US 12426788

I'll verify the patent details and check for any litigation/docket activity before summarizing.

Patent verification — US 12,426,788 B2

I searched for the exact identifier 12426788 and did not substitute any similar numbers. The bibliographic record is consistent across Google Patents, Justia Patents, and the litigation dockets. Findings below, with explicit flags where my sources are secondary or where I could not retrieve verbatim text.

---

1. Bibliographic data (high confidence)

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US12426788B2](/patent/US12426788B2)/en ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/12426788

Note the title/family mismatch that is intrinsic to this patent family: the specification (which you supplied) is largely the inherited Omni MedSci disclosure on SWIR super-continuum/near-IR sources, non-invasive blood-constituent spectroscopy, dental caries detection, food/pharma inspection, hydrocarbon micro-seepage, explosives, etc. The claim set was carved out to a narrower "active remote sensing … time-of-flight" theme (G01M 3/38 leak detection, G01N 21/3504 gas analysis, plus "airborne"/"vehicle borne" sensor-mounting subclasses). This is a continuation-family claim-drafting strategy, not an error in the number.

---

2. Abstract — ⚠️ not retrievable verbatim

I could not retrieve the verbatim abstract text. Neither the Google Patents fetch you supplied nor the search results returned the abstract block for US 12,426,788 B2 (the Google Patents fetch was dominated by bibliographic, classification, and figure-description text, and was truncated mid-specification). I will not reconstruct it and present it as authoritative.

Substance I can state with reasonable confidence, from the title, the allowed claim language, and the classification record: the patent covers an active (laser-illuminated, not passive) remote-sensing system in which laser diodes emitting in the near-infrared (700–2500 nm) illuminate a remote target such as an atmospheric gas plume or smoke, a receiver performs a time-of-flight measurement of the returned light to establish range/depth to the target volume, and a processor improves the signal-to-noise ratio of the measurement. If you need the exact abstract wording, pull it from USPTO PatentCenter or Espacenet for application 18/794,353 — I'd rather flag this than paraphrase it as if it were the text of record.

---

3. Independent claims — plain-language overview

⚠️ Caveat on sourcing: I could not pull a verified, numbered claim set from the sources available. What follows is based on the claim-language fragments Google Patents exposes in its "Definitions" extraction block for this document (which quotes the characterizing clauses of the independent claims), plus the classification record. The scope below is reliable; the numbered claim count and exact claim boundaries are not verified by me.

Three independent-claim families are discernible:

(a) Active remote sensing system (plurality of laser diodes + time-of-flight)

• A plurality of laser diodes generate light having an initial light intensity and an initial optical power density, at one or more optical wavelengths, with at least a portion of the wavelengths being near-infrared between 700 nm and 2500 nm.
• A detection system receives returned/reflected light and produces a time-of-flight measurement (i.e., range to the scattering/absorbing volume, such as a gas plume or smoke).
• A processor is capable of improving the signal-to-noise ratio of at least a portion of the time-of-flight measurement by increasing the laser-diode light intensity and/or optical power density above the initial values — i.e., the SNR-improvement lever is more illumination, not just averaging.
• Dependent features: the laser diodes include one or more Bragg reflectors (i.e., DBR/DFB-type diodes); the diodes are modulated with a pulsed output having a pulse duration of approximately 0.5 to 2 nanoseconds; the diodes are coupled to driver electronics and one or more safety shut-offs.

(b) Background-subtraction variant of the detection scheme

• The detection system generates a first signal when substantially no light is received from the diodes and a second signal when light is received from at least part of the diodes, and compares the two to further improve the SNR of the time-of-flight measurement (an on/off differential measurement to reject ambient/solar background).
• A parallel clause in the record refers to improving SNR by increasing light intensity/optical power density relative to the initial values.

(c) Optical system with two-wavelength water-absorption discrimination

• A light source with a plurality of laser diodes (again 700–2500 nm near-IR portion, again with Bragg reflectors as a dependent feature, again coupled to driver electronics).
• A first laser diode operates at a first wavelength corresponding to lower water absorption, and at least a second laser diode operates at a second wavelength corresponding to higher water absorption — a differential/ratiometric pair chosen so that the two wavelengths straddle a water-absorption feature, which is the classic scheme for separating a target gas/smoke signal from water-vapor and atmospheric background.
• A housing receives at least a portion of the light from the first and second diodes; the system delivers an output to an object; the housing is configured to couple to an electrical circuit and a processor.
• Dependent features: the electrical circuit includes a trans-impedance amplifier and an analog-to-digital converter; a detection system receives reflected light, comprising a first photodetector behind a first wavelength-selective optical filter and a second photodetector behind a second wavelength-selective optical filter, each passing a respective one of the two wavelengths and each generating its own output signal.

Bottom line on scope: the independent claims are directed to arming a time-of-flight ranging receiver with (i) near-IR laser-diode illumination, (ii) an intensity/power-density escalation path to buy SNR, and (iii) an on/off or two-wavelength-filtered differential detection scheme — with range/depth resolution as the mechanism to localize the sensed gas or smoke. This is notably not a claim to a super-continuum broadband source, which is what distinguishes it from the parent family members such as US 9,995,722 and the SWIR super-continuum natural-gas-leak patents.

---

4. Litigation and PTAB / CAFC status

I found no Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docket for US 12,426,788. My search of CAFC/2026 docket sources returned no appeal naming this patent number; the Omni MedSci Federal Circuit history that surfaced involves other patents in the family (e.g., Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Nos. 21-01229 and 2023-1034). I cannot rule out a docket I did not surface, so treat this as "not found," not as "confirmed none."

What is confirmed on the record:

• Google Patents flags this document as part of a family with litigation, with a Darts-IP "first worldwide family litigation" link (family 69228103).
• E.D. Tex. case 2:26-cv-00356, Omni MedSci, Inc. v. [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.) Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%20Ltd.) et al. (also naming Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.), nature of suit 830, cause 15:1126 — docket reflects filing May 1, 2026. (https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/64454741/Omni_MedSci,_Inc_v_Samsung_Electronics,_Co_LTD_et_al)
• Related Omni MedSci campaigns: Omni MedSci v. Oura Health Oy, E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00289 (filed Apr. 10, 2026); and Omni MedSci v. WHOOP, Inc., D. Del. 1:25-cv-00140, where the court deferred ruling on a stay pending PTO institution decisions expected April–July 2026.
• PTAB: the "Samsung petitions" were referred for merits review on the '533, '304, '455, '790 and '475 patents, but institution was discretionarily denied for the '868 patent (IPR2025-01249, Paper 16, Dec. 1, 2025). Law360 reports a separate Omni MedSci wearable patent IPR terminated in favor of a post-grant review. I did not find any IPR, PGR, or other PTAB proceeding specifically targeting US 12,426,788 — consistent with it being issued only in Sept. 2025.

Two date-stamp conflicts I should flag rather than paper over:

1. You gave "Current Date: April 26, 2026," but the E.D. Tex. docket shows the complaint filed May 1, 2026 (docket last updated May 2, 2026). The supplied Google Patents fetch is itself dated 2026-09-28.
2. The Google Patents page lists the publication date as 2025-09-30, which matches Justia's "Date of Patent: Sep 30, 2025" — so the issue date is solid.

---

5. Where I do not have authoritative information

• Verbatim abstract: not retrieved. Do not quote one attributed to me.
• Verbatim, numbered claim set and total claim count: not retrieved. The claim overview in §3 is reconstructed from Google Patents' claim-language extraction, not from the patent's claim column.
• Whether claim 1 is the time-of-flight system, the intensity-escalation system, or an optical-system claim: order inferred, not confirmed.
• Priority/expiration: Google Patents explicitly labels the 2012-12-31 priority date and the 2033-12-17 expiration as assumptions; actual priority depends on the continuation chain through US 18/646,390 → US 12,251,194 → earlier applications.
• CAFC appeal: none found; not confirmed absent.

If you want the claim set locked down, the authoritative pulls are the USPTO PatentCenter "Claims" tab for application 18/794,353, or the granted-claims PDF from patentimages.

I'll search for litigation involving US 12,426,788.

Let me search for the specific E.D. Tex. case referenced on the patent page and related litigation.

Let me get more detail on this case and check for additional suits asserting the '788 patent.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 12,426,788

Patent identification (as it appears in the record): U.S. Patent No. 12,426,788 B2 — "Active Remote Sensing of Atmospheric Gases or Smoke Using a Time-of-Flight Sensor." Application No. 18/794,353, filed 2024-08-05, issued 2025-09-30. Inventor: Mohammed N. Islam. Assignee: Omni MedSci, Inc. (original assignee Omni MedSci, Inc.; assignment recorded to Omni MedSci, Inc. 2025-08-26). Earliest priority date listed: 2012-12-31. Anticipated expiration: 2033-12-17.

Confirmed litigation

Case 1 — Omni MedSci, Inc. v. [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), LTD.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20LTD.), Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.

Sources:

• Docket page: https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/64454741/Omni_MedSci,_Inc_v_Samsung_Electronics,_Co_LTD_et_al
• Complaint analysis (incl. the '788 patent section and asserted claims): https://ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net/case/dct/txed/2:26-cv-00356/doc/analysis/1
• Case listing: https://dockets.justia.com/browse/circuit-5/state-texas/court-txedce/noscat-10/nos-830?page=6
• The Google Patents page for US12426788B2 also carries a "US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court" litigation link pointing to case 2:26-cv-00356: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12426788/en

Related procedural development (same court, related Omni cases)

An E.D. Tex. consolidation order dated June 17, 2026 in Omni MedSci, Inc. v. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., No. 2:26-cv-00472, consolidated that case (and others) for all pre-trial issues under lead case 2:26-cv-289, with individual cases remaining active for trial. Omni also filed related 2026 E.D. Tex. suits against Fossil Group (2:26-cv-00470) and a W.D. Tex. suit against Apple (7:26-cv-00226, filed June 8, 2026). I found no confirmation that the '788 patent is asserted in any of those other complaints; the only case where I could verify the '788 patent is pleaded is 2:26-cv-00356.

Things I could NOT confirm (stated explicitly rather than assumed)

1. No other district court case asserting the '788 patent was found in the sources searched. Because the patent issued only on 2025-09-30, only complaints filed after that date could plead it, which is consistent with only the May 1, 2026 Samsung complaint appearing.
2. No PTAB proceeding specifically on the '788 patent was identified. The Samsung IPR/PGR family found in the searches covers U.S. Patents 9,055,868, 9,651,533, 10,874,304, 11,160,455, 12,193,790, and 12,268,475 (IPR2025-01249 through -01254; PGR2025-00063 and -00064) — not the '788. This is a search limitation, not a verified absence.
3. No outcome, ruling, or Federal Circuit activity on the '788 patent exists as of the available record.

Caution on a same-numbered but unrelated case

Note that a different case bearing the number 2:26-cv-00356 exists in the District of Nevada — Shenzhen Jiayi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. v. Class and Culture LLC, filed 02/11/2026, concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,812,886 ("Earpiece"). It is unrelated to the '788 patent and to Omni MedSci. (Source: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/nvdce-[179526](/patent/179526)-shenzhen-jiayi-electronic-technology-v-class-and-culture)

Bottom line: As of the sources retrieved, the only known litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 12,426,788 is Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. et al., No. 2:26-cv-00356 (E.D. Tex., filed May 1, 2026), which remains pending with no outcome.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on U.S. Patent No. 12,426,788: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal / PTAB structured feed supplied with this analysis returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding naming the '788 patent as the challenged patent, and my independent web searches surfaced none either (no petition, no institution decision, no FWD, no Director Review, no EPR). Breakdown by status is therefore 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials on this patent.

Bottom line defensive posture: neither "hardened" nor "already dead" — the '788 is PTAB-virgin. Every claim (1 and 5 are the ones pleaded against Samsung in E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00356) is untested before the Board, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to this patent from anyone. That is the single most important fact for a defendant: unlike the sibling patents in the same Omni family — where a decade of IPRs has produced a trail of "all challenged claims unpatentable" rulings — the '788 has never been through an AIA trial, so an IPR-based defense is fully available and unmet.

⚠️ Flag for the reader: the earlier litigation section of this document describes the '788 as issued 2025-09-30 and asserted 2026-05-01. Both are consistent with the zero-PTAB finding: the PGR window (9 months from grant) would have closed 2026-06-30 if the patent were AIA-eligible, and no PGR was filed. That means, on today's record, IPR is the only PTAB vehicle left for this patent (plus ex parte reexam). Also note that the '788 is nominally a pre-AIA patent (earliest priority 2012-12-31), which is precisely the position Omni has taken for the siblings — and which, under the Director's 2026 "one-or-the-other" ruling discussed below, is what makes IPR (not PGR) the correct vehicle.

---

No proceedings on U.S. 12,426,788 — what the record does and does not show

• USPTO structured data (canonical): no AIA trial proceedings indexed for the '788 patent. Source of record: USPTO ODP / PTAB data as ingested; USPTO PTAB E2E search portal — https://ptab.uspto.gov/ ; PTAB decisions library — https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions
• Google Patents front page for US12426788B2 carries only a district court litigation link (E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00356). It lists no PTAB "US IPR/PGR case" link of the kind Google Patents appends when a trial has been filed against the patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US12426788](/patent/US12426788)/en
• Search limitation, stated explicitly: "no petition found" is not the same as "no petition exists." A petition filed in, e.g., mid-2026 may not yet be indexed in the ODP feed I was given. Given the '788's assertion on 2026-05-01, a § 315(b) one-year window for the served defendants runs to approximately 2027-05-01, so a petition could still appear at any time between now and then.

---

Family context: the PTAB record on the '788's siblings (NOT this patent)

These are different patents that share Omni MedSci's 2012-12-31 priority family, the same lead expert (Brian Anthony), and largely the same core references. They are the roadmap a challenger would mine — but no ruling in any of them is a judgment about the '788.

IPR2025-01253 — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Omni MedSci, Inc. (U.S. 12,193,790)

• Type: Inter Partes Review (with parallel PGR2025-00064 denied)
• Status: Institution granted 2026-02-03; institution VACATED on sua sponte Director Review 2026-05-14, proceeding stayed and terminated under 35 U.S.C. § 311(c)(1) because a PGR had been instituted against the same claim.
• Judge/Decision-maker: Under Secretary of Commerce for IP and USPTO Director John A. Squires (Director Review order).
• Panel counsel: Petitioners — Sheppard Mullin, Mayer Brown, Fish & Richardson, Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, Ropes & Gray; Patent Owner — Nixon Peabody.
• Defensive value: A directly on-point procedural holding: a patent cannot be both IPR- and PGR-eligible. Omni's family patents have been treated as pre-AIA (priority 2012-12-31) — the position Samsung "did not contest" — which keeps them in IPR. But once WHOOP's PGR on the same '790 claim was instituted (see PGR2026-00003), the Director held the '790 PGR-eligible and therefore IPR-ineligible. Any challenger of a 2025-issued Omni continuation must resolve the AIA/pre-AIA status before choosing vehicle, or it may lose an institution the way Samsung did.
• Order: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2025-01253_Samsung_v_Omni_MedSci_SS_DR_Grant.pdf

PGR2025-00063 / IPR2025-01254 — Samsung et al. v. Omni MedSci, Inc. (U.S. 12,268,475)

• Type: Parallel, conditionally filed PGR + IPR on claims 1, 5-8, 11-13.
• Status: Petitioners affirmatively requested institution of the IPR and mooting of the PGR, on the strength of Omni's own litigation representation that the '475 is a non-AIA patent entitled to 2012-12-31 priority. The IPR was instituted (see the D. Del. stay opinion: "the PTO has now instituted IPR … with respect to all the asserted claims in each of the asserted patents").
• Petition ranking paper: Petitioners' Rule 42.108 ranking and explanation, IPR2025-01254 Paper 6 (characterizing the two petitions as "substantively duplicative," sole purpose to hedge the AIA-status question).
• Defensive value: The template for how to handle a freshly-issued Omni continuation: file the IPR on the non-AIA theory, and a conditional PGR as insurance. Note the '475 IPR was instituted, unlike the '868.

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

• Type: IPR. Filed: 2019-04-10. Instituted: 2019-10-18. FWD: 2020-10-14.
• Verdict: All challenged claims — claims 5, 7-10, 13, and 15-17 — held unpatentable as obvious.
• Appeal: Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 21-1229 (Fed. Cir. 2022-06-08) — affirmed (summary affirmance, 2022 WL 2062168).
• Defensive value: The foundational invalidation in the family. But note the D. Del. court's caution: it "did not address claims 11 or 12 of the '533 patent," which are the only '533 claims Omni actually asserts today. Off-point for the '788, decisive on the merits narrative.

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

• Type: IPR. Filed: 2021-01-22. Instituted: 2021-08-06. First FWD: 2022-08-03 — claims 1, 2, 7, and 15-23 unpatentable; petitioner failed to show claims 3-6 and 8-14 unpatentable.
• Appeal: Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 23-1034 (Fed. Cir. 2024-06-21) — reversed and remanded as to claims 3-6 and 8-14 for the Board to consider an alternative obviousness argument.
• Remand FWD: 2025-02-14 — claims 3-6 and 8-14 held unpatentable. Net effect: every claim of the '484 has been held unpatentable by the Board.
• Appeal: Omni noticed appeal 2025-04-11; appeal pending at No. 25-1646 (Fed. Cir.).
• Defensive value: Its main use is as prior Board reasoning and as a template for how the same panel has treated this family's shared claim language (collateral-estoppel-style arguments have already been made against Omni on this basis in the '790 PGR petition).

[Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.) v. Omni MedSci, Inc. — IPR2025-01249 through -01252 and -01254 (Samsung/Fossil/Oura/OnePlus, 2025-2026)

• Patent mapping: -01249 → '868; -01250 → '533; -01251 → '304; -01252 → '455; -01254 → '475. PGR2025-00063 → '475; PGR2025-00064 → '790.
• Institution result: Director discretionary review referred the '533, '304, '455, '790, and '475 petitions to merits/non-discretionary review but discretionarily denied institution of the '868 petition: Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., IPR2025-01249, Paper No. 16 (P.T.A.B. 2025-12-01).
• Post-institution: IPR2025-01252 ('455) — institution granted 2026-02-03; scheduling order 2026-02-12; PO deposition notice 2026-04-10. IPR2025-01250 ('533) — institution decision 2026-02-03 per the docket; institution pleadings, POPRs, evidence objections, and an indefiniteness stipulation followed. IPR2025-01253 was vacated (above).
• Defensive value: Establishes that Omni's family patents remain IPR-institutable, but that the Board and the Director will exercise discretion — including discretionary denial — against weak or duplicative challenges. None of these is the '788, so no § 315(e)(2) estoppel from any of them reaches the '788.

WHOOP, Inc. challenges (2025-2026)

• PGR2026-00003 (U.S. 12,193,790, claim 7) — filed 2025-10-13; instituted 2026-04-01: Director Notice granting institution, Paper 10; institution decision Paper 14. This was the proceeding whose institution knocked out Samsung's parallel IPR on the same claim.
• WHOOP's IPR petitions against the '533, '304, and '455 patents were discretionally denied; its PGR against the '790 was granted (D. Del. opinion, https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[10860956](/patent/10860956)/omni-medsci-inc-v-whoop-inc/).
• Defensive value: Demonstrates that a litigant in a different district (D. Del.) can still get PTAB traction, and that PGR is the better bet for the 2025-issued continuations when AIA status can be established.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status on the '788. Nothing is canceled, nothing is sustained, nothing is even instituted. Claims 1 and 5 — the only claims pleaded in Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:26-cv-00356 (E.D. Tex., filed 2026-05-01) — stand untested and un-narrowed. There is no certificate of cancellation, no disclaimer, no reexamination certificate, and no adverse judgment to cite. Any statement that claims of the '788 have been invalidated would be false; any statement that they have survived PTAB scrutiny would be equally false (there was no scrutiny).

Estoppel landscape. Because there is no proceeding on this patent, no one is subject to § 315(e)(2) estoppel as to the '788 — not Samsung, not WHOOP, not Apple. Estoppel is patent-specific: the family's '533/'484 losses do not estop anyone against the '788, and conversely they do not shield Omni. Two practical consequences: (1) A defendant can bring any § 102/§ 103 ground against the '788, including art that would otherwise be estopped in a family member. (2) Omni likewise cannot invoke any Kavanaugh-style estoppel against a new challenger. The only time-bar consideration is § 315(b): a defendant served with the 2026-05-01 complaint has a one-year window running to approximately 2027-05-01.

The one procedural trap to respect. The Director's 2026-05-14 order in IPR2025-01253 establishes the "one-or-the-other" rule in this very family: a patent is either IPR-eligible or PGR-eligible, never both. Because the '788 is a 2025-issued continuation in a family that Omni has consistently characterized as pre-AIA (priority 2012-12-31, pre-dating the 2013-03-16 AIA date), IPR under 37 C.F.R. § 42.102(a)(2) is the correct vehicle — provided the challenger does not hand Omni an AIA-status argument the way the parties' stipulation did in the '790. Also note that Omni has used the family's shared claim language to argue collateral estoppel against the patent owner in the '790 PGR (citing Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2025-00002, Paper 17 (PTAB 2025-05-15)). That sword cuts both ways and is the most promising substantive lever for a '788 petition.

Pattern signals. (a) Same petitioner, multiple patents, not multiple petitions on one patent — Samsung/Fossil/Oura/OnePlus filed one IPR per family patent (plus conditional PGRs where AIA status was in play), not serial attacks on a single patent. (b) The patent owner litigates PTAB losses aggressively — Omni appealed the '533 FWD (affirmed 2022) and has a live appeal at No. 25-1646 from the '484 remand FWD. Expect a '788 FWD, if unfavorable, to be appealed. (c) No defensive aggregator appears in the chain on the '788. Samsung, WHOOP, Apple and the co-defendants are all accused infringers, i.e., RPI-motivated petitioners; there is no Unified Patents-style third-party filing found. (d) The family is the target, not the individual patent — Omni has asserted the '788 as part of a multi-patent, multi-defendant campaign spanning E.D. Tex. (Samsung, OnePlus, Fossil), D. Del. (WHOOP), and W.D. Tex. (Apple). A '788 petition is likely to be filed alongside, and coordinated with, the rest.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant facing the '788 today: the patent has no PTAB history, so there is no FWD to cite and no cancellation to lean on — do not build a brief around an invalidity ruling that does not exist. Your defense is (i) a fresh IPR under § 102/§ 103 (pre-AIA framework), filed well inside the § 315(b) window that closes approximately 2027-05-01 for the defendants served on the 2026-05-01 Samsung complaint; and (ii) district-court § 112/§ 101 and claim-scope arguments, particularly the question the complaint analysis itself flags — whether claims reciting "atmospheric gases" and time-of-flight sensing are limited to that field or reach general-purpose dToF used for laser autofocus.
2. Vehicle selection: assume Omni will argue the '788 is pre-AIA (2012-12-31 priority), which makes IPR available; be prepared for the converse. Do not repeat Samsung's mistake in the '790 — if you file both IPR and PGR in the alternative, be explicit about which one you actually want instituted. See the Director's order at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2025-01253_Samsung_v_Omni_MedSci_SS_DR_Grant.pdf
3. Mine the family FWDs for art, not for estoppel. The '533 FWD (claims 5, 7-10, 13, 15-17 unpatentable, affirmed 2022-06-08) and the '484 FWDs (all claims unpatentable as of 2025-02-14) use the same expert and overlapping references. Obtain the IPR2021-00453 record (Petition Paper 1; FWD Paper 22; remand FWD Paper 26) and the IPR2019-00916 record, and map the shared limitations onto the '788's claims 1 and 5.
4. Track the live family events that could arrive before a '788 petition does: the Fed. Cir. No. 25-1646 appeal from the '484 remand FWD; the pending '533, '304, '455, '475 IPRs (all instituted with FWDs due within one year of the early-2026 institution dates) and WHOOP's PGR2026-00003 on the '790 (instituted 2026-04-01; statutory FWD due within one year, i.e., by approximately 2027-04-01). PTAB E2E dockets: https://ptab.uspto.gov/
5. If you are the patent owner: the absence of any PTAB challenge to a patent asserted in May 2026 is a temporary advantage, not a durable one. Well-asserted continuation patents in this family have attracted challenges within months. Assume a '788 petition is coming and prepare the POPR record now — including the AIA/pre-AIA position, which is the pressure point the Director has already shown he will test in this family.

Nothing in this section should be read as a finding that the '788 patent's claims are valid or invalid. No tribunal has ruled on any claim of U.S. 12,426,788. Any statement to the contrary is unsupported.

I'll research the assignment record for US 12,426,788, starting with the USPTO Assignment Center and cross-referencing ownership records.

Let me dig deeper into the specific assignment records and the correspondent of record.

Let me try to find the specific reel/frame data and the correspondent of record for the 2025 assignment.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 12,426,788 B2

Sourcing caveat up front. I could not open the USPTO Assignment Center record for this patent in this session (the Assignment Center / assignment.uspto.gov search-by-patent-number path returned no retrievable reel/frame data, and my live searches surfaced only corroborating secondary material). Accordingly, no reel/frame numbers, execution dates beyond those below, or assignment-correspondent-of-record fields are verified by me. Rather than fabricate them, I reconstruct the chain from (a) the Google Patents legal-events block supplied in the prior section, (b) the litigation record, and (c) the Omni MedSci v. Apple ownership record, and I mark gaps explicitly. Where a field is unverified, that is a search limitation, not an absence of record.

---

Inventors

• Mohammed N. Islam — sole named inventor on the '788 patent. Address of record: Ann Arbor, MI.
  • Employer at time of filing: The invention family dates to provisional applications filed in 2012 while Dr. Islam was on unpaid leave from the University of Michigan (UM), where he was (and is described as) a professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, having joined the UM faculty in 1992. This 2024-filed continuation inherits that priority. Dr. Islam is also the founder/owner and named principal of the assignee, Omni MedSci, Inc.
  • Unusual pattern — third-party ownership claim of record. UM's Office of Technology Transfer denied Dr. Islam's 2013 request to confirm his ownership, asserting that the inventions were supported "directly or indirectly" by University funds and therefore "shall be the property of the University" under UM Bylaw 3.10. Omni MedSci later sued Apple on sibling patents; Apple moved to dismiss for lack of standing, arguing Omni never owned the patents. The Federal Circuit (Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 7 F.4th 1148 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2021)) held Bylaw 3.10 was "a statement of intended disposition and a promise of a potential future assignment," not a present automatic assignment — so Dr. Islam's assignment to Omni was valid and Omni had standing. This is not an NPE signal, but it is a title-cloud red flag: UM has never released its claim, and the dispute mechanism (UM's internal appeal) was never exhausted.
  • Departure-within-12-months pattern: not applicable — the sole inventor is the assignee's owner; there is no employment severance between inventor and assignee.

Only one inventor. No co-inventors, no inventor-joinder corrections surfaced.

---

Original assignee

Omni MedSci, Inc. (Ann Arbor, MI) — original and current assignee on the face of the patent. Assignment recorded to Omni MedSci, Inc. 2025-08-26 (Google Patents legal events), assignor ISLAM, MOHAMMED N., conveyance type "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST."

• Primary line of business: development and licensing of near-infrared / mid-infrared broadband laser and super-continuum light-source technology (non-invasive blood-constituent sensing, dental caries detection, food/pharma inspection, hydrocarbon micro-seepage and gas/smoke remote sensing). The company is the vehicle Dr. Islam founded to hold and exploit this family.
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? ⚠️ Not verified — and the evidence points the other way. Omni MedSci's footprint in the public record is prosecution + assertion, not product sales: it appears as a serial patent plaintiff (Apple ×multiple, Samsung, Oura Health, WHOOP, OnePlus, Fossil) rather than as a vendor of the accused devices. I found no evidence of a commercial Omni MedSci product practicing the time-of-flight remote-sensing claims. Treat Omni MedSci as a non-manufacturing licensing/assertion entity with moderate confidence.
• Current status: Operating (active continuation prosecution and active litigation as of the 2026 docket). No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition surfaced.

---

Assignment timeline

⚠️ Reel/frame numbers and recorded execution dates were not retrievable through the Assignment Center in this session. The two dated entries below are the ones the record supports; I have not invented reel/frame values to fill the format.

• 2013-12-17 (executed) / recorded at USPTO (date not retrieved) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment (inventor → company)
  • Assignor: Mohammed N. Islam
  • Assignee: Omni MedSci, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved (prosecution agent of record for this family is Brooks Kushman P.C., customer no. 109543, docket "Cheetah Omni MedSci" — see signal 3 below)
  • Context: Formation/intra-inventor transfer — Dr. Islam assigned his patent rights (parent-family applications) to the company he founded, over UM's competing ownership claim.

• 2025-08-26 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment — "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)"
  • Assignor: Islam, Mohammed N.
  • Assignee: Omni MedSci, Inc. (Ann Arbor, MI)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved. Prosecution counsel of record remains Brooks Kushman P.C. (customer no. 109543). If the recording attorney matches that firm, this is the same agent appearing on every prosecution paper in the family — but I cannot confirm the assignment correspondent field, so I flag it rather than assert it.
  • Context: Confirmatory / original inventor assignment for this continuation, recorded ~5 weeks before issuance (2025-09-30) and ~13 months after the 2024-08-05 filing. A just-in-time confirmatory record is consistent with shoring up standing in light of the Apple ownership challenge (see Inventors section).

• Post-2025-08-26: the Google Patents legal-events block supplied shows no further reassignment. No transfer to any LLC, aggregator, or security holder.

No other recorded assignments. There is no chain of intermediate entities.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12426788
    2012 : Provisionals filed by Islam
    2013 : Islam assigns rights to Omni MedSci
    2024 : Continuation filed by Omni MedSci
    2025 : Assignment recorded to Omni MedSci
         : Patent issued Sep 2025
    2026 : Omni sues Samsung in E D Tex

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The patent has never left the original assignee. Assignee has been Omni MedSci, Inc. continuously; there is no "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" transferee LLC and no registered-agent-service address in the chain. (Caveat: Omni MedSci is itself a non-manufacturing licensor, but it is the founding inventor's own operating company, not a decoupled shell acquired post-hoc — so this signal, which is about transfer to a shell, is not met.)

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present (but flag). Omni MedSci does not appear on the enumerated NPE directories (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). However, it is a high-frequency, serial patent plaintiff in its own right, and press coverage has characterized its Texas campaigns in troll terms. I record this as a flag, not a finding — it is not one of the listed entities.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear (recurrence confirmed on prosecution only). The agent of record across the whole family is Brooks Kushman P.C., USPTO customer no. 109543, docket name "Cheetah Omni MedSci," at 1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor, Southfield, MI 48075 (later 150 W. 2nd St., Suite 400N, Royal Oak, MI 48067). Named practitioners appearing on family papers include David S. Bir, Pamela Demos, Andrew B. Turner (Reg. No. 63,121), and Kevin Heinl. This is genuine recurrence of one firm across the entire family — but it is prosecution correspondence. Because I could not retrieve the assignment correspondent field, I cannot confirm that Brooks Kushman (or a specific attorney) is the recording agent. Note the unusual docket label "Cheetah Omni MedSci" — Dr. Islam's separate holding entity is Cheetah Omni LLC, so the file-manager name blends two Islam companies. Do not over-read this; it is corroborated only as a docketing label.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. No consecutive assignments through chained LLCs. Zero intermediate entities; the only recorded conveyance is inventor → original assignee.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The only assignment is recorded 2025-08-26; the first suit naming the '788 patent was filed 2026-05-01 (Omni MedSci v. Samsung, E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00356) — roughly 8 months, outside the 6-month window. The assignment also predates issuance (2025-09-30) rather than being arranged around filing.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding, no trustee sale, no distressed divestiture surfaced for Omni MedSci or any predecessor.

7. Privateering — not present. There is no operating-company → NPE transfer. The assertor is the original assignee and the inventor's own vehicle; there is no third-party manufacturer transferring patents to be asserted against its competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. Inverse signal not met; the patent is being actively asserted, not neutralized.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original assignment).

The ownership chain for US 12,426,788 contains exactly one recorded conveyance — the inventor Mohammed N. Islam → Omni MedSci, Inc. (recorded 2025-08-26, confirmatory of the family's 2013-12-17 assignment) — and none of the eight NPE-chain signals is present. There is no shell-entity transfer, no aggregator, no cascading LLC ladder, no pre-suit transfer, and no bankruptcy. Under the rubric, a chain consisting of only the original assignment is the definition of "Insufficient data," and I will not upgrade it to an NPE verdict on the strength of Omni MedSci's litigation volume alone — the rubric's "known asserter" list is specific and Omni MedSci is not on it. The single substantive risk item worth carrying forward is the unresolved University of Michigan ownership claim (the subject of Omni MedSci v. Apple, 7 F.4th 1148), which is a title/standing cloud, not a troll-pattern finding.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 12,426,788; also https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). To close the two unretrieved fields, pull the reel/frame and correspondent for the 2025-08-26 recording, and cross-check the 2013-12-17 family assignments.

---

Contradictions / open items flagged

• The 2025-08-26 recorded assignment is confirmatory of a transfer first effected 2013-12-17; the two should not be read as two separate arms'-length transactions. I could not retrieve the reel/frame for either.
• Correspondent-of-record for the assignment is not established. Brooks Kushman's recurrence is verified for prosecution, not for assignment recording; my signal-3 call is therefore "unclear," not "present."
• No post-issuance reassignment appears in the Google Patents legal-events block supplied — consistent with the plain finding above, but I note it is a secondary source rather than the Assignment Center itself.

I'll search for the specific patent and its cited references.

Let me try more targeted searches for the citation record of this specific patent.

Let me try to retrieve the citation section directly.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 12,426,788 B2

0. Important sourcing caveat (read first)

I ran the searches you asked for, including searches keyed to the literal identifiers 12426788, US12426788B2, and 12,426,788. I was not able to retrieve the "References Cited" / "Patent Citations" block that appears on the face of this patent.

Specifically:

• The authoritative patent text you supplied was truncated mid-specification (it cuts off in the FIG. 19 diode-bar-stack discussion) and never reaches the front-page citation column or the claim column.
• My web_search calls returned secondary sources (IPR exhibits, docket analyses, sibling-family Google Patents pages), but none returned the citation list for US 12,426,788 itself. My last search attempt was cut off by a step limit.

Because the operating rules prohibit fabricating references, I will not invent a citation list. Below I (1) state precisely what the citation record for a U.S. utility patent contains, (2) give only the references my searches actually surfaced that bear on this family, clearly labeled by how I obtained them, and (3) give the § 102 element-by-element framework you need to evaluate whatever the true citation list turns out to be. To lock the list down, pull the front page from USPTO PatentCenter for application 18/794,353 or the granted-claims PDF from patentimages — that is the only authoritative source.

---

1. What the citation record of US 12,426,788 should contain (structural description, not the content)

Every number in the front-page "(56) References Cited" column falls into one of three buckets, and the § 102 analysis differs for each:

Two date points control everything below:

• Issued: 2025-09-30; filed: 2024-08-05 (App. 18/794,353).
• Priority: Google Patents lists 2012-12-31 as an assumption, with parents claiming to 2013-12-17. If priority holds, the effective filing date for § 102 purposes is ~2012-12-31/2013-12-17, not 2024 — which is why the cited art will be old (2012-and-earlier mostly), and why almost nothing issued after 2013 can be § 102 art against these claims. The family straddles the AIA changeover (2013-03-16), so pre-AIA vs. AIA § 102 must be resolved per-claim before you assign a reference a date.

---

2. References my searches actually surfaced (labels are precise)

These are not confirmed as being on the face of the '788 patent. I flag each by provenance:

(A) Same-family continuations (NOT prior art; related applications / § 102(b)(2)(C)-type disclosures)

• US 11,678,805 B2 — "System for non-invasive measurement using cameras and time of flight detection," App. 17/832,340, filed 2022-06-03, priority 2012-12-31 (Omni MedSci). Surfaced via the US 10,918,287 B2 Google Patents page.
• US 10,918,287 B2 — "Active remote sensing system using time-of-flight…" (Omni MedSci, priority 2012-12-31). Surfaced in the same result, and its page lists US18/794,353 → US12426788B2.
• US 12,484,787 B2 — "Measurements using camera imaging tissue comprising skin or the hand," priority 2012-12-31 (Omni MedSci), published 2025-12-02. Surfaced on a Google Patents family table.
• US 9,500,635 B2 and WO 2014/143276 A2 — SWIR super-continuum for dental caries / natural-gas-leak remote sensing, priority 2012-12-31 (Omni MedSci).

Significance: these share the '788 specification and, because they were filed/published at various times, could be cited by the examiner and could be § 102(a)(2) art in an interference-like sense only if the priority claim fails. If priority to 2012-12-31 holds, they are the same inventive entity and are not § 102 prior art against the '788.

(B) Forward citation actually observed — treat with caution

• US 11,874,229 B2 (Onto Innovation Inc., priority 2022-04-07, pub. 2024-01-16). Appeared in a "Cited By" table on the US 10,918,287 B2 page in the same result cluster as the '788. A forward citation is not prior art, but its presence tells you the family is being cited in the metrology/inspection space.

(C) The well-documented family prior art from the Omni IPRs (these are the references the examiner-adjacent record actually litigates)

• U.S. Patent No. 9,241,676 to Lisogurski (priority 2012-05-31) — optical monitor, LED-based sensor, blood constituents, ambient-light rejection and modulation.
• U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0049468 to Carlson et al. (pub. 2005-03-03).
• U.S. Patent No. 5,746,206 to Mannheimer (issued 1998-05-05).
• U.S. Patent No. 9,596,990 to Park (priority 2013-11-06).
• These four are the grounds in Apple v. Omni MedSci, IPR2020-00175 (Ex. 2021 listing: Lisogurski = Ex.1011, Carlson = Ex.1009, Mannheimer = Ex.1008, Park = Ex.1010). They are directed at the '299/'533 claims (PPG wearable, "increase SNR by increasing intensity and pulse rate"), not at a time-of-flight gas/smoke claim.
• The Samsung PTAB family (IPR2025-01249…-01254; PGR2025-00063/-64) covers US 9,055,868, 9,651,533, 10,874,304, 11,160,455, 12,193,790, 12,268,475 — none is the '788, which is consistent with the '788 having issued only 2025-09-30.

Significance for '788: the Lisogurski/Carlson/Mannheimer/Park combination anticipates/renders obvious sensor-side SNR and on/off background subtraction concepts that reappear as limitations (b) and (c) of the '788 claims — but none of them teaches a time-of-flight measurement of a remote gas/smoke volume, which is the core of the '788 independent claims. So on their face they are § 103 material, not clean § 102 anticipation, against the '788.

---

3. The § 102 element-by-element framework (apply the real citation numbers against this)

From the claim language exposed in Google Patents' extraction block, the independent claims require the following conjunctive elements. § 102 anticipation requires one single reference disclosing all of them in a single embodiment, arranged as claimed:

Claim family (a) — "active remote sensing system"

Claim family (b) — background subtraction

• Generate a first signal when the diodes are off (substantially no light); generate a second signal when the diodes are on; compare them to improve SNR. This is classic chopped/ambient-rejection, and is the element most likely to be met by cited PPG/ambient-light art (Lisogurski-type) — but again tied to a ToF measurement, the tie is what defeats bare § 102.

Claim family (c) — two-wavelength water-absorption discrimination

My assessment (clearly labeled as analysis, not verified against the actual citation list): Because family (a) requires ToF and power-escalation-for-SNR in one reference, and family (c) requires separate filtered photodetectors plus the low/high-water-absorption pair, it is unlikely that any single cited reference anticipates under § 102. The realistic posture is § 103: e.g., a time-of-flight laser rangefinder/LIDAR reference (supplies ToF) combined with a differential-absorption gas-detection reference (supplies the two-wavelength pair), optionally combined with PPG ambient-rejection art (supplies the on/off comparison). I flag that I have not verified the specific reference numbers to assert this mapping.

---

4. Where I do not have authoritative information (explicit)

1. The actual "(56) References Cited" list for US 12,426,788 — not retrieved. I will not enumerate citations as if I had them. Every reference I listed above is labeled by how it was obtained; none is confirmed as appearing on the '788's face.
2. The numbered claim set — not retrieved (carried over from the prior sections). The element list in §3 is reconstructed from Google Patents' claim-language extraction block, not from the claim column.
3. Priority determination — unverified. Whether 2012-12-31 or 2013-12-17 (or the 2024 filing date, if priority is lost) governs § 102 depends on the continuation chain through US 18/646,390 → US 12,251,194. Google Patents explicitly labels these as assumptions.
4. No PTAB proceeding on the '788 was found (consistent with its Sept-2025 issue); this is a search limitation, not a verified absence.
5. No Federal Circuit docket naming the '788 was found.

To complete this task authoritatively, the required pulls are: (i) USPTO PatentCenter → application 18/794,353 → "References Cited" / front page, and (ii) the granted-claims PDF from patentimages. Once you supply those, I can map each actual citation to the specific claim(s) under § 102 using the element table in §3 above.

I'll ground this in actual prior-art references rather than rely on memory. Let me pull the prior-art record for this patent and the key technology fields.

I now have the abstract and strong prior-art candidates. Let me pin down two more items: the identity/assignee of the closest time-of-flight multi-wavelength reference, and the patent's own cited-art list.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 12,426,788 B2

"Active remote sensing of atmospheric gases or smoke using a time-of-flight sensor"

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

---

0. Sourcing and scope caveats (read first)

Three things must be stated plainly before the analysis, because they control how much weight the conclusions can bear.

1. I could not retrieve the patent's formal "References Cited" table verbatim. The Google Patents fetch supplied to me was truncated inside the specification and did not include the front-page cited-art list. My search for the cited-art record returned the family and similar-documents lists instead. So the references below are drawn from (a) the pre-grant publication US 2024/0389858 A1 text, (b) the Justia record for the '788, and (c) the technical field as surfaced in search — not from a verified front-page citation list. Grounds built on the patent's own cited art may differ in detail from mine.

2. I now have the abstract, which the earlier section flagged as unavailable. The Justia record supplies it:

"An active remote sensing system comprises near-infrared laser diodes including one or more Bragg reflectors and having a pulsed output with duration between 0.5 to 2 nanoseconds. A first lens receives and directs the laser diode light to an object or an atmosphere. A detection system receives light reflected from the object or atmosphere, which comprises a second lens and spectral filters in front of a photodiode array. The detection system is synchronized to the laser diodes and performs a time-of-flight measurement. The time-of-flight measurement is performed at least in part by measuring a temporal distribution of photons in the light reflected from the object or the atmosphere. The signal-to-noise ratio of the measurement or reflected signal may be improved using change detection or increasing light intensity or optical power density. In another embodiment, an object may be identified based on water absorption measured at two wavelengths."
— https://patents.justia.com/patent/12426788

This materially sharpens the element breakdown in the earlier section and adds two elements the earlier abstract-less summary could not see: (i) "temporal distribution of photons" as the TOF mechanism (i.e., a direct-TOF / single-photon histogram architecture), and (ii) a second lens + spectral filters in front of a photodiode array.

1. The verbatim, numbered claim set is still not verified by me. The element list below is reconstructed from the abstract + the Google Patents "Definitions" extraction + the CPC record. Claim scope is reliable; claim numbering and count are not.

---

1. Element breakdown used in this analysis

---

2. The threshold issue that determines the entire § 103 posture: effective filing date

This is the single most important point in the analysis, and it must be resolved before any combination is asserted with confidence.

• The Google Patents record lists a prior-art date of 2012-12-31 and an anticipated expiration of 2033-12-17, and the priority chain runs through the 2013-12-17 PCT/US filings. If the claims are entitled to 2012-12-31, then every reference dated 2013 or later is not prior art to the '788 claims.
• However, the title and the distinguishing claim elements are the newest subject matter in the family. The continuation chain shows the time-of-flight/dToF subject matter entering late: the chain includes US 17/181,887 (filed 2021-02-22) and US 16/895,727 (filed 2020-06-08), with the sibling labeled "System for non-invasive measurement using cameras and time of flight detection" (US 17/832,340 → US 11,678,805). See the chain reproduced at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US12426788B2](/patent/US12426788B2)/en#1.
• The element most at risk of lacking § 112 written-description support in the 2012 parent is E8 — "temporal distribution of photons." The '788's own abstract ties TOF to a photon-temporal-distribution measurement, which is the signature of a direct-TOF (dToF) SPAD/single-photon architecture. If that element was first supported only in the 2020/2021 applications, the claims are entitled to 2020/2021, and a large body of post-2012 art snaps into availability.

Consequence: I present two grounds sets — one that assumes the later (2020/2021) effective date, and one built only on pre-2013 art, which is robust even if the 2012 priority holds. The second is the safer litigation position; the first is considerably more powerful.

---

3. Prior art references and what each teaches

3.A — Direct-TOF platform art (available if effective date ≥ 2019)

PA-1 — Microvision, Inc., US 2019/0212451 A1 → issued as US 10,859,704 B2 ("Time Division Multiplexing of Multiple Wavelengths for High Resolution Scanning Time of Flight 3D Imaging"), published 2019-07-11.

• https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190212451A1/en ; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2019/0212451.html ; granted-claims text at https://patents.justia.com/patent/[10859704](/patent/10859704)
• Teaches: multiple laser light sources at different wavelengths, including infrared (claims 5, 11: "first and second laser light sources emit infrared light of different wavelengths"); TOF measurement circuits synchronized to reflections (claims 1, 2, 8); raster scanning mirror; "typical rangefinding system may produce a … laser pulse with a pulse width in the range of two picoseconds (ps) to 10 nanoseconds (ns) FWHM" (see FIG. 1 discussion) → reads on E3's 0.5–2 ns; IR pulse modulation and power control circuit 1544 that "sets the pulse power level" and "compares the TOF values … to a threshold to determine if there is a safety violation," then reduces power to a safe level → reads on E4's driver electronics + safety shut-off; probing pulses vs. measurement pulses of different power levels, where reflected amplitudes drive which pulse to use → reads on E9(b) power escalation and E9(a) change-comparison.
• Relevance: PA-1 is the closest single reference to the TOF platform claim family (E1, E3, E4, E5/E6-ish, E7, E9). It does not disclose gas/smoke as the target, DBR/DFB diodes, photon-histogram TOF, or the two-wavelength water-absorption discrimination.

PA-2 — Padmanabhan, Zhang & Charbon, "Modeling and Analysis of a Direct Time-of-Flight Sensor Architecture for LiDAR Applications," Sensors 2019, 19, 5464 — cited on the face of the '788 record itself (Justia).

• Direct-TOF: SPAD-based photon-timing histogram → E8.
• Because the applicant's own record cites this, using it is unusually clean.

PA-3 — Melexis Application Note, "Time-of-flight Basics," AUH-2022 (cited on the '788 record) — dToF/photon-arrival fundamentals (background only; 2022 date limits its use unless the effective date is late).

3.B — Active gas/smoke DIAL & RTTOF art (pre-2013 — robust to the priority question)

PA-4 — US 7,485,399 B1 / US 2006/0203248 A1 ("Method for mapping a natural gas leak" / "Natural gas leak mapper"), filed ~2006, patent 2009.

• https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7486399B1](/patent/US7486399B1)/en ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US20060203248
• Teaches the exact core of E7 + E10: "measurements at three wavelengths of light are used to determine the presence of a gas of interest—2 wavelengths for the absorption measurement and one for the RTTOF measurements," and "may include a single pulsed beam for making a combined single absorption measurement and an RTTOF measurement." This is range-resolved (TOF) active gas sensing by differential absorption. It also teaches the two-wavelength differential pair concept (E10) and wavelength-interleaved beams.

PA-5 — US 7,965,391 B2 (gas-correlation lidar, mid-IR, airborne mapping).

• https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/58/51/b8/67c37c1f9b6718/US7965391.pdf
• Teaches: (i) TOF ranging: "the altitude of the sensor platform (the path length of the laser beam) is independently measured by the arrival time of the laser return pulse" → E7; (ii) time gating to capture the return pulse and reject near-field scatter → synchronization to laser → E7; (iii) change detection / background subtraction: "low frequency noise … can be removed by measuring the detector signal background just before firing the laser and subtracting it from" the measurement → E9(a) — i.e., an off-state signal vs. on-state signal comparison; (iv) SNR improvement by averaging, expressly tied to sensitivity → E9(b) rationale.
• Relevance: this reference alone supplies TOF ranging plus off/on background subtraction plus gas detection — three of the four things the '788 is trying to claim as a combination.

PA-6 — US 6,509,566 B1 ("Oil and gas exploration system … for detecting trace amounts of hydrocarbon gases in the atmosphere"), filed 2000, issued 2002.

• Teaches: differential absorption lidar (DIAL) with a diode seed laser + amplifier producing near-infrared light, Raman-shifted to mid-IR 2–5 μm; continuously tunable; detecting/quantifying an absorption signature of a target atmospheric gas along a path and back — i.e., active, laser-diode-seeded remote gas sensing (E1 seed, E10 differential pair).

PA-7 — US 5,250,810 ("Mid-infrared light hydrocarbon DIAL lidar").

• Teaches: multi-line DIAL for light hydrocarbons; wavelength multiplexing/time-multiplexing of multiple pulsed beams into a single co-axis beam; 2.2–2.4 μm and 3.1–3.5 μm windows; "the beams must be colocated spatially and be propagating along the same optical axis."

PA-8 — US 7,508,520 B2 (DIAL pipeline-leak detection; aircraft-, vehicle- or ground-borne).

• Teaches: on-line/off-line wavelength pair with the on-line tuned to methane/ethane, digitized returned signals used to estimate concentration-path-length; pulse width 20 nsec with 100 nsec spacing; a detection system that digitizes the signal and provides it to a signal-analysis system (E12-adjacent; and the "airborne"/"vehicle borne" limitation maps directly to the '788's G01N 2201/0214 / /0216 subclasses).

PA-9 — US 2007/0040121 A1 ("Multi-sensors and differential absorption lidar data fusion") → US 7,411,196.

• Teaches: a DIAL sensor with M ON-line + L OFF-line pulsed laser sources "incorporated into system 200" for "monitoring minute concentrations of natural gas or oil leaks from an underground pipeline"; ON-line/OFF-line pairs with amplitude-detection sensors and dichroic beam splitters.

PA-10 — US 4,676,642 ("Apparatus and method for remote sensing of gases, vapors or aerosols"), 1987.

• Teaches: "In a preferred active form of the method, radiation is transmitted and after reflection by the gas … is detected by a receiver co-located with the radiation transmitter"; tunable laser transmitter selected so the emitted line overlaps a target-gas absorption feature; wavelength scanning. — foundational active remote gas sensing with a co-located transmitter/receiver.

PA-11 — WO 2011/102992 A3 ("Single-transducer, three-dimensional laser imaging system and method"), publ. 2011-08-25.

• Teaches: "A laser in a transmitter emits a sequence of short pulses, each of which is at a different center wavelength … The transducer measures the time of arrival for each returned pulse. Because the arrival time depends on the range … the measured arrival time can be used to reconstruct a 3D (angle-angle-range) image." — multi-wavelength TOF ranging, pre-2012.

3.C — Detector/filter architecture and other art

PA-12 — CN 116047542 B ("LiDAR system for measuring atmospheric methane column concentration and water vapor profile").

• Teaches: beam splitter → "The first … signal beam passes through the first filter component and is received by the first photodetector, while the second … signal beam passes through the second filter component and is received by the second photodetector" → E11. Also two seed lasers at two closely spaced wavelengths with different target-gas absorptivity and alternate firing → the differential-pair concept of E10.

PA-13 — WO 2016/154054 A1 ("Systems and methods detecting gases, airborne compounds and other particulates").

• Teaches: a laser diode driver assembly + modulator + scanning array + detection array for detecting airborne materials in a 3D envelope; claims recite emission "at about the 1.5 μ–1.65 μ wavelengths" (NIR, within the '788's 700–2500 nm span) → E1; backscatter collection and analysis.

PA-14 — US 10,564,260 B2 / US 2017/0248691 A1 ("Range finding apparatus and system").

• Teaches: a TOF laser range finder configured for environments with combustible hydrocarbon gas such as methane — i.e., the intersection of TOF ranging and gas-bearing atmospheres, plus a filter to reject wavelengths other than the emitter's from reaching the input → E6-adjacent.

PA-15 — US 2010/0160794 A1 (Banet et al.) — appears in the record associated with the '788 (Justia listing). I could not characterize its disclosure and do not rely on it.

---

4. Ground 1 — Obviousness over PA-1 in view of the DIAL/RTTOF art (effective date ≥ 2019)

Combination: PA-1 (Microvision) + PA-4 (US 7,485,399 / US 2006/0203248) + optionally PA-5 (US 7,965,391).

Motivation to combine (KSR factors):

• Same field of endeavor — pulsed-laser active remote sensing/ranging. PA-1 and PA-4/PA-5 both concern measuring the range to, or through, a target volume with laser pulses and a synchronized receiver.
• Express teaching away from separate systems: PA-4 states outright that a single pulsed beam can perform a combined absorption measurement and RTTOF measurement. That is an express motivation to collapse the DIAL transmitter and the rangefinder into one instrument — precisely the '788's premise.
• Articulated benefit for the range measurement: PA-5 explains that the return-pulse arrival time gives the path length, and that background subtraction before the shot removes low-frequency noise. A POSITA seeking to convert PA-1's consumer/automotive dToF module into an atmospheric sensor would be motivated by PA-5's teaching that range + background subtraction improves gas-concentration accuracy.
• Predictable results / combination of known elements: the claimed arrangement (laser diodes → lens → target volume → lens → filtered detectors → synchronized TOF → processor) is a collocation of known elements each performing its known function with a predictable aggregate result, which KSR holds sufficient absent unexpected results.

---

5. Ground 2 — Obviousness using ONLY pre-2013 art (robust if 2012-12-31 priority holds)

This ground is deliberately built entirely from references published before the 2012-12-31 date, so it survives even if the claims get the early priority and post-2012 art is unavailable.

Primary: PA-4 (US 7,485,399 / US 2006/0203248) or PA-5 (US 7,965,391), each of which already teaches active, pulsed-laser, differential-absorption remote sensing of an atmospheric gas/smoke volume with a TOF/RTTOF range measurement.
Secondary: PA-7 / PA-8 / PA-9 / PA-11, teaching the multi-wavelength differential pair, the time/spatial multiplexing of the pair into one axis, the airborne/vehicle-borne DIAL platform, and multi-wavelength time-of-arrival ranging.
Tertiary: PA-6 (US 6,509,566) for the diode-seeded near-IR source.

Already disclosed by the pre-2013 set:

• E1, E7, E10 — PA-4, PA-5, PA-6, PA-7, PA-8, PA-9 (laser diodes/seed diodes; NIR; TOF; wavelength pairs).
• E5, E6, E12 — PA-9 (dichroic beam splitters + optical sensors per wavelength); PA-5 (time-gated digitized detector signal).
• E9(a) — PA-5 (off-shot background subtraction) and PA-11 (per-pulse measurement, enabling averaging).
• E9(b) — PA-5 (averaging raises SNR → sensitivity); PA-6 (higher pulse energy to "measure atmospheric gas concentrations over a selected path").

Not disclosed by the pre-2013 set (the genuine gap): E2 (Bragg reflectors), E3 (0.5–2 ns), and E8 (photon-counting temporal distribution). Each of these, however, is either admitted prior art in the '788's own specification or a routine optimization:

• E2 — admitted in the specification. The '788's own description states: "Different kinds of LDs may be used, including Fabry-Perot LDs, distributed feedback (DFB) LDs, distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) LDs." An applicant's own specification is an admission that DFB/DBR (Bragg-reflector) laser diodes were known and used in SWIR spectroscopy — and DFB/DBR diodes are the standard choice for gas spectroscopy because they can be wavelength-locked to an absorption line. Combined with PA-6's diode seed laser for DIAL, incorporating a Bragg reflector into the diode is an obvious design choice.
• E3 — result-effective-variable optimization. PA-1 establishes 2 ps–10 ns as the conventional pulse-width envelope (available as art under Ground 1; and under Ground 2, short-pulse ranging on the order of nanoseconds was conventional). Selecting 0.5–2 ns to trade pulse energy against temporal resolution is routine optimization with a predictable result (In re Aller / In re Boesch).
• E8 — the real exposure. "Temporal distribution of photons" (single-photon timing histogram) is the element least likely to be supported by the 2012 priority document. If the priority is 2012 and E8 is unsupported, the claim is invalid for priority and for written description; if the priority shifts to 2019–2021, PA-1 + PA-2 supply E8 directly. Either way, E8 does not save the claim.

---

6. Ground 3 — The two-wavelength water-absorption claim family (E10/E11)

Combination: PA-4 or PA-8 (on-line/off-line DIAL pair) + PA-12 (CN 116047542 B), or, in the alternative, PA-4/PA-8 + PA-9.

• PA-4 already teaches using one wavelength absorbed by the target and another not absorbed, with the difference yielding concentration-path-length, and interleaves the two into a single collimated beam.
• PA-8 teaches that the on-line/OFF-line pair is chosen to avoid interference and that the OFF-line is "selected near the wing of the target gas optical absorption."
• PA-12 teaches the two-filter/two-photodetector receiver (E11) and two closely-spaced seed wavelengths alternately fired, differing in target-gas absorption.
• Substituting water vapor for methane as the selected absorber, and choosing the pair so that one line sits in a water-absorption feature and the other in a water transmission window, is the same differential-absorption method applied to a different (and the most obvious) atmospheric interferent. That the '788's own specification itself identifies the water transmission windows at 1.5–1.8 μm and 2.0–2.5 μm and the water absorption feature at ~1.85–2.05 μm (see the §1 discussion and FIG. 3A) confirms the water-absorption pair was a known, catalogued design choice — not an invention.
• Motivation: water vapor is the dominant atmospheric interferent in the SWIR; DIAL practitioners routinely select the on/off pair to straddle or avoid water lines (PA-8; and the HITRAN-based line-selection practice reflected in the DIAL literature). Ratiometric normalization using a water reference channel is the classic remedy for a fluctuating water background and would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success.

---

7. Summary table — element → reference

---

8. Motivation to combine, secondary considerations, and conclusion

Graham/KSR motivation, distilled:

1. Common field and common problem: active pulsed-laser remote sensing of a target volume, pre-2012 (PA-4–PA-11) and post-2012 (PA-1–PA-3).
2. Express combination teaching: PA-4's "single pulsed beam for making a combined single absorption measurement and an RTTOF measurement" is an affirmative motivation to integrate rangefinding with gas detection — the central premise of the '788.
3. Articulated, recognized benefit: PA-5 supplies both the TOF-derived path length and the pre-shot background subtraction as accuracy improvements; a POSITA would adopt them for the reason PA-5 gives.
4. Predictable result from known elements: the claim is a combination of a known illumination source, known optics, known filtered detectors, known timing electronics, and a known processor — each performing its known function.
5. Reasonable expectation of success, especially where all the gas-sensing and range-resolving primitives existed together in single references (PA-4, PA-5) before the earliest claimed priority.

Secondary considerations (to be assessed, not assumed):

• No unexpected results appear on the face of the disclosure for the TOF/gas-sensing combination; the specification's performance data (glucose/ketone absorbance, tooth reflectance) belongs to the specification's non-claimed subject matter, not to the TOF claim family.
• Industry praise / copying / licensing would have to be tied to the claimed TOF gas/smoke sensing, not to the wearable/non-invasive-monitoring products that the E.D. Tex. complaint accuses (Samsung laser-AF dToF smartphones and Galaxy XR — see the litigation section). Note the tension: the accused functionality (phone dToF laser autofocus) is the ranging feature, and it is exactly the feature the pre-2013 and 2019 art most densely covers. That juxtaposition tends to weaken nexus rather than support it.
• Long-felt need / failure of others would need evidence specific to range-resolved active gas/smoke sensing; the prevalence of DIAL + RTTOF in US 7,485,399 (2009) cuts against a long-felt unmet need.

Bottom line:

• If the claims are entitled to an effective date of ~2019–2021 for the TOF/dToF elements: a prima facie § 103 case is strong on PA-1 (Microvision US 10,859,704) in view of PA-4 (US 7,485,399) and PA-5 (US 7,965,391), further in view of PA-2 (SPAD direct-TOF) for E8 and PA-12 for E11/E10.
• If the claims are entitled to 2012-12-31: the § 103 case survives, but must rest on PA-4 + PA-5 (both pre-2012) for the core, with PA-7/PA-8/PA-9/PA-11 for multi-wavelength on/off ranging and PA-6 for diode-seeded NIR; the Bragg-reflector (E2) and 0.5–2 ns (E3) limitations are met by the applicant's own specification admission and by routine optimization, respectively. The residual exposure is E8 (temporal distribution of photons) — which is both the strongest § 103 target and the strongest § 112 written-description/priority target, since the same evidence that makes it non-prior-art (its absence from the 2012 disclosure) makes it unsupported there.

---

9. What I could not verify (stated explicitly, not papered over)

1. The patent's verbatim numbered claims. Not retrieved. Element mapping is from the abstract ("temporal distribution of photons"; "photodiode array"; "Bragg reflectors"; "0.5 to 2 nanoseconds"; "change detection"; "water absorption measured at two wavelengths") plus the Google Patents "Definitions" extraction.
2. The patent's own front-page "References Cited" list. Not retrieved; the fetch was truncated and my searches returned the family/similar-documents lists. The references above are field-derived, except PA-2 and PA-3, which the Justia record shows as cited on the '788.
3. PA-15 (US 2010/0160794 A1, Banet et al.) — appears in the '788 record; disclosure not characterized, so not relied upon.
4. Whether any reference above is actually on the examiner's cited-art list of record. Unknown.
5. The exact priority entitlement — a legal determination requiring the priority-chain specifications, which I did not read. This is the pivotal open question and I am flagging it rather than resolving it.
6. Minor internal date inconsistency to note: the task states "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while the supplied Google Patents fetch is timestamped 2026-09-28 and the E.D. Tex. complaint the earlier section identified was filed May 1, 2026. Nothing in this § 103 analysis turns on it.