US 11992291

I'll search for this specific patent number and any litigation/docket information.

Let me search for litigation/docket information and claim details.

Let me get the claim text and check for Federal Circuit activity.

US 11,992,291 B2 — Analyst Summary

Sources used: the authoritative full text you supplied (Google Patents, US11992291B2), plus live searches for the granted-claim abstract, docket, and PTAB/family activity. Where the tools returned partial data, I flag it.

1. Bibliographic data

Prosecution/priority note (verbatim from the record): the application is a continuation of Ser. No. 17/832,340 (now U.S. Pat. No. 11,678,805), itself a continuation of 17/181,887 (now U.S. Pat. No. 11,353,440), and so on back through the 2012/2013 family. It claims priority from US 14/109,007, PCT/US2013/075700, PCT/US2013/075736, US 14/108,986, and PCT/US2013/075767 — all dated 2013‑12‑17. Later applications (US 18/646,390 → US 12,251,194; US 18/794,353 → US 12,426,788; US 18/802,879 → US 12,484,787; US 18/891,125; US 18/895,719) claim priority to 18/211,354, i.e., '291 is a parent in an active continuation family.

2. Abstract (as published)

"A sensing system includes laser diodes with Bragg reflectors generating light having an initial light intensity and one or more near-infrared optical wavelengths. The laser diodes are modulated with a pulsed output with 0.5 to 2 nanosecond pulse duration. A beam splitter receives light from the laser diodes, splits the light into a received sample arm light directed to an object and a received reference arm light. A detection system includes a second lens and spectral filters in front of a photodiode array. The photodiode array is coupled to CMOS transistors and receives at least a portion of the received reference arm light and generates a reference detector signal. The detection system is synchronized with the laser diodes. A time-of-flight measurement is based on a comparison of the sample detector signal and the reference detector signal and measures a temporal distribution of photons in the received reflected sample arm light."

This abstract corresponds closely to the first independent claim described in the full text.

3. Plain‑language overview of the independent claims

Important caveat: I was able to retrieve the patent's abstract and the description/embodiment text you supplied in full, but the tools did not return the verbatim, numbered claim set. The overview below is built from the claim‑style passages in the authoritative full text (the "definitions"/summary blocks) plus the published abstract. Treat it as a faithful reconstruction of scope, not a verbatim quotation of claims 1, N, and M.

The full text describes three principal independent claim families:

(A) Time‑of‑flight remote sensing system with reference‑arm normalization.
A sensing/remote‑sensing system has (i) multiple laser diodes that include Bragg reflectors as the internal wavelength‑selective element, emitting light at an initial intensity and one or more optical wavelengths, at least one of which is near‑infrared between 700 nm and 2500 nm; (ii) the diodes are modulated with a pulsed output of roughly 0.5–2 ns (and are coupled to driver electronics, a first lens, and one or more safety shut‑offs); (iii) a beam splitter that splits the light into a sample arm (directed at an object) and a reference arm; (iv) a detection system with a photodiode array behind one or more lenses and spectral filters, the array using CMOS‑coupled pixels, which first receives the reference‑arm light (producing a reference detector signal) and later receives the reflected sample‑arm light (producing a sample detector signal); and (v) a processor that performs a time‑of‑flight measurement by comparing the sample and reference signals, and specifically by measuring the temporal distribution of photons in the reflected light. The detection system is synchronized to the laser diodes via the Bragg reflectors.

(B) Two‑wavelength water‑absorption object identification (LED‑based).
An optical system uses a light source of multiple semiconductor sources modulated to produce NIR output (again 700–2500 nm), where at least a first source is an LED at ~1090 nm (a wavelength of lower water absorption) and at least a second source is an LED at ~1440 nm (a wavelength of higher water absorption). Wavelength‑selective optical filters (dielectric filters in the described embodiment) sit in front of each LED; a housing collects the filtered outputs and delivers them to an object and is couplable to an electrical circuit and processor. A detection system (photodetectors, at least partly indium gallium arsenide / InGaAs) synchronized to the LEDs receives reflected light and generates an output signal with a given SNR. The processor identifies the object based on water absorption by generating a first output‑signal part at the 1090 nm wavelength and a second at the 1440 nm wavelength, comparing the two to produce an output value, and comparing that value to a threshold.

(C) Multi‑diode TOF sensor coupled to an actively illuminated NIR camera.
A remote sensing system with first laser diodes (NIR 700–2500 nm, Bragg reflectors, 0.5–2 ns pulses, driver electronics) where a first beam splitter separates received light into multiple spatially separated beams directed to an object. A detection system with a photodiode array (pixels coupled to CMOS transistors) behind lenses and spectral filters receives the reflected light, is synchronized to the Bragg‑reflector diodes, and performs a time‑of‑flight measurement based on the time difference between diode emission and photon arrival (including measuring the temporal distribution of photons). The system is also coupled to an actively illuminated camera system, whose active illuminator emits NIR illumination (700–2500 nm) via second and third arrays of laser diodes, at least some with Bragg reflectors, with a second beam splitter separating that illumination into spatially separated beams and lenses directing it at the object. The camera's light‑detecting pixels form images, are synchronized to the diode arrays, and — via the processor — the whole system can be coupled to a wearable device, a smart phone, or a tablet.

Representative dependent‑claim subject matter in the text includes: Bragg reflectors in the diode arrays; 0.5–2 ns pulse modulation; driver electronics, first lens and safety shut‑offs; the second lens + spectral filter stack before the photodiode array; CMOS‑coupled pixel architecture; InGaAs detectors; dielectric filters; beam‑splitter spatial de‑multiplexing; and wearable/smartphone/tablet coupling.

4. Subject matter of the disclosure (context for the claims)

The specification is very broad and largely physiological/remote‑sensing in character, notwithstanding the "identifying objects" title. It works through: non‑invasive glucose/ketone/HbA1c monitoring (tooth enamel, fingernail, dorsal hand/foot as low‑artifact sites); dental caries detection in the SWIR (scattering falling as ~1/λ³; FIG. 16–17 and 26–27 data); active remote sensing of methane/ethane for natural‑gas leak detection and exploration; counterfeit and illicit drug screening through packaging; breast‑cancer optical imaging; explosives, paints, vegetation, soils, plastics, and food/agriculture screening; and fiber‑based super‑continuum sources (FIGS. 20–23). It also includes time‑of‑flight / actively‑illuminated camera material (FIGS. 47–49, 65–67) and figure content relating to laser‑tissue thermal effects and renal‑artery histology (FIGS. 79–83B).

5. Litigation and PTAB / Federal Circuit status

District court (confirmed):

• Omni MedSci, Inc. v. [Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.) LTD., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00356, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Tyler Division). Nature of suit 830 (Property Rights – Patent); cause of action 15 U.S.C. § 1126 patent infringement; complaint filed by Omni MedSci. Counsel of record for plaintiff: William E. Davis, III (Davis Firm, PC). Source: PacerMonitor case page. Note the source shows the case filed in 2026 with a docket last updated 05/02/2026 — slightly later than the date you gave me; I report it verbatim and flag the inconsistency.
• Google Patents additionally flags this family as having litigation, with the Unified Patents link pointing to the same E.D. Tex. case, and a Darts‑IP "first worldwide family litigation" link (family ID 69228103).

Related family litigation (context, not '291‑specific): Omni MedSci has litigated this family extensively against Apple (e.g., 2:18‑cv‑00134‑RWS and 2:18‑cv‑00429‑RWS, E.D. Tex.; 4:19‑cv‑05924 and 2:20‑cv‑00563‑YGR, N.D. Cal.), and the parent patents U.S. 9,651,533 and U.S. 10,517,484 were held unpatentable in IPR2019‑00916 and IPR2021‑00453 respectively (Federal Circuit affirmed as to the '533; the '484 appeal Apple v. Omni MedSci, No. 25‑1646 (Fed. Cir.) was still pending as of the sources retrieved).

PTAB (related, from retrieved filings): Samsung (with Fossil, Oura Health, OnePlus) has filed IPR2025‑01249, IPR2025‑01250, and PGR2025‑00063 against Omni MedSci patents in this family (the retrieved exhibits concern U.S. 9,651,533 and U.S. 10,874,304). I could not confirm that any of those petitions specifically challenges US 11,992,291.

CAFC 2026 dockets: ⚠️ I could not confirm any Federal Circuit appeal naming US 11,992,291. The Omni MedSci appeals surfacing in my searches involve the '533 and '484 patents (including the pending No. 25‑1646), not '291. The 2026 Samsung dispute appears to be at the district‑court (and possibly nascent PTAB) stage only. If an appeal exists, it would most plausibly arise from the E.D. Tex. case above, but I have no authoritative record of one.

6. Confidence and open items

• High confidence: patent number, title, inventor, assignee, application number, filing date, issue date, publication date, priority date, abstract text, the existence and docket number of the E.D. Tex. Samsung case.
• Medium confidence: the three‑independent‑claim reconstruction in §3. It is derived from claim‑style summary passages in the authoritative full text plus the abstract, but I did not retrieve the verbatim, numbered claim set, so the exact number of independent claims (I believe three), their exact boundaries, and the precise claim numbers are not confirmed. Also, deponent‑claim counts and any "wherein" clauses I did not see are unverified.
• Not confirmed / explicitly uncertain: (a) whether US 11,992,291 has been challenged in any IPR/PGR; (b) whether it is on appeal at the Federal Circuit in 2026; (c) the exact complaint filing date in 2:26‑cv‑00356 (the source shows a partial date and a docket update after the date you provided); (d) the accuracy of the 2033‑12‑17 expiration, which Google Patents labels an assumption.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11992291.

Let me search more specifically for the assignee and the litigation references found on the patent page.

Let me dig deeper into the specific case linked on the patent's Google Patents page and search for the patent number in litigation documents.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 11,992,291

Bottom line first (with an important caveat): I could not confirm from the sources I retrieved any district-court complaint that expressly identifies U.S. Patent No. 11,992,291 by number. The only direct record I found tying this specific patent to litigation is the "Family has litigation" entry on the patent's own Google Patents page, which links to a Texas Eastern District Court case. I did not get a hit on PACER/CourtListener/Unified Patents that names '291 in a complaint. Treat the case below as the litigation associated with this patent by the patent record's own linkage, not as a confirmed identification of '291 in a complaint.

Case directly linked to US 11,992,291 by the patent record

Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

• Source of the linkage: the Google Patents page for US11992291B2 carries a "Family has litigation" pointer to portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas Eastern District Court/case/2:26-cv-00356, and a Darts‑IP global family-litigation link (family 69228103).
• Source of the party/docket detail: PACER Monitor (cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/64454741/...) and Justia Dockets (dockets.justia.com/.../2:2026cv00356), both listing the same three Samsung entities.

Caveat on which patents are asserted: A secondary complaint-analysis summary for 2:26-cv-00356 lists asserted patents including U.S. 12,426,788; 12,588,820; 12,599,305; and the '283 patent, with a separate analysis addressing '475 and '787. US 11,992,291 was not shown in the excerpted list. Because 11,992,291 is a family member of the same Omni MedSci continuation family (it claims priority to the 2012‑12‑31 family and has continuation children such as US 12,251,194 and US 12,426,788), the Google Patents "family has litigation" flag can reflect family-level litigation rather than this specific patent being asserted. I could not verify the full complaint.

Related litigation in the same patent family (siblings/parents — not confirmed as asserting '291)

• Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:24-cv-01070-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) — pending; involves the '790 patent.
• Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:25-cv-00483 (E.D. Tex.) — dismissed without prejudice on plaintiff's own motion (court made no merits/validity finding).
• Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2:18-cv-134-RWS and No. 2:18-cv-429-RWS (E.D. Tex.) — asserted the '533, '040, '286, and '698 patents.
• Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Nos. 4:19-cv-05924, 3:19-cv-05673, and 2:20-cv-00563 (N.D. Cal.) — including a standing dispute over ownership (Michigan employment agreement), which the Federal Circuit resolved against Apple (no present automatic assignment).
• Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 7:26-cv-00226 (W.D. Tex.) — targets Apple Watch, AirPods, iPhone, and iPad; asserts (per a complaint summary) U.S. 11,896,346; 11,678,805; 12,251,194; and the '475 and '787 patents.
• Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Whoop, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00140 (D. Del.) — pending.

PTAB / post-grant proceedings (not district-court litigation, but part of the same enforcement campaign): IPR2019-00916 and IPR2020-00029 (Apple v. Omni MedSci, '533), IPR2021-00453 (Apple v. Omni MedSci, '484), IPR2025-01250/01253 and PGR2025-00064 (Samsung et al. v. Omni MedSci), PGR2026-00003 (Whoop v. Omni MedSci, '790), and others. These involve related patents, not 11,992,291.

What I could not verify

• I could not open the Unified Patents litigation portal page, PACER directly, or the Darts‑IP family record to independently confirm that 11,992,291 is asserted in 2:26-cv-00356.
• I found no CAFC appeal, judgment, settlement, or termination specific to 11,992,291.

Disclosure / accuracy notes

• Per your rule, I interpreted the identifier literally as 11,992,291; searches for similar numbers (e.g., 8,928,119; 8,043,119; 12,193,790) were excluded as non-matches.
• Date anomaly: your instruction states the current date is April 26, 2026, but several retrieved dockets and secondary sources are dated May–June 2026 (e.g., the 2:26-cv-00356 entries and a Federal Circuit summary "for week ending May 8, 2026"). I am reporting them as found and flagging the inconsistency rather than adjusting them.
• The Google Patents page states its assignee/litigation listings "may be inaccurate" and that legal status is an assumption; I have not performed a legal analysis of that data.

If you need certainty, the definitive next steps are: (1) pull the 2:26-cv-00356 complaint and its exhibits from PACER to confirm whether '291 is named; and (2) check the Omni MedSci docket list on CourtListener/PACER for any additional case filed after the sources I could retrieve.

I'll start by checking the canonical ODP-derived list against what's publicly findable, since the structured block indicates zero AIA proceedings.

The search results reveal an active Omni MedSci patent war, but I need to confirm specifically whether this patent (11,992,291) has ever been challenged. Let me drill down.

The family history is rich, but I still have no proceeding naming 11,992,291. Let me check the patent's own branch (time-of-flight) and the 2026 litigation/PTAB wave.

PTAB / AIA Trial Report — U.S. Patent No. 11,992,291 B2

"Identifying objects using near-infrared sensors, cameras or time-of-flight detectors"
Patent Owner: Omni MedSci, Inc. · Inventor: Mohammed N. Islam · Granted 2024-05-28 · App. 18/211,354 filed 2023-06-19 · Priority claimed 2012-12-31

Proceedings overview

There are zero (0) AIA trial proceedings on file against U.S. Patent No. 11,992,291 — the ODP-derived "PTAB proceedings on file" block is empty, and my independent search did not surface any IPR, PGR, or CBM naming the '291 (breakdown: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials). The bottom-line defensive posture is therefore "untested — not hardened, not cancelled," which is materially different from either of the framings in the task prompt: no one has ever asked the Board to invalidate a claim of this patent, so a defendant gets neither the gift of a cancellation record nor the comfort of a prior panel having blessed it — but the patent is a brand-new continuation that was only first asserted around 2026-08-01, so the absence of PTAB history is a function of timing, not of the patent having survived scrutiny.

Do not let anyone tell you this patent "survived" anything. Its siblings have been litigated at the PTAB for six years and have a mixed-to-poor record for Omni. The '291 itself has never been before the Board.

Proceedings on US 11,992,291

None on file — no proceeding exists to summarize

No petition number can be reported because no petition has been filed (or, at minimum, none has been indexed). Per the structured ODP block, "the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest." I found no corrective evidence on the open web. Any proceeding number I might put in this section would be fabricated, so this section is intentionally empty.

Timing context that explains (and does not excuse) the blank: the '291 is a 2023-filed continuation that issued 2024-05-28, and Omni does not appear to have asserted it until the mid-2026 complaint wave. Reported here for accuracy: a Korean trade report (the-biz.co.kr, published 2026-08-26) states Omni MedSci sued Samsung Electronics / Samsung Electronics America / Samsung Semiconductor in the E.D. Tex. (Marshall) on 2026-08-01, asserting eight patents including U.S. 11,992,291, alongside 10,126,283; 11,241,156; 11,596,311; 11,678,805; 12,426,788; 12,588,820; and 12,599,305. If service was effected in August 2026, a § 315(b) one-year bar date lands around 2027-08-01 for that defendant.

Adjacent family proceedings — NOT proceedings on the '291 (do not cite as '291 outcomes)

These are the Omni MedSci / '533-and-'484-patent-family proceedings that actually exist on the record. They matter to a '291 defendant for prior-art mapping, collateral-estoppel arguments, and § 314(a)/§ 325(d) strategy — not as invalidity of the '291.

IPR2019-00916 — Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc. (U.S. 9,651,533)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2019-04-10 (Paper 1)
• Status: Final Written Decision — all challenged claims unpatentable; affirmed on appeal
• Judge panel: Not confirmed in the records I reviewed (institution decisions in the companion IPR2020-00029 were by APJs McNamara, Horvath, and Fenick)
• Petition grounds: § 103 obviousness (Lisogurski-based grounds, per later briefing) against claims 5, 7–10, 13, and 15–17
• Institution decision: Instituted 2019-10-18 (Paper 16)
• Final Written Decision: 2020-10-14 (Paper 39) — claims 5, 7–10, 13, and 15–17 held unpatentable as obvious
• Appeal: Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 21-1229 (Fed. Cir.) — affirmed (2022 WL 2062168, 2022-06-08)
• Defensive value: Claim 5 and its dependents are dead. Critically, claims 11 and 12 of the '533 were never challenged — the Delaware court expressly noted that the IPR "did not address claims 11 or 12 of the '533 patent, the only two claims of that patent that are asserted in this case." Untested claims are not unstoppable claims; they are simply the next target.

IPR2021-00453 — Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc. (U.S. 10,517,484)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2021-01-22 (Paper 1)
• Status: Final Written Decision on remand — all claims held unpatentable; Omni's second appeal pending
• Institution decision: Instituted 2021-08-06 (Paper 7)
• Final Written Decision: 2022-08-03 (Paper 22) — claims 1, 2, 7, and 15–23 unpatentable as obvious; claims 3–6 and 8–14 held not shown unpatentable
• Appeal: Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., No. 23-1034 (Fed. Cir.) — reversed and remanded (2024 WL 3084509, 2024-06-21) as to claims 3–6 and 8–14
• Remand FWD: 2025-02-14 (Paper 26) — claims 3–6 and 8–14 held unpatentable as obvious. Net effect: every claim of the '484 has now been held unpatentable by the Board.
• Appeal (second): Omni appealed the remand decision; Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 25-1646 (Fed. Cir.) — pending
• Defensive value: The '484 is the closest thing to a fully-cleared road in this family. If your accused product implicates only '484-type limitations, the Board has already invalidated the entire patent (subject to the pending appeal). The appeal is the tail risk.

The 2025–2026 Samsung / WHOOP wave (post-Grant Review and IPR) — '868, '533, '304, '455, '790, '475

• Petitioners: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Fossil Group, Inc., Fossil Stores I, Inc., Fossil Partners, L.P., Oura Health Oy, Ouraring, Inc., OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. (collectively "Samsung"); separately WHOOP, Inc.
• Filings: IPR2025-01249 ('868, claims 7–11, 13–14), IPR2025-01250 ('533, claims 6, 11–12, 14, 18), IPR2025-01251 ('304), IPR2025-01252 ('455), IPR2025-01253 ('790), IPR2025-01254 ('475), PGR2025-00063 ('475), PGR2025-00064 ('790) — petitions dated 2025-08-05; WHOOP IPR2025-01583 and IPR2025-01584 ('304) and a PGR of the '790 filed 2025-10-13 (docketed PGR2026-00003)
• Key procedural events:
  • IPR2025-01249 ('868): discretionarily denied (per the E.D. Tex./D. Del. case status tables).
  • IPR2025-01253 ('790): institution was granted and then vacated sua sponte by Director Review on 2026-05-06, and the petition denied, because the Director simultaneously instituted PGR2026-00003 (WHOOP's PGR on the '790) and found on that record that the '790 "is an AIA patent" and therefore PGR-eligible and not IPR-eligible. See the Director's Order: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2025-01253_Samsung_v_Omni_MedSci_DR_Decision.pdf
  • Petitioners filed "Additional Briefing Regarding the Impact of the Revvo and Tesla Decisions" in IPR2025-01250 (2025-12-12) — i.e., discretionary-denial law is being actively fought in these very cases.
  • The Delaware court (Omni v. WHOOP, C.A. 25-140) has twice addressed stay practice, ultimately noting the PTO had instituted IPR/PRG proceedings "with respect to all the asserted claims in each of the asserted patents."
• Defensive value: Omni's family-wide technique is to re-assert claims not previously challenged (e.g., '533 claims 11–12) and to keep filing continuations whose claims are new to the Board. The '291 fits that pattern exactly — a 2024-issued continuation with claims (Bragg-reflector laser arrays, beam splitters, ToF photon-distribution measurement) that no panel has examined.

Earlier Apple filings in the family (context only)

Apple filed a coordinated set of Omni IPRs in 2019 — IPR2019-00910 through IPR2019-00917 — and IPR2020-00029 ('546 patent, instituted; panel McNamara, Horvath, Fenick) and IPR2020-00175 (FWD 2021-06-14, Paper 26, claims held unpatentable over Lisogurski and Carlson; Omni noticed appeal). I could not verify from the records I reviewed which patent each of the 00910–00917 numbers maps to, and Omni's notice of appeal in IPR2020-00175 references a "'299 Patent," which I could not confirm against the '291. Treat these two paragraphs as leads for verification, not as established facts.

Strategic summary

Canceled vs. sustained vs. untested. For the '291 itself, the answer is "entirely untested" — no claim has been canceled, none has been sustained, and no FWD exists. What is established is the family pattern: every claim of U.S. 10,517,484 has been held unpatentable (FWD 2022-08-03 as to claims 1, 2, 7, 15–23; remand FWD 2025-02-14 as to claims 3–6 and 8–14, appeal pending at No. 25-1646); the challenged claims of the '533 (5, 7–10, 13, 15–17) were canceled and affirmed on appeal; and per WHOOP's own district-court briefing, "every claim arising from the '533 patent family that has been challenged has been found unpatentable." What survives in the family are claims that were never challenged — notably '533 claims 11 and 12, and the newer continuations such as the '304, '455, '475, '790, and the '291 — which are the subject of the pending 2025–2026 Samsung/WHOOP wave. So: the '291 is not "narrowed through IPR"; it is simply unexamined by the Board, and its closest family siblings are either dead or under active attack.

Estoppel landscape. Because there is no FWD on the '291, no petitioner is estopped under § 315(e)(2) as to the '291's claims. Estoppel is patent-specific: Apple's '533 and '484 FWDs do not estop Apple, Samsung, WHOOP, or anyone else from petitioning on the '291. The estoppel arrow points the other way and is Omni's problem: Samsung has argued (in PGR2025-00064 / IPR2025-01253 briefing) that where challenged limitations are "identical and/or substantially identical" to limitations the Board already held unpatentable in the '533 and '484 IPRs, Omni is collaterally estopped from relitigating unpatentability, citing Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2025-00002, Paper 17 (2025-05-15). Whether that argument transfers to the '291 depends on whether its limitations map onto the '533/'484 claims that were actually invalidated — and on the claim text I reviewed, they likely do not map cleanly: the '291's representative claims recite a remote sensing architecture — "a plurality of laser diodes," "one or more Bragg reflectors," a beam splitter splitting sample/reference arms, and a time-of-flight measurement based on "a temporal distribution of photons" — which is the time-of-flight branch of the 2012-12-31 family, not the wearable-physiological-measurement branch (LEDs, SNR-by-pulse-rate, Lisogurski/Carlson) that Apple invalidated. Practically: grounds still available to a new defendant include the full prior-art universe as applied to the ToF/Bragg-reflector claim limitations, subject only to the ordinary § 102/§ 103 bars and § 325(d) discretion. The Lisogurski/Carlson art may still be useful, but the estoppel shortcut is probably unavailable.

Pattern signals. Yes on all three, with one correction to the prompt's framing. (1) Repeat petitioners: Apple filed at least six to eight IPRs across this family (IPR2019-00910–00917, IPR2020-00029, IPR2020-00175, IPR2021-00453) and is litigating again (Omni v. Apple, W.D. Tex. No. 7:26-cv-00226, filed 2026-06-08). Samsung filed seven petitions in a single day in August 2025, and a different petitioner, WHOOP, has filed its own IPRs and the PGR that killed Samsung's '790 IPR — so the "same petitioner" pattern is really an industry-wide pattern, not a single serial petitioner. (2) Aggressive patent-owner appeals: Omni has appealed essentially every adverse FWD — Fed. Cir. Nos. 20-1715, 21-1229, 22-1034 (en banc rehearing sought on the Axonics untimely-argument issue), and 25-1646 — and has repeatedly won (or obtained) remands. (3) Defensive aggregators: I saw no Unified Patents or RPX-filed petition in the Omni chain; the challengers are all accused-infringer defendants (Apple, Samsung and its co-defendants, WHOOP). Note that Google Patents' "family has litigation" card for this family links to E.D. Tex. No. 2:26-cv-00356, which I could not verify as either the parties or the patent asserted; treat it as a lead.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant being asserted on the '291 — run the clock first.

• § 315(b) one-year bar. If you were served with the 2026 Samsung-style complaint around 2026-08-01, your IPR petition is due on or about 2027-08-01. Put a hard calendar entry now. After that date you are procedurally locked out of an IPR against the '291 (absent joinder under § 315(c) to a timely-filed petition).
• PGR is almost certainly not available. The '291 issued 2024-05-28; a PGR petition must be filed within 9 months of issuance, i.e., by 2025-02-28 — that window is closed. The only route back in would be the AIA-status argument the Director confronted in the '790: if the '291 contains a claim lacking written-description support in the 2012-12-31 priority application, it could be an "AIA patent" and PGR-eligible — but PGR2026-00003's institution shows the Office will litigate that question, and you cannot assume it.
• Do not build a defense on the theory that "the PTAB already killed this patent." It did not. The patent has never been before the Board. Pull the '291's claims against the '533/'484 FWDs (PTAB E2E, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and determine for yourself whether the invalidated limitations map onto the '291's ToF/Bragg-reflector limitations. My read of the claim text is that they do not map cleanly — assume you need your own grounds.
• Use the "identify an object" precedent. The Board has construed "to identify an object" in this family as "to recognize or establish an object as being a particular thing" (a construction affirmed by the Federal Circuit), and the '291's specification-description language ("configured to identify the object based on water absorption within the object… comparing… to a threshold value") puts that term squarely at issue. PGR2026-00003's petition briefing contains the competing constructions; borrow them.
• Expect a § 314(a)/§ 325(d) discretionary-denial fight. The parallel family campaign is crowded, and petitioners are already briefing Revvo and Tesla in these cases. Rank and explain your petitions, and consider a stipulation like Apple's in Apple v. Masimo (IPR2024-00243) to surrender the same art in district court — the Samsung/Omni record shows Omni is pressing discretionary-denial briefs, and a clean stipulation removes an argument.
• Watch the '484 appeal. Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 25-1646 (Fed. Cir.) is pending as of the 2025 briefing I reviewed. Because the '484 and the '291 share a 2012-12-31 family specification, any Federal Circuit holding on claim construction or on the Board's handling of these specifications can shift the '291 playing field before you file. Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/ (search "Omni MedSci"); PTAB records: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/.
• Diary the appellate outcome of the '533 affirmance, No. 21-1229 (Fed. Cir. 2022-06-08), if you intend to argue that the family's unchallenged claims (e.g., '533 claims 11–12, and the whole '291) are distinguishable from the canceled ones. That distinction cuts against you as much as for you.

If you are evaluating the '291 for acquisition or license: the absence of PTAB activity is the single biggest diligence gap. Budget for an IPR filed against you within twelve months of any assertion, and do not pay a "hardened patent" premium on the basis of the family's court wins — Omni has yet to win a validity judgment on any of these claims at the Board.

Verification limitations (stated expressly)

• The number of PTAB proceedings on the '291 is zero on the ODP-derived record. I did not independently query PTAB E2E or the PTAB API in this session; if a petition was filed recently, ODP ingest lag is the most likely explanation for its absence, and the one-year bar analysis above assumes no earlier petition exists.
• I could not verify the parties, court, or even the family member at issue in E.D. Tex. No. 2:26-cv-00356, the litigation link shown on the '291's Google Patents family card.
• The 2026-08-01 Samsung filing is sourced to a single Korean trade report, not to a docket I reviewed, and the patent list (including the '291) has not been confirmed against the complaint. The case number sequencing in E.D. Tex. Marshall (289 filed 2026-04-10; 470 filed 2026-06-12) is not obviously consistent with a 2026-08-01 filing number, so the date, the case number, or both need confirmation.
• Apple's 2019 IPR set (IPR2019-00910 through IPR2019-00917) and the patent at issue in IPR2020-00175 are not confirmed by me at the patent-number level; do not cite those mappings without pulling the papers.

I'll research the assignment chain for US 11,992,291, starting with the USPTO assignment records and cross-referencing ownership.

Let me dig into the specific USPTO assignment records and the assignee's corporate status.

Let me try to find the specific reel/frame for this patent's assignment and check the correspondent of record.

Assignment Record Reconstruction — US 11,992,291

Scope note / contradiction flag: The previously generated Litigation section records that "your instruction states the current date is April 26, 2026," whereas my current operating header states today is 2026-09-28. I am flagging this rather than resolving it; it does not affect the ownership analysis below (both dates post-date every recorded conveyance I could identify).

Sourcing limitation (stated plainly up front): I could not directly open the USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ / legacy https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) in this session, and I could not retrieve the reel/frame numbers for this patent. What follows is built from (a) the Google Patents legal-events tab for US 11,992,291 (which mirrors the assignment database), (b) the file-history exhibits from the Omni MedSci PTAB/IPR records, and (c) the Federal Circuit ownership record. Every reel/frame call below is therefore marked not retrieved, and I have not invented one. The chain's shape is well corroborated; the reel/frame citations are not.

Inventors

Unusual pattern — flag this, but it is not the "inventors departing the assignee" pattern: there is only one inventor, and he is the founder of the assignee. The salient anomaly is a university-ownership cloud over the entire family. UM's Office of Technology Transfer refused Dr. Islam's January 2013 request for a release, determined the work was University-supported, and repeatedly claimed ownership under UM Bylaw 3.10. Apple used this as a standing challenge; the Federal Circuit upheld Omni MedSci's title because "shall be the property of the University" is a future promise to assign, not a present automatic assignment. Consequence for diligence: the recorded Islam→Omni assignment is the load-bearing title link for this patent, and it survived a direct attack. There is no second-lien/security-agreement cloud visible.

Original assignee

Omni MedSci, Inc. — Ann Arbor, Michigan (corporate address on record: 1718 Newport Creek Dr., Ann Arbor, MI 48103), named as assignee on the face of the patent.

• Primary line of business: development of laser/optical non-invasive physiological sensing — the flagship disclosed program is a wearable, non-invasive glucose monitor ("lasers to do glucose monitoring," later LEDs), plus dental-caries detection, blood-constituent sensing, and SWIR/hyperspectral remote sensing (cancer imaging, gas leak detection, counterfeit-drug screening).
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? No verifiable commercial product found. The most substantive contemporaneous coverage (Crain's Detroit Business, July 2015) describes the company as developing a wearable glucose monitor — "paid for out of Islam's pocket," targeting a headset "in three years," with partnership meetings at Microsoft, Apple, Dell, and Johnson & Johnson. That is a development-stage posture, not a shipping-product posture. I could not find any retail, clinical, or catalog product embodying the '291 claims.
• Current status: appears to remain an active, privately held operating entity under founder control — it is still the recorded assignee and still prosecuting (58 granted US patents per PatentsView, latest grants into 2025-2026). No evidence of acquisition, dissolution, or bankruptcy was found.

Assignment timeline

There are records for this patent — the family has a recorded founder-to-company assignment plus a continuation-stage recording. This is not a "no assignments recorded" case.

1. 2013-12-17 (executed) / recorded 2013 (exact recording date not confirmed) — Reel/Frame not retrieved

• Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
• Assignor: Mohammed N. Islam
• Assignee: Omni MedSci, Inc.
• Correspondent: Brooks Kushman P.C. (Royal Oak, MI) — believed but not confirmed from the face of this recording; see the recurrence note below.
• Context: Internal founder-to-company assignment — the originating title transfer for the entire 2012-12-31 family, executed the same day as the family's non-provisional filings and expressly relied on by the Federal Circuit to establish Omni MedSci's standing in Omni MedSci v. Apple. (Executed date confirmed by the Federal Circuit record and law-firm chronology; reel/frame not confirmed.)

2. 2023-06-19 (recorded per Google Patents legal events; execution date not confirmed) — Reel/Frame not retrieved

• Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest (see document for details)
• Assignor: ISLAM, MOHAMMED N.
• Assignee: OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
• Correspondent: Brooks, Kushman P.C. / "Cheetah Omni MedSci," 150 W 2nd St., Suite 400N, Royal Oak, MI 48067 — this is the correspondent block that appears on the family's prosecution file histories (e.g., the '790 file history Exhibit 1002 filed in Samsung's IPR2025-01253). Recurrence flag: Brooks Kushman is the single repeated correspondent across the Omni MedSci chain — the same firm/address appears both on the 2013-era family prosecution and on the 2023 continuation. This is the "the LLCs change but the lawyer doesn't" tell — except here the assignee never changed at all, so it simply confirms a single, continuous, founder-directed prosecution/recording relationship rather than a shell rotation.
• Context: Internal continuation-stage confirmation — recorded at/near the 2023-06-19 filing of application 18/211,354. No change of beneficial ownership; assignor and assignee are identical to the 2013 link.

Assignments I searched for and did not find

• No security agreement (patent mortgage / collateral) in favor of any lender.
• No license or license-back recordation.
• No transfer away from Omni MedSci to any third party, LLC, or aggregator — i.e., the chain terminates at, and never leaves, the original assignee.
• No merger, change-of-name, or correction conveyances affecting this patent.

Bottom line for the chain: Omni MedSci, Inc. has owned this patent continuously from invention through today. There is no post-issuance transfer to analyze.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11992291
    2012 : Provisionals filed during UM leave
    2013 : Islam assigns family rights to Omni MedSci
    2023 : Continuation filed as 18 211 354
         : Islam assignment recorded to Omni MedSci
    2024 : Patent issues as US 11992291
    2026 : Family asserted against Samsung

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Assessment is against the chain of title as recorded. Because the chain never leaves the founder-controlled original assignee, several classic signals are structurally impossible here — but that is not the same as clearing the entity.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence (1 strong signal: repeat, high-frequency plaintiff; plus weak corroboration from the absence of any shipped product embodying the claims).

Justification, citing the record: The chain of title is clean and static — Mohammed N. Islam assigned the family to Omni MedSci, Inc. on 2013-12-17, and the same inventor assigned application 18/211,354 to the same Omni MedSci, Inc. by the recording dated 2023-06-19 (Google Patents legal events); there is no recorded shell transfer, no cascading LLC chain, no pre-litigation transfer, and no defensive-aggregator termination (signals 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 = not present). What drives the NPE call is the assertion posture of the record owner, not the chain: Omni MedSci is a founder-controlled, no-verifiable-product entity (Crain's Detroit Business, 2015 — company "developing" a wearable, "paid for out of Islam's pocket") that is a documented high-frequency plaintiff against Apple, Samsung, and Whoop and a repeated PTAB/PGR target, which satisfies the "surfaced by Unified Patents as a high-frequency plaintiff" prong of signal 2. This is a hybrid founder-operated entity, not a classic litigation shell — hence moderate, not high, confidence.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center (search by patent number 11992291): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Legacy interface: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events for this patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11992291/en

Two diligence items I could not close, and which you should run before relying on this:

1. Pull the reel/frame for both recordings from the Assignment Center. I could not retrieve them; the 2013 recording may exist only against the parent application numbers rather than against 11,992,291 itself, which is common for continuation practice and would explain a thin post-issuance record.
2. Confirm the correspondent of record on the 2023-06-19 recording specifically. The Brooks Kushman identity above is drawn from the family's prosecution-file correspondent block, not read off the assignment record itself.

I'll search for the USPTO record and cited references for US 11,992,291.

Let me search more specifically for the front-page citations and the patent's USPTO/Justia records.

Prior-Art Analysis for U.S. Patent No. 11,992,291

Important limitation up front (read before using anything below)

I was unable to retrieve the verbatim "(56) References Cited" front-page list for US 11,992,291 B2 within the tool budget available for this task (the run hit its step limit while I was still trying to open the Google Patents citation list, the USPTO Patent Center record, and the patentimages.storage.googleapis.com PDF for the '291 document itself). The web searches returned the patent's family, its prosecution/litigation context, and citations belonging to other patents, but not the '291 citation table.

Per your strict rule, I will not invent citation numbers, dates, or "Name of Patentee" fields. Fabricating a § 102 mapping to references I did not actually see would be worse than returning an empty list. So this answer does two things: (a) states exactly what is confirmed about the '291 record, and (b) lays out the prior-art categories and the specific references I can ground in retrieved evidence, each flagged by evidentiary status, with the § 102 analysis framework applied to each.

1. USPTO record for 11,992,291 (confirmed from the authoritative full text)

Critical dates for § 102. Because '291 claims priority to 2012-12-31, the effective filing date for the claimed subject matter is 2012-12-31 (assuming the claims are supported by that priority chain — a separate validity question the litigation has contested). That means:

• § 102(a)(1) art = anything publicly available before 2012-12-31.
• § 102(a)(2) art = U.S. patents / published applications effectively filed before 2012-12-31.
• § 102(b)(2)(C) / common-ownership and the same-family exception mean the many Omni MedSci sibling patents (e.g., 9,164,032; 9,651,533; 10,188,299; 10,517,484; 10,874,304; 11,353,440; 11,678,805; 12,251,194; 12,426,788) are not § 102 prior art to '291 — they share the '291 priority chain. They are relevant to OTDP / § 101 / § 112 and to claim scope, not to § 102.

2. Candidate prior art I can ground in retrieved evidence

Every item below is tagged with how I found it, because the strength of the "is it actually cited on '291?" inference varies.

A. References actually used against this patent family in PTAB (strongest substantive relevance)

These surfaced from retrieved PTAB litigation documents in the same Omni MedSci family, and are the references that have historically mattered for the "modulated LED/light source + signal-to-noise + detector" limitations that overlap '291's claims:

1. "Lisogurski" (U.S. patent — number not captured in retrieved text)

   • Where found: Omni MedSci's Notice of Appeal in IPR2020-00175 (via insight.rpxcorp.com), re the '546 patent. The Board found claims unpatentable over "Lisogurski alone," and over Lisogurski + Carlson.
   • Description (from the retrieved appeal text): a light source that "sometimes increases SNR by increasing LED firing rate," with cardiac-cycle modulation at ~1 Hz.
   • § 102/§ 103 relevance: The Board treated Lisogurski as teaching or suggesting a modulated LED light source whose pulse rate is increased to raise SNR, and a receiver that captures light while LEDs are on/off and differences the signals. If '291's LED/reflected-signal claims (the "water-absorption" family and the SNR/differencing limitations) survive to litigation, Lisogurski is the leading § 103 reference; standalone § 102 anticipation would require it to disclose the specific NIR 700–2500 nm limitation and the detector architecture, which I could not verify.
   • Status: Unverified as a citation on '291.

2. "Carlson" (U.S. patent — number not captured)

   • Where found: same IPR2020-00175 appeal text.
   • Description: teaches pulsing an LED at ~1000 Hz to reduce ambient-light noise.
   • § 103 relevance: secondary reference combined with Lisogurski for the modulation/SNR limitation.
   • Status: Unverified as a citation on '291.

3. "Park" (U.S. patent — referred to as "Park-533"; number not captured)

   • Where found: invalidity-exhibit list in the family litigation materials (patents.justia.com docket excerpts): "Charts 1‑3: Park‑533; U.S. Pat. No. 9,651,533 vs. Park."
   • Description: used as the primary anticipation reference in Apple's contention charts against the family's base '533 patent.
   • § 102 relevance: direct-anticipation candidate for the NIR light-source / detector claims if it discloses the 700–2500 nm NIR range plus the modulation and receiver architecture.
   • Status: Unverified as a citation on '291; confirmed as an asserted reference against a same-specification family sibling.

B. Non-patent literature cited in the same family (context, not confirmed on '291)

From the "OTHER PUBLICATIONS" lists retrieved for family members (e.g., US 10,928,374 and the Justia record for 12,268,475), the following NPL appears in the family's citation practice and is the kind of art a § 102/§ 103 analysis of '291's SWIR/NIR claims would turn on:

• Zakian, Pretty, Ellwood, "Near-infrared hyperspectral imaging of teeth for dental caries detection," J. Biomed. Opt. 16(6) 064047 (2009) — directly on-point NIR/SWIR imaging of teeth; predates 2012-12-31.

• Xu et al., "Integration of field work and hyperspectral data for oil and gas exploration," IEEE (2007); and Xu et al., Advances in Space Research 41:1800‑1817 (2008) — reflectance-spectra natural-gas detection.

• Yeh et al., "Monitoring blood glucose changes in cutaneous tissue by temperature-modulated localized reflectance measurements," Clinical Chemistry 49(6):924‑934 (2003).

• Reich, "Near-infrared spectroscopy and imaging: basic principles and pharmaceutical applications," Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 57:1109‑1143 (2005) — counterfeit/pharma ID.

• Olsen et al., "Screening for counterfeit drugs using near-infrared spectroscopy," Pharm. Tech. (2002); Palou et al., "Determination of drug, excipients and coating distribution in pharmaceutical tablets using NIR‑CI" (2012).

• Ooi et al., "Non-invasive glucose measurement using multiple laser diodes," Proc. SPIE 6445 (2007) — multiple-laser-diode NIR glucose measurement (relevant to '291's "plurality of laser diodes" limitation).

• Pedreschi et al. (2010); Pojic et al. (2012); Rambla et al. (1997) — food/agriculture NIR.

• § 102 relevance: these are printed publications predating 2012-12-31, so qualifying § 102(a)(1) art for the application-specific limitations (dental caries, natural gas, counterfeit drugs, glucose). Whether they anticipate '291's specific "laser diodes with Bragg reflectors + beam splitter sample/reference arms + CMOS photodiode array + time‑of‑flight / temporal photon distribution" claim language is not established from what I retrieved — the sweeping TOF/Bragg-reflector limitations are the distinctive ones and would need a dedicated reference-by-reference chart against the actual issued claims.

• Status: Confirmed as cited in the Omni MedSci family generally; NOT confirmed as cited on '291.

C. Items I specifically could not obtain

• The verbatim U.S. Patent Documents block (typical entries are optical/TOF/DBR-laser patents by third parties).
• The Foreign Patent Documents block.
• The "Cited By" (forward-citation) list.

3. § 102 mapping — what can and cannot be said

Because I do not have the actual (56) list, I will map only at the level the evidence supports:

Family-members are a trap to avoid: the many Omni MedSci TOF/Bragg-reflector patents returned in my searches (e.g., US 10,660,526 "Near-infrared time-of-flight imaging using laser diodes with Bragg reflectors", US 10,441,176, US 10,172,523, US 10,188,299, US 10,878,304, US 10,877,304) share the '291 priority chain and therefore cannot anticipate '291 under § 102. Do not treat them as § 102 art.

4. To close the gap definitively (recommended next steps)

1. Open https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11992291B2](/patent/US11992291B2)/en and read the "Cited By" / "References Cited" sections directly (or the "Cite" table), then pull the same from USPTO Patent Center for application 18/211,354 → "Document & Transaction History" → the PTO‑892 (List of References Cited) and the examiner's form 1449. Those are the only authoritative sources for the actual (56) list.
2. Pull the patentimages PDF (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/.../US11992291.pdf) front page, which prints the U.S./foreign patent-document citations verbatim — I attempted this but exhausted the tool budget.
3. For the § 102 cases most likely to be asserted in the E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00356 matter, obtain the parties' invalidity contentions and any IPR/PGR petition specifically naming 11,992,291 (I previously could not confirm that IPR2025‑01249/01250 or PGR2025‑00063 name '291; the retrieved petitions concerned 9,651,533 and 10,874,304).

5. Honesty statement

• Confirmed: the bibliographic record, priority dates, and family relationships of US 11,992,291 (from the authoritative full text and Google Patents family listings).
• Confirmed but family-level only: that "Lisogurski," "Carlson," and "Park" were used against sibling patents in the same specification family; that certain NPL (Zakian & Pretty 2009; Xu et al. 2007/2008; Yeh et al. 2003; Ooi et al. 2007; Reich 2005; Olsen 2002; etc.) appears in the family's citation lists.
• NOT confirmed and therefore not asserted: the actual "(56) References Cited" entries on the face of '291, any exact citation numbers/dates for Lisogurski/Carlson/Park, and any limitation-by-limitation § 102 anticipation mapping. I did not fabricate any of these. If you need the enumerated citation list, the review must resume with direct access to the '291 front page/PTO‑892, which the tool budget prevented here.

I'll ground this analysis in the prior-art material associated with this patent and related art. Let me run searches.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,992,291 B2

35 U.S.C. § 103 (AIA), Graham/KSR framework
Prepared: April 26, 2026 (date as instructed) · Analyst work product — not a legal opinion

0. Source note — what the "Prior Art section of this page" actually contains

You asked me to use the prior-art results from the page. I have to flag a limitation before the analysis, because it materially shapes what follows:

The authoritative page text you supplied (from https://patents.google.com/patent/US11992291B2/en) does not contain a "References Cited" or "Cited By" list. Its only prior-art content is the five indexer keywords:

light; remote sensing; sensing system; infrared; fiber

…plus the family/continuation linkage (US 14/109,007; PCT/US2013/075700; PCT/US2013/075736; US 14/108,986; PCT/US2013/075767 — all 2013‑12‑17) and the litigation pointers. There is no enumerated reference set on the face of the page you gave me to work from.

Consequently: (a) I cannot do a "face-of-the-patent references only" §103 analysis, and (b) I am building the grounds below from (i) the reference material cited in the related family members that I could retrieve, (ii) the PTAB/IPR record for this enforcement campaign, and (iii) prior art surfaced in search. I mark every reference as either "observed in retrieved material" or "from background knowledge — verify."

⚠️ Contradiction to flag with the earlier section: the earlier-generated summary said the record discloses that '291 "is a continuation of Ser. No. 17/832,340…" — the text you supplied to me this time does not contain that continuation sentence. I am treating the earlier statement as unverified for this analysis.

1. Governing framework and the gating date issue

1.1 Legal standard

Under AIA § 103, I weigh the Graham factors: scope/content of the claims, differences from the prior art, the POSITA's level of ordinary skill, and objective indicia. Rejections may rest on any of the KSR / MPEP 2143 rationales: (A) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) simple substitution of one known element for another; (C) use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way; (D) applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement; (E) "obvious to try"; (F) design incentives / market forces; (G) predictable variation of a recognized, result-effective variable.

1.2 Proposed POSITA

A person with an M.S. (or Ph.D.) in electrical engineering, applied physics, or optics and ~2–5 years' experience designing near-infrared/short-wave-infrared photonic systems — laser diodes and fiber sources, photodiode/CMOS detector arrays, optical filters, lidar/time-of-flight instrumentation, and NIR spectroscopy — or equivalent experience. (The Apple IPRs in this family used Dr. Brian W. Anthony as the POSITA witness; I did not retrieve the exact Board-approved definition — verify.)

1.3 The gating issue: the effective filing date is contested and it decides the case

'291 was filed 2023‑06‑19 and claims the 2012‑12‑31 / 2013‑12‑17 priority chain. Critically:

Why this is decisive: the claims are presumed to get the 2012 date, but if families A/B/C are new matter first supported in 2018–2023, their effective filing date is 2018‑06‑08 (Family A/C) or 2023 (Family B), and then:

• the applicant's own intervening publications become § 102(a)(1) prior art (the 102(b)(1)(A) grace-period exception reaches only disclosures ≤1 year before the effective date) — e.g. WO 2014/105520, WO 2014/105521, WO 2014/143276 (published 2014‑07‑03), US 2018/0292377, US 2019/0167114, US 2020/0037883, US 2020/0281477. Several of these describe essentially the same architecture (array of laser diodes with Bragg reflectors; photodiode array with CMOS pixels; spectral filters; TOF).
• the applicant's own § 102(a)(2) art is disqualified under § 102(b)(2)(C) (common ownership by Omni MedSci, Inc.) — but that exception does not reach the 102(a)(1) publications above.
• a large 2013–2022 body of third-party TOF/lidar and NIR sensor art becomes available.

I address both scenarios below. Bottom line: the strongest §103 attack on this patent is a priority/effective-date attack that unlocks the applicant's own 2014–2020 publications as prior art.

2. Claim architecture analyzed

Building on the earlier-generated section (and repeating the caveat that the verbatim numbered claim set was not retrieved), I analyze the three independent families:

• A — TOF remote-sensing system: laser diodes w/ Bragg reflectors, NIR 700–2500 nm, 0.5–2 ns pulsed output, driver electronics + first lens + safety shut-offs; beam splitter → sample arm (to object) + reference arm; detection system = second lens + spectral filters + photodiode array with CMOS-coupled pixels; reference signal then sample signal; detector synchronized to the diodes; processor does TOF by comparing sample vs. reference signals and by measuring the temporal distribution of photons.
• B — Optical system: modulated LEDs at ~1090 nm (lower water absorption) and ~1440 nm (higher water absorption); wavelength-selective (dielectric) filters in front of each; housing → object, coupled to circuit + processor; detection system of photo-detectors (at least partly InGaAs) synchronized to the LEDs; processor identifies the object based on water absorption by generating first/second output-signal parts and comparing them to produce an output value, then comparing that value to a threshold. (I retrieved near-verbatim claim text for this family from a sibling filing's claim set — claims 3, 4, 6, 7, and independent claim 15 — via the Omni MedSci portfolio listing at Linknovate, and the '317 pre-grant publication's abstract/text at Justia.)
• C — Multi-diode TOF sensor (beam splitter → spatially separated beams) + actively illuminated NIR camera (second/third laser-diode arrays w/ Bragg reflectors, second beam splitter, imaging pixels synchronized to the arrays), processor couplable to wearable / smart phone / tablet.

For calibration on how this family's claims mature, the sibling US 10,677,774 B2 claim 1 (same 2012‑12‑31 priority) recites an "array of laser diodes… one or more Bragg reflectors"; "one or more scanners comprising a moving mirror"; "a detection system comprising a photodiode array with a plurality of pixels coupled to CMOS transistors, wherein at least a portion of the photodiode array comprises an indium gallium arsenide semiconductor"; "synchronized to the at least a portion of the array of laser diodes comprising Bragg reflectors"; a "time-of-flight measurement… further comprises one or more spectral filters"; "2‑D or 3‑D mapping"; SNR improvement "by increasing light intensity"; "an eye safe window… longer than 1400 nanometers"; and vehicle mounting with GPS + cloud (retrieved at insight.rpxcorp.com, US10677774B2). That is a useful proxy for what a §103 attack must meet.

3. Prior-art inventory

3.1 Observed in retrieved material

3.2 From background knowledge — verify before relying on (I did not see these in the retrieved results this session)

• CMOS/SPAD time-of-flight depth-sensing fundamentals: Bamji et al., US 6,323,942 (CMOS-compatible 3‑D image sensor) and its progeny; Niclass et al. SPAD arrays / TCSPC-style depth imaging; standard "pulse-TOF lidar" with temporal distribution of photons (time-correlated single-photon counting, Becker & Bergmann). These are the classic § 102/§ 103 anchors for Family A's TOF elements.
• Dual-beam / dual-beam-in-time spectrophotometers and reference-channel normalization (standard NIR instrument practice), and "dual-beam experimental set-up… to subtract out light source fluctuations" (the '291 specification itself describes exactly this at FIGS. 49 and 67 — an admission that the technique is conventional).
• Dual-wavelength moisture gauges (grain/flour/paper moisture meters using a water-band wavelength and a reference wavelength); ice/water-on-road sensors; water-leak detection.
• Eye-safe 1.5x µm pulsed laser diodes and automotive lidar (pre‑2012 commercially available).

4. Obviousness grounds

Ground 1 — Family A (TOF remote sensing with reference arm) obvious over pulse-TOF imaging + DBR laser diodes + dual-beam reference normalization

Why a POSITA would combine:

1. Reference-arm normalization as a known technique for a known problem (MPEP 2143 Rationale C/D). TOF depth resolution depends on precisely knowing the emission time t₀. Source timing jitter, amplitude drift, and pulse-shape variation directly degrade depth accuracy. It is a routine, well-understood spectrometric/optical-metrology solution to split off a portion of the source beam and detect it directly as a timing/intensity reference. The '291 specification itself concedes this is conventional practice ("dual-beam experimental set-up… to subtract out (or at least minimize the adverse effects of) light source fluctuations," FIGS. 49, 67) — an admission against interest that the reference-arm architecture was known.
2. Bragg-reflector laser diodes → predictable substitution (Rationale B). DBR/DFB diodes were the standard way to obtain a wavelength-stabilized, narrow-linewidth NIR source. For a system that (i) needs narrowband illumination matched to narrowband spectral filters in front of the detector, and (ii) needs to remain inside an eye-safety window near 1.4–1.55 µm, DBR diodes are the natural selection. No new principle of operation is changed; the substitution yields predictable results (higher spectral brightness, filter matching, wavelength stability).
3. 0.5–2 ns pulse width as routine optimization of a result-effective variable (Rationale G). Depth resolution ≈ c·τ/2. A POSITA selecting pulse duration for cm-to-dm-class depth resolution in the 0.5–2 ns window is doing nothing more than optimizing a recognized, result-effective variable with a predictable relationship to the desired performance. The range is a result-effective parameter, and the specification does not allege any unexpected criticality.
4. Spectral filters + CMOS photodiode array (Rationale A/C). In an actively illuminated NIR sensor, out-of-band ambient light (especially sunlight) is the dominant noise source; narrowband spectral filtering is the standard, and CMOS detector arrays with per-pixel transistors are the standard readout. The Pilgrim/Gibbons/Lairson/Yoda art teaches exactly the filter-on-sensor/CMOS combination, expressly motivated by water absorption bands and clutter rejection.
5. Synchronization (Rationale A). Synchronizing detector integration windows to source pulses is the defining technique of active-illumination TOF (and is taught in the LED-based Lisogurski/Carlson art for in-vivo optical measurement). The claim's "synchronized to the laser diodes by the Bragg reflectors" limitation is, at best, a functional restatement of the result obtained by using DBR (wavelength-locked) diodes — a POSITA would regard the reflector as enabling wavelength stability, not as the electronic synchronization mechanism. (This limitation is also a § 112(b) vulnerability: synchronization is performed by electronics, not by a reflector. That is a separate invalidity theory from § 103, but it bears on how the POSITA would read the element.)

Predicted result: increasing light intensity/brightness to improve SNR in a 2‑D/3‑D mapping (as recited in the sibling claims) is standard lidar practice (Rationale G/E).

Ground 2 — Family B (1090 nm / 1440 nm water-absorption identification with threshold) obvious over two-wavelength water-detection spectroscopy + LED sources + narrowband dielectric filters + InGaAs detectors

This is the most exposed family, because the core concept — illuminate with two wavelengths straddling a water absorption band, ratio the returns, and threshold the ratio — is squarely taught in the retrieved material.

Why a POSITA would combine:

1. Substitution of LEDs for other solid-state sources (Rationale B). EP 3023769 uses "solid-state light sources," which the reference itself contemplates as semiconductor emitters. Substituting LEDs at the same two wavelengths is a simple substitution of one known element for another (semiconductor LED for semiconductor laser/other solid-state source) to obtain the predictable benefits of lower cost, smaller size, higher reliability, and suitability for a wearable/handheld housing — the very rationale the '291 specification gives for LED-based sources.
2. Wavelength selection is dictated by the known water spectrum (Rationale B/G). The 1.45 µm and ~1.0 µm water bands are textbook. Choosing a lower-absorption wavelength (1090 nm) and a higher-absorption wavelength (1440 nm) is the epitome of selecting a known, result-effective variable with predictable effect; the reference art even explains why the low-absorption channel is used (to normalize out surface shape, roughness and dirt variations), which is exactly the function performed by the claimed "first part" of the output signal.
3. Dielectric filters and InGaAs detectors (Rationale A/C). Narrowband interference filters are the standard way to separate closely spaced NIR bands, and InGaAs is the only practical detector material for the 1.4 µm channel at ambient temperature. Both are predictable, off-the-shelf selections.
4. Thresholding (Rationale A/C). Converting a two-channel ratio into a decision by threshold comparison is the classic pattern-matching/classification step for NIR reflectance, which the family's own cited literature (Olsen 2002; Zakian & Pretty 2009) confirms was standard in the art by 2002–2009.
5. Add-on motivations (Rationale F). On-body/off-body detection and "identify the object/user" for wearables (the claim's own express coupling to a wearable device) is a recognized market-driven design goal — e.g., detecting skin vs. air/table by water content — which supplies a strong motivation to threshold a water-absorption signal. The '291 specification acknowledges this directly in its definitional section ("the teeth… have fewer spectral artifacts…; the blood constituents may be measured with less interfering artifacts"; "value-add services… wirelessly communicating the monitored data… to a smart phone").

Net: every element of Family B appears to be individually taught, and the combination is the predictable assembly of a known two-wavelength water-ratio sensor with known LED, filter, and InGaAs components. If Person B's effective date is not 2012/2013, this family is highly likely obvious. Even on the 2012/2013 date, the earlier background art (Zakian & Pretty 2009; the general practice of two-wavelength moisture gauging; the well-known 1.45 µm water band) supports a § 103 rejection, though the EP 3023769 reference itself would not be available.

Ground 3 — Family C (TOF sensor + actively illuminated NIR camera + vehicle/cloud/wearable coupling) obvious over Ground 1 + active-illumination imaging

Rationale: fusing an active-illumination NIR camera (intensity/texture imagery) with a co-located TOF depth sensor is the canonical architecture of every consumer depth camera; sharing a common laser-diode/DPB platform and synchronizing both imagers to the illumination is a known technique applied to a known device ready for improvement (Rationale A/D). Placing the processor output on a wearable/phone is a market-driven, predictable integration (Rationale F).

5. Motivation-to-combine summary (mapped to MPEP 2143/ KSR rationales)

6. Counter-considerations and weaknesses in the prima facie case

1. The reference-arm + TOF combination is not routine. TOF sensors rarely use a reference arm; the closer analog for the claimed reference arm is spectroscopic dual-beam instrumentation. A patent owner will argue that importing dual-beam methodology into a TOF lidar is not a "predictable" combination and that a moving-mirror scanner + reference arm + photodiode array creates redundancy that changes the system's principle of operation (an In re Ratti-style argument — the same argument Omni successfully pressed against the Board's Lisogurski+Carlson combination in IPR2020-00175).
2. The "synchronized… by the Bragg reflectors" limitation is functionally odd and may be argued to impart structure the art lacks. Expect the owner to press it; expect a petitioner to answer with indefiniteness or that a DBR-based system inherently enables the synchronization.
3. Family B is vulnerable but the reference dates matter. EP 3023769/CN 104641221 only defeats Family B if the effective date is post‑2016. On a 2012/2013 date, the petitioner must rely on the underlying (pre‑2013) two-wavelength water/moisture gauging and NIR reflectance-threshold art (e.g., the type of art cited by Olesberg/Olsen/Zakian), which is a weaker but still viable ground.
4. Secondary considerations are unexamined. I found no evidence of record (no unrebutted evidence of unexpected results, commercial success nexus, licensing, industry praise, or copying) in the material I retrieved. The family's earlier enforcement has generated Apple's IPRs (2019–2022) where the Board found the '484 claims unpatentable (later re-affirmed) and where a Federal Circuit appeal (Apple v. Omni MedSci, No. 25‑1646 as to the '484) was pending in the material I retrieved — these are family-level signals, not a ruling on '291.
5. The earlier section's caution stands: the earlier summary could not confirm that any IPR/PGR names '291 itself; the retrieved Samsung petitions (IPR2025‑01249/01250, PGR2025‑00063) concern the '533 and '304. So the grounds above are analytic constructs, not a description of any pending PTAB ground against '291.
6. Contradiction/date anomaly: the earlier sections report docket entries (2:26‑cv‑00356) and secondary sources dated May–June 2026, which post-date the April 26, 2026 date I am instructed to use. I report this rather than reconcile it.

7. Recommended next steps for a defensible § 103 position

1. Obtain the verbatim claim set of '291 (all independent claims + dependent claims) from the granted patent or Patent Center — the earlier sections and this one both flag that I never retrieved it. Every ground above should then be re-charted element-by-element.
2. Pull the priority-chain provisional applications (61/747,472; 61/747,477; 61/747,481; 61/747,485; 61/747,487; 61/747,492; 61/747,553) and the 2013 non-provisionals (14/108,986; 14/109,007) and confirm written-description support for (a) the TOF reference-arm architecture and (b) the 1090/1440 nm LED architecture. This is the highest-leverage issue in the entire analysis.
3. Pull the "References Cited" / "Cited By" lists (via Patent Center / Espacenet INPADOC) since the supplied page omitted them. A proper "face-of-the-patent-art" § 103 analysis can only be completed against that list; the indexer's five keywords (light; remote sensing; sensing system; infrared; fiber) are not references.
4. Verify the priority/publication dates of EP 3023769 A1 / CN 104641221 A and US 2020/0026316 A1, and confirm the exact dates and content of the applicant's WO 2014/105520, WO 2014/105521 and WO 2014/143276 publications.
5. Verify my background-knowledge anchors (pulse-TOF/CMOS image-sensor patents; TCSPC depth-imaging literature; dual-wavelength moisture-gauge art) before they are relied on.

Confidence statement

• High confidence: the identification of the three claim families and of Families B and C's substantive content (corroborated by near-verbatim claim text retrieved from the assignee's own portfolio listing and sibling filings); that the supplied page contains no named prior-art reference list; that the effective-filing-date question is determinative; and the mapping of EP 3023769/CN 104641221's ratio-plus-threshold water-detection teaching onto Family B.
• Medium confidence: the Family A Ground 1 combination and the motivations I supply — they are built on recognized analogies (dual-beam spectroscopy, DBR laser stabilization, TCSPC depth imaging) but I could not retrieve the specific pulse-TOF/SPAD references this session to quote them.
• Explicitly unverified: the verbatim claim set of '291; the number of independent claims; whether the 2012 provisionals support families A/B/C; the exact priority dates of EP 3023769 and US 2020/0026316; and any pending IPR/PGR or appeal naming '291 itself.