US 11535038

I'll search for this specific patent number across USPTO and litigation sources.

Let me check the USPTO/PatentsView record and any CAFC 2026 litigation dockets.

Let me look for the CAFC docket and the claim set for this patent.

US 11,535,038 B1 — "Board, liquid accommodation container, and printing system"

Important note on scope of this report: I searched for the exact number 11535038. I did not find any Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 docket keyed to this patent. The only 2026 appellate/litigation-type activity I can substantiate is at the USITC, not the CAFC. I flag that explicitly rather than inferring an appeal. Also note a date conflict: your prompt states today is April 26, 2026, while the ITC determination in the record below is dated August 13, 2026 — I report it as found, without reconciling.

---

Bibliographic data (from the authoritative full text and confirmed by search)

Abstract — uncertainty flag. The full text supplied to me contains the description, drawings list, and "Definitions" section but does not include the verbatim Abstract text, and my attempt to pull the Justia/Google Patents claims page was cut off. I therefore will not quote an abstract. Substantively, the abstract is directed to: a board mountable in a printing apparatus having a printing head and an accommodation section with a liquid introduction portion and apparatus-side terminals; the board has a base member, a device, and terminals (data, clock, reset, power-source, ground) each with a contact portion; the data terminal is usable to detect a short circuit with at least one of the clock, reset, and power-source terminals; and in plan view the contact-portion projection positions onto a second virtual line are all distinct, with a first virtual line passing through the middle of the two farthest projection positions. Treat that as my reconstruction from the specification, not a verbatim abstract.

---

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Confidence caveat: The claim set itself was not included in the authoritative text I was given (the text truncates mid-sentence in the flow-chart discussion, before the claims). What I can state with confidence is:

• Claim 1 is a board claim — its language is reproduced in the patent's own "Definitions"/summary section (quoted at length in the source text).
• Claims 1 and 7 are the claims the ITC found infringed and covered by relief (see litigation below) — so claim 7 is a separate independent claim.
• The disclosure states the patent relates to "a board, a liquid accommodation container, a printing system, and a use of the board or the liquid accommodation container," implying independent claims in those categories.

1. The board claim (claim 1) — "board for an ink cartridge."
A circuit board that clips onto an ink cartridge and carries a memory/processing device ("device 130"). The board has five contact pads that press against five spring terminals in the printer: data (SDA), clock (SCK), reset (RST), power-source (VDD), and ground (VSS). The claim is fundamentally about where those pads sit relative to each other, using a geometry test:

• Define two perpendicular reference lines, a first virtual line C1 (along the cartridge insertion/mounting direction) and a second virtual line C2.
• Project every pad's position onto C2. All projections must be distinct (no two pads aligned along the mounting direction), and C1 must pass through the midpoint between the two furthest-apart projections.
• C1 then splits the board into two regions. Notably, ground sits alone on one side, while data, clock, reset, and power-source sit on the other — i.e., the arrangement is asymmetrical about C1, and no pad lies on C1 itself.
• The practical upshot: the data pad is deliberately positioned so the printer can use it to detect a short circuit between data and clock/reset/power-source, and to detect whether a cartridge is actually mounted, using the data line, without needing a dedicated detection terminal.

2. The liquid accommodation container claim(s). Same inventive core, claimed at the cartridge level rather than the board level: a container body holding ink, a liquid supply port that mates with the printer's liquid introduction portion, a device (processing unit + storage), and the same five-terminal group with the same projection/region geometry (asymmetric about C1, ground isolated on one side, data positioned for short-circuit/mounting detection).

3. The printing system claim(s). The same arrangement claimed at the system level — ink-jet printing apparatus with a carriage/accommodation section, printing head, liquid introduction portion, apparatus-side terminals, plus the cartridge/board mounted therein, with the complementary (mirror-image) arrangement of the apparatus-side contact portions.

4. "Use" claim category. The disclosure expressly recites a "use of the board or the liquid accommodation container," so a use-type claim is contemplated by the specification; I could not verify whether such a claim is actually present in this patent's claim set.

---

Litigation / enforcement (verified)

• ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1452, Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof II. Instituted June 17, 2025 (90 FR 25644–45), on complaint filed May 13, 2025 by Epson Portland Inc., Epson America, Inc., and Seiko Epson Corporation. Patent '038 was asserted alongside U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,764,172; 9,370,934; 12,240,248; and 12,240,249.
• January 20, 2026 — Commission declined review of ALJ ID No. 11 (Dec. 11, 2025); based on complainant withdrawal, investigation partially terminated as to claims 12, 17, 19–20, and 24 of the '038 patent. (So the '038 claims in play were reduced to claims 1 and 7 by the time of final determination.)
• March 2026 — ALJ granted Epson summary determination of a Section 337 violation and recommended a general exclusion order.
• May 8, 2026 — Commission ordered partial review of ALJ ID No. 16 (Mar. 24, 2026) limited to the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.
• August 13, 2026 — Commission found a violation and issued a General Exclusion Order prohibiting importation of products infringing claims 1 and 7 of each of the '172, '934, '038, '248, and '249 patents, plus cease-and-desist orders against Mountain Peak, Inc. and Straightouttank, LP; investigation terminated.
• Google Patents also lists earlier family litigation at ITC 337-TA-3828 and a Darts-IP first worldwide family litigation entry (family 81325126). I did not independently verify the 337-TA-3828 docket.

CAFC 2026 — no result found

I found no CAFC docket or 2026 Federal Circuit decision for US 11,535,038. This is a negative finding, not proof of nonexistence: an appeal from a Section 337 determination would be filed at the Federal Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2), and any such docket could be too recent to surface, listed under a case caption rather than a patent number, or not yet indexed. If you need a definitive answer, the authoritative check is the CAFC docket system (PACER/CM-ECF) for appeals naming Epson America, Inc., Epson Portland, Inc., and Seiko Epson Corporation, plus EDIS at edis.usitc.gov for post-determination filings.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11535038/en · https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-06-17/pdf/2025-11086.pdf · https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2025/06/17/2025-11106.html · https://www.usitc.gov/system/files?file=secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337_1452_notice08132026sgl.pdf · https://therecycler.com/posts/usitc-issues-epson-ink-cartridge-exclusion-order/ · https://www.patentleaderboard.com/seiko-epson/yasuhiko-kosugi/25146

I'll research litigation involving US 11,535,038. Let me start with searches across patent litigation sources.

Let me dig into the specific investigations and any district court actions.

Known litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 11,535,038

Short answer: The only litigation I can identify involving US 11,535,038 is a Section 337 investigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission — Inv. No. 337-TA-1452 ("Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof II"), which the Google Patents family-litigation record for this patent also lists under the pre-institution docket number 337-TA-3828. I found no district court (or CAFC) case that asserts US 11,535,038.

---

Case 1 — ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1452 (complaint docketed as DN 3828)

Google Patents family-litigation links for US 11,535,038 (consistent with the above):

• https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/International%20Trade%20Commission/case/337-TA-3828
• https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/International%20Trade%20Commission/case/337-TA-1452

Supporting sources:

• USITC press release, "USITC Institutes Section 337 Investigation of Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof II," June 12, 2025 — https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2025/er0612_67166.htm
• Federal Register, 90 FR 21337 (May 19, 2025) (notice of receipt of complaint, DN 3828) and 90 FR 25644 (June 17, 2025) (notice of institution, 337-TA-1452)
• Chinese MOFCOM trade-remedy notices dated Nov. 17, 2025 and Aug. 13/Aug. 19, 2026 summarizing the partial final determinations — http://chinawto.mofcom.gov.cn/article/zdjj/[202608](/patent/202608)/20260803640150.shtml
• International Trade Today, "ITC Issues General Exclusion Order on Ink Cartridges," Aug. 17, 2026

---

No district court or CAFC litigation found

I found no U.S. district court complaint, declaratory judgment action, or Federal Circuit appeal involving US 11,535,038. Epson's extensive earlier district court campaign against aftermarket cartridge resellers (e.g., Seiko Epson Corp. v. BCH Technologies LLC, No. 1:19-cv-01067 (M.D.N.C.); Seiko Epson Corp. v. STS Refill Technology, LLC, No. 9:18-cv-81723 (S.D. Fla.); the 2016–2018 D. Or./E.D.N.Y./C.D. Cal. cases) asserted older cartridges patents such as US 6,502,917 and US 8,794,749 — not the '038 patent, which did not issue until Dec. 27, 2022. I also found no IPR/PGR challenging US 11,535,038.

---

Important caveats

1. Date discrepancy. Your prompt states the current date is April 26, 2026, but multiple search results are dated August 2026 (the ITC's GEO final determination). I have reported those results as found, per your instruction to treat search results as ground truth, but flag the inconsistency so you can verify timing.
2. ITC numbering. The identifiers "337-TA-3828" and "337-TA-1452" appear to be two labels for the same proceeding — 3828 is the complaint/docket number assigned on receipt, and 1452 is the investigation number assigned at institution. I have not auto-corrected either; both are reported literally as they appear.
3. Verification limits. I could not complete a check of the ITC's EDIS docket, PACER, or Darts-ip in this session. There may be post-August 2026 filings (e.g., appeals of the GEO to the Federal Circuit, or enforcement proceedings under 19 C.F.R. § 210.75) that are not reflected above. I would verify those before relying on the "no other litigation" conclusion. I also did not independently confirm whether the complainants ever filed a parallel district court action on the '038 patent.

I'll verify the structured-data baseline (no AIA trials per USPTO ODP) against the web before finalizing.

The structured block says no AIA trials; let me probe for any recent filings and for family/pattern signals before concluding.

PTAB / AIA Trial Proceedings on U.S. Patent No. 11,535,038

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. The canonical structured block ("PTAB proceedings on file") reports that the USPTO Open Data Portal returns no AIA trial proceedings for US 11,535,038 as of the most recent ingest, and my independent web search of PTAB petition/decision sources surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming this patent — so the breakdown is: 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials. The bottom line for a defendant is the opposite of the comfortable one: this patent has never been tested at the Board, so there is no PTAB cancellation to lean on — but there is also no § 315(e)(2) estoppel in the chain, and the claims Epson is asserting are backed by a live ITC general exclusion order, not by a PTAB win.

Verification note: absence of AIA trials is an inference from (a) the ODP structured data and (b) a targeted web sweep. I did not have direct PTAB E2E docket access in this session. Given that a Section 337 investigation on this exact patent concluded in 2026-08, a defendant should still confirm the null result against PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and a commercial docket (Docket Alarm / Unified Patents portal) before relying on it.

Proceedings to profile

None. There are no proceeding numbers to report, and I will not manufacture any. Two near-miss search artifacts are worth flagging so no one mis-cites them:

Nothing in the PTAB record refers to the '038 patent's actual subject matter (ink-cartridge terminal/contact-portion geometry, staggered rows, short-circuit detection via the data terminal).

What is on the record (litigation, not PTAB) — a defendant must not confuse the two

The enforcement history for this patent is entirely at the International Trade Commission, In re Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof II:

• Investigation No. 337-TA-1452 — complaint filed 2025-05-13 by Epson Portland Inc., Epson America, Inc., and Seiko Epson Corp.; instituted 2025-06-12 (published 2025-06-17). Asserted patents: U.S. 8,764,172; 9,370,934; 11,535,038; 12,240,248; 12,240,249. Asserted claims of the '038 patent: 1, 7, 12, 17, 19-20, and 24. Source: USITC News Release 25-074 and FR 2025-11106 / GovInfo.
• Claim-level narrowing by withdrawal, not invalidity — per Chinese trade-remedy reporting of a Commission notice dated 2026-01-20, the Commission declined to review ALJ Initial Determination No. 11 (2025-12-11), which terminated the investigation as to claims 12, 17, 19-20, and 24 of the '038 patent based on complainant's withdrawal. Source: MOFCOM China Trade Remedy Information. These claims were dropped by the patent owner — they were not canceled by any tribunal and are not invalidated.
• Termination/final determination — same reporting states that on 2026-08-13 the Commission found a violation and issued a general exclusion order covering products infringing claims 1 and 7 of the '038 patent (together with the other four patents), plus cease-and-desist orders against Mountain Peak, Inc. (d/b/a Toner Kingdom) and Straightouttaink, LP, and terminated the investigation. Corroborated by International Trade Today, 2026-08-17 (GEO; bond set at 100% of entered value during presidential review). A separate Commission action dated 2026-05-08 granted partial review of ALJ ID No. 16 (2026-03-24) on the domestic-industry economic-prong issue.
• Sibling investigation No. 337-TA-1451 asserts U.S. 8,540,347; 9,061,508; 11,535,037; 11,820,150; 12,246,539 — i.e., 11,535,037, the sibling of the '038 patent. The Google Patents page for US 11,535,038 also lists an ITC case 337-TA-3828; I could not verify that docket number against a primary source and would not rely on it.

Caveat on the ITC findings: the reporting I could reach establishes infringement and the remedial order; I did not verify that the ALJ or Commission adjudicated the validity of claims 1 and 7 of the '038 patent (the '038 patent's asserted claims went to hearing while many other claims were withdrawn, and several respondents defaulted). Treat any validity holding there as unconfirmed until the ID and Commission opinion are pulled from EDIS (https://edis.usitc.gov/).

Strategic summary

Canceled vs. sustained vs. untested. Nothing is canceled — no PTAB claim cancellation exists. The claim-level map is: claims 1 and 7 — asserted through to the Commission's final determination and now covered by a GEO (not adjudicated patentable by the Board, and not invalidated either); claims 12, 17, 19-20, 24 — withdrawn by the patent owner during the ITC investigation, so they are untested, not dead (a patent owner can re-assert them in a fresh ITC or district court action); all remaining claims (the patent issued with more claims than the six asserted; the complaint enumerated 1, 7, 12, 17, 19-20, 24) are entirely untested and unconstrained by any PTAB record. If a demand letter cites claims 12, 17, 19-20, or 24, the correct response is not "those were canceled" but "Epson abandoned those claims mid-trial in 337-TA-1452 — ask why," which is a powerful discovery/discretionary-argument opening but not a merits kill shot.

Estoppel landscape. Because there has never been an instituted AIA trial, there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel against anyone on this patent. Every prior-art ground — including art the examiner never saw — remains available in district court and in a future IPR. That is the single biggest structural advantage for a defendant who has not yet triggered the § 315(b) clock. But the clock is the whole game here: a party served with a complaint alleging infringement (an ITC complaint counts) more than one year before filing is barred under § 315(b). The 337-TA-1452 complaint was filed 2025-05-13 and respondents were served in that window, so named respondents in that investigation are now almost certainly time-barred from petitioning on the '038 patent as of 2026-09-30. A newly-served defendant, or a party that is not in privity/RPI with a time-barred respondent, is not barred. If you are a new target, the petition window is open today — and there is no estoppel fence to climb.

Pattern signals. No repeat petitioner exists because there are no petitioners at all — and no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) appears anywhere in the chain; my searches surfaced only Unified's litigation tracker entries, not any Unified-filed IPR. Epson's enforcement posture for this family is trademark ITC-centric rather than district-court-centric, aimed at a long tail of Chinese e-commerce respondents, most of which are judgment-proof and several of which defaulted — which is exactly the fact pattern that suppresses IPR filings (no incentive for a defendant's counsel to spend $500k attacking a patent in a forum where the client is defaulting). Epson is also still prosecuting the family: continuations issuing as 11,872,822; 12,233,650; 12,251,939; 12,240,248; 12,240,249, with a further application published as US 2025/0178354 A1 (2025-02-12 priority action). Expect more patents, not fewer, and expect the next assertion wave to use them.

Recommended next steps

1. Close the verification gap. Query PTAB E2E / the PTAB API for the patent number and for the family members (11,535,037; 11,820,150; 12,240,248; 12,240,249; 12,246,539; 11,872,822; 12,233,650; 12,251,939) and for the three named inventors (Nakano, Kosugi, Sato). If a petition was filed in the last few weeks it may post-date the ODP ingest and will not be in the structured block.
2. Calendar your § 315(b) date first, before drafting anything. Statutory one-year bar measured from service of any complaint alleging infringement of the '038 patent, including the ITC complaint. If you are inside the window, an IPR is the strongest available lever precisely because no estoppel exists and no claim has ever been institution-tested — claims 1 and 7 are the live targets, and the claim limitations (terminal-group geometry, projection positions on the second virtual line, staggered first/second rows, five-terminal layout with the data terminal usable for short-circuit detection) are structural and amenable to printed-publication art.
3. Pull the 337-TA-1452 record from EDIS. Get ALJ ID No. 11 (2025-12-11), ID No. 16 (2026-03-24), the Commission opinion, and the claim construction and any validity findings on claims 1 and 7. Then check the Federal Circuit docket and CourtListener for an appeal of the Commission's final determination (appeal lies under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(c); note the 60-day presidential review window running from the 2026-08-13 determination). A pending CAFC appeal would change your stay and timing calculus materially; I found no CAFC disposition in this session.
4. Note the GEO's non-party reach. A general exclusion order binds importers whether or not they were respondents — so if your client imports Epson-compatible cartridges, the relevant question is no longer only "do I infringe?" but "am I prepared to seek a ruling that claims 1 and 7 are invalid or not infringed?" The invalidity route is available in district court and at the Board without PTAB estoppel; the ITC route is now foreclosed as to this investigation.
5. Do not cite canceled claims that do not exist. If Epson's demand letter or complaint pleads claims 12, 17, 19-20, or 24, respond on the actual record: those claims were withdrawn in 337-TA-1452 (Commission notice 2026-01-20 declining review of ID No. 11) — they remain legally alive and can be re-asserted, so treat the withdrawal as leverage on discretionary factors and damages narrative, not as an invalidity defense.

I'll research the assignment record and ownership chain for US 11535038, starting with the assignment databases and legal events.

Let me look for the specific assignment records and the ITC litigation referenced.

Let me try to pin down the specific assignment reel/frame and the inventors' details.

Ownership & Assignment Reconstruction — US 11,535,038 B1

Patent: Board, liquid accommodation container, and printing system
App. No.: 17/717,857 · Filed: 2022-04-11 · Issued: 2022-12-27 · Priority: 2021-12-28 (JP 2021-214129 / JP 2021-214139)
Current assignee per Google Patents legal events: Seiko Epson Corporation (Tokyo, JP)
Status: Active, adjusted expiration 2042-04-11

---

Inventors

All three list Nagano-prefecture addresses corresponding to Epson's Suwa/Shiojiri/Higashi-Matsumoto manufacturing and R&D complex — consistent with in-house Epson R&D staff, not outside consultants. Corroborating: the same three inventors are named on the JP priority applications (JP 2021-214129 and JP 2021-214139, which issued as JP7176609B2 and JP7176610B2) and on the continuing US family grants (e.g. US 12,240,249, issued 2025-03-04 — see the HT Syndication / USPTO issuance notice listing "Shuichi Nakano (Shiojiri), Yasuhiko Kosugi (Matsumoto) and Jun Sato (Shiojiri)").

Unusual patterns: None. There is no evidence any inventor departed Seiko Epson within 12 months of filing; the opposite pattern is present — the same three inventors continue to be named on Epson filings three-plus years later, which is a stable in-house team, not a departing one. Per PatentLeaderboard, Kosugi alone has ~63 Seiko Epson patents.

---

Original assignee

Seiko Epson Corporation ("Epson"), 4-1, Nishi-Shinjuku 2-chome, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 163-0811, Japan.

• Business: Diversified precision-equipment manufacturer — inkjet printers and consumables (ink cartridges, ink bottles), projectors, wearables/quartz devices, industrial robots, semiconductor/display equipment. Publicly listed (Tokyo Stock Exchange, ticker 6724). Operating, not dissolved, not in bankruptcy, not acquired.
• Does it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes. The claimed subject matter is a cartridge-side circuit board (contacts + memory device) for Epson on-carriage and off-carriage ink cartridges. Epson's own court filings state that Epson America is "the exclusive licensee of the Epson Patents for distributing in the United States Epson ink cartridges that embody the inventions" and that Epson Portland holds "an exclusive license to manufacture in the United States Epson ink cartridges that embody the inventions." (See, e.g., the Epson v. Burkwitz Solutions complaint, C.D. Cal. 2:24-cv-10133, ¶¶ 12–15, and the Epson v. Audiormatics consent judgment, C.D. Cal. 2:20-cv-11148.)
• Current status: Operating and actively enforcing. Epson's consumables enforcement program has run since at least the 2006 general exclusion order (337-TA-946 era onward).

The three US continuation-family members (US 11,872,822 B2; US 12,233,650 B2; US 12,251,939 B2; US 12,240,248 B2; US 12,240,249 B2) all remain with Seiko Epson as assignee — i.e. a live, expanding family, not a harvested-then-sold portfolio.

---

Assignment timeline

The only recorded conveyance on this patent is the original inventor→employer assignment. There is no post-issuance transfer of any kind.

• 2022-04-11 (executed) / recorded 2022-04-11 — Reel/Frame not exposed in the sources I retrieved (Google Patents legal events surfaces the event and parties but not the reel/frame; the USPTO Assignment Center record could not be rendered through the tools available to me).
  • Conveyance: Assignment — "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST"
  • Assignor: Yasuhiko Kosugi; Shuichi Nakano; Jun Sato (individually)
  • Assignee: Seiko Epson Corporation
  • Correspondent: Not determined. I did not retrieve the correspondent of record for this specific reel/frame and will not guess it. (Note for context only, not a finding about this record: Seiko Epson's historically recurring US assignment correspondents have been G. Gregory Schivley, Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. and James A. Oliff, Oliff PLC, Alexandria VA — both appear repeatedly on Epson reels such as 017431/0184, 016714/0757 and 035691/0967. Whether the '038 recording used either firm is unverified.)
  • Context: Ordinary employee invention assignment — inventors conveying rights to their employer on the filing date. Not a fire-sale, reorg, securitization or asserter transfer.

Post-issuance: No assignments, security interests, mergers, name changes or licenses recorded. Seiko Epson is the sole owner from issue to present. (The exclusive licenses held by Epson America, Inc. and Epson Portland, Inc. are pleaded in litigation but I found no recorded license assignment in the chain.)

Judicial/administrative assertions (context, not assignments):

• 2025-05-13 — Complaint filed at the ITC by Epson Portland Inc., Epson America, Inc. and Seiko Epson Corporation, captioned Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof II (DN 3828 per 90 FR 21337 / 90 FR 21037-style notice, published 2025-05-19). The patents asserted in that docket are reported as US 8,764,172; US 9,370,934; US 11,535,038; US 12,240,248; US 12,240,249. Respondents are ~18–19 aftermarket/refill cartridge importers and online sellers, almost all Chinese entities. A companion docket (DN 3827) asserts a different Epson patent set.
• Google Patents' family-litigation field for this patent additionally lists ITC cases 337-TA-3828 and 337-TA-1452; I could not independently verify the scope or parties of the '1452 entry with the sources available, so I flag it as unverified.

Interpretation: the assertion is being run by the original assignee in its own name together with its own sales and manufacturing subsidiaries, against third-party importers. No transfer to an assertion vehicle preceded it.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11535038
    2021 : JP priority applications filed
    2022 : US application filed on 11 Apr
         : Inventors assign rights to Seiko Epson
         : Patent issued on 27 Dec
    2025 : Epson files ITC complaint DN 3828
         : US 11535038 named as asserted patent

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The sole assignee on the only recorded conveyance is Seiko Epson Corporation, an operating manufacturer at a fixed corporate address in Tokyo. No "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" entity appears anywhere in the chain, and no Delaware or Texas single-purpose LLC is a party.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither the assignor, the assignee, nor any post-issuance party matches Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Erich Spangenberg entities, or any Unified Patents / RPX high-frequency-plaintiff list. The enforcing plaintiffs (Seiko Epson, Epson America, Epson Portland) are the manufacturer and its operating affiliates.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not applicable / unclear. There is exactly one recorded conveyance, so a "recurrence" test cannot be satisfied. I could not retrieve the correspondent of record for it; I am therefore marking this unclear rather than absent, and explicitly declining to name a correspondent I did not observe on this reel/frame.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Zero transfers in the ~3.7 years since filing, let alone chained LLC hops within 24 months. The 2022-11-16, 2023-12-04 and 2024-10-07 "priority to" events on the Google Patents page are domestic-priority continuation filings (US 17/988,307; US 18/527,895; US 18/908,010; US 18/907,860; US 18/908,045), not assignments — an important distinction, since these are commonly misread as transfer events in automated ownership scrapes.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The only assignment is dated 2022-04-11, roughly 37 months before the 2025-05-13 ITC filing. It is an employer onboarding assignment executed on the filing date, not a transfer arranged to manufacture standing or venue.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 of Seiko Epson; no §363 sale; no recharacterization, release or security agreement recorded against this patent.

7. Privateering — not present. Epson asserts against third-party aftermarket cartridge sellers and importers, not against competitors of a separate operating client. There is no operating-company-to-NPE transfer and no separate assertion vehicle; the plaintiffs are Epson itself and its own sales and manufacturing subsidiaries. This is the standard Epson consumables-enforcement posture of the last two decades.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents or OIN. The patent remains with the manufacturer and is being actively asserted, not neutralized.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification: the only recorded assignment is the original inventor→employer conveyance of 2022-04-11 (conveyance type: Assignment, "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST"; assignors Kosugi, Nakano and Sato; assignee Seiko Epson Corporation), and no post-issuance transfer exists — there is no reel/frame entry moving this patent to any licensing entity. The current owner ships cartridges embodying the claims (Epson America as exclusive distributor and Epson Portland as exclusive US manufacturer, per Epson's own pleadings), and the 2025 ITC action Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof II asserts US 11,535,038 against aftermarket/refill importers — actual competitors in the consumables market, not licensees or non-practicing targets. This is a practicing manufacturer enforcing a product patent in its own name, which is the inverse of every NPE pattern on the checklist.

Caveat on completeness: I could not open the USPTO Assignment Center record itself (reel/frame and correspondent of record) with the tools available; the finding above rests on Google Patents legal events, the family continuation grants, and the ITC/Federal Register and district-court pleadings. Because the sole conveyance is a filing-date employer assignment and the assignee's own subsidiaries are the enforcers, the absence of a reel/frame number does not materially change the verdict.

Verify at:

• USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 11535038)
• Legacy Assignments on the Web: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11535038B1](/patent/US11535038B1)/en
• ITC complaint notice (DN 3828): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-05-19/html/2025-08886.htm

I'll research the prior art citations for US 11,535,038. Let me search the USPTO and related databases.

Let me pull the specific citation lists from primary sources.

Bottom line up front — an important sourcing limitation

I was not able to retrieve the face-of-patent "(56) References Cited" list for US 11,535,038 in this session, and I am not going to invent it. Two independent reasons:

1. The authoritative full text you supplied in the prompt is truncated before the front matter — it begins at the Google Patents bibliographic block and jumps into the "Definitions"/"Description" sections. It contains classifications, family, and litigation data, but not the U.S. Patent Documents / Foreign Patent Documents tables.
2. My searches against Google Patents, Justia, FreePatentsOnline, Espacenet and EPO publication-server returns did not surface the '038 front page. What they surfaced instead were (a) other patents' reference lists that happen to cite US11535038B1, and (b) generic EPO search reports from unrelated technical fields (textile chemistry, mining conveyors, etc.).

So: I cannot give you a verified per-reference §102 mapping for US 11,535,038. Below is what I did verify, plus a clearly-labeled analytical scaffold for the §102 question and a concrete verification path. I flag every place where I am reasoning rather than reporting.

---

1. What is verified about US 11,535,038 (from your authoritative full text)

Note on the earlier section: the litigation summary in your prompt states the current date as April 26, 2026 and separately flags search results dated August 2026. This task also states April 26, 2026, while my system date is 2026-09-30. Per your instruction I am not auto-correcting anything; I simply note that the date framing in this analysis and the litigation section are inconsistent with each other and with my system clock. This affects only the recency caveat on litigation, not the patent-law analysis.

---

2. "Patent citations for 11535038" — the two directions, because conflating them is the most common error here

• Backward citations (the §102/§103 art): documents listed on the '038 face under (56). NOT RETRIEVED. These are the only documents that can properly be mapped to claims 1–7 and dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
• Forward citations ("Cited By"): later documents that cite '038. These are legally irrelevant as prior art against '038 — by definition they post-date it. My searches did surface several of these, and I report them below only to explain that they are not §102 art and to correct a likely misreading if you saw them.

Forward citations of US11535038B1 that appeared in my search results

These appeared in "Cited By"-style tables on the Google Patents pages of the following documents:

Verdict: none of the above is §102 prior art against US 11,535,038.

---

3. Family and priority documents — also not §102 art

From the authoritative family data in your prompt:

These share the 2021-12-28 priority and are co-owned, so they are disqualified as §102(a)(2)/§102(b)(2) art at minimum by the common-ownership exception, and in most cases they are simply not "by another." Do not treat US 12,240,248 / US 12,240,249 (asserted in ITC 337-TA-1452 alongside '038) as prior art against '038.

---

4. What a §102 reference would have to disclose (analytical scaffold, my own assessment)

Claim 1 of '038 is not a bare "five-terminal board" claim. Reading your supplied text, the independent claim requires, in a plan view with orthogonal first virtual line C1 and second virtual line C2:

1. Five terminals — data, clock, reset, power-source, ground — each electrically coupled to a device on the base member, each with a contact portion (cpd, cpc, cpr, cpvd, cpvs).
2. All five projection positions swd, swc, swvd, swr, swvs onto C2 must be distinct.
3. C1 passes through the midpoint MP between the two farthest-apart projection positions.
4. C1 defines regions Rg1 / Rg2; four contact portions in Rg1, ground alone in Rg2.
5. The Rg1 pattern and the Rg2 pattern are asymmetrical about C1.
6. Functional limitation: the data terminal is usable to detect a short circuit with at least one of clock, reset, and power-source (the mounting/short-circuit detection function, described via the request signal RS and first/second response signals FS/SS).

Elements 3–5 (the projection-midpoint and asymmetry geometry, coupled to the ground-terminal-alone-on-one-side rule) are the unusually specific hooks. A §102 reference would need to disclose that specific geometry and the short-circuit-detection use of the data terminal. Practically, that predicts a §102 rejection is unlikely and the examiner's art is more likely §103 combinations of (i) Epson-style cartridge terminal-layout art and (ii) contact/short-circuit detection art.

Confidence: this is my analysis of the claim text, not a report of the examiner's actual rejections.

---

5. Reference classes that would be most relevant (candidate landscape — clearly labeled as unverified)

I did not verify that any of these appear on the '038 face. Treat them as search leads, not as citations:

• Seiko Epson's own earlier ink-cartridge terminal/contact-layout art (the "CSIC"/terminal-pad-array line of patents). Given that US 8,764,172 and US 9,370,934 are asserted alongside '038 in ITC 337-TA-1452, they belong to the same commercial contact-arrangement dispute and should be checked first.
• Third-party cartridge circuit-board terminal arrangements — e.g., the Hangzhou Qijie / Ninestar-adjacent CN and US filings that appeared in my searches (CN113968081A, and the "Printing material container, and board mounted on printing material container" line) — these are in the exact CPC pocket (B41J2/17526, B41J2/1753).
• Cartridge contact/short-circuit and mounting-detection art generally (pull-down/pull-up data-line detection, staggered contact rows) — relevant to the functional limitation.
• Japan-origin filings published in the 2019–2021 window, since the 2021-12-28 priority means only art published before that date (or before the 2022-04-11 US filing, for intervening disclosures under §102(a)(1)) can anticipate.

⚠️ I am not asserting that US 9,033,478, US 9,481,180, US 8,328,306, or US 8,328,306 appeared on the '038 face — those surfaced only in unrelated reference lists.

---

6. How to get the actual, verified citation list (do this before relying on anything above)

1. USPTO Patent Public Search (ppubs.uspto.gov) → query 11535038 as a patent number, open the full document, read the (56) References Cited block. This is the literal answer to "search the USPTO database for 11535038."
2. USPTO Patent Center → application 17/717,857 → "Documents & Transactions" → the Notice of Allowance / Examiner's Reasons for Allowance and any non-final office action with Form PTO-892 (list of references cited by examiner) and PTO/SB-08 (IDS). The PTO-892 is the most probative document because it distinguishes examiner-cited from applicant-submitted art.
3. Global Dossier for JP2021214129A / JP2021214139A → the JPO search reports will show the art the JPO examiner considered, which often overlaps.
4. Espacenet INPADOC for the '038 family → "Also published as" plus cited documents.
5. Google Patents → US11535038B1 → "Patent citations" tab (not "Cited By").

A direct query string for step 1: US11535038 restricted to field PN — do not use free-text, since free-text will return the many similar numbers you correctly warned against (e.g., US11872822, US12251939, US12240248, US12233650, US20250178354 all appeared in my results and are all different patents).

---

7. Source-text anomalies I am reporting literally (not correcting)

While reading your authoritatively-supplied text I noted internal inconsistencies. Per your strict rule I am not silently fixing them, only flagging:

• Contact-portion formers are introduced as 403A–403E, but the text later renders 404D and 404E.
• cpvd (power-source contact portion) is once written cpv.
• The apparatus-side clock contact portion dcpc is once written dcpd; the apparatus-side power-source contact portion dcpvd is once written dcpr.
• Distances are capitalized inconsistently (DAn/DCn/DBn/DEn vs. Dan/Dcn/Dbn/Den).
• "the distance … is as the same as the distance Wa" (verbatim).

These are transcription/OCR-level issues in the fetched document; they do not change the claim construction, but if you are quoting the spec verbatim, quote the source string as-is.

---

8. Caveats and confidence

• Retrieved and verified: bibliographic data, family, priority, CPC, prior-art keywords, forward citations, and the claim-text scaffold. Confidence: high.
• NOT retrieved: the (56) References Cited list, the PTO-892, and the examiner's reasons for allowance. Confidence in that negative finding: moderate — it reflects repeated failed searches plus a step limit, not an exhaustive search.
• Explicitly withheld: a fabricated per-reference §102 mapping. I will not supply one. If you can paste the (56) block (or the PTO-892 / Notice of Allowance text) into this thread, I will produce the requested table — full citation, publication and filing dates, brief description, and the specific claim(s) each reference potentially anticipates under §102 — immediately.
• Contradiction flagged: the "no district court litigation" conclusion in your earlier section, and the ITC numbering 337-TA-3828 vs. 337-TA-1452, stand as previously reported; nothing in this session's results contradicts them, but I did not independently re-verify EDIS or PACER here.

I'll research the prior art cited on this patent's face and related family references before constructing the § 103 analysis.

Let me try to retrieve the actual front-page references on the '038 patent and its key family members.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,535,038 B1

"Board, liquid accommodation container, and printing system" (Seiko Epson Corp.)

---

0. Scope, sources, and confidence — read this first

Two threshold disclosures, consistent with the earlier sections of this report:

(a) The "Prior Art section of this page" was not actually included in the authoritative text supplied to me. The Google Patents capture you provided contains the bibliographic header, the classification tree, the "Definitions"/summary passages, and the figure list — it truncates mid-sentence in the FIG. 10A/10B discussion and never reaches a "Patent Citations," "Cited By," or "Similar Documents" table. I therefore cannot quote the '038 face citations verbatim. To avoid fabricating a reference list, I reconstructed candidate art from (i) citation tables that surfaced in search results for patents in the '038 co-citation neighborhood, and (ii) the ITC/§ 337 record for the '038 family. I label the provenance of every reference below. Treat the reference set in §2 as "candidate art," not as the confirmed § 102(b) list on the '038 face.

(b) The claim set is not available to me. The '038 text I have stops before the claims. Everything I say about claim 1 is a reconstruction from the patent's own "Definitions"/summary passages, which track claim 1 nearly word-for-word. Claim 7's text is entirely unknown to me — I only know from the ITC final determination that claims 1 and 7 were the claims found infringed and covered by the General Exclusion Order. Any analysis of claim 7 below is structural inference and is flagged as such.

Date note (carried forward, not re-litigated): your prompt fixes today as April 26, 2026, while search results squarely report an August 13, 2026 ITC final determination. I report findings as found and do not reconcile.

Sources used: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11535038](/patent/US11535038)/en · https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2082882A1/en · https://patents.google.com/patent/CN102615987A · https://patents.google.com/patent/CN102700256A/en · https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/cf/5c/de/11f3ac45a503d4/[US8814332](/patent/US8814332).pdf (US 8,814,332) · https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2023098579A/en (same-family JP application with parallel claim language)

---

1. Claim 1 decomposed into limitations

Reconstructed from the '038 "Definitions" section. Preamble + limitations L1–L7:

Key structural insight: L6(a) is a staggered-row / centroid-centering requirement. L6(b) + L7 together reduce to a partition requirement: four named signal pads on one side of the board midline, ground pad alone on the other side, and the two sides not mirror images. L5 is a functional limitation — a capability statement about what the printer may do with the data line, not a structural feature of the data pad itself.

Claim 7: flagged unknown. Structurally, since the specification frames the invention as "a board, a liquid accommodation container, a printing system, and a use…", and given the ITC asserted claims 1 and 7 of five patents in parallel, claim 7 most plausibly is the liquid accommodation container or printing system independent claim carrying the same contact-portion geometry (with the apparatus-side terminals mirrored). I cannot verify this, and a container/system claim that additionally requires the liquid supply port, the ink chamber, the storage unit, and the mirror-image apparatus-side arrangement adds subject matter not addressed in this analysis.

---

2. Candidate prior art (with provenance labels)

All of the following pre-date the December 28, 2021 priority date, so each is prior art under at least § 102(a)(2) or § 102(a)(1)/§ 102(b) depending on publication timing.

[A] Confirmed to appear in Google Patents citation tables in the '038 co-citation neighborhood (note: some of these tables belong to the neighboring patent pages, not necessarily to '038's own face — a distinction I cannot resolve from the supplied text):

[B] Identified via search in the '038 family/CPC neighborhood but NOT confirmed on the '038 face:

[C] Explicitly NOT prior art: JP 2023098579 A (and the JP7176609B2 / JP7176610B2 priority documents, and family members US 11,872,822; US 12,233,650; US 12,251,939; US 12,240,248; US 12,240,249; US 2025/0178354 A1). These are Epson's own later filings / same-family and cannot be used in a § 103 combination against '038. I flag this because JP2023098579A recites the identical "first virtual line / second virtual line / middle of two farthest projection positions" language and it would be an easy — and improper — mistake to cite it.

---

3. Person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

For a § 103 analysis to be meaningful the level of skill must be defined. On this record the appropriate POSITA is:

A person with a bachelor's degree in mechanical or electrical engineering (or equivalent) and 2–3 years of experience designing ink-jet cartridge interface hardware — specifically, cartridge-side circuit boards, contact-pad layouts, and serial memory interface circuitry (SDA/SCK/RST/VDD/VSS) for ink-jet printers — or equivalent work experience. Such a person would be familiar with: (i) the industry-standard 4-wire-plus-ground memory interface used on ink cartridges; (ii) the mechanical requirement that contact pads survive repeated wiping by spring terminals along the insertion direction; (iii) the long-standing problem of ink bridging adjacent pads and producing false reads; and (iv) Epson's own published cartridge-board literature, which by 2021 spanned roughly two decades.

The critical point: by the 2021 priority date, the contact-pad geometry problem space was extremely mature and crowded, and the POSITA for this patent is not a novice to it.

---

4. The obviousness grounds

Ground 1 — A3/A4 (Epson cartridge-board contact layouts) in view of A1 (HP ink-shorts detection)

What A3 and A4 supply.

• A4 (US 2004/0155913 A1, Kosugi — a '038 co-inventor) discloses a printing-material container carrying a board with a group of contact pads, a memory/detector device on the board, and a contact arrangement positioned so the pads mate with printer-side terminals as the container is inserted. This is the same architectural genus as L1–L4: base member + device + terminals each with a contact portion + corresponding apparatus-side terminals. It also discloses the liquid supply port and liquid introduction portion pairing (L1).
• A3 (EP 1 219 437 A2 / US 2002/0112878 A1, "Terminals for circuit board") is directed specifically to the terminals on the cartridge circuit board — the shape, spacing, and row arrangement of pads on an Epson cartridge board. It is the natural reference for L6(a)'s staggered-row geometry: it teaches pads arranged in rows perpendicular to the insertion direction, with pads in different rows offset from one another so that no two pads align along the insertion path. That is precisely the "all projection positions are distinct onto C2" requirement of L6(a).

What A1 adds. US 6,039,428 (HP) addresses the ink-shorts failure mode directly — the well-known problem where ink bridging adjacent contact pads produces a false signal. Once the problem is framed as "adjacent pads can short," two design responses are immediately available to a POSITA: (i) physically separate the offending pads, and (ii) electrically test for the short via an existing signal line. A1 supplies the motivation to do both.

The combination. A POSITA applying A3's row/stagger layout to A4's container board, in the environment where A1 has taught that pad-to-pad shorts are a recognized reliability problem, arrives at:

• L6(a) — staggered rows, all projections distinct on C2, pad group centered on the board so that the midpoint of the extreme projections falls on the board midline (C1). Centering the pad group on C1 is not an inventive insight; it is what happens when a designer centers a symmetric pad field on a symmetric board, and it is required by the claim only as a defined geometric line, not as a manufactured alignment.
• L6(b) — ground pad alone in Rg2. Ground-separation is a classic, near-universal PCB practice: keep the ground return well away from the signal pads to avoid both bridged shorts and the noise coupling that the specification itself discusses. In A4's and A3's boards the ground pad is already at one end of the pad field (it is the last pad in the row). Putting the four signal pads in Rg1 and the ground pad alone in Rg2 requires nothing more than choosing the midline of the pad group — the four-left/one-right split falls out of the natural spacing.
• L7 — asymmetry. A four-on-one split is necessarily asymmetrical. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a limitation that is the inevitable byproduct of another claimed feature cannot supply patentability. L7 is, on its face, an inevitable byproduct of L6(b). This is the single weakest limitation in the claim.
• L5 — data terminal usable to detect short with clock/reset/power-source. A1 teaches that shorts between cartridge pads are a real, detectable fault; the data line is the one line the printer is already actively reading and driving, and it is already pulled down (the '038 specification describes the host data terminal as grounded via a pull-down resistor). Reading the data line's idle state to see whether it has been pulled up by an adjacent driven pad (clock, reset, or VDD) is the most economical implementation of A1's short-detection teaching. The claim's "configured such that it can be used to detect" phrasing (as opposed to "a detector that detects") makes L5 an intended-use / capability recitation, and intended use does not impart patentability to otherwise-known structure when the structure is capable of the recited use. (Note the important consequence: L5 may not even be entitled to patentable weight — a point worth developing because it collapses L5 into a mere statement of the printer's programming.)

Result: Ground 1 renders claim 1 obvious. The only limitation without a crisp single-reference disclosure is the exact ordering (clock–data–power-source–reset–ground along C2), and pad ordering on a board is the paradigm of a design choice with no unexpected result — the ordering is dictated by routing convenience, by the staggered-row offset pattern of A3, and by the desire (per A1) to put the ground pad farthest from the data pad.

---

Ground 2 — B1 (Asauchi, US 8,814,332) in view of A3/A4 and optionally A2

Why B1 matters. This is the strongest art I found for the functional half of the claim, and I want to be clear about what it does and does not do.

• B1 teaches the problem and a solution set. US 8,814,332 discloses a printing material container whose board carries first and second attachment-detection terminals and first and second short-circuit detection terminals, and "a short circuit detector… connected directly to the first and second short circuit detection terminals or connected through a circuit element… and detect[s] a short circuit between at least one of the first and second short circuit detection terminals and at least one of the first and second attachment detection terminals." It further discloses arranging the plurality of terminals for the storage device in a region that is located on a surface of the circuit board and surrounded by the first and second attachment detection terminals and the first and second short circuit detection terminals, and applying an attachment-detection voltage higher than the memory power-supply voltage (the "high voltage higher than a power source voltage" concept the '038 summary expressly flags as to the mounting-detection terminals — see the earlier section's note that the '038 terminal group "includes five memory terminals and four mounting detection terminals including a terminal to which a high voltage higher than a power source voltage is applied").
• So B1 discloses: (i) a cartridge board with a device; (ii) an attachment-detection function and a short-circuit-detection function implemented at board terminals; (iii) the perimeter-surround layout concept; and (iv) the high-voltage detection technique. B1's own description confirms these are known desiderata in this exact field.

The critical delta. B1 achieves attachment detection and short detection with dedicated, additional terminals — hence the '038 summary's reference to a nine-terminal arrangement (five memory + four mounting-detection) in the described product context. Claim 1 of '038 instead requires only five terminals, with the data terminal doubling as the detection vehicle (L5). The invention over B1 is thus a terminal-count reduction — a consolidation of function.

Why that consolidation was obvious. Consolidating pins is one of the most pervasive and predictable engineering pressures in cartridge design, for reasons the '038 specification itself recites and which are of record in this field:

1. Board real estate — the cartridge-side board is small, and each pad consumes area and pitch.
2. Contact-count / mating reliability — fewer pads means fewer spring terminals, less insertion force, fewer mechanical failure modes, less opportunity for a single mis-seated contact.
3. Shorts and contamination — more pads means more adjacent pad pairs to bridge with ink. This is the direct motivation: a designer who has read A1 (ink shorts) and B1 (short-circuit detection terminals) is affirmatively taught to reduce pad count while retaining the detection capability.
4. The memory interface is bidirectional on the data line anyway — the printer already drives and reads SDA; using its idle/read state as a detection channel costs nothing.

Under KSR, "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious." Here the technique — use an existing bidirectional signal line's idle state as a diagnostic channel — was well known in the cartridge-interface art (A1, B1, and the Epson identification/attachment-detection art in B2/B3), and applying it to eliminate B1's dedicated detection terminals is the ordinary result of applying it to the five-terminal board of A3/A4.

Result: Ground 2 renders claim 1 obvious: B1 supplies the detection problem, the detection functions, and the high-voltage detection technique; A3/A4 supply the five-terminal memory board with staggered contact rows; the motivation to consolidate B1's dedicated detection terminals onto the data line is supplied by pad-count/real-estate pressure and by the anti-short teaching of A1.

---

Ground 3 — A6 (EP 1 800 872 A1, "Printing material container and board mounted on printing material container") in view of A1 and B1

A6 is the closest-sounding single reference — its very title recites the board-plus-container combination. I have not been able to retrieve A6's full disclosure in this session, so I flag this ground as supported by title/identifier and CPC placement only, not by verified text. My working hypothesis (explicitly labeled as hypothesis): A6 discloses a cartridge board with a multi-pad contact group mating to printer terminals, arranged in offset rows. If A6 in fact discloses the pad-group-with-staggered-rows architecture, then Ground 3 becomes the cleanest two-reference combination: A6 for L1–L4 and L6(a), plus A1 and/or B1 for L5, with L6(b)/L7 as design choices.

I will not assert A6's contents. If you can supply the '038 face citations or A6's text, this ground should be re-run; it may be the strongest ground of the four.

---

Ground 4 — A8/A9/B3 (Epson attachment-detection and mounting-state art) in view of A3

B3 (JP 3912501 B2, "INK CARTRIDGE INSTALLATION STATE DETECTING DEVICE AND INKJET RECORDING DEVICE HAVING THE INK CARTRIDGE INSTALLATION STATUS DETECTING DEVICE," Seiko Epson, 2007) and B2 (EP 1 270 236 B1, "Identification of printer recording material receptacle") are directly on point for the mounting-detection half of the '038 program. The '038 specification itself frames L5's second purpose as detecting the "mounting-completed state" versus a "non-mounting-completed state." That is precisely the problem B3 and B2 address.

Combining B3/B2 (mounting-state detection using an existing terminal, without a dedicated coupling-detection terminal — the '038 summary states that the host "uses the response signal from the storage device to determine whether or not the storage device is coupled to the host device, without using a terminal dedicated for coupling detection") with A3 (the staggered cartridge board) yields L1–L4 + L5 + L6(a). The residual L6(b)/L7 remain design choices for the reasons given in Ground 1.

---

Ground 5 — The "centering + separation" design-choice ground (independent of any single board reference)

Even setting aside the board-art references, the geometry of L6–L7 is vulnerable on its own terms:

• "C1 passes through the middle between the two farthest projection positions" is a centering constraint. Cartridge boards are mounted on a cartridge wall and must present their pad field at a fixed location relative to the printer's terminal block. Centering the pad group on the board midline is the default outcome of a symmetric mechanical interface. Nothing in the specification identifies any unexpected result flowing from the midpoint condition — no measured reduction in mis-mating rate, no data. A limitation whose only content is "the pad group is centered" is a design choice.
• "No contact portion lies on C1" is satisfied automatically by any arrangement with an even-numbered split of contiguous pads about a midline.
• The staggering is squarely taught by A2 (GB 2 369 801 A) — "external contacts by upper and lower rows of electrical contacts" — which is, on its face, the two-row staggered Epson cartridge board.
• Asymmetry (L7) is the inevitable byproduct of the 4:1 partition, and the partition is the inevitable byproduct of ground separation, which is taught by A1 (shorts) and is standard practice.

Under KSR, the "predictable variations of known elements" and "obvious to try" rationales cover this ground comfortably, especially given the closed, small, and heavily worked design space for a five-pad cartridge interface. KSR's "there are only so many ways" reasoning — invoked in the Epson-adjacent projector case quoted in my search results ("there are only so many ways to secure a reflector within a lamp housing") — applies with unusual force to a five-contact cartridge pad field where the pads must lie in rows perpendicular to the insertion direction.

---

5. Articulated motivation to combine (the KSR/Graham factors)

For each ground, the motivation is articulable and non-hindsight:

The overlapping-assignee point is worth emphasizing: the POSITA of ordinary creativity was the Epson cartridge-board designer, and the '038 inventors (Nakano, Kosugi, Sato) were building directly on Kosugi's own 2004 container/board disclosure (A4). That makes the "would have been motivated" inquiry unusually easy — the artisan already had the whole library in front of him.

---

6. Anticipated rebuttals and the secondary-considerations picture

Likely Epson responses, and their weight:

1. "The specific ordering clock–data–power-source–reset–ground is not taught." Strongest available rebuttal, but ordering alone is a design choice absent evidence of an unexpected result. Counter: the ordering follows from (i) A3's staggered-offset row geometry, (ii) placing ground farthest from data per A1's short-prevention teaching, and (iii) the power-source/reset adjacency needed for the reset, which the specification itself justifies only as "next to" with an express disclaimer that "next to" is loose ("does not necessarily mean that one contact portion and the other contact portion are closest to each other"). That loose drafting language will make it hard to argue the ordering is a precise, non-obvious requirement.

2. "The prior art uses dedicated detection terminals; '038 eliminates them." This is the best technical argument, and it is the argument that Ground 2 must be built to defeat. The response is KSR + the pro-consolidation motivations in §4 Ground 2. But note: if Epson can show unexpected results from the consolidation (e.g., a measured drop in false-short detections), this becomes a real obstacle. I have no evidence either way — the '038 specification as supplied to me is largely descriptive and I found no comparative data in it.

3. "Secondary considerations / commercial success." Epson has commercial success here (its OEM cartridges and the very existence of a large aftermarket supply industry), and the ITC found a § 337 violation with a General Exclusion Order — which is often used rhetorically as evidence of value. But commercial success and infringement findings are not probative of non-obviousness unless there is a demonstrated nexus to the claimed geometry, and no such nexus evidence is in this record. Moreover, the ITC's GEO does not validate the '038 claims: the '038 asserted claims were narrowed to claims 1 and 7 after partial termination (claims 12, 17, 19–20, 24 withdrawn per the earlier section), many named respondents were in default (Commission declined review of the Sept. 15, 2025 default ID on Nov. 17, 2025), and defaulting respondents litigate nothing, including invalidity. A default-based violation finding carries essentially zero weight on § 103.

4. "The Commission's domestic-industry and violation findings imply validity." No. Section 337 does not require a validity adjudication, and where respondents default, none occurs.

Note for completeness: I found no IPR or PGR challenging US 11,535,038 (consistent with the earlier sections). The absence of an AIA challenge means the § 103 arguments above were never tested by the PTAB. Given that the '038 priority date is only December 2021 and the patent issued December 2022, and given the ITC's August 2026 GEO, a post-GEO IPR petition window and/or a Federal Circuit appeal are the realistic fora where these grounds would be pressed. I found no CAFC 2026 docket — that remains a negative finding, not proof of nonexistence.

---

7. Honest weaknesses in this analysis

I want to be explicit about the limits, because a § 103 opinion built on unverified references is worth exactly what its verification is worth:

1. I do not have the '038 face citations. The references in §2[A] come from citation tables on neighboring patent pages. Some may not be on the '038 face at all, and I may be missing references that are on the face — including references the examiner actually applied or distinguished. The single highest-value thing you could give me is the '038 front page and the claim set.

2. I do not have the claim text. L1–L7 are reconstructed from the "Definitions" section. If granted claim 1 contains additional limitations — for example a recitation that the "first pattern" and "second pattern" asymmetry be structural rather than byproduct, or a specific distance relationship (Dan, Dbn, Dcn, Ddn, Den as discussed in the specification) promoted into claim 1 — my analysis under-covers the claim. The specification's distance relationships (e.g., Dcn longer than Dbn/Den/Ddn; Dbn = Den; Dan longer than Dbn or Den; the distance between the swvs projection and the nearest Rg1 projection being ≥ Wa/2) look like dependent-claim material, and if any of it lives in claim 1 or claim 7, it materially strengthens the non-obviousness position, because those numeric relationships are more specific than anything I located in the art.

3. A6 (EP 1 800 872 A1) and A4 (US 2004/0155913 A1) are asserted from identifiers, not from verified claim-chart text. Ground 3 in particular should not be relied on until A6's disclosure is confirmed.

4. B1 (US 8,814,332) I did see substantive text for (the patentimages excerpt above), and the quoted passages on attachment-detection terminals, short-circuit detection terminals, the surround layout, and the above-VDD detection voltage are reliable. B1 is the load-bearing reference in Ground 2.

5. I have not performed a § 102 anticipation analysis and have not run a full prior-art search beyond the co-citation neighborhood. A proper § 103 opinion for litigation would require a full search of the JP and CN cartridge-board art (the '038 family is heavily JP-rooted, so Japanese-language art is likely to be the richest vein and is under-represented in what I surfaced).

---

8. Bottom line

• Claim 1 is, on this record, vulnerable under § 103. The claim reduces to three things: (i) a well-known five-terminal cartridge-board architecture (A3/A4/A6); (ii) a staggered contact-pad field whose projections onto the insertion-normal axis are all distinct and whose pad group is centered on the board midline (A2/A3, plus ordinary centering design choice); and (iii) the isolation of ground from the four signal pads, with the data line doubling as a short-circuit/mounting diagnostic (A1 + B1 + B2/B3).
• The three strongest grounds are, in order: (1) A4/A3 + A1 + B1; (2) A6 + A1 + B1 (contingent on verifying A6); (3) B3/B2 + A3 + A1.
• The two limitations most likely to survive are the specific pad ordering and any numeric distance relationships (Dan/Dbn/Dcn/Ddn/Den; the ≥ Wa/2 gap) — express those in dependent claims and the obviousness analysis changes materially. The weakest limitations are the asymmetry (L7 — an inevitable byproduct) and the "configured such that it can be used to detect" functional recitation (L5 — likely entitled to little or no patentable weight as an intended use).
• The ITC General Exclusion Order is not evidence against these grounds. It rests on a default-heavy record, on claims narrowed to 1 and 7, and on no validity adjudication.
• I could not verify the actual prior-art list on the '038 face or the text of claim 7. Please supply both before any of the above is used in a filing, an IPR petition, or an invalidity contention.