US 11811184

I'll search for the specific patent number and any related litigation.

Let me dig into litigation records and confirm bibliographic data.

Let me verify which patents were at issue in the CAFC/PTAB proceedings and confirm the full claim set.

US 11,811,184 B2 — "Connector producing a biasing force"

Note on sourcing. I searched for the specific number 11811184 / 11,811,184 only. I did not locate an authoritative USPTO PatentCenter record or a CourtListener/CAFC docket entry naming this patent in a 2026 appeal; what follows is grounded in the full patent text supplied (fetched from the Google Patents record for US11811184B2) plus search results, with uncertainties flagged at the end.

Bibliographic data (as reflected in the patent record)

Continuation chain (straight chain of continuations, all now-PPC Broadband coaxial-connector cases):
16/788,008 ← 16/254,317 (filed Jan. 22, 2019) ← 15/601,455 (May 22, 2017, now US 10,186,790) ← 14/173,462 (Feb. 5, 2014, now US 9,660,360) ← 13/913,043 (Jun. 7, 2013, now US 9,608,345) ← 13/726,330 (Dec. 24, 2012, now US 8,480,430) ← 13/075,406 (Mar. 30, 2011, now US 8,366,481 — the priority application).

Abstract (verbatim)

"A connector includes, in one embodiment, a first component, a coupling element configured to engage the first component, and a second component configured to engage the first component. The second component, in one embodiment, is configured to produce a spring, pushing or biasing force."

Technical gist

The patent is about F-type coaxial cable connectors for broadband/CATV. Its problem statement: the metal-to-metal contacts that carry ground/continuity through a connector can corrode, or can permanently deform under tightening torque, and if the connector is not fully tightened onto an interface port the ground path can go intermittent — causing RF leakage and signal degradation. The disclosed fix is a non-metallic, resilient biasing element that pushes the coupler (nut) into constant contact with the post, maintaining the ground path even when the connector is loosely or partially threaded onto the port, without hindering rotation of the nut. Two families of embodiments are described: (a) a separate biasing member 70 (e.g., an oversized O-ring) in cavity 38, and (b) a connector body 250 with an integral, resilient biasing portion 255/256 that extends radially past the coupler's internal wall and deflects axially into a deliberate notch/groove 258 to supply the biasing force. The granted claims are directed to the second, body-integral concept.

Independent claims in plain language

The record supplied shows independent claims 1, 10, and 20 (claims 21–29 depend from claim 20; the excerpt truncates mid-claim 29).

Claim 1 — a "body" (not the whole connector) for a coaxial connector.
The body has a biasing portion with a forward-facing body surface (forward = toward the interface port when the connector is installed). That surface exerts a biasing force on a rearward-facing coupler surface so as to keep the ground path between the post portion and the coupler portion during operation — expressly including when the connector is not fully tightened on the port. The biasing portion deflects axially because of the configuration of a groove portion of the body.

Claim 10 — same general body-plus-biasing-concept, recited in more generic "portion" language.
A biasing portion with a forward-facing surface biases a rearward-facing surface of a first portion of the connector to maintain a ground path between that first portion and a second portion during operation, including when not fully tightened; and the biasing portion deflects axially based on a groove portion of a third portion of the connector. (Dependent claims identify first = coupler portion, second = post portion, third = body portion.)

Claim 20 — a body defined functionally by its resilient-bias and deflection-space structure.
The biasing portion resiliently biases a contact portion of the coupling portion, and the body includes a deflection space portion that lets a part of the body flex axially and exert enough biasing force to move an inward lip of the coupling portion toward the flange of the post portion as the coupling portion moves between a first position and a second position — improving the ground path between coupling portion and post portion even when the coupling portion is not fully tightened on the interface port.

Representative dependent-claim themes (claims 2–9, 11–19, 21–29): first position = coupler partially threaded on port / second position = fully threaded; the rearward-facing coupler surface is a "radial contact surface"; the forward-facing body surface extends a radial distance to engage the coupler; the groove portion permits the deflection needed to bias the coupler against the post flange; a resilient portion flexes between un-deformed and deformed states; the body surface biases the coupler forward when the coupler threadingly disengages the port; the biasing force is a "constantly applied spring force" when not fully tightened; and the inward coupler lip (forward-facing coupler surface) is biased against the rearward-facing post surface on the post's outwardly projecting flange to prevent post/coupler separation and maintain the ground path.

Litigation / PTAB context found

• The Google Patents record carries a "Family has litigation" indicator with a Darts-ip link (family 46927826). That flag attaches to the whole 2011-03-30 priority family, which contains dozens of PPC coaxial-connector patents; it does not by itself establish that 11,811,184 is asserted anywhere.
• CAFC 2026 activity found is not this patent. PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., Nos. 2024-1776, -1777, -1778, -1779 (Fed. Cir.), was decided March 4, 2026 by a Rule 36 per curiam affirmance (Reyna, Hughes, Cunningham, JJ.). Those appeals came from IPR2022-00718, -00719, -00720, -00721, which involved U.S. Patents 10,965,063; 10,446,983; 10,038,284; and 9,225,083 — not 11,811,184. URL: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1776.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-4-2026_2656063.pdf
• Other PPC / coaxial-connector matters surfaced (PPC Broadband v. Amphenol Corp. & Times Fiber Communications, D. Del. No. 1:20-cv-01148; PPC Broadband v. PerfectVision Mfg., E.D. Ark. No. 4:22-cv-00163, involving "continuity" F-connector antitrust counterclaims; earlier PPC v. Corning Optical Communications RF litigation and the 194/940/446/612/990 patent disputes). I found no document in these searches specifically identifying 11,811,184 as an asserted or challenged patent.

Explicit uncertainties

1. Claim 30–50 are not in the supplied text (the excerpt truncates inside claim 29). I therefore cannot confirm whether the patent contains additional independent claims beyond claims 1, 10, and 20.
2. I did not find a USPTO PatentCenter "Patent Trial and Appeal Board" entry, a district-court complaint, or a CAFC 2026 docket naming US 11,811,184. If such a docket exists, I could not verify it here, so treat the litigation statements above as family-level context, not patent-level fact.
3. Minor drafting quirk worth noting: claim 25 (depending from claim 20) refers to "the rearward facing surface of the first portion," while claim 20 recites no "first portion" — a possible antecedent-basis issue. I flag this as an observation from the text, not as an adjudicated finding.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11811184 across patent litigation databases.

Let me refine my searches to find patent-specific litigation records.

Let me search for more specific litigation records and the Unified Patents portal.

Litigation Search Report — U.S. Patent No. 11,811,184

Patent identified: U.S. Patent No. 11,811,184 B2, "Connector producing a biasing force," assignee PPC Broadband, Inc., continuation application filed 2020-02-11, granted 2023-11-07, priority 2011-03-30 (family of U.S. Pat. No. 8,366,481).

Bottom line

I could not identify any litigation in which U.S. Patent No. 11,811,184 is specifically named as an asserted patent. My searches did not return a complaint, docket entry, ITC filing, or PTAB proceeding identifying this exact number. I am reporting this as an absence of found records, not as a certified statement that no litigation exists.

Important caveat about the results

My web searches kept returning irrelevant hits that merely contain the string "11811184":

• A UK Companies House filing for K-Tech Electrical Services Limited, company number 11811184 (a UK company registration number, not the U.S. patent). This is a coincidental number match and is not relevant.
• The patent's own Google Patents page, Unified Patents patent pages, and other patent documents that cite US11811184B2 as a reference/citation — these are not litigation.

I did not obtain a direct hit on the Unified Patents litigation portal case list for this patent, nor a PACER/CAFC docket naming it as an asserted patent.

What is notable on the record

1. Google Patents flags family-level litigation. The patent's Google Patents page contains the marker "Family has litigation / First worldwide family litigation filed," linking to a Darts-IP family record (family 46927826). Notably, this reflects litigation involving the patent family (the PPC Broadband coaxial-connector continuity family), not necessarily this specific patent number.

2. The family's well-documented litigation involves different patent numbers. The PPC Broadband connector family has extensive litigation, but the patents actually asserted in the reported cases are older/other numbers, e.g.:

• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, N.D.N.Y., No. 5:11-cv-00761 (asserting U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,558,194 and 6,848,940); jury verdict for PPC (2015), enhanced to ~$61M; affirmed by the Federal Circuit (No. 17-1347).
• Corning Optical Communications RF LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., D. Ariz., No. CV-12-2208-PHX (the "Bence patents").
• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp. — PTAB IPR2022-00718/00719/00720/00721; PTAB decision for Amphenol affirmed, Fed. Cir. Nos. 24-1776 through 24-1779 (Rule 36 judgment, March 4, 2026).
• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. PVM, Inc., E.D. Ark., No. 4:22-cv-00163-LPR (continuity F-type connector antitrust/patent dispute).
• Inv. No. 337-TA-650 (ITC, coaxial cable connectors, asserted U.S. Pat. No. 6,558,194).

None of these confirmed the specific number 11,811,184 as an asserted patent in the materials I retrieved.

What I could not verify

• Whether any pending 2023–2026 complaint asserts US 11,811,184 specifically. This patent issued only in November 2023, so if litigation exists it would post-date grant; I could not retrieve a docket confirming it.
• Any PTAB/IPR or ITC proceeding naming 11,811,184.

Recommended next steps to confirm

To obtain an authoritative answer (I recommend running these directly, since my search tool results were constrained):

• Unified Patents litigation portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist — search the patent number directly.
• PACER / CourtListener RECAP — full-text docket search for "11,811,184."
• USPTO Patent Center / Patent Assignment & litigation tabs for this patent.
• USITC EDIS and Darts-IP family record (family 46927826) referenced on the Google Patents page.

If you need a definitive "no litigation exists" statement, it should be confirmed against those primary databases, because my search results did not surface a reliable litigation record for this specific patent number.

I'll start by verifying the canonical list and checking for any family-related PTAB activity the ODP ingest might have missed.

Let me search for proceedings on the '184 patent itself and its immediate continuation chain.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 11,811,184: 0 (zero). The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent as of the most recent ingest, and my web searches surfaced no petition, institution decision, or FWD naming US 11,811,184. Breakdown by status: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials. Bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB record to exploit and no estoppel on the board — every claim of the '184 is UNTESTED at the PTAB, so you get a clean shot at an IPR, but you also get no free "the claims are already dead" argument. The defensive pressure on this patent must come from your own petition and from the district-court invalidity record built against its family siblings — not from any existing board ruling.

Two procedural points that follow from the null result:

• PGR is unavailable. The '184 issued 2023-11-07, so the 9-month § 321(c) post-grant window closed on or about 2024-08-07. CBM is unavailable and was sunset by SAS/statute in any event. IPR (and ex parte reexam) are the only AIA levers left.
• IPR remains available on the merits, subject to § 315(b). The '184 claims priority to 2011-03-30 and expires (anticipated) 2031-03-30, so there is real patent life left to attack. But any party served with a complaint alleging infringement of the '184 more than one year ago is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); if you have been sued, your petition clock is the operative constraint, not the merits.

No proceedings to report

I will not fabricate proceeding numbers or claim-level outcomes. The per-proceeding sections of this memo would be empty. What follows instead is (a) the family/litigation context that explains why the absence is notable, and (b) what the absence means tactically.

Related family and portfolio PTAB activity — context only, NOT on the '184

None of the below involves US 11,811,184. I list them because they are the record a defendant will be asked about, and because they show the patent owner's litigation posture.

Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc. — the "continuity member" family (not the '184 family).

• IPR2013-00340, IPR2013-00342, IPR2013-00346, IPR2013-00347 (Corning Gilbert / Corning Optical Communications RF, petitioners). Challenged US 8,287,320, US 8,323,060, US 8,313,353 — obviousness over Matthews (US 2006/0110977) in view of Tatsuzuki (JP 2002-015823).
• Federal Circuit, PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc'ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 734 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Moore, O'Malley, Wallach, JJ.): affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, remanded. Affirmed unpatentability of claims 1–7, 9–15, 17–30, 32 of the '320 patent; vacated as to claims 8, 16, 31 of the '320, claims 1–9 of the '060, and claims 7–27 of the '353 (the "maintain electrical continuity" limitations); and held the Board erred in its commercial-success analysis of PPC's SignalTight products. Link: https://app.midpage.ai/document/ppc-broadband-inc-v-corning-[3179244](/patent/3179244)
• On remand, the Board reversed its invalidity finding in IPR2013-00342 after the Federal Circuit rejected the Board's construction of "reside around" (PPC won). See https://natlawreview.com/article/ptab-reverses-obviousness-finding-after-remand-corning-optical-communications-rf-llc
• In IPR2013-00340, the Board maintained its obviousness holding on remand (PPC lost on the merits of the '060 patent's challenged claims). See https://natlawreview.com/node/73237/printable/pdf
• RPI caution for any new petitioner: Corning Optical Commc'ns RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., IPR2014-00440 (Paper 68, Aug. 18, 2015) was designated precedential on 2025-10-28 by Director Squires, restoring strict § 312(a)(2) real-party-in-interest disclosure. Corning's petitions were dismissed and the institution decisions vacated for failing to name Corning Incorporated and Corning Optical Communications LLC. The '184's parent chain grew out of this same 2011–2013 PPC connector program, so if you file, over-disclose RPIs. Links: https://ktslaw.com/Blog/post%20grant%20proceedings/2025/10/ and https://natlawreview.com/node/57868/printable/pdf

Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc. — four IPRs, all claims lost by PPC.

• IPR2022-00718 (US 10,965,063), IPR2022-00719 (US 10,446,983), IPR2022-00720 (US 10,038,284), IPR2022-00721 (US 9,225,083) — filed 2022-03-18; consolidated oral hearing 2023-07-20; FWDs 2023-10-25 holding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious. See https://www.law360.com/ptab_cases/6234f156ce7e340093c21eec and https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00721/Amphenol_Corp._v._PPC_Broadband_Inc/docs/09-18-2023-Board/Other__Hearing_transcript-34-Other__Hearing_transcript.pdf
• Appeal: PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., Nos. 2024-1776, -1777, -1778, -1779 (Fed. Cir.), AFFIRMED under Fed. Cir. R. 36, decided 2026-03-04 (Reyna, Hughes, Cunningham, JJ.). No written opinion. Link: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1776.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-4-2026_2656063.pdf and https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/24-1776/24-1776-2026-03-04.html
• The asserted art in those cases (Youtsey, Lionetto, Horak, Tarrant, Bell, Campbell — conductive O-ring / redundant grounding path theories) is the same technical space as the '184's "biasing portion" claims. That art trail is a useful starting point, but see the estoppel note below.

Times Fiber / Belden v. PPC (cable-reel patents) — not connector patents. IPR2022-00946, -00947 (PPC as petitioner v. Times Fiber, US 10,988,342), and IPR2022-00830, -00831, -01087, -01088 (Belden as petitioner/real party in interest, US 10,913,632; 10,589,957; 11,001,471; 10,941,016; 10,906,771). Relevant only as background on who is litigating against PPC.

Field-checked and NOT found on the '184 or its direct ancestors. I ran targeted searches for IPRs on US 11,811,184 and for the continuation chain (US 8,366,481; 8,480,430; 9,608,345; 9,660,360; 10,186,790; application 16/788,008). Nothing surfaced. Caveat: my search was tool-bounded and not exhaustive, and Google Patents' own "Family has litigation" flag on the '184 page (https://patents.google.com/patent/US11811184/en) confirms litigation on the family but does not identify PTAB proceedings. Before relying on the zero-count for any filing decision, confirm directly against PTAB E2E / the PTAB "Patent Trial and Appeal Board Case Search" and Docket Alarm for the seven serial numbers above.

Strategic summary

Claim status on the '184: everything is UNTESTED. No claim of US 11,811,184 has been canceled, confirmed, or construed by the PTAB. Claims 1–50 issued 2023-11-07 and remain intact. The claims that are visible in the published text (claims 1–29) are drafted as apparatus claims to a "body for a coaxial connector" — claim 1 recites a biasing portion with a forward facing body surface that "exert[s] a biasing force against a rearward facing coupler surface," "biasingly maintain[s] a ground path ... during operation ... including when the coaxial connector is not fully tightened onto the interface port," and is "configured to deflect in an axial direction based on a configuration of a groove portion of the body." Claim 10 recasts the same structure as first/second/third "portions" plus a groove portion of a third portion; claim 20 is a "resiliently bias + deflection space portion" claim. These are the same body-notch biasing embodiment (biasing element 255 / notch 258) disclosed in the '184 specification as connector 200. Because the family shares one specification going back to the 2011 application, that specification is a single, unitary § 112 and claim-construction target across every sibling.

Estoppel landscape — you are unencumbered, but so is the patent owner's leverage. With no IPR on the '184, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel has attached to anyone as to this patent. The Amphenol IPR estoppel (§ 315(e)(2)) runs only to US 10,965,063, 10,446,983, 10,038,284, 9,225,083 and any ground Amphenol raised or reasonably could have raised in those four proceedings — it does not bar Amphenol, or anyone else, from petitioning against the '184 on any ground. Practically, all prior-art grounds remain available against the '184: § 102 anticipation, § 103 obviousness, and § 112 written-description/enablement (the claim language "biasingly maintain a ground path ... when not fully tightened" is ripe for an indefiniteness or written-description attack given the family's claim-construction history). The corollary risk: because you have no IPR history to work from, you also have no Board- or Federal Circuit-blessed construction of "biasing portion," "deflect in an axial direction," or "groove portion of the body" to hand the district court. Expect PPC to argue these terms are structural and definite to avoid § 112.

Pattern signals.

• Same petitioner, multiple patents: Amphenol filed four parallel IPRs in one day (2022-03-18) against four PPC connector patents, all four went to FWD with all challenged claims held unpatentable, and all four were affirmed by Rule 36 on 2026-03-04. PPC is a serial PTAB defendant that has now lost four patents on the merits. That is a favorable precedent backdrop for a new petitioner, even though the '184 itself is untested.
• No defensive aggregator detected. I found no Unified Patents (or similar) filing against the '184 or its siblings.
• Patent owner fights appeals hard. PPC's appellate record on this family is substantial: PPC Broadband v. Corning Optical Commc'ns, 815 F.3d 734 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (vacated-in-part, favorable to PPC) and the four Amphenol appeals (2024-1776 et seq., adverse to PPC). PPC litigates through to the Federal Circuit; budget for an appeal of any adverse FWD.
• Litigation on the '184's docket-facing side is confirmed but not itemized here. The Google Patents page flags "Family has litigation." I did not identify the specific '184 complaint(s), so I am not opining on § 315(b) timing for any particular defendant.

Recommended next steps

1. Verify the zero-count before you budget. Pull PTAB E2E case search on the '184 and on the seven serial numbers listed above, and confirm the ODP null result. If you find a proceeding my search missed, the claim-level disposition — not the family history — governs.
2. Run your § 315(b) clock immediately. With PGR foreclosed (window closed on or about 2024-08-07), IPR is your only AIA route. If a complaint alleging infringement of the '184 was served on you more than one year ago, you are barred under § 315(b) — pivot to district-court invalidity and ex parte reexam.
3. Build the petition around claim 1's "not fully tightened" / "biasingly maintain a ground path" limitation. That temporal/positional limitation is exactly the kind of language the Federal Circuit in PPC Broadband v. Corning, 815 F.3d at 745–47, held requires separate factual findings and which the Board failed to make. It is also the same concept held unpatentable in the Amphenol FWDs against PPC's 9,225,083. Use Youtsey, Lionetto, Horak, Tarrant, Bell, and Campbell as your art base — but note that these are Amphenol's grounds on different patents, so you must independently establish that they teach the '184's "deflection ... based on a configuration of a groove portion of the body."
4. Also develop a § 112 defense in parallel. "Configured to deflect in an axial direction based on a configuration of a groove portion" and "biasingly maintain a ground path ... including when the coaxial connector is not fully tightened" are strong candidates for indefiniteness / lack of written description under § 112, and they do not depend on prior-art estoppel or on § 315(b).
5. If you do file, over-disclose RPIs. IPR2014-00440 is now precedential (designated 2025-10-28) and the Board dismissed and vacated institution for under-disclosure. Name parents, sister companies, and any funder/controller of the petition.
6. Model the appeal. PPC appealed an adverse FWD in all four Amphenol cases and lost only at Rule 36. Plan for a Federal Circuit appeal following any adverse FWD, and note the statutory 1-year trial deadline from institution under § 316(a)(11) for your trial-stage milestones (institution deadline ~3 months from petition filing under § 314(b); no extensions absent good cause).

Bottom line: I found no AIA trial proceeding on US 11,811,184 — the canonical ODP list says zero and my searches corroborate it. The patent is untested, un-narrowed, and un- estopped at the PTAB, but it belongs to a family and a portfolio in which PPC has now lost four patents to Amphenol (FWDs 2023-10-25; affirmed 2026-03-04, Nos. 2024-1776 through -1779) and has litigated claim construction to the Supreme Court's doorstep in Cuozzo-era disputes. There is no "the claims are already canceled" argument available to you; your defense has to be built.

I'll research this patent's ownership history before writing the analysis.

I'll research US11811184B2, starting with the patent itself and then its cited prior art.

Let me look deeper into the specific citation data and prior art references for this patent.

Let me access the patent's front page (which lists cited references) and the Unified Patents citation portal.

Summary of findings

Important limitation up front: Within this session I was able to confirm the identity, family, claims, and prosecution/litigation context of US 11,811,184 B2, but I was not able to retrieve the authoritative front‑page "References Cited" (PTO‑892) list as printed on the '184 patent itself. The Google Patents text supplied to me does not include the patent‑citation section, and my searches did not return the '184 front page. Anything below that is drawn from sibling patents, PTAB records, or third‑party portals is labeled as such. I will not represent an unverified reference list as the official one.

1. Patent identification (verified)

Continuation chain (from the '184 specification, verified):
13/075,406 (3‑30‑2011 → US 8,366,481) → 13/726,330 (12‑24‑2012 → US 8,480,430) → 13/913,043 (6‑7‑2013 → US 9,608,345) → 14/173,462 (2‑5‑2014 → US 9,660,360) → 15/601,455 (5‑22‑2017 → US 10,186,790) → 16/254,317 (1‑22‑2019) → 16/788,008.

The asserted claims 1, 10, and 20 (the only independent claims I could read in full; dependent claims 2–9, 11–19, 21–29 also appear) are directed to a body for a coaxial connector having an integral biasing portion with a forward facing surface, a groove/deflection space, that biasingly maintains a ground path between the post and coupler even when the connector is not fully tightened on the interface port.

2. Prior‑art references I could actually tie to this patent/family

2a. References appearing in the patent‑family's cited list (high confidence these are family references; medium confidence they appear verbatim on the '184)

The sibling/continuation patents in this family (US 8,475,205; US 8,485,845; US 9,608,345, etc.) print an identical "References Cited" block, and the '184 shares the same specification. That block includes:

• US 331,169 A — Thomas — 11/1885
• US 1,371,742 A — Dringman/Drinaman — 3/1921
• US 1,667,485 A — MacDonald — 4/1928
• US 1,766,869 / 1,766,889 A — Austin — 6/1930
• US 1,801,999 A — Bowman — 4/1931
• US 1,885,761 A — Peirce, Jr. — 11/1932
• US 2,102,495 A — England — 12/1937
• Foreign: CA 2096710 A1 (11/1994); CN 201149936 Y (11/2008); CN 101060690 A (10/2007)
• Non‑patent: "Digicon AVL Connector," ARRIS Group Inc. (retrieved Apr. 22, 2010)

Assessment: These are ancient mechanical/spring‑contact and bushing art, cited as general background. None of them discloses the claimed combination of (i) a body with (ii) an integral resilient biasing portion that (iii) biases a coupler against a post to (iv) maintain a ground path when not fully tightened. In my view none anticipates under §102 any of claims 1, 10, or 20; they are, at most, weak §103 background.

2b. References reported by third‑party portals as cited by US 11,811,184 B2 (low‑to‑medium confidence — not confirmed against the PTO‑892)

The Unified Patents portal surfaced these in direct association with "US‑11811184‑B2":

• US 4,354,721 A — "Attachment Arrangement for High Voltage Electrical Connector"
• US 3,544,705 A — "Expandable Cable Bushing"

I could not verify the issue dates, assignees, or full text of these two in this session, and the portal display was ambiguous (they may be "similar documents" rather than "cited by."). Treat as unconfirmed.

2c. Prior art asserted against PPC's related patents in PTAB proceedings (relevant art; NOT confirmed as citations on the '184)

From IPR/reexam records involving PPC's related continuity patents (e.g., IPR2013‑00345 on US 8,313,353; proceedings on the "'053" and "'063" patents), the following references were used, several of which are directly on‑point for the "ground path when loose" problem:

These appear in the IPR/reexam record; I could not confirm in this session that any of them is printed in the "References Cited" section of the '184 patent.

Source for 2c: PTAB/public‑information PDFs surfaced in search (e.g., ptacts.uspto.gov petition documents for IPR proceedings involving PPC Broadband).

3. Which claims could potentially be anticipated under §102

The user asked specifically for §102 anticipation. I want to be candid: on the record I could retrieve, no single reference appears to disclose every element of any independent claim. The claimed combination in claims 1/10/20 is quite specific:

1. a body (not a separate add‑on continuity member) that
2. has an integral biasing/resilient portion with a forward‑facing surface,
3. a groove/deflection space enabling axial deflection, and
4. that biasingly maintains a ground path between post portion and coupler portion even when not fully tightened.

A single§102 reference would need all four. My assessment of the likely candidates:

• Claim 1 (§102 candidates): The family‑cited old art (Thomas, England, Peirce, etc.) and the two portal references (US 3,544,705, US 4,354,721) — subject to confirmation — most plausibly relate only to old spring‑contact/bushing structures lacking the coupler‑post ground‑path‑when‑loose feature. Low likelihood of a clean §102 anticipation; would need the actual reference text to confirm.
• Claim 10 (biasing portion + groove of "a third portion"): same reasoning; the multi‑portion structural limitation makes a single‑reference §102 harder.
• Claim 20 (resilient biasing + deflection space + inward lip moved toward post flange + improve ground path when not fully tightened): This is the claim that maps most closely to the Bence disclosure (loose‑connector problem + alternate ground path) and to Youtsey/Tatsuzuki, but those are the references relied on in IPR as an obviousness combination (§103), not as standalone anticipation.

If §102 is the target, the strongest candidates I can identify are Bence (for the "ground path when loose" concept) and Tatsuzuki (for a continuity member accommodated in the connector bridging the nut and post) — but neither, on the PTAB record I saw, discloses the integral resilient body portion with a groove that all three independent claims require. So they are better characterized as §103 references.

4. What I could NOT verify (explicitly)

1. The verbatim "References Cited" list printed on US 11,811,184 B2 — not retrievable in this session.
2. Issue dates / assignees / full text of US 4,354,721 and US 3,544,705; even whether they are "cited by" vs. "similar" on the '184.
3. Whether any PTAB‑asserted reference (Matthews, Tatsuzuki, Youtsey, Tarrant, Bence, Choudary, Bunyan, Peng) is actually printed as a citation on the '184.
4. The complete text of claims 30–50 (the provided excerpt cut off mid‑claim 29).

5. Recommended next step

To produce a definitive per‑citation §102 table, the authoritative source is the PTO‑892 / front page of US 11,811,184 B2 (U.S. PatentCenter, "References Cited") or the Google Patents "Patent Citations" tab. I was unable to pull those in this session, so I have deliberately not fabricated a citation list. If you can supply the patent's PDF front page or the PatentCenter "Patent Citations" export, I can map each reference to claims 1, 10, 20 (and 30–50) with the exact §102/§103 basis.

I'll first try to retrieve the actual prior-art/citation section for this patent, since the text provided in the user message does not itself include a "Prior Art" listing.

I need to locate the actual "Prior Art"/references-cited content for this patent, since the page text provided does not include it. Let me search more specifically.

Let me pin down the identity of the key references that appear in this patent family's record, so I cite them accurately.

1. A threshold note on the "Prior Art section"

I want to flag something before the analysis, because it affects how much weight you should give what follows.

The page text supplied for US 11,811,184 B2 ("Connector producing a biasing force," PPC Broadband, Inc.; inventors Ehret, Haube, Montena, Zraik; Appl. No. 16/788,008; filed 2020‑02‑11; granted 2023‑11‑07; priority 2011‑03‑30; source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11811184/en) does not contain a "References Cited" / prior‑art listing. The only prior‑art metadata actually on that page is:

• Prior art keywords: post · interface port · coupling · biasing · coupler
• Prior art date: 2011-03-30
• Family has litigation (first worldwide family litigation filed; Darts‑IP family 46927826)
• IPC/CPC classes: H01R9/05, H01R9/0527, H01R13/5025, H01R13/62, H01R13/622, H01R4/48, H01R43/16, H01R43/26, etc.

So I cannot "use the results from the Prior Art section" verbatim — there isn't one on the fetched page. What I can do, and do below, is (a) use the art that the applicant and the USPTO/PTAB actually put in this family's record, which I located in the related AIA proceedings and the family's front pages, and (b) flag every identifier I could not independently verify in this session rather than asserting it.

2. The claims to be tested

Independent claims are 1, 10, 20 (claims run to 50; the supplied text truncates mid‑claim 29). All three independents are directed to "A body for a coaxial connector" — i.e., a subcombination claim to the connector body itself, not to the assembled connector.

Dependents add: first/second positions on partial vs. full threading (2, 15, 24); radial contact surface (3, 16, 25); radial extension (4, 16, 25); cooperation with groove for deflection (5); resilient portion flexing between un‑deformed and deformed states (6); biasing the coupler forward on unthreading (7, 17, 26, 28); "constantly applied spring force" (8, 18, 27); lip/flange biasing to prevent separation (9, 19, 29).

Two construction points that matter for §103:

1. The specification supports these bodies in two structurally distinct ways: (i) the separate oversized O‑ring biasing member 70 sitting in cavity 38 / annular recess 56 (connector 100, FIG. 1A), and (ii) the one‑piece body 250 with a resilient integral portion 256 and a notch/groove 258 providing a deflection space (connector 200, FIGS. 8A–10B). The claims are written to cover both, because "biasing portion" is not limited to an integral formation and "groove portion"/"deflection space portion" reads on both the annular recess 56 and the notch 258.
2. Because claims 1/10/20 recite only a body, the examiner can rely on prior art showing the body as part of an assembled connector (the familiar "subcombination" rationale, In re Kalm, 378 F.2d 959 (CCPA 1967) — a claim to a subcombination with no separate utility apart from the combination is not patentable over the combination). Whether the '184's body has separate utility (e.g., as a service replacement part) is a genuine but narrow argument. I'd note Kalm and the subcombination line as a supporting rationale, not a standalone rejection basis.

Effective filing date — the single most important issue. The '184 is the latest link in a straight continuation chain recited on its face: 16/254,317 (US 10,559,898) ← 15/601,455 (US 10,186,790) ← 14/173,462 (US 9,660,360) ← 13/913,043 (US 9,608,345) ← 13/726,330 (US 8,480,430) ← 13/075,406 (US 8,366,481), all tracing to 2011‑03‑30. If the granted claims are fully supported by the 2011 disclosure (they appear to be, since body 250/portion 256/notch 258 are described in the shared specification), then:

• the §103 art window closes at 2011‑03‑30, and
• almost the entire "continuity member" literature of 2011–2014 is unavailable, including PPC's own siblings and competitors' filings (see §6 below).

That is the patent's best defense, and any obviousness theory must survive it.

A secondary wrinkle: because the application was filed after 16 March 2013, which §102/§103 version applies depends on whether the application ever contained a claim with an effective filing date on or after 16 March 2013 (AIA §3(n)(1)). For a clean continuation with only 2011‑supported claims, pre‑AIA §102/§103 should govern; if the file shows any claim ever asserted a later effective date, AIA §102/§103 govern. I did not have the file wrapper in this session and cannot resolve this — confirm before relying on pre‑AIA §§102(b)/102(e) vs. AIA §§102(a)(1)/(a)(2).

3. Applicant‑admitted prior art (AAPA) — usable under §103 without a reference

The Background is a self‑inflicted wound and is the strongest non‑reference evidence in the case. The '184 expressly admits:

• Coaxial connectors are "typically connected onto complementary interface ports," and continuity "involves the continuous contact of conductive connector components which can prevent radio frequency (RF) leakage and ensure a stable ground connection."
• "metallic conductive O‑rings utilized by a coaxial cable connector that may be disposed in a position of exposure to environmental elements may be insufficient over time due to the corrosion, rusting, and overall degradation of the metallic O‑ring."
• "some metallic connector components can permanently deform under the torque requirements of the connector mating with an interface port," causing "intermittent contact … and a loss of continuity."

This is an admission that (i) O‑rings between connector components were a known expedient, (ii) the loose‑connector / intermittent‑contact grounding problem was known, and (iii) the known failure modes were corrosion and permanent deformation. Under MPEP 2143(B) and the line of cases approving reliance on applicant's admitted prior art, these admissions supply a large part of the motivation element for any combination below.

4. Candidate prior art, with confidence flags

5. Combination 1 — Youtsey + Lionetto, evidenced by Horak (+ Tarrant and/or Rodrigues)

Applies to: claims 1–9 and 10–19 (the "biasing portion = resilient member seated in an annular groove of the body" reading), and the corresponding method/apparatus claims.

Element mapping (claim 1):

Motivation to combine (this is the part the PTAB papers show was litigated and won by the petitioner side):

1. Same problem, same location. Youtsey itself says the O‑rings seal "from moisture and other corrosive agents." Lionetto and Horak both place a conductive elastomeric ring at exactly a metal‑to‑metal junction of a coaxial connector.
2. Known, documented failure mode of a loose connector. Maintaining a continuous ground shield across the connector when the connector is not properly tightened, or when cable movement breaks post↔nut contact, is a recognized need. RFI ingress at connector junctures and signal loss are the stated consequences — precisely the problem the '184's Background admits.
3. Simple substitution of a known element for a known element to obtain a predictable result — an elastomeric O‑ring is replaced with a conductive elastomeric O‑ring; you get sealing and continuity. MPEP 2143(B) / KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The Federal Register guidance quoted in the reexam papers frames this exactly: predictable substitution of known components at a known point of difficulty is prima facie obvious.
4. Design incentive / predictable variation. Making an existing seal conductive is a one‑way change with no change in geometry, assembly, or cost structure, so yields are predictable — reinforcing the KSR "design incentive" and "obvious to try" rationales.
5. The '184 adds nothing beyond the identified substitution-plus-placement. Its asserted novelty is where the resilient member sits (between the coupler's first end and the body, biasing the coupler toward the post) and what it achieves (ground path when not fully tightened). Youtsey's O‑ring 84 is already between the coupler and the body, and the asserted achievement is the admitted purpose of continuity/grounding.

Anticipated counter‑argument (already made by Patent Owner and rejected): that prior‑art grounding solutions placed the continuity member in contact with the post, not the body, thereby showing the art "taught away" from a body‑mounted member. The PTAB papers show the PTAB/examiner rejecting this because the Background of PPC's own patents admits the problem is at the connective juncture between port and connector, and Youtsey's O‑ring 84 is already between the coupler and body. That argument should likewise fail here.

6. Combination 2 — Combination 1 + a body having an integral resilient biasing/deflection portion

Applies to: claims 1, 5, 6, 20 (the "groove portion"/"deflection space portion" = the notch 258 of body 250, with the resilient integral portion 256 flexing between an un‑deformed and a deformed state).

If the claims are construed to cover the one‑piece body 250 embodiment (the specification's FIG. 8A–10B structure, and the structure the 2020 continuation claims appear drafted to capture), then the primary art showing a resilient member between coupler and body is combined with art showing an integrally formed resilient portion of a connector body separated by an annular groove so that it can deflect axially against the coupler to keep the coupler's lip pressed on the post flange.

• Primary: Youtsey (US 6,042,422 per the note above), or Montena US 6,558,194 / Rodrigues US 6,331,123 — all show body + rotatable coupler + post + an intervening annular resilient member.
• Secondary (candidate): the art that discloses "a quasi‑annular leaf spring formed integrally to the body" compressed between the body and the fitting so as to "exert an axial force against the fitting to maintain contact between the fitting and the body" — see US 2013/0330967 A1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130330967A1). ⚠️ Date problem: published 2013‑12‑19, i.e., after the '184's 2011‑03‑30 priority date. Under either pre‑AIA §102(e) or AIA §102(a)(2), a reference must be effectively filed before the claimed effective filing date. Do not use this reference against claims entitled to the 2011 date. It is only usable if the '184 is pushed off its 2011 priority (see §9). I list it because it is the closest structural disclosure I have found, and because it is the "smoking gun" a challenger would want if the priority date can be attacked.
• Pre‑2011 substitutes to investigate (I could not verify content/number in this session): Bence (U.S. Pat. No. 7,114,990) and Montena (U.S. Pat. No. 7,753,705), both cited on the face of related PPC family filings (EP 2 636 105 B1 lists "US 7753705 B, Montana [0003]; US 7114990 B, Bence [0003]; US 7097499 B [0003]" as applicant‑cited art). Verify whether either discloses a body‑integral resilient/spring portion bearing axially on a coupler.

Motivation to combine (second combination):

1. Known technique. Forming an annular groove to create a living hinge / cantilevered annular finger is a conventional mechanical expedient; using a plastic or compliant body to make a "one‑piece spring" is the ordinary way to eliminate a separate part. MPEP 2144.04 (obvious design choice to alter shape; obvious to eliminate a component by making it integral).
2. The '184 itself supplies the motivation. The specification states that because the body has the "resilient integral biasing or grounding portion 256," there is "no need for an additional component such as a metallic conductive continuity member that is subject to corrosion and permanent deformation." That is an express statement that the integral version is a substitution for the separate resilient/conductive member — the classic "substitute one known element for another to obtain a predictable result" fact pattern, and it also cures the two failure modes the Background itself admits (corrosion; permanent deformation).
3. Predictable result. Making a body wall thinner/resilient and adding a relieving groove to allow axial deflection is a routine design change with predictable deflection behavior (Hookean), so the result is predictable — KSR.
4. Art recognized the problem in the body region. Rodrigues and Montena already place a seal/biasing element between the coupler and the body, so the artisan already had the location and the function; only the implementation (integral vs. separate) changes.

7. Combination 3 — Coupler↔body continuity member art + the admitted corrosion/deformation problem

Applies to: claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12–14, 16, 19, 20, 23, 25, 28, 29 (radial contact surface; the "ground path between the first portion and the second portion" framing).

The PTAB/re‑exam papers for sibling PPC patents show the Examiner and PTAB repeatedly sustaining §103 rejections of coupler‑body continuity claims over combinations in which a resilient member (O‑ring) between the coupler and the body was replaced by a conductive one:

• Montena '194 in view of Bell — the Examiner rejected the parent '218 claims, acknowledging Montena '194 "doesn't show the seal being a conductive seal, the conductive seal electrically coupling the connector body and the threaded nut," and supplying that element from Bell.
• Youtsey in view of Lionetto, as evidenced by Horak — sustained against the '053 patent claims, with the Board noting the Background's own admissions of electromagnetic interference at the port/connector juncture, weathering, corrosion, and galvanic incompatibility (MPEP 2143(B)).

These are same‑family, same‑problem, same‑structure rejections. Where the '184's independent claims recite a "ground path between … portions" and a "radial contact surface," the coupler‑body continuity art (Montena '194 + Bell; Rodrigues; Youtsey + Lionetto/Horak) supplies the element, and the rearward‑facing coupler surface / forward‑facing body surface contact is an inherent geometric consequence of placing an annular member in the body's annular recess so that it bears on the coupler.

Motivation: identical to Combination 1, plus the "second electrical ground path" rationale that the PPC patents themselves developed — i.e., the known desire to provide an electrical path that survives a broken post↔coupler path.

8. The §102(a)(2) / §102(e) trap for PPC's own family (and why it mostly fails)

An obvious litigation instinct is to attack the '184 using PPC's own later continuations in the same family (16/254,317 → US 10,559,898; and the related applications listed in the Cross‑Reference: 13/712,470, 13/758,586, 13/971,147, 14/092,103, 14/092,003, 14/091,875, 14/134,892, 14/104,463, 14/104,363, 14/173,355). This generally will not work, and it is worth stating explicitly so it isn't attempted:

• Under pre‑AIA §102(e) and AIA §102(a)(2), a U.S. patent/application publication is prior art only if it was effectively filed before the claimed invention's effective filing date. All of these share the 2011‑03‑30 priority date. Same‑date art is not prior art under §102(a)(2). Nor is it "by another" if common ownership is combined with the §103(c) / AIA §102(b)(2)(C) exception.
• They are usable as prior art only if the '184's claims are denied the 2011 priority date (see §9).
• Separately, the "Cited By" items surfaced for the '184 — e.g., US 2019/0341705 A1 (PPC, 2019‑11‑07) and US 11,005,212 B2 (PPC, 2021‑05‑11) — are later‑published, later‑filed documents and are not prior art at all.

9. Where the obviousness case is weakest — the priority date

Every combination above is drawn from art dating from roughly 2000–2011, which is the correct window if the granted claims are entitled to 2011‑03‑30. Conversely, the strongest way to expand the prior‑art universe — and the way to unlock structurally closer art such as the integral‑leaf‑spring body disclosure (US 2013/0330967 A1) — is to attack the priority claim:

1. Written‑description / support attack. Claims 1/10/20 are drafted entirely in generic terms ("a body for a coaxial connector," "a biasing portion," "a groove portion," "a deflection space portion") and, on their face, cover both the FIG. 1A O‑ring embodiment and the FIG. 8A integral embodiment. A challenger can argue that the 2011 disclosure does not describe the genus of "body" chips broadly enough to support the granted claim scope, which — if successful — pushes the effective date to the 2020 filing, making 2011–2019 art available. This is a real risk given how broadly the 2020 claims are worded relative to the two illustrated species. (The claims were also substantially rewritten in the 2020 continuation relative to US 10,559,898 — worth checking the prosecution history for claim‑support rejections or amendments.)
2. Intervening‑rights exposure. If priority is lost, the PPC sibling continuations and the competitor filings of 2011–2014 become §102(a)(2) art, and the case becomes far closer to a "the whole industry converged on this in 2011–2012" obviousness story — which weakens any secondary‑considerations argument considerably.
3. Subcombination utility. If priority holds, PPC's best rebuttal is that the claimed body per se is a separately useful article (replacement body). That is a narrow distinction and, under In re Kalm, unlikely to carry weight on its own.

10. Secondary considerations — what PPC will argue and how it fares

11. Bottom line

Prima facie case. Claims 1–50 of US 11,811,184 are, on their face, vulnerable to §103 over: Youtsey (US 6,042,422, verify the number) in view of Lionetto, as evidenced by Horak, optionally in further view of Tarrant/Rodrigues (US 6,331,123); and over Montena (US 6,558,194) in view of Bell for the coupler‑body ground‑path limitations. For the integral‑body/deflection‑space limitations (claims 1, 5, 6, 20), the case requires either a pre‑2011 reference disclosing a body‑integral resilient portion separated by an annular groove (candidates: Bence US 7,114,990; Montena US 7,753,705 — content unverified this session), or a successful attack on the 2011 priority date to reach US 2013/0330967 A1's integral leaf‑spring body.

The motivation/teaching element is unusually strong here because the applicant's own Background admits the known O‑ring expedient, the known corrosion failure, the known permanent‑deformation failure under torque, and the known RF‑leakage/ground‑continuity objective, and the specification itself describes the integral biasing portion as eliminating the separate (corrosion‑ and deformation‑prone) member — the textbook "substitution of a known element for another to obtain a predictable result" under KSR and MPEP 2143(B).

The decisive open question is the priority date. If claims 1/10/20 are fully supported by the 2011‑03‑30 disclosure, the prior‑art window is narrow and the closest structural art (2011–2013 competitor filings, and the integral‑leaf‑spring body) is excluded — and I would expect a well‑run defense to succeed on the priority date. If the priority date falls, the combination set above expands dramatically and the case for obviousness becomes strong.

Verification checklist before you file anything based on this

1. Confirm the identity of EX1007 "Youtsey" (I believe it is US 6,042,422, but I could not confirm the number from the face of the exhibit; the structure I describe is sourced from the PTAB petition/institution papers at ptacts.uspto.gov, petitions 1549312 / 1549313 / 1549314).
2. Pull the actual "References Cited" page of US 11,811,184 (and of US 10,559,898, its immediate parent) — the Google Patents snapshot you supplied omitted it; check the USPTO PatentCenter/Patent Public Search "References Cited" tab.
3. Verify US 7,950,958, US 8,157,589, and the identity of the "Krenceski '538" reference, plus the numbers for Lionetto, Horak, Tarrant, and Bell.
4. Confirm which statute applies (pre‑AIA §102/103 vs. AIA §102/103) per AIA §3(n)(1) using the file wrapper.
5. Confirm the written‑description support in the 2011 disclosure for the exact scope of granted claims 1/10/20; review the 16/788,008 prosecution history for any §112 or priority objections or amendments.