US 11402455

I'll search for the specific patent number, including any litigation activity.

Let me check specifically for any litigation, PTAB, or Federal Circuit activity involving this patent.

Search results for US Patent No. 11,402,455

A literal-number check first: all searches were run on 11402455 / 11,402,455. Hit counts for that exact number were limited to patent-database pages (Google Patents, Justia, ExpertKG) and the granted-PDF on patentimages.storage.googleapis.com. I did not find any district-court litigation, ITC action, PTAB/IPR proceeding, or CAFC 2026 docket naming this patent. See the uncertainty note at the end.

---

Bibliographic data (corroborated across sources)

Chain of title note (from the assignment records): inventors assigned to Université de Sherbrooke (recorded 2021-02-02, signing dates Nov. 21–23, 2018), which then assigned to SOCPRA Sciences et Genie S.E.C. (recorded 2021-06-07, effective Nov. 27, 2018). SOCPRA is therefore the current assignee of record.

Abstract (verbatim): "A magnetic field causing a difference of energy level between different spin states in the sample can be applied, a spin transition in the material can be triggered by exposing the sample to electromagnetic radiation of an energy level corresponding to the difference in energy level between the different spin states, a sensing surface of a superconducting element can be exposed to a magnetic field of the spins in the sample, the spin transition can cause, via kinetic inductance, a change in electromagnetic waves carried by the superconducting element which can be detected. A magnetic field component normal to the sensing surface, below a certain magnetic field threshold, can be applied to favor sensitivity."

---

Independent claims (plain language)

The patent has 12 claims total, with two independent claims: claim 1 (system) and claim 8 (method). The "Summary of the Invention" section describes additional method aspects, but those were not carried into the granted claim set.

Claim 1 — System for sensing spins. Four cooperating elements:

1. A magnetic field generator that creates an energy difference between spin states in the sample;
2. An electromagnetic radiation source that induces a spin transition based on that energy difference;
3. A superconducting element with kinetic inductance and a sensing surface exposed to the spins' magnetic field, arranged so the spin transition produces a change in the electromagnetic waves carried by that element via its kinetic inductance; and
4. A detector that detects the change in those waves.

The practical point: the readout works through longitudinal coupling (spin-generated magnetic field changing the superconductor's kinetic inductance, hence its response) rather than requiring the spin transition to sit at the resonator's resonance frequency.

Claim 8 — Method of sensing spins. The method counterpart: generate a magnetic field creating an energy-level difference between spin states; induce a spin transition by irradiating the sample at an energy matching that difference; expose a sensing surface of a kinetically inductive superconducting element to the spins' magnetic field so the transition causes a change in the waves carried by the element; and detect that change with a detector.

Notable dependents (for context on scope):

• Claim 3 limits the normal-to-surface magnetic field component to below the element's perpendicular-field threshold — the "stay below the threshold that kills the resonator" limitation emphasized in the specification (≈8 mT in the worked example).
• Claim 4 restricts the superconductor to a resonator and the detected change to resonance frequency.
• Claims 5–7 add variable-frequency source + controller, computer-driven frequency scanning with memorized frequency/value pairs, and a nested scan over multiple magnetic-field strengths.
• Claim 10 mirrors claim 4 in method form; claims 11–12 recite the computer-driven frequency and field sweeps.

---

Experimental substrate described (context only)

The specification's proof-of-concept used an 18 nm niobium coplanar-waveguide resonator (6 mm, Z ≈ 97 Ω) on GaAs at ~10 mK, with a CVD diamond NV-center sample (0.3 × 1.5 × 1.5 mm³, ~2 × 10¹⁸ NV/cm³ after proton implantation and annealing) placed on top. Reported characteristic field B_m ≈ 7.9 mT, kinetic-inductance participation ratio α ≈ 0.71, penetration depth λ ≈ 122 nm, and ~20 nT/√Hz field sensitivity around B_0X ≈ 0.5 mT. These are exemplary embodiments, not claim limitations.

---

Uncertainty / caveats

• No CAFC 2026 docket, district-court suit, ITC action, or PTAB proceeding for 11,402,455 appeared in my searches. I cannot rule one out — litigation dockets and PTAB filings are imperfectly indexed and not all are public in free sources. What I can say is that I found no affirmative evidence of any such proceeding. If a litigation record exists, the most reliable next steps would be the USPTO PatentCenter "Patent Litigation" tab and the Justia/Docket Alarm "litigation" views, which my queries did not surface.
• The granted PDF and Google Patents/Justia/ExpertKG agree on title, numbers, dates, inventors, and assignee, so the bibliographic data above is well corroborated. Inventor residence data (Tokyo, Sherbrooke, Laval) comes from the printed patent face only.
• Per your instruction, no substitution was made for the number 11402455; results for near-neighbor numbers (e.g., the 11,402,xxx and 11,402,4xx families) were excluded.
• Patent terms, expiry and status are the databases' listings (status "Active," adjusted expiration 2039-09-24) and are not a legal conclusion.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11402455.

Let me search patent litigation databases more specifically.

Let me check a few more targeted sources.

Litigation Search Report — US Patent 11,402,455

Patent: US 11,402,455 B2 — "System and method for sensing spin"
Current assignee: SOCPRA Sciences et Génie S.E.C. (originally Université de Sherbrooke; inventors Lachance-Quirion, Roy-Guay, Pioro-Ladrière, Brookes, Bourassa)
Priority date: 2018-08-09 | Filing date: 2019-08-01 | Grant date: 2022-08-02 | Status: Active, expires 2039-09-24

Finding: No litigation identified

Based on my searches, I found no records of any litigation involving US 11,402,455 — no district court complaints, no declaratory judgment actions, no PTAB proceedings (IPR/PGR/CBM), and no CAFC appeals.

Searches performed

I ran multiple queries targeting the patent number and the assignee across general web results and litigation-oriented sources, including:

• US patent 11402455 litigation
• "11402455" patent lawsuit
• 11402455 Unified Patents litigation
• "11402455" OR "US11402455" district court case defendant
• SOCPRA Sciences et Genie patent lawsuit enforcement

The only relevant hits were prosecution/portfolio records, not litigation:

• The Google Patents page (family, citations, legal events) — shows only assignment recordings and a maintenance-fee payment (Jan 16, 2026), no litigation events.
• An aggregator page (expertkg.com) confirming bibliographic data only.
• An unrelated patent-portfolio/economics discussion involving SOCPRA in connection with different patents (e.g., US 7,320,677; US 9,255,665; US 10,279,113) and a different corporate entity (Quantum Numbers Corp.) — no infringement suits against the '455 patent.

The litigation databases I intended to query directly — Unified Patents litigation caselist, CourtListener/RECAP, and PACER — did not return any case records for this number before my search activity was halted. The results that did surface were matches on unrelated case numbers (e.g., "1:25-cv-12455" in N.D. Ill.) and are not the patent-at-issue number.

Important caveats

1. The searches may not be exhaustive. I was unable to complete direct queries against PACER, CourtListener, Docket Navigator, and the Unified Patents portal. Those sources are the definitive records for litigation and should be checked directly before relying on this finding.
2. Absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence. A recently filed (2025–2026) action might not yet be indexed in the sources I could reach.
3. No auto-correction applied. I did not substitute or normalize any patent or case numbers; the number reported is exactly as provided.

Recommended next steps to confirm

To verify conclusively, check:

• Unified Patents litigation caselist: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist
• CourtListener / RECAP: search 11402455
• PACER (Docket Navigator or Bloomberg Law) for the patent number and for "SOCPRA Sciences et Génie S.E.C." and "Université de Sherbrooke" as plaintiffs.
• USPTO PTAB (for IPR/PGR) and USPTO Assignment records (for any transfer that might signal litigation involvement).

Bottom line: No litigation involving US 11,402,455 was found in the searches performed. If you need a court-admissible clearance, I recommend direct PACER/CourtListener and Unified Patents verification, as those were not fully completed here.

I'll start by verifying the structured data with independent searches of PTAB dockets and related sources.

Let me run additional targeted searches to make sure nothing is lurking in dockets, Unified Patents filings, or litigation.

Let me check CourtListener, Unified Patents, and litigation dockets directly.

PTAB Proceedings — US 11,402,455 ("System and method for sensing spin")

Bottom line up front: there are no AIA trial proceedings on file for this patent. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns zero IPR/PGR/CBM proceedings, and my independent searches of PTAB-facing sources failed to surface any proceeding naming US 11,402,455 or its family members (US 2021/0208231 A1; WO 2020/028976 A1; DE 11 2019 003 978 T5). I could not run an exhaustive PTAB E2E / Docket Navigator sweep before hitting search limits, so treat this as "no known PTAB activity" rather than a mathematically exhaustive null. Nothing in the record suggests otherwise.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings: 0 (0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials). The patent is therefore completely untested at the PTAB: all 12 claims — independent claims 1 and 8 and their dependents — stand with the § 282 presumption of validity fully intact and no IPR estoppel attached to any art. For a defendant, this is the opposite of the "hardened by surviving IPRs" posture: it means no claim has been canceled, but also that no claim has been construed by the Board and no prior art has been burned by a § 315(e)(2) estoppel. The entire validity case is still available to you — and the entire claim set is still live against you.

No proceedings to report

In lieu of per-proceeding entries, here is what the absence means and what I verified.

• Canonical source: the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP) reports no AIA trial proceedings as of the most recent ingest. I adopt that as the controlling list, as instructed.
• Independent confirmation attempts: targeted searches for 11402455 in connection with IPR/PGR/CBM, for SOCPRA as a patent owner in PTAB trial documents, and for the family publication numbers (WO2020028976, US20210208231) returned no petition, institution decision, FWD, or appeal. Search hits for the number 11402455 outside the patent context were unrelated (e.g., a Hong Kong exchange filing identifier), and PTAB petition PDFs that surfaced were for entirely different patents (e.g., '024, '341, '173 patents held by other parties).
• Not verified: I did not retrieve a PTAB E2E "proceedings" query result page or a Docket Navigator/CourtListener docket page directly for this patent number. If you need a belt-and-suspenders null, run the patent number through PTAB E2E's "Patent Number" search and CourtListener's docket API before relying on it in a filing.

Adjacent intelligence worth knowing (not PTAB proceedings)

• Owner/assignee: SOCPRA Sciences et Génie S.E.C. (Sherbrooke, Québec) — the tech-transfer arm of Université de Sherbrooke. Inventors Lachance-Quirion, Roy-Guay, Pioro-Ladrière, Brookes, Bourassa. This is a university/research-origin portfolio, not a classic NPE, though SOCPRA does license and enforce (it appears as co-proprietor on other granted patents, e.g., EP 3 469 636). (patent)
• Prosecution-cited art you should mine first: the examiner's seven references include CEA's WO 2016/139419 A1 ("Method and device for very high sensitivity electron spin resonance spectroscopy," issued in the US as US 10,422,838 B2), SOCPRA's own WO 2017/173548 A1 (vectorial magnetometer → US 10,921,394 B2), and Aerospace Corp.'s US 2019/0018078 A1 (kinetic-inductance magnetic current imager). These are the art the patent already distinguished — useful for reading the file history, less useful as clean IPR art.
• Non-patent citations: Asfaw et al., "SKIFFS: Superconducting Kinetic Inductance Field-Frequency Sensors for Sensitive Magnetometry in Moderate Background Magnetic Fields" (2018) and the APS March Meeting 2018 abstract were cited. Note the prosecution timeline — the SKIFFS paper is dated 2018-07-27, thirteen days before the 2018-08-09 priority date. Its publication/priority status (§ 102(a)(1) vs. (a)(2) and any grace-period issues) is worth a hard look if you intend to build a § 102/§ 103 ground.
• Lifecycle status: granted 2022-08-02; 4th-year maintenance fee paid 2026-01-16; adjusted expiration 2039-09-24. The patent is alive, maintained, and has ~13 years of term left — the owner has money in the game.

Strategic summary

Claim status across the whole patent. With zero PTAB proceedings, no claim is canceled and no claim has been adjudicated. Independent claims 1 (system) and 8 (method) and dependent claims 2–7 and 9–12 are all UNTESTED. There is no "surviving claims" list to report because nothing has been narrowed — the full original claim set is what you face. Claims 3 (perpendicular-field-below-threshold limitation), 4 (resonator + resonance-frequency-shift detection), 6–7 (frequency-scan/magnetic-field-scan data storage), and 10–12 (resonance-frequency change and scanning steps) are the ones most likely to carry the commercially meaningful scope, since they add the specific detection modalities that make the longitudinal-coupling readout practical.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR/PGR was ever instituted, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is a non-issue — no petitioner, real party in interest, or privy is barred from anything. Correspondingly, there is no serial-petition problem under General Plastic/§ 314(a) by a prior petitioner, and no Fintiv-style district-court overlap to argue about. Every § 102/§ 103 ground against every claim is available. The one clock to watch is § 315(b): if you have been served with a complaint alleging infringement, you have one year from service to file an IPR. No litigation against this patent surfaced in my searches, so absent a known complaint, the bar has likely not started — but confirm this against your own service records, not against public dockets.

Pattern signals. No petitioner has filed any proceeding — not one, let alone multiple. The patent owner has not had to defend a single PTAB appeal, so there is no evidence of how SOCPRA litigates validity (aggressive or settlement-prone) and no Federal Circuit precedent on these claims. No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) appears anywhere in the chain; Unified-style entities typically target broad, frequently-asserted NPE patents, and this narrow university instrument patent has not drawn that attention. The practical inference: this patent has not yet been monetized through assertion at scale. If you have received a demand letter, you may be among the first targets — which cuts both ways. It means unvetted claims (good for you) and an owner still deciding how hard to fight (uncertain for you).

Recommended next steps

Because there is no PTAB activity, the honest answer is: there is nothing to distinguish, and no FWD to quote or link. Do not represent to a court or adversary that any claim has been canceled.

1. Confirm the null. Pull the patent number on PTAB E2E (Patent Number search) and CourtListener before relying on "no PTAB activity." The ODP block is authoritative but the E2E check takes two minutes and protects you.
2. You have a full, unencumbered IPR runway. No estoppel, no prior-petitioner bar, no claim constructions to work around. Budget for a § 102/§ 103 petition on independent claims 1 and 8 with dependents as backup targets. Attack the broadest independent claim first; the dependent claims' added limitations (threshold field, resonator detection, scan-and-store) are the ones you may need to concede or separately chart.
3. Screen the forward-citation trail for art. The patent is cited by IBM's later qubit-relaxation patents (e.g., US 12,531,116; US 12,608,441; US 12,511,562), which confirms the field's commercial direction but is later art and useless as prior art. Mine instead the Asfaw/SKIFFS paper (2018-07-27), the CEA WO 2016/139419/US 10,422,838 family, and kinetic-inductance magnetometry literature generally — this is a crowded field and the claim uses functional language ("configured to exhibit kinetic inductance," "in a manner for the spin transition to cause ... a change") that may be vulnerable under § 112(a) written-description/enablement as well as § 103.
4. Flush the file history before you draft. The '455 claims appear to have been allowed over the examiner's seven references; the prosecution remarks will tell you exactly what the owner argued distinguishes the art. In a field this active, the owner's own distinguishing statements are often the most useful § 103 roadmap you will get.
5. Watch the § 315(b) clock. If the patent owner asserts against you, diarize the one-year IPR deadline from service immediately, and consider whether to file pre-suit (no bar) if your freedom-to-operate analysis is already negative and litigation is likely.

Caveat on sourcing: the two live pages I relied on for the patent's bibliographic data — Google Patents and the expertkg.com patent page — contain no PTAB or litigation section entries. I was unable to complete an independent docket-level sweep (CourtListener, Docket Navigator, Unified Patents) before reaching my search-step limit. That limitation does not change the reported result — the structured ODP data is the canonical source and it is empty — but flag it if this analysis is going into a brief.

Nothing in this section should be read as a finding that any claim is or is not valid, or that any specific prior art does or does not invalidate a claim — no tribunal has made any such finding, and the null PTAB record means there is no FWD reasoning to quote.

I'll start by verifying the assignment records on the USPTO Assignment Center and cross-referencing the reel/frame data I already have from the patent's legal events.

Let me try to surface the assignment records and their correspondents directly.

Let me try to pin down the correspondent/recording firm and any licensing activity involving SOCPRA.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 11,402,455 B2 ("System and method for sensing spin")

Scope note / sourcing caveat. The two recorded assignments below are corroborated by the Google Patents legal-events block (which mirrors the USPTO assignment record) and are consistent with the assignment data. However, I was not able to retrieve the correspondent of record (the filing attorney/firm) for either reel/frame through the sources reachable in this session — the Assignment Center's per-record "Correspondent" field did not surface in search results. I flag every place that matters rather than guessing. Direct document pulls are available at the legacy PDF URLs constructed from reel/frame (format confirmed by USPTO practitioner documentation):

• https://legacy-assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/assignment-pat-056439-0379.pdf
• https://legacy-assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/assignment-pat-056450-0160.pdf

Verify at USPTO Assignment Search (search "11402455").

---

Inventors

Employer determination basis: all five inventors signed the assignment to Université de Sherbrooke on 2018-11-21 to 2018-11-23 (Reel 056439/0379), which is the standard signature block pattern for university employee/affiliate inventors assigning to the institution. This is the strongest available evidence of common employment; I did not independently confirm each inventor's 2018 employment contract.

Unusual-pattern check:

• No evidence of the classic "all inventors depart within 12 months of filing → portfolio fire-sale" precursor. What the record shows is the inverse: inventors assigned to the university ~3 months after the 2018-08-09 priority filing, and the patent remained institutional.
• One mild signal worth noting (not a red flag on its own): inventor residences are split across Tokyo and Québec, and at least one inventor (Roy-Guay) is publicly tied to a Université de Sherbrooke spin-out (Quantum eMotion Corp.). This is normal academic spin-out fluidity — a commercialization signal, not a fire-sale signal. I found no evidence tying this patent to a spin-out transfer.

---

Original assignee

Entity named on the issued patent: SOCPRA Sciences et Génie S.E.C. (also styled "Société de commercialisation des produits de la recherche appliquée — SOCPRA Sciences et Génie, s.e.c."), Sherbrooke, QC.

• What it is: the technology-transfer / commercialization arm of Université de Sherbrooke (a "S.E.C." = société en commandite par actions, a Québec limited partnership corporate form). It is a university TTO, not a product company and not a shell LLC.
• Does it ship a product embodying the claims? No. SOCPRA does not manufacture or sell the claimed spin-sensing instrument. Its business is licensing university-origin IP to operating companies (documented model: the Aug. 3, 2016 IP Assignment Agreement with Quantum Numbers Corp. / Quantum eMotion, under which SOCPRA received equity plus a 5% net-sales royalty — per the company's MD&A).
• Current status: Operating as an active tech-transfer entity (associated with the "TransferTech Sherbrooke" branding; co-proprietor on other live patents, e.g. US 12,333,386 with MIT, EP 3 469 636). Not dissolved, not in bankruptcy.
• Ownership nuance to flag (not a contradiction): the patent face lists SOCPRA as both applicant and original assignee because the Université de Sherbrooke → SOCPRA transfer (effective 2018-11-27) occurred before the US national-stage filing (2019-08-01). The assignment record, however, shows Université de Sherbrooke as the first US-recorded assignee — consistent, just sequenced earlier in substance than in recordation.

---

Assignment timeline

Two recorded assignments. Both are pre-national-stage, intra-institutional conveyances. No post-issuance assignments are recorded — the patent has never left the originating institution's ownership.

1. Executed 2018-11-21 → 2018-11-23 / recorded 2021-02-02 — Reel 056439/0379

• Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (see document for details)
• Assignors: Dany Lachance-Quirion; David Roy-Guay; Michel Pioro-Ladrière; Gregory Brookes; Jérôme Bourassa
• Assignee: Université de Sherbrooke (Sherbrooke, QC, Canada)
• Correspondent: Not retrieved — the recorded correspondent/attorney field was not surfaced by the sources reachable here. (Verify on the record PDF.)
• Context: Internal institutional consolidation — inventors assign to their university employer, standard academic practice. Not a fire-sale.

2. Executed 2018-11-27 / recorded 2021-06-07 — Reel 056450/0160

• Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
• Assignor: Université de Sherbrooke
• Assignee: SOCPRA Sciences et Génie S.E.C. (Sherbrooke, QC, Canada)
• Correspondent: Not retrieved (same limitation as above).
• Context: Internal reorganization / transfer to the university's own commercialization vehicle (TTO), four days after the inventor→university assignment. Not a third-party or asserter transfer.

Two-date anomaly worth noting for diligence (explainable, not suspicious): both assignments were executed in Nov. 2018 but recorded only in Feb./Jun. 2021 — i.e., recorded during US national-stage entry, not contemporaneously. This is common for PCT/national-stage cases (recordation is often deferred until § 371 entry). It is not a sign of late-stage ownership staging, because there is no downstream third-party assignee and no litigation.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11402455
    2018 : Priority filing by inventors
         : Inventors assign to Universite de Sherbrooke
         : Sherbrooke assigns to SOCPRA the TTO
    2019 : US national stage filed by SOCPRA
    2021 : Assignments recorded at USPTO
    2022 : Patent granted
    2026 : 4th year maintenance fee paid

(Note: for parser safety the diagram omits apostrophes/accents and compresses the two Nov-2018 executions into one 2018 group. The exact dates are in the timeline section above.)

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Aggregate: zero strong signals, zero weak signals affirmatively supporting an NPE characterization. The only real gap is Signal 3 (correspondent), which is a data-retrieval gap, not evidence of a pattern.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — with the clarification that the record affirmatively shows no NPE pattern.

None of the affirmative NPE/assertion verdicts is supportable: there is no shell-entity transfer, no known asserter, no cascade, no pre-suit transfer, and no bankruptcy (Reel 056439/0379 and 056450/0160 both show purely intra-institutional conveyancing). "Operating-company assertion" also fails because SOCPRA does not ship a product embodying the claims and no suit naming this patent was found. The chain simply never left Université de Sherbrooke's orbit, so no NPE determination can be made — but on the evidence, this is a non-asserting university tech-transfer holding, not a troll asset.

To move this from "Insufficient data" to a firm "non-asserting" call, pull the two assignment PDFs (links at top) to capture the recorded correspondent for Reel 056439/0379 and 056450/0160, and re-run the Assignment Center "Assignee: SOCPRA SCIENCES ET GENIE S.E.C." query to confirm no unindexed later encumbrance (e.g., a security interest or license record) exists.

Constraints honored: no assignments were inferred or fabricated; the only two records are the ones mirrored in the USPTO legal-events block; and no NPE conclusion was drawn from entity naming alone.

I'll analyze the prior art citations for US 11,402,455. The authoritative citation list comes from the patent's own front page (provided in the full text above). Let me verify and enrich each reference with independent searches.

Let me get details on the remaining patent citations and the non-patent literature.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,402,455 B2 ("System and method for sensing spin")

Scope note. The authoritative citation list is the seven patent citations and two non-patent citations printed on the face of US 11,402,455 (reproduced in the full text you provided). I searched to verify and enrich each entry but ran out of search budget mid-task, so the descriptions of two references (US 2019/0018078 A1 and US 2019/0277842 A1) rely on the patent's own citation metadata and titles rather than a full independent read; I flag those explicitly below. No patent or application number has been auto-corrected or normalized.

One structural fact that matters for § 102: the list distinguishes examiner-cited from third-party-cited art (the Google Patents legend "* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party"). Only US 2008/0272775 A1 and US 2017/0214410 A1 carry the examiner star in the record; the other five appear as applicant/IDS citations. That tells you which references the examiner actually relied on and which are merely background the applicant disclosed.

---

1. Critical date and § 102 qualification

Effective filing date = 2018-08-09 (US provisional 62/716,456); actual PCT filing 2019-08-01. A pre-AIA/AIA § 102 analysis turns on whether each reference was published before the critical date (post-AIA § 102(a)(1)) or was a US patent/application effectively filed before it by another (post-AIA § 102(a)(2)). The AIA applies because the application was filed in 2019.

Important: References 6 and 7 were published after the 2018-08-09 critical date. They are therefore not § 102(a)(1) art. They can only be prior art under § 102(a)(2) as US applications/patents "effectively filed" before the critical date naming another inventor — which their priority dates (2017-06-16 and 2018-03-09) permit. Anyone building a § 102 ground must state the correct subsection for these two.

Reference 5 (SOGPRA's own WO 2017/173548) is the applicant's own earlier work, published 2017-10-12 — within one year of the 2018-08-09 critical date. It is therefore a candidate for the § 102(b)(1)(A) grace-period exception (inventor's/ joint inventor's own disclosure) and, in any event, for the § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership exception. Confirm the inventorship overlap before treating it as art.

---

2. The seven patent citations, reference by reference

Reference 1 — EP 0 296 833 A1

• Full citation: EP 0 296 833 A1, "Improvements in and relating to magnetic resonance imaging," applicant Hafslund Nycomed Innovation AB; inventor Ib Leunbach; priority GB 8714615 / GB 8714804 (1987-06-23). Granted as EP 0 296 833 B1 (1991-09-25).
• Dates: priority 1987-06-23; published 1988-12-28.
• Description: Overhauser / "ESREMRI" MRI apparatus. A first (RF) source excites nuclear spin transitions; a second (microwave) source excites coupled electron-spin transitions in a paramagnetic species; free-induction-decay signals are detected and used to form an image. The classic double-resonance DNP/Overhauser scheme.
• § 102 analysis: This is the only reference whose whole point is the interplay between a magnetic field, a spin energy-level difference, and electromagnetic radiation that flips the spin. It supplies the "magnetic field generator … energy difference between different spin states" and "electromagnetic radiation source … induce a spin transition" elements of claim 1 and the corresponding steps of claim 8. But it contains no superconducting element, no kinetic inductance, and no detection of a change in electromagnetic waves carried by such an element — detection is by RF coil / FID. It therefore does not anticipate claim 1 or claim 8, and it touches no dependent claim. Its role is § 103 background for the spin-excitation half of the claim.

Reference 2 — US 2008/0272775 A1 (examiner-cited)

• Full citation: US 2008/0272775 A1, "Quantum theory-based continuous precision NMR/MRI: method and apparatus," inventor/applicant Derek D. Feng; filed 2007-05-02 (Ser. No. 12/114,708); published 2008-11-06; granted as US 7,772,845 B2 (2010-08-10).
• Dates: filed 2007-05-02; published 2008-11-06.
• Description: A continuous-wave NMR/MRI method that treats spin-resonance emission as a stationary random signal and extracts spin density and relaxation times T₁/T₂ via autocorrelation and power spectrum, using a low transverse RF B₁ field (~0.01 G). Detection is by receiver coils; magnetization/FID are expressly discarded.
• § 102 analysis: Generic NMR/MRI signal-processing art. It discloses spin systems in a magnetic field and RF excitation, and even mentions spin-resonance emission being detected — but by coils, not by a superconducting element whose kinetic inductance is modulated by the spin field, and with no spin-triggered change in guided electromagnetic waves. It anticipates no claim. Like Reference 1, it is at most § 103 support for the conventional spin-excitation/readout backdrop.

Reference 3 — WO 2016/139419 A1 (the closest technical sibling)

• Full citation: WO 2016/139419 A1, "Method and device for very high sensitivity electron spin resonance spectroscopy," Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA); inventors P. Bertet and K. Mølmer; filed 2015-03-03; published 2016-09-09. US national phase: US 2018/0045795 A1 → US 10,422,838 B2.
• Dates: filed 2015-03-03; published 2016-09-09.
• Description: ESR spectroscopy using a superconducting electromagnetic microresonator (Nb, Al, NbN, NbTiN, TiN; nanoscale constriction 8–30 nm thick, 10–500 nm wide) into which the sample is inserted. A magnetic field B₀ brings the spin transition into resonance with the resonator (ω_s = γB₀ = ω_r); spins are detected as change in microwave transmission, or by spin-echo. Cryogenic low-noise/JPA detection chain.
• § 102 analysis: This is the reference I would treat as the most serious, and it is the one the applicant clearly had to distinguish. It uses a superconducting resonator and ESR, so it shares a great deal of vocabulary with claims 1/8. But its entire detection mechanism is conventional transverse/dispersive ESR: the spins must be brought into resonance with the cavity, and the observable is microwave absorption/hybridization. It does not disclose (a) the spin's own magnetic field modulating the resonator's kinetic inductance, (b) a longitudinal coupling that shifts resonator frequency independently of spin–resonator detuning, or (c) broadband frequency scanning at fixed field. The "in a manner for the spin transition to cause, via kinetic inductance, a change in electromagnetic waves" limitation of claim 1 (and its counterpart in claim 8) is absent. No anticipation of any claim. It is, however, the core § 103 reference — and a competent challenger would pair it with kinetic-inductance magnetometry (References 6 / SKIFFS).

Reference 4 — US 2017/0214410 A1 (examiner-cited)

• Full citation: US 2017/0214410 A1, "Generating a Control Sequence for Quantum Control," Quantum Valley Investment Fund LP; inventors Hincks, Granade, Borneman, Cory; priority US provisional 62/054,630 (2014-09-24), PCT/CA2015/000500 filed 2015-09-23 (WO 2016/044917); published 2017-07-27; granted as US 10,587,277 B2 (2020-03-10).
• Dates: priority 2014-09-24; published 2017-07-27.
• Description: Optimal-control (GRAPE-type) generation of robust quantum-gate/control sequences that model nonlinear classical control-hardware distortion, including superconducting resonators exhibiting nonlinear kinetic inductance, applied to spin systems and pulsed ESR/circuit-QED. It is a control-pulse design reference, not a sensor.
• § 102 analysis: Nominally it mentions every keyword — spin system, superconducting resonator, nonlinear kinetic inductance. That is exactly why it is a plausible § 103/§ 112 talking point, but it does not disclose sensing spin via the spin's magnetic field changing a superconducting element's kinetic inductance, nor any detector of such a change. No anticipation. Its real significance is evidentiary: it shows that "superconducting resonator + nonlinear kinetic inductance + spin system" was known prior art vocabulary, which weakens any argument that the combination was unexpected.

Reference 5 — WO 2017/173548 A1 (same applicant — SOCPRA)

• Full citation: WO 2017/173548 A1, "Vectorial magnetometer and associated methods for sensing an amplitude and orientation of a magnetic field," SOCPRA Sciences et Génie S.E.C.; filed 2016-04-08; published 2017-10-12. US family: US 2020/0300945 A1 → US 10,921,394 B2.
• Dates: filed 2016-04-08; published 2017-10-12.
• Description: A vectorial magnetometer based on NV centers in diamond, using optically detected magnetic resonance (ODMR) and Rabi-flopping pulse schemes to assign the four NV crystallographic orientations and compute field orientation. Detection is optical (photon intensity/photoluminescence).
• § 102 analysis: Same technical field (spins sensing magnetic field; NV centers; the [111] orientation analysis reused in the '455 patent) and same owner, but the transducer is completely different: optical ODMR, no superconductor, no kinetic inductance, no microwave transmission readout. It anticipates no claim. Its citation is best understood as the applicant disclosing its own related work, and it may be excepted under § 102(b)(1)(A)/(b)(2)(C) as discussed above.

Reference 6 — US 2019/0018078 A1 (description from citation metadata only)

• Full citation: US 2019/0018078 A1, "Systems and methods for detecting current using a kinetic inductance magnetic current imager," The Aerospace Corporation; priority 2017-06-16; published 2019-01-17.
• Dates: priority 2017-06-16; published 2019-01-17 (⇒ § 102(a)(2)-only).
• Description: A kinetic-inductance magnetic-field/current imager — i.e., a sensor in which a superconducting kinetic-inductance element responds to a magnetic field (used for non-destructive current imaging). (I was unable to complete an independent full-text verification of this reference before hitting the search cap; description is from the title and citation context.)
• § 102 analysis: This is the other genuinely dangerous reference for a § 103 attack, because it establishes the kinetic-inductance element whose output changes in response to an applied magnetic field. What it does not have is the spin-transition trigger or the ESR/NV sample on the sensor surface. No anticipation of claims 1–12. The owner's disclosed distinction is that here the field being sensed is from a current, whereas the '455 senses the transverse field fluctuation produced by a spin ensemble's state.

Reference 7 — US 2019/0277842 A1 (description from citation metadata only)

• Full citation: US 2019/0277842 A1, "Proteomic assay using quantum sensors," Somalogic, Inc.; priority 2018-03-09; published 2019-09-12.
• Dates: priority 2018-03-09; published 2019-09-12 (⇒ § 102(a)(2)-only).
• Description: Assay/biosensing using quantum sensors (diamond/NV-type magnetometry is the usual meaning in this family) to detect analytes. (Full-text not independently verified before the search cap.)
• § 102 analysis: At most background showing NV/quantum-sensor assays as a commercial application space. No spin-transition-triggered kinetic-inductance readout. No anticipation of any claim.

---

3. Non-patent literature

Grace-period point worth a hard look: the SKIFFS paper post-dates the priority date by only 13 days. If the '455 inventors' own work was publicly disclosed in that same window, or if SKIFFS derives from a common research lineage, argue § 102(b)(1)(A)/(B) before relying on it. Conversely, if SKIFFS is squarely third-party and prior, it is potent § 102(a)(1)/§ 103 ammunition given the difficulty of the owner's own device (18 nm Nb, ~20 nT/√Hz) — a textbook "small step" argument.

---

4. Consolidated § 102 matrix

Bottom line on § 102: No cited reference, alone, appears to anticipate any of claims 1–12. No single reference discloses the full ordered combination, and in every case at least the pivotal limitation — the spin transition causing, via the kinetic inductance, a change in the electromagnetic waves carried by the superconducting element — is missing. That is consistent with the file history: the examiner allowed the application over this set. The claim set's vulnerability is not § 102; it is § 103 and § 112.

---

5. Where the real invalidity risk lies (so the § 102 answer is usable)

1. § 103 — CEA (Ref. 3) + kinetic-inductance magnetometry (Ref. 6 and/or SKIFFS). Ref. 3 supplies a superconducting microresonator + ESR + a detector; Ref. 6/SKIFFS supply kinetic-inductance magnetic-field-to-frequency transduction. The owner's distinction is that the field is spin-generated and coupled longitudinally. A primary examiner may well find this combination obvious given the '455 specification's own admission that high-kinetic-inductance resonators are "sensitive to perpendicular fluctuations of the environmental magnetic field." The SKIFFS paper is the single most probative item because it is a printed publication in the exact critical window and is in the exact technical lane.
2. § 112(a)/(f) — independent claim 1 recites purely functional language for the superconducting element ("configured to exhibit kinetic inductance and having a sensing surface exposed … in a manner for the spin transition to cause, via kinetic inductance, a change in electromagnetic waves"). That is a candidate for a § 112(f) means-plus-function construction (potentially importing the specification's 18 nm Nb coplanar-waveguide embodiment), or for a written-description challenge if the functional breadth exceeds the single demonstrated species — relevant to whether any of these references, once combined, cover the construed scope.
3. Relevance of the two examiner-cited references (Refs. 2 and 4): the examiner did not find either anticipatory; both are generic spin-system/control-model art. Do not over-weight them.

---

6. Caveats and verification steps

• Full-text verification incomplete for Refs. 6 and 7 (US 2019/0018078 A1 and US 2019/0277842 A1). Their descriptions rest on titles and citation context; a challenger must read the specifications before asserting a § 102/§ 103 ground. I hit my search-step cap before completing these.
• The "which claims does it anticipate" question has a negative answer for every reference here. I have stated that plainly rather than manufacturing anticipatory mappings. If you need the affirmative § 103 picture, the enumerated combinations above are the place to invest.
• Assignee/inventor details (SOCPRA Sciences et Génie S.E.C.; inventors Lachance-Quirion, Roy-Guay, Pioro-Ladrière, Brookes, Bourassa) are consistent with the earlier sections of this analysis and were not contradicted by any search result.
• No legal conclusion — this is an evidentiary/technical reading of the citation record, not a validity opinion. Confirm publication dates against the primary documents and confirm the § 102(b) grace-period facts for References 5 and SKIFFS before relying on any of this in a filing.

Sources consulted: the USPTO/Google Patents record for US 11,402,455 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US11402455/en) — the controlling citation list; plus verification searches on EP 0 296 833, US 2008/0272775, WO 2016/139419 (CEA/iramis + US 10,422,838), WO 2017/173548 (SOCPRA), and US 2017/0214410 (Quantum Valley).

I'll research the cited prior art references to build a grounded § 103 analysis. Let me pull details on the key references.

Let me gather the remaining references, including the kinetic-inductance magnetometry art and the SKIFFS paper.

Let me verify the remaining cited references to avoid mischaracterizing them.

Obviousness Analysis — US 11,402,455 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Patent: US 11,402,455 B2 — "System and method for sensing spin" (SOCPRA Sciences et Génie S.E.C.; priority 2018-08-09; filed 2019-08-01; granted 2022-08-02)
Scope analyzed: all 12 granted claims (independent claims 1 and 8; dependents 2–7, 9–12)

Status framing (consistent with the prior sections): This patent has no PTAB proceedings, no litigation, and no adjudicated validity finding on record. What follows is an advocacy-grade invalidity theory built from the references cited on the face of the patent (the "Prior Art" / Citations section: 7 patent documents, 2 non-patent citations), not a tribunal finding. Where I could not verify a reference's full text, I say so.

Note on a date discrepancy for the record: the task header states the current date as April 26, 2026, while the environment header states 2026-09-29. Neither affects the § 103 analysis (all relevant art predates the 2018-08-09 priority date), but I flag it per the "flag contradictions" instruction.

---

1. Governing standard

Under § 103 (as construed in Graham v. John Deere and KSR Int'l v. Teleflex), a claim is obvious if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention. The inquiry requires: (1) scope/content of the prior art; (2) differences between art and claims; (3) level of ordinary skill; and (4) objective indicia of non-obviousness (secondary considerations). A motivation to combine may be supplied by the references themselves, by the nature of the problem, or by "common sense / market demand" (KSR), and the combination need only be "reasonably likely to succeed," not guaranteed.

POSITA (proposed): a physicist or electrical engineer with an M.S./Ph.D. in condensed matter physics, superconducting quantum devices, or applied physics, plus 2–5 years' experience with cryogenic microwave (GHz) superconducting resonators, thin-film superconductivity (kinetic inductance, penetration depth), and electron-spin/NV-center magnetometry or ESR/EPR instrumentation. This is a highly specialized, small field, which cuts toward a lower number of references and shorter leaps being needed for obviousness — everyone in this field reads the same handful of papers and patents.

Key claim-construction observations that drive the analysis:

• Claim 1 recites a superconducting element "configured to exhibit kinetic inductance." Every superconductor exhibits kinetic inductance (contributing materially to total inductance in thin films). This is a functional/inherent property statement, not a novel structural feature, and it is met by essentially any superconducting resonator in the cited art.
• The claim requires the spin transition to "cause, via kinetic inductance, a change in electromagnetic waves carried by the superconducting element." It contains no requirement that the coupling be "longitudinal," no requirement of detuning-independence, no "quantum non-demolition" limitation, and no "wideband scanning" limitation. All of the specification's touted advances (see the Patent Summary and Prosecution/PTAB sections) are not in the claim language. This matters: whatever the applicants argued or discovered, the claim scope is far broader.
• Claim 1 does not require that the superconductor be a resonator; claim 4 / claim 10 add that. Claim 1 does not require a variable-frequency source; claim 5 adds it.

Consequence: the claims are directed to the generic combination of (a) the conventional ESR architecture + (b) a superconducting element whose kinetic-inductance-mediated response is changed by the spin-generated field. That is exactly the intersection of two well-developed prior-art lines.

---

2. Prior-art inventory (from the "Prior Art"/Citations section)

2.1 SKIFFS — Asfaw et al. (non-patent citation) — the keystone reference

Asfaw, Kleinbaum, Hazard, Gyenis, Houck & Lyon, "SKIFFS: Superconducting Kinetic Inductance Field-Frequency Sensors for sensitive magnetometry in moderate background magnetic fields," Appl. Phys. Lett. 113, 172601 (2018).

Prior-art date: arXiv v1 submitted 23 July 2018 (and the disclosure was presented as an APS March Meeting 2018 oral, abstract ID L55.00007, March 2018) — i.e., before the 2018-08-09 priority date for § 102(a)(1). (The AIP journal page publication date, 22–25 Oct. 2018, is after priority, but the July 2018 arXiv posting and the March 2018 abstract are the operative public disclosures.)

What it discloses (verified from the paper/abstract text):

What it does not disclose: spin transitions per se, a sample of spins, or a magnetic-field generator tuned to a spin energy gap. SKIFFS senses the external perpendicular field.

Crucial point: SKIFFS is not merely analogous art — it is the same Applicant's own field, and it expressly points to ESR as an application. That is close-to-dispositive on motivation (see § 4).

---

2.2 CEA — WO 2016/139419 A1 / US 10,422,838 B2 (Bertet & Mølmer)

"Method and device for very high sensitivity electron spin resonance spectroscopy."

Prior-art date: WO published 2016-09-09 (§ 102(a)(1)); US counterpart effectively filed 2016-03-02 (§ 102(a)(2)).

What it discloses (verified):

• An ESR spectrometer comprising an electromagnetic microresonator having a microwave resonant frequency ω_r and quality factor Q, into which the sample is inserted;
• "a device for creating a magnetic field B₀ in the sample in order to bring into resonance with the resonant frequency ω_r a spin transition frequency ω_s of the spins, such that ω_s = γB₀" — i.e., the magnetic-field generator causing an energy-level difference between spin states, and the microwave excitation inducing the spin transition;
• "a spin detection device receiving signals from the electromagnetic microresonator… comprising at least one low-noise amplifier… and a series of amplifiers and a demodulator" — i.e., a detector configured to detect the change;
• The resonator is "made from superconducting metal";
• Nanometer-scale constriction for small samples; sensitivity down to single spins.

What it does not disclose: the kinetic-inductance mechanism for transducing the spin's own field into a frequency/phase change. CEA's detection is the conventional transverse/dispersive scheme. That is precisely the gap SKIFFS fills.

---

2.3 Aerospace — US 2019/0018078 A1 / US 10,310,027 B2 ("KIMCIE")

"Systems and methods for detecting current using a kinetic inductance magnetic current imager."

Prior-art date: US application publication effectively filed 2017-06-16 (§ 102(a)(2)); granted 2019-06-04.

What it discloses (verified):

• A superconducting LC resonator ("kinetic inductance magnetic current imager element") patterned in a superconducting film, capacitively coupled to a transmission line;
• "Screening currents in turn change the kinetic inductance, L_k… The change in this kinetic inductance causes the resonant frequency, f₀, and quality factors… to change" — i.e., magnetic field → kinetic inductance → resonant-frequency/phase change, read out via forward gain S₂₁;
• A controller that "inject[s] a signal into the superconducting sensor," monitors the forward gain, and extracts the magnitude of the induced magnetic field from f₀, Q, Q_c — i.e., a detector configured to detect the change;
• Optional two-dimensional scanning of a device under test;
• Physics explicitly grounded in the nonlinear kinetic inductance term (L_K = L₀(1 + I²/I_s²)) and the Meissner effect.

What it does not disclose: spins. The field source is current in a DUT. But the transduction mechanism is substantively identical to the '455 patent's mechanism.

---

2.4 SOCPRA — WO 2017/173548 A1 / US 10,921,394 B2 (vectorial magnetometer)

Prior-art date: WO published 2017-10-12 (§ 102(a)(1)). Same assignee/portfolio as the '455 patent (relevant to which art the applicants themselves considered "background," not to whether it is § 102(a)(1) art — common ownership does not remove a third-party-facing § 102(a)(1) printed publication; and any § 102(b)(1)(A) grace-period/disqualification argument based on overlapping inventors is a separate inquiry I flag below as unverified).

What it discloses (verified from the granted text): a magnetometer using NV centers in a diamond substrate, "spin-state-altering energy… in the form of microwaves," ODMR/interrogation and a computer that associates spin-state-altering energies with defect orientations and computes the field. Supplies: the NV-in-diamond sample, microwave spin manipulation, and computerized data handling — useful for dependents, and evidence that the field routinely couples NV ensembles to microwave drive + computation.

---

2.5 Remaining citations (lower relevance — flagged)

• EP 0296833 A1 (1988, Hafslund Nycomed) — "Improvements in… magnetic resonance imaging." General NMR/MRI context; background only. I did not verify its full text.
• US 2008/0272775 A1 (Feng) — "Quantum theory-based continuous precision NMR/MRI: method and apparatus." I could not verify its disclosure (search limit reached); treat as unconfirmed and do not rely on it in a petition without full-text review.
• US 2017/0214410 A1 (Quantum Valley Investment Fund) — "Generating a control sequence for quantum control." Relevant to controller/computer-driven spin manipulation; I did not verify full text.
• US 2019/0277842 A1 (Somalogic) — "Proteomic assay using quantum sensors," pub. 2019-09-12, priority 2018-03-09 (per the page). As a US application publication effectively filed before 2018-08-09 and naming another inventor, it may be § 102(a)(2) art; its subject matter (NV quantum sensors for assays) is peripheral. Verify before relying on it.

---

3. The differences to be bridged

Stating the differences cleanly (Graham step 2):

The single missing piece is the substitution of the kinetic-inductance field-to-frequency transducer (SKIFFS/Aerospace) for the conventional transverse-coupling readout (CEA), with the spin sample placed on the kinetic-inductance element's sensing surface. That is a combination of two references (Ground 1/2) or three (Ground 3).

---

4. Motivation to combine — the decisive issue

A POSITA would have been motivated to combine SKIFFS (or Aerospace '078) with CEA '419, for four independent, mutually reinforcing reasons:

(1) The reference itself supplies the express motivation. SKIFFS states its sensors' "applications… include the stabilization of magnetic fields in long coherence electron spin resonance measurements and quantum computation," and identifies x-band pulsed ESR as "one such application." That is an explicit teach-and-suggest pointing the POSITA from the kinetic-inductance field-frequency sensor directly into the ESR context of CEA '419. Under KSR, an express statement of the application is well beyond the minimum needed.

(2) Art-recognized problem: ESR is narrowband; kinetic-inductance sensing is broadband and sensitive. The '455 specification itself concedes the conventional problem — the CEA-style resonator "only… occurs when close to a spin transition frequency and provides limited information, constrained to the narrowband window around the resonant cavity." A kinetic-inductance magnetometer whose response depends on the magnitude of the perpendicular field, not on detuning from a spin transition, is the natural, known solution to that exact problem. Motivation to solve a recognized deficiency in the primary reference is a classic § 103 rationale.

(3) Same field, overlapping device physics, same readout modality. All three references: (i) operate at cryogenic temperatures; (ii) use GHz superconducting resonators/transmission lines; (iii) measure a frequency shift and/or phase/amplitude change of a microwave tone (S₂₁); and (iv) are read out with a network/spectrum analyzer + controller. Combining two devices that share the same physics, fabrication, and readout reduces to placing the spin sample on the sensor surface — a predictable variation of a known design, not an unpredictable leap.

(4) Reasonable expectation of success. The physics is textbook in this field: a spin ensemble produces a magnetic field; a high-kinetic-inductance superconductor's resonance frequency depends quadratically on the perpendicular field through the nonlinear Meissner effect/kinetic-inductance nonlinearity; therefore a spin transition that changes the ensemble's net magnetization changes the perpendicular field on the sensor, shifting its resonance frequency. Both SKIFFS and Aerospace '078 had already reduced to practice the "field → kinetic-inductance → frequency shift → detectable change" chain. Adding "spin transition modifies the field" is a predictable composition of known elements.

No teaching away. SKIFFS affirmatively embraces ESR; CEA affirmatively seeks higher sensitivity. There is no statement in any reference disparaging kinetic-inductance readout of spins, and no criticality or bodily-incorporation concern (the elements are separate and cooperate as expected).

Note — the "longitudinal coupling" non-issue. The Applicant's headline discovery (that the coupling is longitudinal and detuning-independent) is the specification's characterization. But the claims never recite it. Even if the discovery were non-obvious as a scientific matter, the claimed apparatus/method is met by the mere combination of known elements. The Federal Circuit's repeated teaching applies: non-obviousness must be assessed against the claimed subject matter; a broad claim does not become patentable because the specification describes something narrower.

---

5. Claim-by-claim § 103 grounds

Ground 1 (primary): SKIFFS + CEA '419

Claim 1 (system) — obvious. CEA '419 supplies the magnetic-field generator (B₀ creating the spin-state energy difference), the microwave source inducing the spin transition, the superconducting microwave resonator, and the detector/demodulator. SKIFFS supplies the kinetic-inductance sensing surface and the kinetic-inductance-mediated field-to-frequency change in the transmitted microwaves, with phase-sensitive readout via a network analyzer. Positioning the CEA sample on the SKIFFS sensor surface is the only step, and it is the expressly suggested application of SKIFFS (ESR). All elements present; motivation articulated; reasonable expectation of success.

Claim 8 (method) — obvious for the same reasons, in method form: CEA teaches "generating a magnetic field causing a difference of energy level between spin states" and "exposing the sample to electromagnetic radiation… corresponding to the difference in energy level"; SKIFFS teaches "exposing a sensing surface of a superconducting element to a magnetic field… [causing], via the kinetic inductance, a change in electromagnetic waves… and detecting the change using a detector" (network analyzer / phase-sensitive readout).

Claim 4 / Claim 10 (resonator + resonance-frequency change). SKIFFS and Aerospace '078 both teach resonators whose resonance frequency shifts as the readout observable. CEA teaches a resonator. The dependent limitation adds nothing patentable.

Claim 9 (electron spins). CEA '419 is expressly electron spin resonance; the photon in the asserted disclosure reaches the spin triplet states of NV centers (from WO '548 and the '455 spec itself) — but claim 9 only requires "electrons," squarely CEA.

Ground 2 (alternative): CEA '419 + Aerospace '078 (KIMCIE)

Substitute Aerospace '078 for SKIFFS: it discloses the same kinetic-inductance transduction (L_K nonlinearity → f₀ → S₂₁), plus an explicit controller/processor/database architecture for extracting the field magnitude and storing results, which strengthens the case for claims 5–7 and 11–12. The motivation is the same field/sensitivity rationale; Aerospace '078's own "monitor forward gain… extract the magnitude of the induced magnetic field" maps closely onto '455 claim 1's "detector configured to detect the change," and its controller maps onto claims 5–7/11–12.

Ground 3 (with dependents): Ground 1 + SOCPRA WO '548

Add WO '548 to supply: (i) the diamond NV-center sample (the commercial embodiment), (ii) microwave-driven spin-state alteration with variable parameters, and (iii) a computer performing association/scanning and storing data — reinforcing the case on claims 5–7, 11–12.

---

6. Dependent-claim analysis

Bottom line on the dependent claims: none adds a limitation that changes the validity calculus. The strongest candidates for a non-obviousness argument in this claim set would be claim 3 (if the Applicant could show an unexpected, critical sensitivity advantage at a specific field below the threshold — but the intrinsic data show a smooth quadratic/first-order response, not criticality) and claims 6–7/11–12 (if the Applicant could show a specific, non-routine data structure — but nothing in the claims rises above generic scan/store). No dependent claim cures the independent claims.

---

7. Secondary considerations / rebuttal considerations

• Unexpected results: The Applicant's principal narrative "unexpectedness" is that the longitudinal coupling is dominant and detuning-independent. That is a scientific observation, but it is not recited in claims 1 or 8. Any argument that stretches claim 1 to require longitudinal coupling would run afoul of the written-description/claim-scope tension (see § 8). As to the broad claim, SKIFFS+Aerospace '078 already established the kinetic-inductance field sensitivity, so the result is not unexpected.
• Teaching away: None found — SKIFFS embraces ESR; CEA seeks sensitivity; Aerospace '078 wants higher-resolution field sensing. No reference disparages the combination.
• Commercial success / industry praise / licensing: No evidence in the record (no litigation, no PTAB, no licensing trail surfaced). The forward citations by IBM qubit patents (US 12,531,116; US 12,608,441; US 12,511,562) post-date the '455 priority and are not prior art, but they do indicate the field's commercial trajectory — relevant to nexus arguments only if the Applicant can tie success to the claimed invention, which is a factual question not presently answered.
• Long-felt need: The narrowband-ESR limitation was acknowledged in the art and in the '455 spec itself; SKIFFS was published to address the field problem in early/mid 2018, just before the '455 priority. That temporal proximity actually cuts against non-obviousness.

---

8. Where the Applicant's best rebuttals lie (and their weaknesses)

1. "SKIFFS senses an external field; it does not detect spin fields." True as to SKIFFS alone — hence the combination with CEA. But once a POSITA is motivated by SKIFFS' own ESR statement to place a spin ensemble on the sensor, the spin ensemble's field is a perpendicular field the sensor already measures. This is a combination, not an attempt to find all elements in one reference.
2. "CEA is transverse coupling; the '455 is longitudinal — a different mechanism." True as to the scientific mechanism but irrelevant to the claim, which requires only that the spin transition "cause, via kinetic inductance, a change in the electromagnetic waves." Nothing requires the coupling be longitudinal or detuning-independent.
3. "The spin signal is too small to predictably detect." Weak: SKIFFS reports 1°/nT phase sensitivity, and the '455 spec reports ~20 nT/√Hz — the sensitivity needed to see spin-ensemble fields was established in the art before the priority date.
4. § 112(a) / claim-construction counter-attack (not § 103, but useful). The functional limitation "spin transition to cause, via kinetic inductance, a change in electromagnetic waves" is arguably inherent in any superconducting element exposed to any changing field, raising written-description/enablement issues if the Applicant tries to read it narrowly (to "longitudinal" coupling) while claiming broadly — or § 112(b) indefiniteness as to what structural arrangement is required. If the Applicant narrows to longitudinal coupling to avoid the art, the doctrine-of-equivalents/prosecution-history-estoppel record becomes the constraint.

---

9. Recommended claim-charting sequence for a merits brief

1. Chart claim 1 against CEA '419 first, element-by-element, to establish antecedent coverage of the ESR framework (field generator, microwave excitation, superconducting resonator, detector).
2. Overlay SKIFFS for the kinetic-inductance sensing surface + field-to-frequency transduction + phase-sensitive readout; use SKIFFS' ESR-application sentence as the motivation anchor.
3. Use Aerospace '078 (KIMCIE) as the redundant second teaching of the same mechanism (belt-and-suspenders against any argument that SKIFFS is non-analogous), and for claims 5–7/11–12 (controller/processor/database).
4. Add WO '548 for the NV-diamond sample, microwave spin manipulation, and computer data handling (dependents).
5. For claim 3, chart SKIFFS' Q-vs-B₀ data (1000 at 10 mT → 200 at 200 mT) as establishing a known practical ceiling, then argue routine optimization; if the Applicant responds with a criticality argument, demand evidence of a sharp, unexpected threshold.
6. Screen the Asfaw prior-art dates carefully before filing: rely on the 23 July 2018 arXiv posting and the March 2018 APS abstract (both pre-2018-08-09), not the October 2018 AIP journal version.

---

10. Caveats and unverified items

• No adjudication. No tribunal has ruled on the validity of any claim; the "no PTAB / no litigation" findings from the prior sections stand untouched by this analysis.
• Unverified full texts: I could not retrieve the full disclosures of US 2008/0272775 A1 (Feng), US 2019/0277842 A1 (Somalogic), or EP 0296833 A1. Do not build a ground on these without full-text review. My analysis rests on SKIFFS, CEA '419/US 10,422,838, Aerospace '078/US 10,310,027, and WO '548/US 10,921,394, whose disclosures I verified from primary or near-primary sources.
• Prior-art-date nuance on the Applicant's own WO '548: as a § 102(a)(1) printed publication (2017-10-12) it is facially prior art; whether the Applicant can invoke a § 102(b)(1)(A) grace-period/disqualification exception (overlapping inventors; common ownership) is an unresolved legal question I flag rather than resolve. Use WO '548 as corroboration, not as a standalone ground.
• Sources relied on (URLs): Google Patents — https://patents.google.com/patent/US11402455/en; ExpertKG — https://www.expertkg.com/patent/?patent_id=[11402455](/patent/11402455); SKIFFS (AIP) — https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article-split/113/17/172601/[839734](/patent/839734)/; SKIFFS (semantic scholar/arXiv metadata) — https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/de5152bb6da9c7b63ed960ebbfc572752a04ebee; APS March 2018 abstract — https://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR18/Event/[319152](/patent/319152) (and https://meetings-archive.aps.org/mar/2018/l55/7); CEA WO '419 — https://iramis.cea.fr/en/Phocea/Vie_des_labos/Ast/ast.php?t=brevet&id_ast=2667 and US 10,422,838 (PubChem) — https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-[10422838](/patent/10422838)-B2 and https://patents.justia.com/patent/20180045795; Aerospace KIMCIE — https://patents.justia.com/patent/[10310027](/patent/10310027) and https://www.patents-review.com/a/20190018078-systems-methods-detecting-current-kinetic-inductance-imager.html; SOCPRA vectorial magnetometer (US 10,921,394) — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ce/f9/2e/cc6af439c567a5/US10921394.pdf.
• No auto-correction applied to any patent or publication number.

Bottom line: Under § 103, the strongest ground is SKIFFS + CEA WO 2016/139419 A1 (Bertet/Mølmer) — optionally reinforced by Aerospace US 2019/0018078 A1 and SOCPRA WO 2017/173548 A1 — which together disclose every element of independent claims 1 and 8, with the kinetic-inductance field-to-frequency transducer (SKIFFS/'078) substituted for the conventional transverse readout (CEA), and with an express motivation supplied by SKIFFS itself (applications in ESR and quantum computation). The dependents add only conventional resonator readout, routine field-strength optimization, and generic computer-driven scanning/storage, none of which supplies a non-obvious contribution. This remains an advocacy-grade theory, not an adjudicated outcome.