatile non-solvent, though plastic explosives (C4) may be dissolved in acetone; deposit the liquid on a flexible Teflon® (Bytac®) strip; allow it to dry (often overnight); then rub the strip onto the item to transfer granules; and test the item. Its stated purpose is to avoid the "false negative" caused by depositing a suspension/liquid directly on a textured surface or cloth (capillary action / granules settling in grooves).

§ 102 assessment.

• This reference is cited presumably because it is the closest art on preparing trace-explosive test samples, and the instant specification expressly identifies and distinguishes it in the Background ("a 'dry transfer' technique, such as the technique disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,470,730…").
• Element mapping to claim 1:
• "solvent having the explosive dissolved to form a sample" — only partially met (suspensions are used for most materials; dissolving is used only for plastic explosives such as C4/acetone).
• "delivery mechanism to dispense the sample in a dispersed manner to sufficiently vaporize the solvent to prevent wicking" — absent. Chamberlain pipettes liquid onto a Teflon strip and waits for it to dry; the whole point is to avoid direct deposition precisely because of wicking/capillary interactions.
• "residue of the explosive dispersed on the substrate to enable detection" by a dispersed, solvent-free deposit — absent (transfer is by mechanical rubbing of dried granules, not by a dispenser).
• "particles having an average particle size of approximately six microns" — absent.
• Claims potentially anticipated: none. Chamberlain discloses a method of sample preparation, itself lacking the structural dispersed-vaporizing dispenser required by claim 1, and it lacks the plural-device + insertion-dispenser architecture of claim 17. It is forceful § 103 art (motivation to eliminate the labor-intensive Teflon® step), but it does not anticipate any claim on its face.

Note on the family. The specification is not alone in this view: the parent US 11,079,369 B2 and even the assignee's own later US 11,333,581 ("Alignment tool for dry-deposition of material," 2022-05-17) build around the same distinction.

---

Reference 3 — US 2012/0149896 A1 (Agency for Defense Development)

Full citation. U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0149896 A1, "Method for separation of HMX and RDX," published June 14, 2012; priority to Korean App. 10-2010-0127896 filed Dec. 14, 2010; assignee Agency for Defense Development (KR); granted as US 8,759,514.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120149896 ; PDF: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/d1/7a/ac/49c0cc0e812299/US20120149896A1.pdf

Description. Selective separation of RDX from HMX/RDX mixtures using compressed dimethyl ether (DME) as the solvent. RDX dissolves (by solubility-parameter matching) while HMX does not; the RDX-laden DME is then discharged to atmospheric pressure through an injection nozzle, causing flash precipitation/crystallization of fine RDX particles. DME is described as a liquid/compressed gas that is non-toxic and re-usable. Claim 3 of the publication expressly lists mixing DME with HFC-23, HFC-125, HFC-236fa, HFC-227ea, perfluoromethane/ethane/propane/butane, CF₃I and CO₂.

§ 102 assessment.

• This is the cited reference most closely tied to two specific limitations of the patent:
• Claim 5 ("the solvent comprises dimethyl ether (DME)") — the reference squarely discloses DME as a solvent for an explosive (RDX).
• Claim 1's solvent concept (a solvent that is liquid under pressure/gas at ambient and that precipitates finely divided explosive particles on pressure release) and, arguably, claim 6 (solvent as propellant; mixed-solvent systems), because the reference discloses DME mixed with HFC gases as a propellant-type solvent system.
• However, claim 5 depends from claim 1 and incorporates all of claim 1's limitations — in particular a delivery mechanism that dispenses the sample in a dispersed manner onto a substrate to form a solvent-free residue for detection, with ~6-micron residue particles. The reference is a separation/purification process (collecting bulk crystallized particles), not a device that deposits a residue on a substrate for trace detection, and it discloses no wicking-prevention-via-dispersed-dispensing and no 6-micron residue on a substrate.
• Claims potentially anticipated: none as a whole. For claim 5/claim 6 the reference is strong individual-limitation (§ 103) art for the DME and mixed-DME/HFC solvent features, but it does not disclose every element of any complete claim. It does not reach claims 1, 17, or (as complete claims) 3–16.

---

Reference 4 — US 2014/0001280 A1 (US Secretary of the Navy)

Full citation. U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0001280 A1, "Method and system for generating vapors of liquid solutions," published Jan. 2, 2014; provisional 61/664,785 filed June 27, 2012; app. 13/926,075 filed June 25, 2013; granted as US 9,597,700 B2 on Mar. 21, 2017; assignee US Secretary of the Navy (Terray, Field, Hart, et al.).
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140001280 ; grant: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9597700B2](/patent/US9597700B2)/en

Description. A pneumatically modulated liquid delivery system (pressurized pressure vessel + flow meter + electronic pressure control unit + microcontroller with PID feedback) coupled to a nebulizer that generates a fine aerosol (micron/sub-micron droplets) from a liquid solution, which is then vaporized in a heated tube. The liquid solution may contain low-volatility explosives (TNT, RDX, PETN). Goal: a continuous, pulse-free vapor stream for calibration and verification of analytical instrumentation.

§ 102 assessment.

• Element mapping to claim 1:
• "solvent having the explosive compound dissolved" — the solution is typically aqueous; the reference's stated aim is a vapor stream "free of organic solvents." It is not a propellant-solvent system that flash-evaporates to leave a residue.
• "delivery mechanism to dispense in a dispersed manner" — a nebulizer does produce a dispersed aerosol, so this element overlaps in a generic sense, and the pressure-vessel/PID delivery overlaps with the delivery-mechanism concept (compare claim 11, computer-controlled delivery; and claim 10, measured volume).
• "sufficiently vaporize the solvent to prevent wicking on a substrate" and "form a residue on the substrate" — absent; the Nebulizer/heat-tube output is a vapor for calibration, not a residue deposited on a test substrate. No substrate, no 6-micron particulate residue.
• The reference's "calibration and verification" purpose is conceptually adjacent to the verification system of claim 17 (verify that ETDs operate correctly), and is likely why the examiner cited it. But it lacks the "plurality of devices" and the "dispenser to accept insertion of at least one of the plurality of devices," and lacks residue-on-substrate dispensing.
• Claims potentially anticipated: none. Best characterized as § 103 art for the pressurized, feedback-controlled, aerosol-dispensing delivery architecture (claims 1–2 and 10–12 context) and as background for detector verification.

---

5. Conclusions

Most relevant cited prior art. US 6,470,730 B1 (Chamberlain / DOT). It is the art the specification itself identifies and distinguishes (Background of the Invention), and it is the only cited reference directed to preparing trace-explosive test samples. It nonetheless fails to disclose the claim-1 independent elements (dispersed dispenser, wicking-prevention by sufficient vaporization, solvent-free residue on the substrate, ~6-micron particles), so it is § 103 rather than § 102 art.

Second most relevant. US 2012/0149896 A1 (Agency for Defense Development) — the strongest cited art against the DME-solvent aspects (claims 5, and the solvent/mixed-solvent concepts of 1 and 6) via its compressed-DME dissolution and flash-crystallization of RDX particles.

Weakest as prior art against the claims. US 5,092,220 A (Thermedics) is pure detector-side art and US 2014/0001280 A1 (Navy) is a vapor-generator for calibration; both are background/§ 103 references.

Anticipation bottom line. On the face of the four cited references, none anticipates any of claims 1–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Each citation lacks at least one essential element of independent claim 1 or claim 17 — specifically the dispenser that deposits a solvent-free, ~6-micron particulate residue on a substrate by sufficiently vaporizing the solvent in a dispersed manner to prevent wicking. Their proper roles are (a) background establishing conventional sample preparation and detection, and (b) § 103 obviousness combinations (e.g., Chamberlain + the DME reference; or the Navy delivery system + Chamberlain).

---

6. Caveats and Limits of This Analysis

• This is a prior-art relevance analysis of the four examiner-cited references, not a validity opinion. A full § 102/§ 103 analysis would require the complete prosecution histories of US 11,402,365 and its parent US 11,079,369 and any non-patent literature the examiner may have relied on (which is not reflected in the citation list I was given).
• Identifiers are reported literally as they appear in the records retrieved; I have not renumbered or "corrected" any publication/patent number. (Note the patent's own Background cites the dry-transfer art as "U.S. Pat. No. 6,470,730," matching the citation list.)
• Dates are as stated on the cited records (Google Patents / USPTO). Where the printed patent text and search results differed only in typography, I used the patent text; where an ID is involved, I kept it verbatim.
• The "Similar Documents" list shown alongside the citations contains numerous non-patent literature items (e.g., Grob 2008; Novosselov 2021; Sisco 2015); these are machine-similarity results, not cited references, and are outside the scope of "each patent citation for 11402365." If you want, I can separately evaluate those NPL items as potential § 102/§ 103 art.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual prior-art references cited on the patent page. Let me verify the key references' disclosures.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent No. 11,402,365 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Patent: Dry-deposit trace explosives dispensing devices and testing systems
Inventor: James E. Deline | Assignee: U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Priority: July 19, 2017 (prov. 62/534,273) | § 371(c)/parent filing: July 17, 2018 (Ser. No. 16/037,692) | This application: Ser. No. 17/355,943, filed June 23, 2021 (divisional of '692; now US 11,079,369)
Sources used: the "Citations (4)" section of the patent page (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11402365](/patent/US11402365)/en)

---

I. Threshold observations that shape the analysis

1. This is a divisional. US 11,402,365 was carved out of US 16/037,692 ("Development of dry-deposit trace explosives detection test standards, solutions and methods for deposition," issued as US 11,079,369). The specification is identical. Accordingly, the same real-world prior art that was available against the '369 method claims is available against the '365 apparatus/system claims, and the four references listed on the page were all published well before the July 19, 2017 priority date.
2. The prior-art citations listed are: US 5,092,220 A (Thermedics), US 6,470,730 B1 (Chamberlain/DOT), US 2012/0149896 A1 (Agency for Defense Development), and US 2014/0001280 A1 (Navy, granted as US 9,597,700 B2). Per the page legend, US 2012/0149896 A1 and US 2014/0001280 A1 carry the examiner-citation flag; US 6,470,730 B1 and US 5,092,220 A are listed without it.
3. Prosecution history shows a single round: a Non-Final Action mailed 2021-12-23, a response entered 2022-03-25, and a Notice of Allowance mailed 2022-04-18. So the claims issued over a § 103 rejection that the applicant traversed. That rejection almost certainly relied on US 6,470,730 B1 and US 2014/0001280 A1 — the two references most on point — which is where an invalidity case must focus.
4. The claims are functional/result-oriented in their key limitation. Claim 1 recites dispensing "in a dispersed manner to sufficiently vaporize the solvent to prevent wicking while simultaneously allowing a residue … to be dispersed on the substrate." Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009), "a patentee [may not] transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process" merely by reciting the result to be achieved. The recitation of a desired outcome ("prevent wicking"; "enable detection") does not distinguish over a reference that inherently or necessarily produces that outcome.

Graham factors (Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966)): (1) scope/content of the prior art; (2) differences; (3) PHOSITA level (here: a skilled analytical chemist / aerosol-formulation engineer with ETD test-and-evaluation experience); (4) secondary considerations.

---

II. Claim anatomy

Claim 1 (independent):

• (a) a solvent having the explosive compound dissolved in the solvent to form a sample;
• (b) a delivery mechanism to dispense the sample in a dispersed manner to sufficiently vaporize the solvent to prevent wicking while simultaneously allowing a residue of the explosive to be dispersed on the substrate to enable detection by explosive detection tools;
• (c) wherein the residue includes particles having an average particle size of approximately six microns.

Claim 17 (independent): the same device element, aggregated into a plurality of devices (each with its own explosive/solvent sample), plus a dispenser to accept insertion of at least one device, wherein the plurality contains explosives "representing at least those types of explosive compounds capable of being detected by the explosive detection tools."

Dependents: 3–5 (HFA/HFA 134a/227/DME solvent), 6–9 (solvent + co-solvent with first/second solubility), 10 (pressurized metered dose inhaler, "pMDI"), 11 (computer-controlled dispensing valve), 12–13 (robotic actuator, nanodroplets, simulated fingerprint), 14–16 (canister interior coating/passivation, inert headspace).

---

III. Reference-by-reference disclosure map

R1 — US 6,470,730 B1 (Chamberlain, DOT) — "Dry transfer method for the preparation of explosives test samples"

https://patents.google.com/patent/US6470730 | https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/42/9b/06/376125fbfe4478/US6470730.pdf

Discloses the problem and the art field of the '365 patent almost verbatim:

• Prepares a liquid containing the explosive ("substance of interest"), deposits it on a flexible Teflon® strip, allows the liquid to dry, and transfers the dried material to a test surface — i.e., the state of the art the '365 patent criticizes.
• Expressly dissolves explosives where beneficial: "plastic explosives such as C4, Detasheet, and Semtex give better results when they are dissolved in a suitable carrier. For example, C4 dissolved in acetone works well." → Supports claim 1(a) ("explosive compound dissolved in the solvent").
• Expressly identifies the wicking/capillary problem the '365 claims recite: if a liquid sample is applied directly, granules "would be carried between the fibers of the cloth by capillary action" and "settle in the grooves," producing false negatives. → This is the anatomy of the motivation: the art knew the problem the '365 claims solve, and was already searching for ways to deposit dry particulates directly.
• Notes that depositing a dissolved substance "would possibly result in a very fine powder after the carrier evaporated." → Directly supports the claimed "residue … particles" and anticipates the ~6 µm dry-particle morphology.

R2 — US 2014/0001280 A1 (Field et al., Navy; granted as US 9,597,700 B2) — "Method and system for generating vapors of liquid solutions"

https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9597700B2](/patent/US9597700B2)/en | https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0001280.html

This is the closest apparatus reference and supplies element (b):

• A pressurized liquid-delivery system: a pressure vessel ("capable of holding up to 300 PSI"), flow meter, microcontroller, electronic pressure control unit (PID closed loop).
• A nebulizer that receives the liquid solution and generates an aerosol ("fine mist"), where "small droplets generated by the … nebulizer can be more effectively vaporized due to the high surface-to-volume ratio of the micron and sub-micron diameter droplets."
• A heat tube that vaporizes the aerosol.
• Field expressly frames the application as explosives-related: "particularly problematic for low volatility compounds such as explosives"; and states the liquid solution "can be formulated to consist of a specific concentration of compounds dissolved in water or other solvents." → Supplies both claim 1(a) (dissolved explosive) and 1(b) (dispersed delivery that vaporizes the solvent).

R3 — US 2012/0149896 A1 (Agency for Defense Development) — "Method for separation of HMX and RDX"

Listed on the page (examiner-cited). On its face it concerns solvent-based handling of nitramine explosives (RDX/HMX) — e.g., selective dissolution/recrystallization. It is cumulative rather than the primary reference: it corroborates that (i) RDX is routinely handled as a solvent solution and (ii) recrystallized/finely divided explosive solids are an ordinary analytical target. It is best used as a secondary reference for claim 1(a) and for the recrystallized-particle-size element of claim 1(c). (I have not verified the full text of this document; I flag its relevance as inferred from the title/assignee as listed, not from a full read.)

R4 — US 5,092,220 A (Thermedics) — "Nitric oxide detection with hydrogen and ozone"

Listed on the page. This is detection chemistry, not dispensing/apparatus art. Its marginal relevance is to claim 17's "explosive detection tools" element (the ETD the verification system is designed to test). It would not be relied on as a primary reference and, standing alone, adds little to the § 103 case. I treat it as background.

R5 — The field's own knowledge base: pharmaceutical metered-dose inhalers and HFA propellants

The specification itself concedes this bridge: "Non-HFA solvents, which cannot be used in a pharmaceutical application, can be used with this invention," and the claim set expressly recites a "pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI)" (claim 10). HFA 134a (1,1,1,2‑tetrafluoroethane, b.p. ≈ −26 °C) and HFA 227 (b.p. ≈ −16 °C) have been the industry-standard propellants replacing CFCs in metered-dose inhalers since the mid‑1990s (e.g., ProAir® HFA, Ventolin HFA®), precisely because they are liquefied under ~70–80 psi at room temperature and flash-evaporate on actuation to deposit a metered dose of a dissolved active as a fine aerosol. A skilled artisan would treat "metered-dose inhaler technology" as a known technique ready for improvement under KSR (550 U.S. at 417, 421).

---

IV. The obviousness combinations

A. Primary combination: Chamberlain '730 + Field '280 → claim 1 (and most dependents)

Motivation to combine (KSR-appropriate):

1. Same field, same problem. Both references concern preparing/handling explosive and low-volatility compounds for analytical or sensor calibration (Field: "calibration and verification of analytical instrumentation"; Chamberlain: "preparing samples for testing"). KSR endorses combination of references from the same field addressing the same problem.
2. Predictable improvement over known technique. Chamberlain's dry-transfer process is expressly recognized as labor-intensive and variable (the '365 background says the same: "hours of labor and an inert atmosphere"). Field teaches an automated, pressure-controlled aerosol delivery that removes the drying step and the Teflon® transfer strip. A PHOSITA would foresee with reasonable expectation of success that replacing Chamberlain's pipette-and-air-dry step with Field's nebulized aerosol would deposit the same dry explosive directly on the substrate.
3. The result is a mere application of a known technique. Applying an aerosol/vaporization step (the "predicable use of an old technique to a new problem"). Field itself places the technique squarely in the explosives context, so the artisan need not guess at the field's compatibility.
4. Known HFA/pMDI substitution. Once a PHOSITA had a pressurized, solution-based aerosol dispenser, substituting an HFA propellant that "flash-evaporates" is an obvious materials substitution with a reasonable expectation (i) of dry deposition and (ii) that the substrate would not be wetted — the very benefit Chamberlain sought. The patents' own claim 10 ("pMDI") and the specification's "pharmaceutical application" caveat make this substitution the obvious design choice, not an inventive leap.

B. Secondary/strengthening combination: A + R5 (pMDI/HFA art) + R3

For claims 3–5, 10, 14–16, add:

• claims 3–4 (HFA; HFA 134a/227): the standard pMDI propellant set; a known propellant/solvent whose physical constants (≈ −26 °C b.p.; liquified at ~70–80 psi) predict flash evaporation.
• claim 5 (DME): dimethyl ether (liquid under pressure, gas at ambient) is a classic aerosol propellant — the claim recites the genus's two famous members (HFA and DME). Nothing unexpected attends the residual member.
• claim 10 (pMDI): directly reads on the pharmaceutical pMDI art; the only "configured to" gloss is metering a measured volume, which is the inherent function of a metered-dose valve.
• claim 9 (co-solvent: ethanol, acetone, methanol, THF, ACN): these are the ordinary solubility-tuning co-solvents for nitramine explosives; Chamberlain already teaches acetone; the '365 specification's solubility table (its own FIG. 4) demonstrates the routine 1–2% co-solvent adjustment to exceed a solubility threshold. Any first/second-solvent arrangement is the application of a known solubility lever (claims 6–8).
• claims 14–15 (aluminum canister with passivated interior coating) and claim 16 (inert headspace by oxygen evacuation): these are routine engineering/material-selection choices for stabilizing packaged reactive solutions (avoiding metal/oxygen-catalyzed decomposition). A PHOSITA seeking shelf-stable, ship-ready canisters would predictably select a passivated aluminum vessel (the standard aerosol container material) and inert/evacuated headspace. Such peripheral structural limitations are the classic "arrangement of parts" with no new function.

C. For claims 11–13 (computer-controlled valve, robotic actuator, nanodroplets, simulated fingerprint)

A PHOSITA would combine the pressurized valve of R2 with conventional computer-controlled dispensing (Nordson EFD PICO®-type valves of the kind the specification names) and a robotic XYZ stage to pattern the deposit. "Printing" a pattern by relatively moving a valve and a substrate is a known automation step; that the pattern imitates a fingerprint (claim 13) is a mere intended use ("simulated human fingerprint") lacking structural or process significance — a claim to which the printed matter / non-functional intended-use doctrines frequently apply, and which KSR treats as an obvious design choice once automated patterning is available.

D. For claim 17 (verification system) — aggregation/design-choice combination

Claim 17 for the most part aggregates the claim-1 device across a "plurality of devices" and adds a "dispenser" that accepts a device, plus a functional capability recitation ("representing at least those types of explosive compounds capable of being detected by the explosive detection tools").

• A "plurality" is an obvious duplication/subset extension of a single device (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960); KSR cautions against patents that "add nothing to the art" through mere aggregation).
• Providing one canister per threat explosive is dictated by the intended purpose of testing an ETD — the artisan "selecting" the known set of threat explosives (RDX, PETN, TNT, HMX, etc.) that an ETD is rated to detect involves no more than the exercise of ordinary skill, and the "dispenser" reads on the simply-configured valved holder of R2/R3.
• Where a claim recites mere capability ("representing at least those types … capable of being detected") without a structural difference, it does not patentably distinguish (cf. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) — intended use does not confer patentability where the structure is otherwise disclosed or obvious).

Summary of combinations:

1. R1 (US 6,470,730) + R2 (US 2014/0001280 / US 9,597,700): renders claim 1 obvious; also claims 2, 6–11, and (with routine automation) 12–16.
2. R1 + R2 + R5 (pMDI/HFA propellant art): renders claims 3–5 and 10 obvious.
3. R1 + R2 + R3 (US 2012/0149896): corroborates claim 1(a) and the recrystallized fine-particle element of claim 1(c).
4. R1 + R2 (aggregation) + intended-use selection: renders claim 17 obvious.
5. R4 (US 5,092,220) is background only; it is not needed for any combination and adds little independent teaching.

---

V. The § 103 case, element by element (why the differences are not patentably distinct)

• "Dissolved in a solvent" (1(a)): admitted in the art — Chamberlain (acetone-dissolved C4), Field ("dissolved in water or other solvents"). Not a point of novelty.
• "Dispersed manner … sufficiently vaporize … prevent wicking" (1(b)): a result limitation. Chamberlain already labeled wicking as the problem; Field already taught aerosolization + vaporization of the solvent. Under KSR/Kubin, reciting the desired result (no wicking) after applying the known means (aerosol + flash-evaporating solvent) is not patentable. The patent's own §112-adjacent description of "vaporization before, upon, and/or after contacting the substrate" confirms that any degree of vaporization is embraced — i.e., the limitation is broad enough to read on the ordinary flash evaporation of an aerosol propellant.
• "Approximately six microns" (1(c)): the specification itself attributes ~6 µm to RDX dispensed from HFA-134a/ACN (FIG. 2 discussion) and to a 1″×1″ glass section. That is the natural, inherent by-product of the claimed delivery; Chamberlain anticipated "very fine powder" from carrier evaporation. A result-effective variable that is the automatic consequence of the disclosed process is not a patentable distinction (In re Boesch; In re Best — inherency).
• The "dispersed" delivery / metered valve / pMDI (claims 10–11): a sprayed or metered dose of a propellant-borne solution is exactly what the pMDI art has done since the CFC transition; the artisan would foresee a metered, reproducible deposit.
• Coating/headspace (14–16): stability-engineering choices with known benefits and no new mechanism.

---

VI. Rebuttals the patentee will (and should) advance, and how they fare

A balanced analyst must note the strongest non-obviousness arguments and the counterpoints:

1. "Chamberlain teaches away from dissolving." Argument: Chamberlain states that if the substance "were dissolved, it would possibly result in a very fine powder … and this would not give realistic results." Response: (i) The statement is a preference expressed in the context of morphology realism, not a teaching that dissolved deposition cannot be done — and the same reference affirmatively endorses dissolving for C4/Detasheet/Semtex. (ii) For teaching away, the reference must criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution (see In re Fulton; DePuy Spine v. Medtronic); a statement that fine powder is "less realistic" does not discredit the '365 approach, and indeed the '365 specification is trying to produce a fine dry residue. (iii) The '365 patent's own acknowledgment that its ~6 µm residue is desirable undercuts the notion that Chamberlain's "fine powder" remark reflects away. Teaching-away is, at most, a fact question for a jury, not a clean escape.

2. "Non-obvious to import inhaler/HFA technology into explosives testing." Response: the field already had (a) dissolved-explosive handling (Chamberlain) and (b) pressurized aerosol + vaporization of explosives as low-volatility compounds in the same analytical-calibration context (Field). The remaining step — pick a propellant that flashes off — is a known, available option with a predictable result. KSR rejects the "obvious to try" escape where the prior art gives a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.

3. "Unexpected results" (no visual marking; works on cardboard, foam, fabric, tape). Response: secondary considerations require the results to be unexpected relative to the closest prior art and commensurate with the claim scope. Chamberlain already predicted that a dry (particulate) deposit, unlike a liquid deposit, avoids the grooves/capillary defeat — so "no wicking on porous substrates" is the expected result, not a surprise. The specification's cardboard/foam/fabric demonstrations are evidence of operability/routine optimization, not of a result the art would not have predicted.

4. "Simulated fingerprint" (claim 13) as a distinguishing feature. Response: a pattern of deposited analyte imitating a fingerprint is an intended-use / non-functional limitation; the claim's structure (a robotic actuator producing a pattern) is what it is, and patterning by relative valve/substrate motion was routine automation.

Where the patent is genuinely strongest — and where a validity challenge is most likely to fail — is the specific, tested commercial combination: a shippable, pre-pressurized, passivated aluminum canister of an HFA/co-solvent solution of a specific threat explosive, metered by an inhaler-type valve, that yields a reproducible ETD-validated residue directly on vendor substrates. If no single reference or reasonable combination supplies the HFA-propellant/pMDI valve-as-metering-dispenser teaching, the patentee can argue that the specific propellant-metering architecture was not shown. But that architecture is precisely what claims 3–5/10 recite — and it is the single most obvious substitution importable from the pMDI art. Claims 3–5 and 10 therefore carry the weakest obviousness defense, while claim 1's "dispersed manner … 6 micron residue" combination — a functional result the art's fine-powder teachings already predict — carries a strong prima facie § 103 case.

---

VII. Conclusion

The four citations on the patent page do not, alone and in a vacuum, produce a "slam-dunk" anticipation. But for § 103 they supply a complete, KSR-supported obviousness case:

• Chamberlain '730 frames the exact problem (wicking / capillary loss / potential false negatives), the exact field (explosive test-sample preparation), and even the exact alternative (dissolved plastic explosives and the "very fine powder" that results from carrier evaporation).
• Field '280 / US 9,597,700 supplies the missing apparatus: a pressurized, closed-loop, nebulizer-based aerosol that vaporizes a dissolved explosive solution, depositing dry residue without wetting the substrate.
• The pMDI/HFA propellant art (invoked by the claims themselves and conceded in the specification) supplies the metered valve and the flash-evaporating propellant, with a finite and predictable set of choices (HFA 134a, HFA 227, DME).
• US 2012/0149896 (solvent handling / recrystallization of RDX/HMX) and the routine canister passivation/headspace and automation choices fill out the dependent claims; US 5,092,220 is background.

A PHOSITA, faced with Chamberlain's labor-intensive, variable, non-shippable dry-transfer process and aware of the Navy's automated explosive-aerosol generator, would have recognized the fixed, predictable route to a dry, wicking-free, reproducible explosive deposit — and had reasonable expectation of success in combining them. The recognizable differences (dissolution, aerosol delivery, ~6 µm residue, metered valve, plural threat canisters) are result limitations, inherency, known-technique applications, and design choices, not inventive contributions. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and KSR, claims 1–17 appear vulnerable to invalidation, with the strongest challenge to claims 1–11, 14–17 and the somewhat weaker challenge to claim 13 (simulated-fingerprint patterning) and claim 4/5 (specific propellant species) if the patentee can show the pMDI/HFA-propellant link was not in the available art of record.

---

Caveats / confidence

• The full texts of US 5,092,220 A and US 2012/0149896 A1 were not independently retrieved; their characterization here is based on the titles/assignees as listed on the patent page and general field knowledge, and is flagged as such. Everything attributed to US 6,470,730 B1 and US 2014/0001280 A1 / US 9,597,700 B2 is grounded in the sources retrieved above.
• No claim of anticipation under § 102 is made: none of the four references, singly, discloses every element of claim 1 or claim 17.
• This is an invalidity-side technical analysis; it is not a legal opinion, and the ultimate § 103 determination would turn on the evidentiary record (declarations, secondary considerations, and the treatment of the "approximately six microns" and pMDI limitations).